Clean ≠ Fair

It is either my good fortune or bad that I am not exposed to Indian advertisements on a regular basis any longer. Recently, a friend posted a link to this article about a new feminine hygiene/ beauty product that appears to have hit the Indian markets- Clean and Dry.

While I agree with many of the points made by Pal (the author)- namely the objectification of women and the locating of their self-worth entirely in how their physical self is perceived by others- I’d like to offer my own thoughts on the product and the ad which I believe are quite distinct from one another (a distinction not clearly apparent in the above mentioned article). I believe that the advertisement is not only a failure as far as feminism is concerned but also as far as good advertising is concerned.

The ad

The advertisement is awful and misogynistic on several accounts. Firstly, let’s take the song. The ad opens with a wistful female voice singing ‘Kho Gaye Hum Kahan…’ Only problem is, the 'hum' (i.e. the duo) do not appear lost in the slightest. The woman is in grief. The man clearly is not.

This line could potentially also apply to any domestic difficulty from infidelity to divorce to bankruptcy. I'm sure a coffee company could recycle the same song and make an ad opening with the same sequence as this one ending in the couple being all happy and content because they changed their brand of coffee. So for me, apart from the fact that the ad depicts the woman (and only the woman) fretting over/ mourning a loss that later turns out to be related to her partner's sexual interest in her, the song in the ad is abrupt, unclear and well, pointless.

The final line of the song is 'Jaana na, hai taazgi yahan' (roughly translated as 'Don't go, here be freshness!) which plays soon after the woman throws the man's keys down her shorts. Is she inviting him to have sex or begging him to stay because she has now 'fixed the problem'?

The man is depicted as being either totally oblivious of his partner’s anguish or totally unconcerned by her distress. Both are fairly undesirable stances. He’s shown to be reading the paper –a somewhat intellectual activity (depending on which paper one reads of course) and carrying on with his life while she ponders over what is lost in their relationship. This suggests that her self-worth begins and ends with how often she and her partner have sex while his sense of self is undisturbed by this aspect of their relationship.

Anatomical ambiguity

My main critique of Pal's article is the failure to distinguish between various components of female genitalia and the use of the word ‘vagina’ by the author when this ad seems to refer to an larger area. I'd like to stress that I am not defending the ad or its ambiguity but only pointing out an anatomical-linguistic inaccuracy that reduces the clarity of what is being communicated. The vagina is not the most visible part of the genitals so it’s more likely that the focus of beautification is on external genitalia. Cosmetic surgery to make the genitals 'look nicer' is increasingly becoming popular in the west and almost always or majorly involves a reconstruction, realignment etc. of the vulva or labia.

Beauty vs. Hygiene

It is very interesting that the ad for the intimate wash is drastically different in its content from an ad for a cream version of the same brand/ product.

Here’s the ad for the wash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tx9vVVMWw0

And here’s the ad for the cream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWRg8XvmzHA

I’m going to bullet-point the major points of departure between the two commercials

- The former has beautification as it’s core benefit while the latter emphasises hygiene (with the almost too professional looking doctor as the main protagonist).

- In the former, the woman’s unhappiness is relational. I.e. it is not limited to how she feels about herself but rather how her partner responds to/ feels about her. In the latter there is no mention of a relationship/ partner/ sexual desirability as the doctor speaks to an animated version of a female patient about discomfort, problems and infections in the genital region. This suggests a more internal sense of comfort/ happiness with one’s body and how one feels about oneself rather than approval from one’s partner in the form of a willingness to engage in coitus.

- The latter makes direct references to possible infections and problems women may experience which is totally absent in the former, giving viewers misguided impressions about the cause of the woman’s dissatisfaction with her genitals and contributing to a negative perception of female genitalia in general.

- There is no silly song or wistful longing in the latter as there is in the former

All of the above make the former misogynistic and offensive and the latter more acceptable.

(On a side note, it is also interesting that the woman in the former appears more ‘modern’/’western’ – clad in shorts- as compared to both the doctor and the animated woman in the latter – wearing saris and salwar-kameez respectively. I may be hypothesising here, but it may reflect the assumption that ‘traditionally’ attired women are more concerned with practical/health issues than sex. The eternal mother/whore dichotomy in traditional Indian psyche. Not entirely implausible, given the appalling views recently expressed regarding the attire and habits of female rape victims).

The existence of an inoffensive ad for a similar product makes it easier for me to isolate the product from the ad and criticise only the advertisement.

The distinction between beauty and hygiene/medical reasons is quite an important one – whether it’s in the field of everyday products or surgery.

I think in general, if there is a new over the counter cream for genital infections/ discomfort, and it is advertised as such, it is a good rather than a bad thing if it allows women to get access to effective medication for non-serious conditions.

The biggest problem with the first ad therefore is its emphasis on ‘fairness’ and a complete lack of any hygiene related advantages to using the product. The unfortunate truth is that the existence of a product that promises to make the nether regions ‘fairer’ doesn’t surprise me. Why would it? It seems like a natural progression after Fair & Lovely (for the face) and Fairglow soap (for the body). Though it is utterly deplorable, I’m not going offer a detailed critique of the fairness bias in Indian – particularly North Indian- society or the fact that in almost all advertising campaigns pertaining to ‘fairness’ products a woman’s physical appearance determines her competence, employability, confidence et cetera, et cetera. I’m in general agreement with feminist writers about the points they make regarding the objectification of women in Indian advertising.

‘Beautification’ of female genitalia and violence against women: related but distinct

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) (Those who don’t know what this is can read about it here) is beautification of female genitalia at its worst, performed on girls as young as a year old in several countries, majority of which are in Africa. It is torture and abuse practiced on the pretext of ‘religious custom/ duty’ and/or making the woman’s genitalia more pleasing- visually and sexually- for males.

I attended a seminar on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in which an FGM nurse specialist was talking about how, in her perception, FGM was also on a continuum of prejudiced, gender discriminatory and archaic patriarchal attitudes, and adult women who opted for cosmetic surgery on their genitals or even piercings etc. in the genitals were willing participants and perpetuators of these attitudes. I haven’t formulated my thoughts coherently on where I stand with regards to such a comparison, but I can try to see the point she’s trying to make.

One of the readers of Pal’s article commented that in a free market people should be permitted to advertise whatever they want while another commented that women who get drawn into the pull of these skin-lightening products based on advertising and marketing don’t deserve much sympathy. On the other hand one could argue that societal attitudes and prejudices are so deeply ingrained and social pressures so high that women who rebel and don’t conform risk ridicule/ disparagement/ isolation and in many cases, let’s be honest, torture/ abuse and even death.

Women who opt for cosmetic surgery to make their genitals more ‘aesthetically pleasing’ may or may not be doing so under pressure to conform. Aggressive advertising by the beauty and cosmetic surgery market probably does have a negative impact on how female (and male consumers) evaluate their own self-esteem and self-worth but the fact of the matter is that women are free to pierce their clitoris and consent to a doctor taking a knife to their genitals should they be so inclined.

The increasing popularity of cosmetic surgery is not something to celebrate because it indicates that we are tumbling down a path of insecurity and unhappiness with our physical selves and moving from an internal to an external locus of evaluation that, especially for women, begins and ends with how they look.

For many, FGM may lie on the same continuum as cosmetic surgery but while the former is criminally abusive the latter is merely tragic. To put things simply, preventing women from opting for genital reconstruction for aesthetic reasons is not the way to tackle FGM. Similarly, it is tragically true that the objectification of women occurs at varying levels and degrees. While all of its forms, levels and degrees are unacceptable, all of them are not the same as rape and violent sexual assault. There is a distinction between social attitudes that contribute to violence against women and girls and acts of violence. Tackling both is essential if we are to create a world in which women and girls can live free from fear of violence but the distinction between the two must not be lost.

“Just tell the judge it was my fault, and I’ll get sued!”*

I’m sure this worrying trend has been around for longer than a few years but either it rears its ugly head more frequently nowadays or I have started paying more attention to it. The trend I am referring to is of a large section of society moving towards an entirely external locus of control over their choices, actions and consequences. A trend that completely disregards autonomy and free will and locates the cause of many social, criminal and health related issues in videogames, advertising, marketing or rap music. Somewhere along the line, in the perception of said section of society, we have all become unthinking, undiscerning zombies who are passive recipients of messages from the outside world and totally vulnerable to their allegedly damaging effects. All sense of free will and agency is lost when these watchdogs blame or attempt to control what we watch, hear or consume rather than allowing us to be responsible for the choices we make- positive or negative.

Last week in the UK, a number of people went totally berserk and started hoarding petrol after one British MP remarked that there was going to be a fuel shortage and that people should start stocking up. Fire services were among the many who were up in arms about what they regarded as an irresponsible remark and warned people of the dangers of storing highly flammable liquids around the house. One woman suffered severe burn injuries after catching on fire while attempting to transfer petrol from a petrol container to a glass jug. She did this in her kitchen, where there was also a gas burner which may have been on at the time. Couple of days later, news channels reported that 81% people blamed the government’s advice for inciting panic in the public. It probably was a bit careless for an MP to advise people to stock up on petrol in frenzy, but can we really blame him if people subsequently chose to fill cans, buckets and water bottles with the damn thing? I’m acquainted with and know of several people who had the sense not to buy into the panic. That is evidence enough of there being some element of choice governing one’s responses to a piece of advice. In the face of such evidence I cannot logically blame one MP for what was irresponsible behaviour by members of the public.

Some time last year, there was uproar about supermarkets lowering the prices of chocolates and other sugary, fatty foods. Forgetting the fact that supermarkets were involved in an aggressive price war for all types of products and goods, groups and charities working to tackle the problem of obesity left no stone unturned in deeming this action by supermarkets utterly irresponsible. Two questions sprang to mind. 1. Since when did supermarkets assume responsibility for regulating the diet of the general population? 2. Why should the healthy, chocolate-loving section of society have to pay higher prices? I also had serious concerns about how these groups view obesity and what support they provide to people struggling with the problem. It seemed to me that they either believe that all people just walk around buying whatever is available cheaply without giving any thought to whether they need it, want it or should buy it, or that only the obese are susceptible to this kind of thoughtless shopping. The latter smacks of prejudice and if it’s the former, as a member of the group ‘all people’, I strongly object to this complete denial of my personal agency and am quite insulted by the unstated but obvious assumption being made here- that I cannot be trusted to make decisions about my behaviour. More recently, similar phenomena occurred with regards to the price of alcohol.

Similarly, I don’t think it’s fair that cigarette companies- as motivated as any other private enterprise by the desire to maximise their profits- are subjected to aggressive advertising/marketing controls. Cigarette packs have had to carry the ‘Smoking is injurious to health’ warning for several decades. Is it just me or is it true that in recent times the warning letters have become blacker, bigger and often larger than even the brand name? Australia recently passed legislation ordering cigarette companies to package cigarettes in identical, plain packaging without any branding and to carry graphic images of the consequences of smoking. In India, TV channels that carry images of people smoking often blur out the cigarette. So all we see is the hero doing something with his mouth to something blurry. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is necessarily better than just showing the damn cigarette.

I bet if you conducted a survey of smokers few, if any, would harbour the delusion that cigarette smoking improves one’s physical health. That being the case, I think cigarette companies should carry a written warning in a reasonable font size but be allowed to use attractive colours and attractive models in their marketing and advertising. As an adult, if I buy something purely because it comes in a pretty box or because I believe doing so will allow me to save children or date a supermodel, I and only I am responsible for the consequences of my decision.

Finally, there’s the matter of the influence of violent videogames and rap music on society, especially children. I recall reading about an incident in India in which a kid watched Shaktimaan (a TV show about a superhero), harboured a wish to fly like the superhero and died after jumping from his balcony. Was it tragic? Undoubtedly. Was the show to blame? Not in the slightest. A rapper famously said that if a child is easily influenced by everything he says in his songs, the child’s parents ought to reflect on why that is the case. Okay, so I have forgotten the actual words and it probably sounded a lot cooler the way he said it, but you get the point. I've been listening to rap since I was a teenager and I frequently play videogames that involve not inconsiderable amounts of killing, shooting, decapitating etc. in spite of which I have never owned a firearm, snorted cocaine or committed homicide in real life. I think there’s something drastically wrong when TV shows and videogames have a greater influence on a child’s moral and social upbringing than his or her family environment to an extent that the child cannot distinguish between virtual and the real worlds. Besides, almost everything comes with guidance on age-appropriateness and warnings of graphic sexual or violent content. I once met a woman who was all in favour of stricter controls and disciplining in schools but seemed to have either ignored or not noticed the ‘17 years and older’ sticker on all the videogames her pre-teen son was playing.

We’d all be better off if we were left to read the labels, use our brains and arrive at our own conclusions about what we want to watch, play, follow, listen to or ingest.

Rockstar Games™ can only do so much and I think their responsibility ends once the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) sticker is applied to the game. Consumers and parents/carers (in case of children) need to take it from there.

Mommy and daddy relinquish the right to blame Rockstar Games™ if their 11-year-old starts using swear words that he/she picked up while playing Grand Theft Auto.

(*From the song 'Sing for the moment' by Eminem)

It's not okay until I say so, don't think I said yes because I didn't say no- Why parenthood ought to be like sexual consent

(Disclaimer: The following post applies only to situations where women undergo sterilisation or seek to terminate their pregnancy entirely out of choice and not to situations where women are forced or coerced into these decisions, as often occurs in cases of domestic abuse)

In the UK, if you want to have an abortion or a tubectomy (female sterilisation), your doctor will recommend that you go see a counsellor. The argument is that these processes are impossible and hard to reverse respectively and women seeking them should be sure of their decision. I fully agree that women should think about the decision very seriously and I have no objection to women being offered counselling, as long as they are not compelled to take the offer up because I believe that ultimately, women have absolute autonomy over their bodies and lives.

The other aspect is informed consent so that women understand the procedure, risks as well as potential consequences. While this is desirable for any medical intervention, in case of abortions and sterilisation it is sometimes taken too far. There was recently an uproar (definitely in my head!) about women in certain American states being forced to view an ultrasound image of the foetus and listen to its heartbeat before they can have their pregnancy terminated (See here). This is appalling to say the least. If women are forced to view images and sounds designed to guilt them into thinking of what they're giving up, I think it's only fair that pregnant women are forced to take stock of what they're getting themselves into and made to view images and sounds of mewling babies, misbehaving children and watch a movie about the perils and responsibilities of being a parent.

I wonder what would happen if pregnant women were given demos of the amount of physical pain they'd have to endure or shown films about parenthood gone bad- neglected, abused children, tired faces, sleepless nights and all the not- so- peachy parts about being a parent.

But they are not and never will because the assumption society operates on is that having children is a normal and it is abnormal to not want kids.

One of the many, many problems with the world we live in is that the two life-choices that ought to be made only, and I can't stress this point enough, ONLY, based on personal choice are often taken up by people because they are considered to be a human given, a natural next-step or the ultimate goal in life. The first is getting married. The second, having children. If you talk to a large enough number of people, read the news, and basically have your eyes and ears open when you're around some so-called-parents, it's not hard to conclude that many people who have kids do so without giving it any or at the very least, sufficient thought. This is because parenthood is seen as a fundamental duty and essential rite of passage for all and sundry, regardless of their skills, aptitude, attitudes etc. etc. etc. all of which, mind you, would be taken into account before you hire someone for a particular job. Parenthood is often touted as the toughest job in the world, a statement I can neither confirm nor deny. Is it just me who finds it utterly baffling that everyone is assumed to be fit and ready for it when they reach a certain age or stage of life (in most cases, soon after getting married)?

The argument that women who want to be sterilised ought to be offered counselling so that they can seriously consider their decision because the process is hard to reverse is trite and woefully incomplete, unless people who want to have children are also offered counselling to make sure that they're sure. Newsflash: having kids is irreversible too.

The way I see it, the consequences are far more dire if someone has a child and regrets the decision than if a woman gets sterilised and wants to have children later on. We all make decisions we regret and we often require a great deal of strength to deal with the consequences of those decisions. A woman who regrets her decision to get sterilised only to realise later in life that she wants to be a mother still has the option of becoming a parent through a reversal or through adoption. Yes, she may feel regret, guilt or other upsetting emotions but she will be taking responsibility for her actions, and this is how it should be. On the other hand, the only option facing a woman who gives birth to a child only to realise she doesn't want to be a mother is to give up the child or worse, to give up on the child. Regardless of what happens to the child as a result, this necessarily involves abdication of her responsibilities towards said child.

Society operates on confused, misguided morals if it is easier for someone to conclude that they don't want to be a parent after having a child that it is for someone to arrive at this decision beforehand. The cruel, unfortunate reality is that it is easier for a child to be born, only to be neglected, discarded or abused, than it is to prevent an unwanted birth.

And it must not be this way.

Parenthood, like sexual consent, ought to be an active decision rather than a passive process. It ought to be something you consciously agree to rather than something you go along with.

The fact that someone doesn't mind the idea of parenthood doesn't mean they want to be parents.

A 'not-unwanted' child is not the same as a child who is wanted.

Devi in a black dress

He held up the comic book to show us the cover. It had a slim, attractive woman with flowing dark hair, wearing what he perhaps rightfully described as a ‘Catwoman’ costume- a body-hugging leotard made out of either leather, rubber, vinyl or some combination of these (I can barely recognise fabric if I touch it with my fingers so my inability to make definitive remarks about the material of the afore-mentioned leotard based on a drawing is hardly surprising). The comic book, or graphic novel if you prefer, in question was Devi by Virgin Comics and the speaker proceeded to remark that he didn’t really like devi (Hindu goddess), being depicted in a Catwoman-esque fashion. By contrast, he was a huge fan of Amar Chitra Katha, which dutifully depicts goddesses wearing the kind of apsara-like attire Sridevi wore in songs that invariably involved coloured powder, earthenware and more often than not, Jeetendra. The expressions of the two versions of devi are also remarkably different. The traditional devi looks benign, with flour-white cheeks like Madhubala, a bindi, and a slight smile. The new one by contrast has a much leaner face, more athletic body, no jewellery or adornment and usually has a more intimidating expression. Catwoman-devi makes no attempt to hide her anger where as apsara-devis ride ferocious beasts while retaining their Mona Lisa smiles. All the aggression is projected onto the lion she is sitting on you see.

The speaker’s distaste for the Catwoman-devi got me thinking about whether his opinion was a fleeting manifestation of a more widely held attitude towards women and sexuality in Indian society and culture. Before you accuse me of reading too much into his remark, allow me to add two further points. First, the same speaker had previously made an admittedly sexist comment about how certain comic books were ‘girly’ because of their preference for floral patterns, pinkish hues and whatever else he associated with feminine tastes. By contrast, he felt some other comics were more suitable for ‘boys’ because of their dark colours and depictions of weapons and war. Second, before he came to Devi by Virgin Comics, he had expressed appreciation for the art in new-age Indian comics that had transformed ancient myths and stories like the Mahabharata and Ramayana to make them more relatable to readers today by using imagery similar to Tron, X-Men and such like. This led me to believe that his dislike for the new-age devi stemmed not from a general aversion to new-age animation but from something else entirely. To put it simply, he didn’t seem to mind Ram being depicted as a chiselled, muscular fellow with flowing tresses, black pants, no shirt and no jewellery.

The old devis of Amar Chitra Katha with their soft features, rounded figures and benign expressions represent a quality of nurturance and are more maternal than the lithe-bodied, scowl-faced devi in the black dress who represents a destructive, aggressive force to be reckoned with rather than someone whose lap a child would want to rest its head on.

Aggression and sexuality are inextricably related in the traditional Indian mindset, so any attempt to analyse attitudes to female aggression without looking at attitudes to female sexuality, or vice versa, will be incomplete. Textual tradition in India has for centuries warned against the raging, devouring, all consuming nature of female sexuality which must constantly be kept in check lest it swallows you whole in your sleep. Let us consider a few examples from that oft-quoted encyclopaedia of misogyny- the Laws of Manu.

"It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.

For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger."

-----

"Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.

…..He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit."

It is easy to see how there is no room for a version of female sexuality that is not simultaneously monstrous and ‘out to get you’. It is in this confined space that sexuality and aggression cannot be accommodated as independent entities and must be clubbed together to squeeze in.

Sudhir Kakar has explored sexuality and the Indian psyche extensively and suggests that the idealisation of women’s maternal roles in society is an effort to guard against the terrorising force of female sexuality. While it is the sort of hypothesis that cannot be verified by empirical methods, it remains a plausible explanation for the dominant attitude towards women. Women must be controlled and as far as possible, kept indoors lest they go on some sort of rampage. Culture and tradition become the tools to oppress, prevent, prohibit.

Why am I talking about idealisation of maternal roles in a post that started by discussing comic books? It is because the relationship that best characterises that between devotees and goddesses is a maternal one. Goddesses are referred to by maternal names such as ‘mata’, they are bowed to and revered, we ask that they watch over us and give us boons when we’ve been good (and sometimes even when we’ve not been all that nice, because let’s face it, a mother’s love is unconditional, no?)

A maternal looking, nurturing manifestation of devi is easier to accept than an aggressive one. Mums should look like mums after all. I know that my grandmother admonished my aunt for still wearing ‘salwar kameez’ after having children (because salwars can reveal the shape of a woman’s legs) and she ‘should wear saris’ because she’s ‘a mother now!’. I have seen a male acquaintance grimace when his mother came to a party dressed in a miniskirt, while his girlfriend’s outfit was not dissimilar. I read about hundreds of ‘traditional’ Indians who expressed shock and horror when Mallaika Arora posed for a magazine cover clad only in a bed sheet, holding her infant son. The same Indians probably had no difficulty ogling at her bikini-clad body in an item number. The crux is that people don’t want the women they fantasise about to look like mothers and don’t want their mothers to look like women they fantasise about.

The problem of course is that respect gradually comes to be reserved for women who conform to culturally-dictated roles- get married as soon as they’re old enough, stay at home, look after families, keep their eyes lowered and their heads covered and never, EVER retaliate when their husbands beat them to a pulp. A good wife (synonymous with a good woman) is one who puts up with rather than puts up a fight. A goddess who is a mother-substitute cannot look like Catwoman because Catwoman is sexy, single and knows how to kick some ass.

The distinction between the desirable and the domesticated manifests itself in other ways. In their book, ‘Half the sky’, Nicholas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn observe that forced prostitution is disproportionately high in the most sexually conservative societies, including the Indian subcontinent. According to them, the reason for this is an underlying social contract in which men find satisfaction for their sexual frustration in brothels so that good, upper-middle class women can keep their virtue.

The confused morals and hypocritical attitudes to sexuality in Indian society are hardly secret but they continue to baffle. Take clothing for example. Much thought is given to the attire of women and girls who are sexually assaulted. Public figures have previously made embarrassingly ridiculous remarks about how girls should or should not dress or behave if they don’t ‘want’ to be victimised. Such attitudes- hideously off the mark as they are since women and girls continue to be sexually assaulted the world over regardless of whether they wear skirts, saris, burqas or bikinis- are not surprising in a climate where women must conform to traditional gender roles which often include a sartorial component- to be regarded in high esteem.

Devi, in a holistic sense of the term, represents the feminine aspect of the holy trinity- creator, preserver and destroyer. However, prescribed social norms tend to be in the arena of creation and preservation only. In the dominant socio-cultural paradigm that idealises maternal roles and elevates women to the status of goddesses purely to serve a patriarchal agenda, the destructive force of women has had to fall by the wayside.

It is not hard to see how the divine powers that society and culture bestow on women become the vehicles of oppression. ‘Because you hold the key to the family's honour, who else should be punished for bringing shame upon the family name?’ ‘You can’t leave your husband! After all, it is up to you to keep the family together!’ ‘You're a woman, blessed with huge reservoirs of tolerance and forgiveness… you should understand and forgive.’

No thank you I say! You are highly mistaken sirs and madams! I don't hold the key to anyone's honour but my own, and I'll fight to the death to defend it. I don't have the power to hold families together because I don't live in denial of the simple fact that family's are made of more than one person, each responsible for their actions. Let them shoulder that responsibility- I am done carrying it for them. And I certainly don't have an endless capacity to forgive or understand- it does not extend beyond the boundaries of rationality.

Unless I can claim all aspects- creation, preservation and destruction- of the holy trinity and until I can damn well take as much as I give, I'd much rather be a happy human being than an acquiescing goddess.

I guess the new-age devi, for me, represents a bit of the woman who's done being nice and that's why I think it's a good thing. Also, maybe if more devis dressed like Catwoman- or wore jeans, skirts and dresses for that matter- respect for women in the real world will not be rationed out depending on how they are attired. I don't know what Virgin Comics intended, but the way I see it, closing the gap between the physical appearance of devis and that of women in the real world seems like a good thing.

To be human is to...err...umm…what?

What characteristics does someone need to possess in order to be regarded a human being? Are there any necessary and sufficient conditions, apart from those that can be discerned with the help of electron microscopes and other equipment, for humanness?

Just for the record, I don’t think there are. I haven’t been able to come up with even one.

I don’t think the matter of how we define 'human' has been given as much consideration as it should have. It’s a pity really, given that we're always throwing the word around in various forms. Human rights, for example. Or an act being ‘inhuman’. What does the latter mean?

Attempts at using psychological characteristics such as empathy to identify human beings fall flat on its face. Take psychopaths for instance. Research suggests that psychopaths lack, among other things, the ability to empathise- to gauge and understand emotions in another person or in themselves. Jon Ronson in his book- The Psychopath Test- explores the idea of psychopathy and is surprised at discovering that psychopathy as a trait is present in people who don't go on to commit heinous crimes or become serial killers. High ranking corporate executives may get high scores on a standardised instrument designed to assess and diagnose psychopathy. Yet we do not incarcerate such persons in prisons or asylums for the criminally insane. The fact is that in the business world it may be a highly prized quality to not be fazed by or affected by other people's emotions. As I write this, Devil Wears Prada is on in the background on television, and Meryl Streep comes to mind easily as an example of what I'm talking about. Context is everything, really.

Alternatively, any skill - such as communication or the use of complex tools- cannot be the defining feature. There are many who for medical reasons cannot perform these tasks. To suggest that they’re not human beings is preposterous. Wikipedia suggests that higher level thought processes such as abstract reasoning and rationality define a ‘person’. (Un)fortunately, I’ve come across many creatures belonging to the human species as defined by biology {‘Animalia’ kingdom, ‘Chordata’ phylum, ‘Mammalia’ class, ‘Primate’ order, ‘Hominidae’ family, ‘Hominini’ tribe and ‘Homo’ genus} who have not (at least in my presence) actually demonstrated the capacity for logic and reason.

Similarly, aptitude and intelligence tests often assess the capacity for abstract reasoning. While there are several diagnostic terms used to indicate a low-score on these dimensions, ‘inhuman’ is not one of them. So you see, the system, flimsy as it was to begin with, breaks down once again.

People who do horrible things to other people are often referred to by names of life forms we regard as lying at the lowest rungs of species classification- rats, fungi, parasites, cockroach and the like. The tendency to describe acts that we find vile as ‘inhuman’, or referring to people whose actions we find despicable with words that refer to species other than human beings, stems from a desire to dissociate ourselves from them- I am a human being and I am not like this person. Ergo, this person cannot be a human being. What this indicates is an effort towards creating homogeneity within the species. The obliteration of difference.

Obliteration of difference lies at the heart of all discriminatory attitudes - racism, homophobia, or Nazi eugenics. The problem is the assumption of a 'natural order of things' or how something ought to be. The moment one assumes a natural order, the unnatural is born. Abnormal, insane, inhuman are negations. Their existence depends on the existence of something that is not them. It doesn’t matter whether the assumed natural order in question is heterosexuality, patriarchy, or caring for fellow beings. What is the difference, really, between someone who thinks a pedophile is an animal and someone who deems the transvestite a beast? The line, if there is one, is very thin indeed.

With the obliteration of difference comes the obliteration of otherness. Psychoanalytic theory would regard this as the fundamental me/not me dilemma. Transition from a symbiotic relationship with the caregiver to an independent sense of self comes with a painful acknowledgement of caregiver as different from oneself. Freudians would regard this as the crux of the oedipal conflict. I'm not a Freudian, at least not completely, but I do buy the idea that to recognise the independent existence of a love-object with whom we would much rather be, and for a while were, fused is not always peachy.

Sorry about the brief psychoanalytic detour without prior notification, but it felt necessary.

The recognition of others as independent beings comes as a shock in infancy and childhood and is apparently not that easy to accept in adulthood either. Trace the course of human history, from the Pharoahs to the Nazis, to the uproar about drawings of Mohammad, or bikinis with images of Lakshmi and Saraswati and you'll agree.

Diversity of race, gender, sexuality, culture, or religion is generally more easily accepted than diversity of actions. The fact is that if you claim to acknowledge- and even appreciate- diversity, you really should accept all forms of it. You can't own the good bits without also owning the ugly. It's kind of a package deal.

Another causal factor that leads many of us to distinguish ourselves from those whose actions we find abominable is a refusal to accept that the human species is as much a rotting mass of depravity as it is a sea of spirituality, goodness and whatnot.

The problem with such a stance is that the species/title/diagnosis that is given to individuals whose actions we find abhorrent then becomes the cause or explanation for their behaviour. Consider the much debated insanity plea. That someone can get away with murder because they were diagnosed with schizophrenia seems preposterous to me. Insanity is an idea that is at best ambiguous and at worst, absurd. Schizophrenia is basically a diagnostic term that applies to a range of symptoms, none of which include the predisposition to commit murder. Consider the fact that illnesses traditionally used most often in the insanity pleas tend to be schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and there is no evidence to indicate that being diagnosed with either necessarily precludes an awareness of actions and/or intentions. My difficulty with the insanity plea is that it is almost impossible to establish with conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone’s actions were the direct result of a ‘mental illness’. Criminality and insanity are two separate issues serving separate purposes for society.

The treatment of people in mental asylums continues to be largely deplorable in several countries. Sending someone to a high security psychiatric ward instead of jail is not necessarily more merciful. If they are to be imprisoned, it might as well be in a prison. (For a more detailed discussion on similar themes, interested readers are advised to procure Thomas Szasz’s essays on Ideology and Insanity- highly recommended!) Incidentally, Anders Breivik’s lawyer believes that Breivik (the man responsible for the recent attacks in Oslo) is insane, though it is not clear whether he will plead insanity.

Ascribing ‘inhuman’ qualities to an act stands for the sort of determinism that obliterates free will. To determine that someone murdered under the influence of a psychotic or manic episode is akin to saying that the illness caused the crime, and if the illness is treated the crime will not be committed.

When we describe a pedophile or mass murderer as an animal or a beast because his/her behaviour doesn't fit with our concept of what constitutes a human being, we are in effect suggesting that his/her non-humanness is responsible for his/her having committed the said abhorrent act. And when the act is motivated by anything other than choice- in this case allegedly non-human characteristics- what can we/ society really do with that? If someone's behaviour is caused by an inherent bestiality, then should they be subjected to the laws designed to govern human behaviour? Would you incarcerate a dog for biting off a woman’s arm? Would that be right?

(For the record, I take the position that it would not. It’s not okay to judge an animal by human standards- not least because our standards may be rather low and animals are better than that- whether it’s shooting a tiger that started preying on villagers when forests began shrinking or calling for the death of a killer whale that shook its trainer to death.)

Is it not true that one can be held accountable for one’s actions only if one is seen to be making a choice?

Is the idea that those who commit acts we find repugnant are fundamentally different to us really more palatable than the idea that it is our choices that separate us from them?

It doesn’t please me in the slightest to believe that rapists, murderers, child molesters, wife beaters are inhuman, bestial, degenerates. I’d much rather believe that I have my own reasons for making the choices I make and acting the way I do, and that those reasons are not motivated by my mere belongingness to a certain species classification.

If I pick fleas off a stray dog or buy a starving child some food I’m as human as I would be if I chose not to do these things. Someone who kills a hundred people in cold blood is as human as someone who chooses not to commit such an act.

My actions don't make me human or inhuman.

They merely determine what kind of human being I am.