Feminism and 'Seven steps in the sky'

Before I put my views on different thoughts of feminism from the novel 'Seven Steps in the Sky' in my future post(s), I have tried to post here some of the points that are the gist of the novel. As I've already mentioned in one of my previous posts, the book revolves around the married life of a woman and a few of her female friends and relatives. She was born in a middle class family in a town and was married in an upper-middle class family.

Despite the novel being set in a middle class family of a town in 1980s, the questions it poses are (unfortunately) still unanswered.


- Why is it always the daughter-in-law's duty to please all others around her? Why don't the in-laws often think that a little innocent girl has left everything - her home, the love of parents and brothers and sisters, friends she's known since childhood, the free laughter and games? And hence they should really look after her, take care of her hopes and dreams! A daughter is always told to win the hearts of her husband's family by love and service. Why doesn't anyone normally tell the husband, the mother-in-law, the sister-in-law, to make the new bride's life easier, happier?

Men always do what they please. A woman, especially a new bride, must forget her own wishes, and then gradually that becomes a habit.

- Why is the daughter-in-law often expected never to get tired? Do they think that once a woman becomes a daughter-in-law, she is an unlimited source of energy?

- Why do women get married? Girls study and wait for a proposal, and then get married. Right from the first breath, they are told that marriage is the ultimate aim of their lives. If that aim is not achieved, or not accomplished in good time, the girl becomes depressed, and her life loses its direction. Every effort is made to regain that direction; standards are dropped, and what was once barely an acceptable prospect becomes acceptable and it feels like an end to all the trouble. She agrees to observe every kind of traditional restriction. She must cover her head all the time, she cannot go out to work, there must be a certain amount of jewellery in the dowry. Every condition is accepted so as not to lose the chance of marriage. If it's lost, the daughters become a burden to the parents. Why? What do the women get out of marriage?

Love? A roof? Protection?

Women want love but what they get is mostly desire in the garb of love, not love itself.

Women want a roof. Does the house become theirs? If a man is angry, he says - 'Leave my house right now.' If he is pleased, he says - 'You brighten my house.' It is always the man's house. The woman only brightens it. This is all that is expected of her - to look after the man's house.

Women want protection. For that protection is a solid wall erected around them. The wall has no windows to look out at the sky.

- A husband's death is a terrible blow to the wife. But, often it appears that a husband isn't greatly inconvenienced by the loss of his wife. That is because women's lives and emotions are valued less. And that is proved by the fact that a man can remarry immediately after his wife's death. Men often remarry quickly, even before their wives' pyres are cold. It isn't often possible for a widow to remarry, even for the sake of her children.

- If a widow's only son dies, it is considered to be the height of tragedy, but if a widow's only daughter marries and goes away, that's a great relief. Isn't it strange?

- Most women who marry, forget their identity and live in submission to the unwritten code of their in-law's house. Their talents are developed only within permitted limits. Everything else is sacrificed to the goddess named 'peace'.

Women have had a low status for centuries. They have been victims of injustice and violence, their intelligence and talents made subsidiary to beauty and appearance; they have been made prisoners under the guise of protection, and to make them accept all this without rebelling, they have been given false ideals. They have been told that, to be epitomes of endurance and sacrifice is the realization of their womanhood, that not maintaining a separate identity but submerging it into their husband's is their ultimate goal.

- Why is it set that the daughter-in-law can go to her parents' home only at a certain time during pregnancy? Why is the permission from in-laws needed to go to parents' home especially in the the initial months of marriage?

- All their life, children carry their father's name with theirs. There is no mention of mother in the family tree. Her mind and body were worn out with the endless chores of bringing them up, but she will die leaving no name, dissolve without leaving any trace. Why? If there were only daughters to a father, there would be no branches from his name, as if he had no children, as if he had never become a father. Why?

- Men can do most kinds of work, can survive somehow. But women have some biological limitations, and to make up for this, they must develop their talents, otherwise they cannot realize their full potential. So, shouldn't women be at least as much educated as men, or better?

- Why can't a daughter look after her parents if she is earning? If a daughter really wants to care for her parents, she should stay unmarried because if she does marry, she often loses the right to be of service to them. That obligation belongs to the son. After marriage, a son can take care of his parents, and ask his wife to do the same.

The same holds true when someone wants to pursue something which requires a lot of dedication. If a woman wants to be in a field which requires a lot of dedication to work, she is supposed to stay unmarried as she might not otherwise do justice to her 'household duties'. But, if a man wants to pursue such a field, he would rather be advised to get married so that his wife takes care of the household duties and he can pursue his interests/job better.

- When a husband's relations, close or distant, come to visit, stay for a meal, they all should be offered enthusiastic hospitality by the wife. Not many of the wife's relations come visiting. The husband will pay attention to them only if it pleases him, but if he is not in the mood, he will ignore them. He and his mother aren't often too pleased if the wife shows too much affection for her kin.

- Kitchen - is the woman's world. Their unhappiness stays hidden in the dark corners of the kitchen. Nobody sees it; the other rooms in the house are lighted and airy, but the kitchen, where women spend most of their time, is small and gloomy. Occasionally, the lights have to be switched on even in the day. There is no place to sit. There are fans in other rooms but often not in the kitchen, which is hot.

- A woman may work outside as hard as her husband, but it is always she who serves him the meals. Why don't we ever see the reverse?

- There are no words like 'barren man' or 'deserted husband' in the dictionary unlike their feminine equivalents. Is it because the right to 'desert' is a man's right only?

- Does wearing or not wearing bangles and applying or not applying a bindi makes a woman a worse or a better person? Does a society or a culture survive through its external rules, customs and conducts, or by its morality? By mere mechanical manifestations, or loyalty to the truth, compassion and selfless love?


Added: This post has been selected by BlogAdda as one of the top posts for 'Tangy Tuesday Picks' on Jan 19, 2010
Added on March 8, 2010: This post has been republished on BKhush here.
Added on December 27, 2011: This post has been selected as one of the posts for Tejaswee Rao Blogging Award 2011 by Indian Homemaker (IHM) - one of the most respected bloggers in India.

An eve-teasing incident in front of me

I sent the narration of this incident to Blank Noise yesterday. This incident happened more than three years back while I was traveling in a public transport city bus in Navi Mumbai. And, I'm posting the same here now:


I took a bus from my residence in Sector 29 of Vashi. I was standing and a guy was standing beside me and there were two girls standing on the opposite side of the aisle. The guy was around 25-26 years at that time I guess. And I was 22. Then, after a few stops, that guy slowly went on the other side, right between the two girls even when there was a lot of space on this side. No one except me apparently noticed this.

Slowly, he tried to hold one of the pipes in the bus to 'support himself' where he actually was trying to touch the hand of one of the girls. But, the girl soon became aware of this and she removed her hand from there. After some time, that guy brought his hand down and started trying to 'inadvertently' touch the other girl on and around her thighs. The girl was unaware of this.

But, I told him loudly, 'Why do you stand there in the narrow space between two girls when there is enough space over this side and I've been seeing you for quite some time that you're trying to touch this girl on her hand and this girl on thigh.' The two girls and a few passengers around heard them and the guy started defending himself. He in fact argued, 'Is ladkiya kuch nahi bol rahi hain to tu kyu bol raha hain. Maine kuch nahi kiya'*. I replied that they even aren't aware of it. I kept on making him feel ashamed. Eventually, he got down at the next bus-stop.


Note 1: You can originally find it here on the Blank Noise Guy blog.

Note 2: *Translation: 'If the girl isn't saying a thing, why are you? I didn't do anything.'

Hypocrisy, show-off and political correctness

When I was young, I used to believe that everyone is almost always honest.

Now, I wonder at the ease with which people can tell a lie. It's really easy for them to be dishonest to themselves, let alone to others. When everyone is looking at them, they show off themselves for what they really aren't. They don't have the courage to face the truth. When they talk with someone, they would cross all the limits of dishonesty as long as they believe that this dishonesty is never going to come out. They can do this because often they either have power or are in a group of a bunch of people and have a fanfare of stupids following them.

I have learnt a few lessons after having been active in a forum:

(1) You are supposed to be polite and considerate to everyone on the forum.

(2) If you are new to the forum, you don't matter.

(3) If you've been on the forum for a long time, you can unlearn the above lessons.

(3) If you happen to have views different than the moderators of the forum AND you aren't close to any of the moderators AND you want to get actively involved in something you believe to be inappropriate which doesn't directly concern you, you're 'dusre-ke-phate-me-taang-adda-raha-hain'ing. Hence, you can be thrown out like a fly out of a cup of tea.

(4) Moderators of the forum need not follow the first lesson mentioned above. Moderators can bend any rule anyway as long as it's in their interest. They moderate the forum after all. Hence, they can bend rules even just for fun and you're supposed to keep mum if this happens.

(5) Moderators are always right. Or, at least that's what you're supposed to believe.

(6) There are more number of sane and nice people on a forum than you think there are.

(7) Of these sane and nice people, very less are ready to stand by something they believe in.

(8) There comes a time when you've to choose between the two - (i) standing by what you believe in and (ii) enjoying an educative/informative/funny forum.

(9) Most people go for choice (ii) in situations similar to the one above.

(10) You can bend the normal rules of the forum too provided that you satisfy one of the two criteria: (i) You are a good contributor for the community; (ii) You happen to be close to one of the moderators and/or the owner of the forum.

(11) You can get a threat to be sued by the community owners if you stand by what you believe in. Instead, you are supposed to stand by what moderators believe in. Why? See lesson (5).


PS: I normally don't prefer to use sarcasm in normal speech or a blog post. This is my first attempt at sarcasm (?). Feedback would be highly appreciated.

Edited: In lesson (9) above, I mistakenly had typed choice (i) in place of choice (ii). The erratum has been corrected now.