Actually the problem is much of the society still fixates on social justice such as women empowerment and equality of opportunity (which by the way are definitely and promptly needed for a society to progress into the future when all genders take the path while holding hands), whereas they should start from the anatomical, evolutionary and psychological differences between the sexes and across the spectrum of gender differentials. Without appreciating how the bodies and minds of the opposite sex work, delving straight into the humanities gives this false sense of reality and begs more questions instead of answers because much of the debates then rest on ideological moores often based on subjective experiences and not derived from scientific temperament. Like elders ordering the next generations of showing respect while failing to mention why they are entitled to the said respect in the first place. A good example of remedy of this would be- learning what happens during puberty stage and why women mature earlier than boys of the same age group and why lately females have been doing better than male in different academic departments. On the other hand, why that same number can't be seen when it comes to equal pay and holding top positions like CEOs of fortune 500 companies. What happens to a woman physically and mentally during pregnancy and the next stage of child rearing, what is post partum depression, how in a data driven world much of the data is skewed towards men during the sampling stages and how it affects the research studies for the diagnosis of heart problems and strokes in women because much of the experiments post mortem as well as live ones have been done on males and vice versa in the case of prostrate cancer vis-a-vis breast cancer, which is more of a marketing problem despite being men dying on the same scale as women. Without the basics of biology, anatomy and evolutionary and social psychology, neither men can understand women nor can women understand men. Demanding respect out of thin air therefore dissipates after a while. On the other hand, science alone can't help us. We have to also understand the nurture part of it too, the performative, socio-cultural and environmental influences like what Mahashweta Devi or Volga or Perumal Murugan or Chitra Banerjee and Bell Hooks, Chimamanda Angozi, Angela Davis, The great Judith Butler, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Margaret Atwood, Roxane Gay, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir, Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath, Angela Saini, Caroline Perez, Naomi Wolf, Mary Beard, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou and coutless others tried to say and have been conveying through their brilliant articulations. On that note, read Men Explain Things to Me. Then, there are the most modern and difficult topics, such as- Hermeneutic Labour. Watch how this new idea by Ellie Anderson is an answer to a world where MGTOW, Incels, false gurus like- Andrew Tate and some ideas of Jordan Peterson are running rampant where castigating men with less so-called traditional traits as weak and emasculated or soy boys. How from childhood even two different colors and two different toys and haircuts are assigned to different genders. And how it teaches boys that only women are capable of showing sentiments and reflecting emotions and that puts women in a fixed position with a lot of emotional load on their mental health with nothing to share with their male partners which takes a toll on one gender and at the same time creates insecure men who find themselves poisoned with toxic masculinity, men who are not better adjusted in the society because of this misguided perception of a crying man must be a wuss. Remember people! In a world where only 11% rape, molestation and sexual assault cases come to the light, let alone registered as per UN data, movements like metoo are a drop in a bucket and an exception. Still, men find these movements as some sort of social justice warrior woke thing where vindictive cunning women are out to get revenge. Why? Because of Amber Heard. Think about what has been happening after Amber Heard. Danny Masterson and Jonathan Majors were both found guilty and sentenced. The sheer number of women who came out with allegations suggest that there was no cabal of women in a basement plotting against Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or Kevin Spacey or Asharam or Ram Rahim or Sajid Khan, the list is way too long. And still many people go scott free, otherwise how come Suhel Seth keeps showing his face all over the news channels, that too on the Prime Time. If want to know how power imbalances in relationships cause women to be meek and subservient which is disproportionately awful when class and rural-urban cross sections are taken into consideration, read what Aziz Ansari had to say about that when accused of coerced sexual encounter by a woman. And why marital rape is such a hot button topic now. The nature of society is and has always been tilted against women from the beginning and across cultures and religions. Imagine a scenario, you had a boy and a girl of the same age, would you assign curfew time for both of them in an equal manner or would you be worried for a specific gender. That alone says a lot. And consider this, the gender of which you are worried about when they get late at night, which gender do you think is a potential danger to them? Now, some people can just wave their hands and for those people- you can't possibly understand until you have a daughter of your own. But, that doesn't mean that all men are dangerous, as most of the feminists both men and women would agree with that statement. " Not all the men are dogs, but most of the dogs are men." That's reality, don't believe me? Check out the NCRB report on the nature of aggravated crimes committed by men vs women. And to those who think that men are just dealt a bad hand due to testosterone and no such thing as nurture and societal forces that shape them in a particularly masculine aggressive bravado way, you know the age old argument that- "Men are the mammoth hunters". To them I can only say, "Do you still see any mammoths around? They went extinct and so should the traditional spartan masculinity. Switch it off otherwise the next generation boys will end up in therapies or worse, wife beaters. " P. S. - I am a man and speaking from my experiences after going through a rigorous process of getting rid of my inner demons as I was a sympathizer of toxic men and an apologist of traditional masculinity. I have struggled with my aggression and frustration as a man and used to very much misunderstand movies like- Fight Club and American Psycho. Here is a tip, go back and watch and read what the makers of those movies and authors of those source materials have been appealing as to how their works should be interpreted. Listen to Bret Easton Ellis about the themes and meaning of a character like Patrick Bateman instead of using it as a stitch for Alpha or Sigma male, which is a pseudo-scientific trait that was even abandoned by the man who postulated that whole alpha male characteristics to wolves. No such thing. Period. Kindly, excuse my long rant. I am sorry for the extensive exhaustive reply.
This is the most thoughtful rant :) ever. Thank you for enriching this conversation. If you create videos on this subject, I would be so happy to listen to you.
One small piece of advice. Actually, not small. it can't be explained in a cursory or brief paragraph due to the nuanced element attached to the question. When explaining promiscuity as to why some women show off their body. As if they are just dying to do so. Be that as it may I would say this, because in at least India it is much of an elitist vs normies debate and if you go to the villages and tribal areas, over there women don't even wear blouses. That wasn't certainly frowned upon in society. I guess maybe because they are adhering to their supposed patriarchal end of the bargain. So, no worries there. Do you see my point? How hypocrisy flows without any blockade when it is about preserving conservative thinking? Remember, it is a controversial stance but I am going to say it anyway. Famous tv serial Ramayan by Ramanand Sagar, the pilot episode was shot where Deepika Chikalia who played Sita wore a sleeveless blouse because Sagar thought it would be era accurate, since the event of Ramayan must have happened before Indus Valley civilization when there is very little evidence to suggest that women used to wear stanapatta to cover their upper body. When he showed it to the bureaucrats and ministers of I&B then, such hue and cry was bombarded at him that he had to reshoot the pilot episode, which we as the viewers have watched, that was the reshoot version. Why is it that Urvasi, Rambha and Menaka and other sculptures and statues as well as idols on temples and corridors of pious places were shown without the so-called decency which by the way only women had to bear the brunt of. Not that anybody has any problem regarding apsaras being portrayed as these seductresses and enchantresses whose duties were to dance in devaloka for the entertainment of rishis and devatas and seduce the seers to break their focus. Cultural norms are always fluid throughout time immemorial across cultures. Just look at the photographs of 1920s beach cops in the US, measuring swimsuits of women so that the state could penalize them for violating the required length of the skirts, not bikinis mind you, skirts. Society has a long history of censuring, controlling women as to what they should wear or not. Read the famous case of actress Mae West and how she was jailed in 1927 for seven days for "corrupting the morals of youth". Back then they had something called Hicklin test to enforce obscenity laws and before that Comstock Law in the late 19th century and now nobody even winces while watching Game of Thrones. I urge you to read about Mae West and how humorously, wittingly and gracefully she dealt with that punishment. In the case of India, take a gander at what the Supreme Court told about the indecency acts in the famous case of Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra back in 1964 which was about this notoriously steamy novel called Lady Chatterley's Lover. Because India still has this obnoxiously vague and broad section 292 in the IPC. The 1947 case of Aveek Sarkar vs The State of West Bengal where the Supreme Court rejected the Hicklin test and applied community standard approach to measure that nudity in that case in the German magazine of famous tennis star of that time Boris Becker and his dark-skinned fiancee Barbara Feltus holding each other was sign of love to show that love can persevere against the discrimination which interracial couples often faced from racists. Recent cases of Milind Soman, Ranveer Singh and Urfi Javed, if the courts of our republic have no problem, who are these moral police brigades, the self-appointed arbiters of decency. Most women wear modern clothes to embrace their sexuality and feel confident and comfortable and not to entice men so that later they could allege someday that these women were asking for "it". Everyone has the right to feel beautiful and in their own ways. And to think of it, much of the trends of global fashion and grooming habits are set by big brands and cosmetic companies through advertising and marketing by PR and hiring models and actors/actresses. Think for a second about shaving, most women in India don't shave their bodies. Do you think our mothers and grandmothers used to shave? But, if let's say you are an actor or actress, you have to. It is a fashion choice. It also depends on where you live, in Koraput Odisha or Bastar Chhattisgarh or Mumbai or Delhi, what your income status and lifestyle is like. Whether you prefer a sleeveless dress and a skirt or not. Whether there is a khap panchayat in your village or not. Then, women can't even wear jeans in some villages. And if still not convinced, you can just point to the double standards of men in the famous Air India case 30 years ago, Air India vs Nargesh Meerza and later Air India Cabin Crew vs Yashawinee Merchant when air hostesses had to fight against airline industry and lobbyists as they tried making the age of 35 to be the retirement age and they had to be unmarried. Why? You guessed it. Because they wanted to milk every ounce of beauty while they were young and once you are married you may repel the customers' innuendos and advances or might put them off. It wasn't considered as a hospitality industry, rather some kind of strip joint where the act of harassment and unwanted advances were enabled without any shame. That was okay, right? What about item numbers during credit rolls at the end of big bollywood movies, even a movie like Mimi which was about motherhood and exploitation of surrogacy or Doctor G which was this beautiful movie about the taboo associated with pregnancy related shame and the distorted sense masculinity being denigrated and made fun of by people if males choose a medical branch such as Gynaecology or choose to become a nurse or caregiver which was traditionally a female-centric duty. Nobody flinches. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with any of these. An actress wants to have a dance at the end of a movie with an actor twice his age difference, and people are happy about it. (That age discrimination is another discussion for another day). No problem. That's why I even support sex workers and bar dancers and Indian Court systems have also come around that lately, after banning and lambasting these poor women who work sustenance. Read the recent judgments of Bombay High Court and CJI Chandrachud's judgement on prostitution. It was eye-opening. Remember, Fair and Lovely? They just changed their name to Glow and Lovely because of some flak about glorifying one skin complexion while degrading others and everybody just calmed down. Nobody asked why even use that product in the first place? Changing its label and using it all the same, what purpose did it fulfill? Why is it that insecurities get inherited from one generation to another, rather get taught sometimes to the letter of the medieval conventions about beauty myths and this obsession with whiteness. I am from Odisha and an acclaimed actor/director from my state Nandita Das had to claw and scrap in the industry due to her dusky complexion. Look at Bollywood as well as South Indian Industry, the actresses and their skin tones in comparison with their fellow actors (not all of them). Recently actress Aishwarya Rajesh got candid about the topic. Why is that every matrimonial site profile description for potential partners starts with fair-skinned brides wanted, mostly nobody asks for a fair-skinned groom because as long as he earns five figure salaries, colour can be ignored by the bright paint of his mansion. We have these paradoxical dualities going on in all communities. When, girls and women are being put inside specific boxes based on body images and color of their skins and then they get accused of being promiscuous and provocative. I mean, these people have no idea in the least bit on the demanding nature of licentiousness related to communities as a whole and how hyper capitalism, mall culture, ecommerce at our fingertips, influence of social media and celebrity star-struck attitudes nudge women and men towards unattainable, unrealistic beauty standards and then have the temerity to question their characters. "Everybody wants to feel titillated by looking at lascivious, these famme fatale women in skimpy outfits but nobody wants their sisters or mothers to wear them." This is the prevalent mindset and thought pattern and there in lies the rub. What those women want to wear by their choices, no man wants to ask them. There is this long running stupid dialogue which is here for like millennia and men use it blithely. Very ubiquitous in literature, metaphors, folklore, platitudes and maxims and movie dialogue. It goes something like this- "Bhagwan ne aisi aurat banaya hi nahi jo mard ko samajh sakhe". Are you kidding me? Since the advent of homo sapiens, what did these people think women have been doing from those caves in Africa to modern day unpaid jobs in the kitchen and child rearing. Rather, the exact opposite is true. God hasn't created a man who has the gall to understand this complex creature known as woman. David Buss, the famed social psychologist explained it very exquisitely in his book The Evolution of Desire as to how men choose women as their partners and how women choose men and it shows all the complex thought processes with evolutionary raison d'etre of women's desire which is really fascinating. Hope, this will help you with your future videos while addressing this sliver of nonsense aspect which is promiscuity, which is often labelled against free-spirited women, instead of getting their minds out of the gutter.
If interested in good books, read The Great Stewardess Rebellion by Nell McShane. Also regarding crime against women, read Know My Name by Chanel Miller. You won't be disappointed. If read already, keep recommending Know My Name. Very poignant and heart-wrenching. Both are non-fiction. Keep doing what you are doing. Great job. Stay undeterred against conservative backlash. "It is always the case that the anchor doesn't want the ship to wander into the ocean, but sailing is its nature." P. S. - That quote is not borrowed from any source.
Feminism is about equality in opportunities, not outcome. Everybody will have equal opportunity but the outcome will depend organically based on the hard work put in by individuals in their respective fields.
Be confident, talk louder and make the content crisp and clear by adding pointers one by one. Do some more research on the content, add some article and few reference stories. I mean make the video based out of stories. Make the banner clickable. You will succeed. Good start.
If feminism is all about helping women then it should be called ' samaj seva ' instead of feminism, i don't think indian women need to use western terms like feminism in order to be great , jai hind
Actually the problem is much of the society still fixates on social justice such as women empowerment and equality of opportunity (which by the way are definitely and promptly needed for a society to progress into the future when all genders take the path while holding hands), whereas they should start from the anatomical, evolutionary and psychological differences between the sexes and across the spectrum of gender differentials. Without appreciating how the bodies and minds of the opposite sex work, delving straight into the humanities gives this false sense of reality and begs more questions instead of answers because much of the debates then rest on ideological moores often based on subjective experiences and not derived from scientific temperament. Like elders ordering the next generations of showing respect while failing to mention why they are entitled to the said respect in the first place. A good example of remedy of this would be- learning what happens during puberty stage and why women mature earlier than boys of the same age group and why lately females have been doing better than male in different academic departments. On the other hand, why that same number can't be seen when it comes to equal pay and holding top positions like CEOs of fortune 500 companies. What happens to a woman physically and mentally during pregnancy and the next stage of child rearing, what is post partum depression, how in a data driven world much of the data is skewed towards men during the sampling stages and how it affects the research studies for the diagnosis of heart problems and strokes in women because much of the experiments post mortem as well as live ones have been done on males and vice versa in the case of prostrate cancer vis-a-vis breast cancer, which is more of a marketing problem despite being men dying on the same scale as women. Without the basics of biology, anatomy and evolutionary and social psychology, neither men can understand women nor can women understand men. Demanding respect out of thin air therefore dissipates after a while. On the other hand, science alone can't help us. We have to also understand the nurture part of it too, the performative, socio-cultural and environmental influences like what Mahashweta Devi or Volga or Perumal Murugan or Chitra Banerjee and Bell Hooks, Chimamanda Angozi, Angela Davis, The great Judith Butler, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Margaret Atwood, Roxane Gay, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir, Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath, Angela Saini, Caroline Perez, Naomi Wolf, Mary Beard, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou and coutless others tried to say and have been conveying through their brilliant articulations. On that note, read Men Explain Things to Me. Then, there are the most modern and difficult topics, such as- Hermeneutic Labour. Watch how this new idea by Ellie Anderson is an answer to a world where MGTOW, Incels, false gurus like- Andrew Tate and some ideas of Jordan Peterson are running rampant where castigating men with less so-called traditional traits as weak and emasculated or soy boys. How from childhood even two different colors and two different toys and haircuts are assigned to different genders. And how it teaches boys that only women are capable of showing sentiments and reflecting emotions and that puts women in a fixed position with a lot of emotional load on their mental health with nothing to share with their male partners which takes a toll on one gender and at the same time creates insecure men who find themselves poisoned with toxic masculinity, men who are not better adjusted in the society because of this misguided perception of a crying man must be a wuss.
Remember people! In a world where only 11% rape, molestation and sexual assault cases come to the light, let alone registered as per UN data, movements like metoo are a drop in a bucket and an exception. Still, men find these movements as some sort of social justice warrior woke thing where vindictive cunning women are out to get revenge. Why? Because of Amber Heard. Think about what has been happening after Amber Heard. Danny Masterson and Jonathan Majors were both found guilty and sentenced. The sheer number of women who came out with allegations suggest that there was no cabal of women in a basement plotting against Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or Kevin Spacey or Asharam or Ram Rahim or Sajid Khan, the list is way too long. And still many people go scott free, otherwise how come Suhel Seth keeps showing his face all over the news channels, that too on the Prime Time. If want to know how power imbalances in relationships cause women to be meek and subservient which is disproportionately awful when class and rural-urban cross sections are taken into consideration, read what Aziz Ansari had to say about that when accused of coerced sexual encounter by a woman. And why marital rape is such a hot button topic now.
The nature of society is and has always been tilted against women from the beginning and across cultures and religions. Imagine a scenario, you had a boy and a girl of the same age, would you assign curfew time for both of them in an equal manner or would you be worried for a specific gender. That alone says a lot. And consider this, the gender of which you are worried about when they get late at night, which gender do you think is a potential danger to them? Now, some people can just wave their hands and for those people- you can't possibly understand until you have a daughter of your own. But, that doesn't mean that all men are dangerous, as most of the feminists both men and women would agree with that statement. " Not all the men are dogs, but most of the dogs are men." That's reality, don't believe me? Check out the NCRB report on the nature of aggravated crimes committed by men vs women.
And to those who think that men are just dealt a bad hand due to testosterone and no such thing as nurture and societal forces that shape them in a particularly masculine aggressive bravado way, you know the age old argument that- "Men are the mammoth hunters". To them I can only say, "Do you still see any mammoths around? They went extinct and so should the traditional spartan masculinity. Switch it off otherwise the next generation boys will end up in therapies or worse, wife beaters. "
P. S. - I am a man and speaking from my experiences after going through a rigorous process of getting rid of my inner demons as I was a sympathizer of toxic men and an apologist of traditional masculinity. I have struggled with my aggression and frustration as a man and used to very much misunderstand movies like- Fight Club and American Psycho. Here is a tip, go back and watch and read what the makers of those movies and authors of those source materials have been appealing as to how their works should be interpreted. Listen to Bret Easton Ellis about the themes and meaning of a character like Patrick Bateman instead of using it as a stitch for Alpha or Sigma male, which is a pseudo-scientific trait that was even abandoned by the man who postulated that whole alpha male characteristics to wolves. No such thing. Period.
Kindly, excuse my long rant. I am sorry for the extensive exhaustive reply.
This is the most thoughtful rant :) ever. Thank you for enriching this conversation. If you create videos on this subject, I would be so happy to listen to you.
One small piece of advice. Actually, not small. it can't be explained in a cursory or brief paragraph due to the nuanced element attached to the question. When explaining promiscuity as to why some women show off their body. As if they are just dying to do so. Be that as it may I would say this, because in at least India it is much of an elitist vs normies debate and if you go to the villages and tribal areas, over there women don't even wear blouses. That wasn't certainly frowned upon in society. I guess maybe because they are adhering to their supposed patriarchal end of the bargain. So, no worries there. Do you see my point? How hypocrisy flows without any blockade when it is about preserving conservative thinking? Remember, it is a controversial stance but I am going to say it anyway. Famous tv serial Ramayan by Ramanand Sagar, the pilot episode was shot where Deepika Chikalia who played Sita wore a sleeveless blouse because Sagar thought it would be era accurate, since the event of Ramayan must have happened before Indus Valley civilization when there is very little evidence to suggest that women used to wear stanapatta to cover their upper body. When he showed it to the bureaucrats and ministers of I&B then, such hue and cry was bombarded at him that he had to reshoot the pilot episode, which we as the viewers have watched, that was the reshoot version. Why is it that Urvasi, Rambha and Menaka and other sculptures and statues as well as idols on temples and corridors of pious places were shown without the so-called decency which by the way only women had to bear the brunt of. Not that anybody has any problem regarding apsaras being portrayed as these seductresses and enchantresses whose duties were to dance in devaloka for the entertainment of rishis and devatas and seduce the seers to break their focus. Cultural norms are always fluid throughout time immemorial across cultures. Just look at the photographs of 1920s beach cops in the US, measuring swimsuits of women so that the state could penalize them for violating the required length of the skirts, not bikinis mind you, skirts. Society has a long history of censuring, controlling women as to what they should wear or not. Read the famous case of actress Mae West and how she was jailed in 1927 for seven days for "corrupting the morals of youth". Back then they had something called Hicklin test to enforce obscenity laws and before that Comstock Law in the late 19th century and now nobody even winces while watching Game of Thrones. I urge you to read about Mae West and how humorously, wittingly and gracefully she dealt with that punishment. In the case of India, take a gander at what the Supreme Court told about the indecency acts in the famous case of Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra back in 1964 which was about this notoriously steamy novel called Lady Chatterley's Lover. Because India still has this obnoxiously vague and broad section 292 in the IPC. The 1947 case of Aveek Sarkar vs The State of West Bengal where the Supreme Court rejected the Hicklin test and applied community standard approach to measure that nudity in that case in the German magazine of famous tennis star of that time Boris Becker and his dark-skinned fiancee Barbara Feltus holding each other was sign of love to show that love can persevere against the discrimination which interracial couples often faced from racists. Recent cases of Milind Soman, Ranveer Singh and Urfi Javed, if the courts of our republic have no problem, who are these moral police brigades, the self-appointed arbiters of decency. Most women wear modern clothes to embrace their sexuality and feel confident and comfortable and not to entice men so that later they could allege someday that these women were asking for "it". Everyone has the right to feel beautiful and in their own ways. And to think of it, much of the trends of global fashion and grooming habits are set by big brands and cosmetic companies through advertising and marketing by PR and hiring models and actors/actresses. Think for a second about shaving, most women in India don't shave their bodies. Do you think our mothers and grandmothers used to shave? But, if let's say you are an actor or actress, you have to. It is a fashion choice. It also depends on where you live, in Koraput Odisha or Bastar Chhattisgarh or Mumbai or Delhi, what your income status and lifestyle is like. Whether you prefer a sleeveless dress and a skirt or not. Whether there is a khap panchayat in your village or not. Then, women can't even wear jeans in some villages. And if still not convinced, you can just point to the double standards of men in the famous Air India case 30 years ago, Air India vs Nargesh Meerza and later Air India Cabin Crew vs Yashawinee Merchant when air hostesses had to fight against airline industry and lobbyists as they tried making the age of 35 to be the retirement age and they had to be unmarried. Why? You guessed it. Because they wanted to milk every ounce of beauty while they were young and once you are married you may repel the customers' innuendos and advances or might put them off. It wasn't considered as a hospitality industry, rather some kind of strip joint where the act of harassment and unwanted advances were enabled without any shame. That was okay, right? What about item numbers during credit rolls at the end of big bollywood movies, even a movie like Mimi which was about motherhood and exploitation of surrogacy or Doctor G which was this beautiful movie about the taboo associated with pregnancy related shame and the distorted sense masculinity being denigrated and made fun of by people if males choose a medical branch such as Gynaecology or choose to become a nurse or caregiver which was traditionally a female-centric duty. Nobody flinches. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with any of these. An actress wants to have a dance at the end of a movie with an actor twice his age difference, and people are happy about it. (That age discrimination is another discussion for another day). No problem. That's why I even support sex workers and bar dancers and Indian Court systems have also come around that lately, after banning and lambasting these poor women who work sustenance. Read the recent judgments of Bombay High Court and CJI Chandrachud's judgement on prostitution. It was eye-opening. Remember, Fair and Lovely? They just changed their name to Glow and Lovely because of some flak about glorifying one skin complexion while degrading others and everybody just calmed down. Nobody asked why even use that product in the first place? Changing its label and using it all the same, what purpose did it fulfill? Why is it that insecurities get inherited from one generation to another, rather get taught sometimes to the letter of the medieval conventions about beauty myths and this obsession with whiteness. I am from Odisha and an acclaimed actor/director from my state Nandita Das had to claw and scrap in the industry due to her dusky complexion. Look at Bollywood as well as South Indian Industry, the actresses and their skin tones in comparison with their fellow actors (not all of them). Recently actress Aishwarya Rajesh got candid about the topic. Why is that every matrimonial site profile description for potential partners starts with fair-skinned brides wanted, mostly nobody asks for a fair-skinned groom because as long as he earns five figure salaries, colour can be ignored by the bright paint of his mansion. We have these paradoxical dualities going on in all communities. When, girls and women are being put inside specific boxes based on body images and color of their skins and then they get accused of being promiscuous and provocative. I mean, these people have no idea in the least bit on the demanding nature of licentiousness related to communities as a whole and how hyper capitalism, mall culture, ecommerce at our fingertips, influence of social media and celebrity star-struck attitudes nudge women and men towards unattainable, unrealistic beauty standards and then have the temerity to question their characters. "Everybody wants to feel titillated by looking at lascivious, these famme fatale women in skimpy outfits but nobody wants their sisters or mothers to wear them." This is the prevalent mindset and thought pattern and there in lies the rub. What those women want to wear by their choices, no man wants to ask them.
There is this long running stupid dialogue which is here for like millennia and men use it blithely. Very ubiquitous in literature, metaphors, folklore, platitudes and maxims and movie dialogue. It goes something like this- "Bhagwan ne aisi aurat banaya hi nahi jo mard ko samajh sakhe". Are you kidding me? Since the advent of homo sapiens, what did these people think women have been doing from those caves in Africa to modern day unpaid jobs in the kitchen and child rearing. Rather, the exact opposite is true. God hasn't created a man who has the gall to understand this complex creature known as woman. David Buss, the famed social psychologist explained it very exquisitely in his book The Evolution of Desire as to how men choose women as their partners and how women choose men and it shows all the complex thought processes with evolutionary raison d'etre of women's desire which is really fascinating.
Hope, this will help you with your future videos while addressing this sliver of nonsense aspect which is promiscuity, which is often labelled against free-spirited women, instead of getting their minds out of the gutter.
If interested in good books, read The Great Stewardess Rebellion by Nell McShane. Also regarding crime against women, read Know My Name by Chanel Miller. You won't be disappointed. If read already, keep recommending Know My Name. Very poignant and heart-wrenching. Both are non-fiction. Keep doing what you are doing. Great job. Stay undeterred against conservative backlash. "It is always the case that the anchor doesn't want the ship to wander into the ocean, but sailing is its nature."
P. S. - That quote is not borrowed from any source.
Feminism is about equality in opportunities, not outcome. Everybody will have equal opportunity but the outcome will depend organically based on the hard work put in by individuals in their respective fields.
Be confident, talk louder and make the content crisp and clear by adding pointers one by one. Do some more research on the content, add some article and few reference stories. I mean make the video based out of stories. Make the banner clickable. You will succeed. Good start.
If feminism is all about helping women then it should be called ' samaj seva ' instead of feminism, i don't think indian women need to use western terms like feminism in order to be great , jai hind