Thursday, 6 November 2014

Bigg Boss 8: Ali Quli Mirza inappropriately touches Sonali Raut, gets punished by Bigg Boss Tuesday, 28 October 2014

It’s the Bigg Boss house, where nothing ever goes unnoticed whether it is done with the intention of a joke or a serious action. What will happen tonight is a perfect example to explain the same.
 
After Praneet’s outburst against Ali for having nominated him without any reason, Bigg Boss house once again erupts as the situation goes out of hand. Ali finds himself in the middle of an allegation of inappropriate behaviour with Sonali. While sitting with Upen and Sonali in the wee hours of the night, Ali happens to touch Sonali under the blanket on her knee with an intention to play a prank. Sonali gets very upset with his behaviour and lashes out at him literally kicks him on his chest and also warns him saying that he will get slapped if he repeated this ever again.
 
Ali clarifies that he was kidding. He also tries his level best to explain himself stating that he did not mean any harm and had no wrong intention in doing what he did. Ali gets severely punished for his behaviour by Bigg Boss.

Later, a phone booth is put out it in the garden area. Karishma and Praneet while passing by the area are distracted as the phone starts ringing. Both of them run towards the phone and an excited Karishma picks up the receiver only to find herself in the middle of a task. Karishma then is asked to be on the phone until said otherwise by Mr. X, who is speakg from the other end of the phone. Karishma is then given different tasks during the day and if she failed, she will run the risk of getting nominated for next week directly.  An alert Karishma gets on an “all performing mode”. But will she be able to fulfil the requirements of mysterious Mr. X?
http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-bigg-boss-8-ali-quli-mirza-inappropriately-touches-sonali-raut-gets-punished-by-bigg-boss-2029896

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Don't Tell Your Son That "Boys Don't Cry," Tell Him This Instead Offbeat | NDTV.com | Updated: October 27, 2014

Don't Tell Your Son That 'Boys Don't Cry,' Tell Him This Instead
"Ladke nahi rote hain!" All too often, parents trot this hoary old chestnut, throwing the words "Are you a girl?" or "Don't behave like a girl" and "Boys don't cry!" at every sobbing male baby, child or young adult. Only the 'weaker sex' can cry, not boys and definitely not men, implies this desi admonition used by parents, grandparents, siblings and teachers to tell boys they are meant to be 'tough'. 

In this short film directed by Vinil Mathew for the #VogueEmpower #StartWithTheBoys campaign and featuring actress Madhuri Dixit, we're shown a peek at the various situations we force our future men into. However, the message the film carries isn't what you quite expect it to be. The lesson is not "don't tell boys not to cry" but "tell them, instead, not to make girls/others cry" - a commentary on the ugly truth of domestic violence that lurks, all too often, beneath the skin-deep facades of many relationships. 

Critics might accuse this short film of being one-sided - they could argue that women are sometimes violent as well. However, there's no ignoring the call for action that it puts forward - it is time to stop domestic violence.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nj99epLFqg

Sunday, 26 October 2014

Is surrogacy a legitimate way out of poverty?

NOVEMBER 2014
Doctors Nayna Patel and Mohan Rao go head to head.
- See more at: http://newint.org/sections/argument/2014/11/01/argument-surrogacy-poverty/#sthash.3LQsxMx9.dpufNewborn babies [Related Image]
Doctors Nayna Patel and Mohan Rao go head to head.Moneymakers: commercial surrogacy is big business across the world. © ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy
Every month we invite two experts to debate, and then invite you to join the conversation online.

Nayna

Reproductive infertility has always put unwanted pressure on couples, causing them much anxiety. The poor also have a dream to live a happy life without the burden of poverty.
Becoming a surrogate empowers women with a sense of worth and authority. Surrogates could actually help liberate women. Domestic labour should be paid, so when reproduction and pregnancy becomes a job, we will look at the value of female labour in a new light.
YES: Nayna Patel is the medical director at Akanksha IVF Clinic, Anand, Gujarat, India. More than 825 surrogate babies have been born at her clinic. Her work has been featured on the Oprah Winfrey Show and on the BBC. She runs the Anand Surrogate Trust for the benefit of the surrogates and their families.
This would elevate women’s status in a patriarchal capitalist society. They have the right to fulfil their dreams – not by doing anything wrong or immoral – but by giving the greatest gift, which is creating a family.
Only a hungry person understands the value of a piece of bread. How helpless does a woman feel when she wants to feed her children and can do nothing about it? Is it illegitimate to buy a house, educate children, start a small business and live a happy life by being a surrogate and helping an infertile couple?
Are we justified in refusing to enrol a surrogate, leaving her to live a life of struggle, pulling out the rug from under her? No, because the surrogate gets the blessings of the couple and financial support; the couple gets the baby – a win-win situation for all. Surrogacy allows a woman to help another woman.
In order to perpetuate survival on this planet, nature has given us two most powerful instincts, the instinct of self-preservation and the instinct of reproduction. So, if a woman wants to get rid of her poverty by doing the noblest deed, I firmly reiterate, surrogacy is a legitimate way of doing it.

Mohan

Let me make it very clear that I am talking about commercial surrogacy. The idea of ‘gifting’ life to a childless couple elides the fact that this is a global industry, said to be worth $3 billion in the US alone.
An estimate by a business newspaper suggests that as an integral part of the growing medical tourism industry, the fertility industry is said to have brought in additional revenue of $1–2 billion to India in 2012.
NO: Mohan Rao is a medical doctor, specializing in public health. He is a professor at the Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. His published works include From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic and, as editor, The Unheard Scream: Reproductive Health and Women’s Lives in India.
According to another estimate by a senior official in the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the figures are even higher.
What we need to talk about is imperial bio-politics: capital, labour and entrenched inequalities that are at the heart of this global industry.
It is therefore disingenuous to talk about commercial surrogacy at the level of the individual surrogate. She is the last link in a chain of actors, all of whom are making large amounts of money from her reproductive labour.
Involved in this network are promoters, third-party administrators, travel agents, the hospitality industry, surrogate hostel admin­istrators and, of course, the doctors. Frequently, NGOs are used to source surrogates.
It is risible to talk about how this ‘empowers’ the surrogate. Most empirical research on surrogates shows us that they see themselves as reproductive slaves. They are stigmatized, and many of them are unable to return to their former homes, although they tell themselves they are not prostitutes.

Nayna

Any arrangement or procedure – be it medical or otherwise – has a chain of people earning from it. So why sideline surrogacy?
Becoming a surrogate empowers women with a sense of worth and authority. Surrogates could actually help liberate women – Nayna
The fact remains that there are couples who cannot have babies without surrogacy (even when they have tried adoption) and there are women who want to have a better life for themselves and their families. If by doing this noble deed, a woman can achieve that, who are we to judge?
As for the surrogates, you cannot go by the studies but have to meet them personally and share their experiences. I can quote innumerable surrogates whose lives have been changed by this.
Most of our surrogates have been able to use the money to support their children into higher education, buy a house for their family, start a small business, and pay off debts. They never see themselves as reproductive slaves!
It is society which looks upon them in that way. ‘Reproductive Slaves’ – please, before saying this, at least spend a day in their lives and experience what they are going through.
They never think of themselves as prostitutes. They are seen as ‘prostitutes’ by society and so-called ‘well wishers’, who use such terms. Their families support them. They are welcome back home. The surrogates are empowered.

Mohan

You attempt to obfuscate issues. It is not necessary for any medical procedure to be paid for. It is in your world that money-chasing is disguised as ‘donation’ or ‘gift’ or ‘altruism’ in order to mask a deeply exploitative practice. No-one here is talking of altruistic surrogacy, but commercial surrogacy.
The fact remains that commercial surrogacy is taking place largely in poor countries, with a large population of poor women, willing to be exploited within a system of entrenched structural coercion.
The idea of ‘gifting’ life to a childless couple elides the fact that this is a global industry, said to be worth $3 billion in the US. – Mohan
This is a facet of neoliberal global dystopia, which makes money out of the bodies of poor people, sometimes in clinical trials, sometimes in surrogacy. It is by recognizing this aspect of the global bio-economy that governments have stepped in to ban trade in body parts, such as kidneys.
Doctors who prescribe surrogacy strengthen patriarchy. What it represents is the genetic worship of the ‘male line which has to be carried on’. Instead of questioning and undermining the heterosexual normative family, what surrogacy does is entrench it.
Black feminists [in the US] – the experiences of slavery and the exploitation of their repro­duction still vivid in their histories – have challenged the discourse of ‘choice’ and ‘empowerment’ in their quest for reproductive justice. They understand what reproductive slavery is.
It is true that a state’s failure to provide for education and health often forces women with few options to take recourse to surrogacy, but that should not justify it.

Nayna

With all due respect, the greatest number of surrogacies are happening in the US, one of the richest countries in the world – the so-called superpower – and with couples coming from Europe, Britain and Japan. Nobody says that’s exploitation.
Also, surrogacy is not a one-day procedure which a woman can be forced into. Surrogacy can only take place if a woman does it voluntarily.
What is exploitation? A woman becoming a surrogate and from that money buying a house, educating her children, helping her husband start a small business? Or allowing a woman to stay poor, letting the husband commit suicide and her children give up their studies due to financial crisis?
If a state fails, should the woman also fail and never empower herself?
Surrogacy gives the surrogate her due respect in her family, makes her a more confident female and empowered woman – this in itself is less patriarchal. There is no question of male line! You need to be in this age and understand the process of surrogacy. It is ridiculous to compare it to reproductive slavery.
There is no organ removed, like kidney transplants – so there is no comparison there, either. You could compare it with donating blood. A woman can be a surrogate not just once, but up to three times (according to Indian Council of Medical Research guidelines).
Even in Indian mythology and the Bible – there is mention of surrogacy.
So rather than be critical, understand and accept this procedure as a legitimate way out of poverty and salute these surrogates!

Mohan

You deliberately, and misleadingly, place the responsibility of poverty on the individual. There are a billion people going hungry in the world. Is surrogacy the answer?
Are you not aware that self-directed violence is frequently a response to structural violence? Far from empowering a woman, it represents loss of choice, loss of autonomy, loss of control. It is an expression of lack of opportunities; not of ‘empowerment’.
There are so many cases of women in India being forced into surrogacy by their families. There are also reports of women being trafficked for surrogacy. This therefore feeds into and feeds off the rampant misogyny in India.
Again, you deliberately, and repeatedly, confound altruistic and commercial surrogacy. There was no global reproductive labour industry at the time of the Bible, exploiting women’s bodies, mining them.
Do you support the surrogate creation of a saviour baby? What are the long-term health impacts of surrogacy?
Also, we must question how ‘voluntary’ is the decision of the surrogate to enter into an exploitative relationship. Libertarian feminists valorize choice, seduced by the idea of a contract. How free is the labour contract? Surrogacy is a tribute to the un-free character of wage labour.
That surrogacy happens in the world’s richest nation is not surprising. Capitalism, patriarchy and race come together there in worship of the dollar.
‘Not an angel, not a whore’ is the plaintive cry of the surrogate. What she is, is a woman whose reproductive labour is exploited at the altar of patriarchy.
- See more at: http://newint.org/sections/argument/2014/11/01/argument-surrogacy-poverty/#sthash.3LQsxMx9.dpuf

Freedom must have limits too, girls should dress decently to not lure boys, says BJP's Karnal candidate Pragati Ratti IBNLive.com | October 10, 2014 08:10 AM

Karnal: Another politician has blamed girls for rapes. Karnal BJP MLA candidate Manohar Lal Khattar has said that girls must be dressed decently and not 'lure' boys.

On a question about Khap panchayats and their rulings, Khattar said that to an extent Khap rulings were justified as they 'tried to abide by the Indian culture'. Khattar, who is also being seen as a possible CM candidate if BJP wins the October 15 Assembly elections in Haryana, said that girls need to be dressed decently so as to 'not attract the opposite sex'.

Speaking to IBNLive, Khattar said, "Khaps maintain the tradition of a girl and boy being brother and sister. They are just making sure that a girl and boy do not see each other in the wrong way. These rulings help prevent rapes too."

He also went on to say pre-marital sex is wrong, calling it 'ulti seedhi cheezein'. "Pre-marital sex is a blot. Sex after marriage is acceptable. Pre-marital sex happens as the minds of the girls and boys are not on the right track," he said.

"If a girl is dressed decently, a boy will not look at her in the wrong way," Khattar added. When interrupted and asked about the freedom of choice to girls and boys, he said, "If you want freedom, why don't they just roam around naked? Freedom has to be limited. These short clothes are western influences. Our country's tradition asks girls to dress decently."

While Khattar holds these views, his own party member, Ambala Cantt BJP MLA Anil Viz disagreed with him. "I personally disagree with him. We can't hold such views in 21st century," said.

BJP's Karnal MP Ashwani Kumar Chopra too said he disagreed with Khattar's views. "At his age, people tend to become slightly orthodox," Chopra commented on Khattar's remark.

The Congress too hit out at him saying, "One needs to change with time. Change is the only constant. Such views are wrong," said Congress Karnal candidate Surender Singh Narwal.

‘Marital and other rapes grossly under-reported’

RUKMINI S
All numbers for 2005, (*100,000 women)

Just 2.3 per cent of rape was by men other than the husba

Husbands commit a majority of acts of sexual violence in India, and just one per cent of marital rapes and six per cent of rapes by men other than husbands are reported to the police, new estimates show.
In keeping with the widely held belief among women’s rights activists in India that sexual violence is grossly under-reported, social scientist Aashish Gupta with the Research Institute for Compassionate Economics compared National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics on officially reported cases of violence against women with data from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), which asked women respondents whether they had faced any sexual or physical violence.
Since the most recent round of the NFHS was conducted in 2005, Mr. Gupta compared the NCRB statistics for that year with the extent of violence that women had admitted to in the NFHS survey.
Mr. Gupta found that while 157 per 1,00,000 women reported to NFHS surveyors that they had experienced rape by men other than their husbands in the past 12 months, 6,590 said their husbands had physically forced them to have sexual intercourse against their will. This meant that just 2.3 per cent of all rapes experienced by women were by men other than their husbands.
For both marital and non-marital rapes, however, the officially reported figures were extremely low, Mr. Gupta said in a working paper he shared with The Hindu. Comparing the NCRB and NFHS data in 2005, just 5.8 per cent of rapes by men other than the woman’s husband were reported to the police, and just 0.6 per cent of rapes by the husband. Since marital rape was not recognised as a crime in India, it was probably reported as “cruelty,” Mr. Gupta found.
While India lacks a “crime victimisation survey,” which in countries such as England has largely replaced police statistics as official crime data, Mr. Gupta’s findings are confirmed by other sources.
The NFHS itself asks women who experienced violence if they reported it to the police; just 0.6 per cent said that they had.
The Delhi-based women’s rights organisation Jagori made similar findings in a sample survey in Delhi in 2011 — just 0.8 per cent of women who had been sexually assaulted, stalked or harassed reported it to the police. “There have been some area-specific studies like ours, but the NFHS is really the only victimisation study that India has,” Kalpana Viswanath, researcher and executive committee member of Jagori, told The Hindu. “Our recommendation has been for the NFHS to expand their questions on violence and look at sexual violence other than rape too,” she said.
Severe physical violence was equally under-reported, Mr. Gupta found. At the State level, Mr. Gupta looked at physical violence and marital rape, since the numbers on rape by men other than the husband were too small at the State level for statistical analysis.
Delhi has the lowest actual incidence of violence against women and highest rates of reporting in the country.
In general, States associated with gender equality — the North-Eastern States, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka — had both lower levels of actual incidence of violence and higher levels of reporting, but no State reached double digits in its extent of reporting.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article6524794.ece

Saturday, 18 October 2014

Stop freaking out about our bodies, Bollywood’s new generation of actresses tell the world

Bollywood, India’s prolific and culturally influential film industry, doesn’t have a stellar reputation for treating its women well. Films with substantial roles for women are few, male stars dominate the industry in terms of clout and compensation, and in far too many popular films, the camera focuses on the female actor’s body in ways that grate on the senses.
There is even a UN-sponsored study that actually quantifies how Bollywood treats its female characters. Indian actresses are more likely to be shown wearing skimpy clothes, or even partially nude, than their counterparts in other film industries.
For long, the norm for a mainstream Bollywood actress was to be silently part of the system or risk being seen as ‘inconvenient’ if she speaks out about issues related to gender and objectification while playing glamorous roles on celluloid.

This is now changing, with a new generation of women stars speaking out against objectification. They are also prompting a discussion about the disparity in pay between men and women actors. Their vast social media following is helping amplify these messages.
Along with the new and happy trend of Bollywood stars laughing at themselves—such as Shahrukh Khan and Alia Bhatt—this appears to be a more significant shift that will hopefully make Bollywood a more women-friendly place for coming generations of actors.
Listen, guys

Sonakshi Sinha, who made her debut in 2010 with Dabangg, one of the highest grossing Bollywood films of all times, recently posted a picture of a skeleton on her Instagram account, with the following text:
To all those who keep commenting on my weight, whether its a full picture, or a close up where you cant see jack. Take a good look at this picture. Now get this: 1) this ain’t ever gonna be me. 2) get over it. 3) i wish u could see which finger i hold up for shallow and idiotic people like yourself.

Sinha, whose father is a former actor and now a politician, has often been criticized by the media for not being as thin as other famous Bollywood stars; she was even called a “fat cow” on her birthday.
Last month, actress Deepika Padukone got into a fierce fight with Times of India newspaper after they tweeted a video with the comment, “OMG! Deepika Padukone’s cleavage show!”
This was Padukone’s response:

The Times of India then tweeted back: “It’s a compliment! You look so great that we want to make sure everyone knew! :).” Padukone’s stand against India’s leading newspaper was supported by Bollywood directors and actors—and apparently even the newspaper’s own journalists.
Earlier in the year, another young actor, Parineeti Chopra, argued with a male journalist who was clueless about menstrual cycles. Periods are still a taboo subject in India, and hardly ever spoken about publicly, let alone at a press conference.
The journalist, while interviewing Chopra at an event organised by a sanitary napkin brand, referred to menstrual cycle as “a problem.” Chopra responded: “I have come here to beat up people like these… men really need to understand what periods are and understand it is not a problem. They are very healthy and natural.”

Chopra has also tweeted her support for both Padukone and Sinha, for protesting against the regressive depiction of women in media.
But, the fight against the standards of impossible beauty that Bollywood imposes on its leading ladies is not going to be easy. Even when actresses are given an opportunities to portray unglamorous, yet powerful female characters, they often face the ire of other directors.
Priyanka Chopra, one of the most successful Bollywood stars, recently played Olympic bronze medallist Mary Kom in a big-budget film. She said she bulked up for the role and was “yelled” at by the producer (Sanjay Leela Bhansali) of the same movie for “looking like a man.”
http://qz.com/282702/stop-freaking-out-about-our-bodies-bollywoods-new-generation-of-actresses-tell-the-world/

Seven charts show how Bollywood depicts women

An international study finds that women in Indian movies are made to emphasise their sex appeal, but are unlikely to have professions.

Sep 26, 2014 · 12:00 am


Photo Credit: AFP

Much has been made of the objectification of women in Indian cinema but here’s a study that actually quantifies how Bollywood treats its female characters. An analysis by the Geena Davis Institute on Women in Media finds that at least a third of the women characters in films released in between the beginning of 2010 and the first half of 2013 were some sort of scantily dressed.

The study analyses popular films from the ten countries with the most profitable motion picture markets and the role of women in them. For most part, women are far less represented than men in front and behind the camera. In almost all film industries a large number of women are used for supportive, decorative and sexualised roles and universally, women in films cannot escape the emphasis on their looks.

India lags far behind other countries in simply the number of women characters in films. The study finds that less than a quarter of all speaking or named characters were women and none had lead roles.





In India, far more than in other countries, women have to be attractive or be made attractive to be on the screen. The study defined attractiveness as “verbal/non-verbal utterances that communicated the physical desirousness of another character”. India was also above the average in terms of the percentage of female characters that were shown wearing something skimpy or with some nudity. Other countries with movies that emphasised sexiness are Australia and Germany.

What Indians don’t care too much for is having thin women on screen. Only 18% of female Indian film characters were thin as opposed to the average 38% in other film industries.









What’s perhaps most reflective of the supporting roles that women play in most Indian movies are their professions ‒ or rather lack of them. The study analysed how many female characters held jobs in technical fields like science and engineering. Indian films don’t score well, at a meager 8%.

http://scroll.in/article/680846/Seven-charts-show-how-Bollywood-depicts-women