A Socratic
Question that’s cropped into my mind is:
‘Does a
Woman need to be referred to by a Manly adjective like ‘Mardaani’ in order to
describe her as being strong or assertive?’
This
question has been revolving around my head for a couple of days now since I
read a couple of pieces where writers had used this adjective to refer to a
specific “breed” of women if I may refer to them as such; women of a strong and
assertive nature, who stood up for their rights and fought back against
patriarchal society such as it is.
The battle
raging inside is whether it is right to refer to women as being strong and
(insert synonyms) by using adjectives generally used for men; the word in
question here being ‘Mardaani’. How does calling a woman as such have effects
on both sides of the scale is the question I’m grappling with.
I totally
get the point of calling women ‘Mardaani’ in the metaphorical sense of the word
as ‘being like a man’; Man here being the gender generalized as being assertive,
brave and strong. This idea is mildly acceptable because it compliments women,
as writers I've read have been meaning to do I presume. But the downside of
this positive aspect is that it generalizes men as being all those things and
that is frankly insulting. Not all men are the same and complimenting women at
the same time as insulting men is not the way to do it, methinks.
Coming to
the literal part of it, I wonder why a woman needs to be called a ‘Mardaani’ in
the first place. I believe that a woman need not be referred to in this
particular manner and so do a lot of women I've had the chance to put this
question to. It is actually demeaning to women to do so. Feminists who attempt
to portray women in a manner which is equal to men are actually doing the
opposite by admitting that all these qualities are only in men and that women
need to borrow this adjective in order to be complimented or praised.
By taking
the basic premise of men having qualities that only some women do, these people
are putting men on pedestal themselves;
something I’m sure they don’t want to do if they want to see women on an equal
footing and not a rung under the other gender. Even I as a man find it
disturbing that people and especially writers are doing this because it is the
sacred duty of writers to make their readers think. When using the word ‘Mardaani’, they put in
the metaphorical sense and assume that it is done but what of making their
readers aware that it is unnecessary to do this and thereby make them think of
how they wish to see women; as dependent on the other gender so as to borrow
characteristics or as having those characteristics by and of themselves?
And even
though I have an opinion on it, I’m still looking for answers. A little help
perhaps? The comment box is just below.
No comments:
Post a Comment