OK, on to type 2 – the mom-feeding-spoilt-GROWN-UP-son-with-own-hands category. So here we have a (presumably) adult man abroad, pining for mom’s cooking and also (sob) mom’s love and tender loving care. Oh, how do I know ? Because the guy is shown day-dreaming about what else – Mom feeding him – and I mean actually putting little pieces of food into the baboon’s mouth. As we say in darling Hindi – “Maa ki mamta” and all that. Oh, get the tissues, girls ! Ah, the solution , ready made, pre-packaged food (I forget what the ad is for now – parathas or sabzi). Much to my surprise, the baboon does indeed have 2 hands – none missing, so there goes my alternative explanation for the feeding-and-being-fed-frenzy. So, he pops the food into the microwave, and there, baby, no more missing those evenings when mom fed you.
Hmm, how come Mom isn’t feeding any of her daughters ? She doesn’t have any ? Oh, come on – joke right ? Yeah, unless of course you happen to live in the Northern Indian States.
On to the 3rd category, the guy-using-limbs-to-do-useful-work category. And here, we have mom seated at table, eating rotis made by (gasp) her son, (gasp) a man !! And we do have great visuals of son rolling out round (?) rotis, accompanied by an age-appropriate song – the words “Munna” (baby) appear in the refrain – pretty similar to a desi lullaby. Now, this is an ad for “atta” (flour) in the United States, i.e.; the availability of “desi” atta and hence delicious rotis right here in Uncle Sam’s land. Besides the fact that this is the only desi ad. I’ve seen where normal men are actually shown in the kitchen doing useful work, we now have proof that men can indeed roll rotis. The shape of the rotis is still questionable.
Now, review these ads. Hidden message in here, isn’t there ?
If there is a hidden message there, then is there a hidden message in HDFC standard life ads – where the person who has to study in US is a female? Why not show a male there?
and what about the indica v2 xeta ad which openly glorifies male harassment?
Anonymous,
The HDFC ad – do you mean the one with Sachin Khedekar in it , where the girl has admission is a US college and they think of borrowing money from the rich uncle ? Are you talking about reverse discrimination here – ie; why didn’t they pick a boy student instead of a girl ? If yes, I don’t agree. Showing a girl here is positive reinforcement, check out the girl vs. boy school-going percentages in India – more boys get an education than girls. Also this is my personal experience, but of all the desis I know in the US from back home, the majority are guys, much fewer girls came here – some got married, some pursued education in India, and some’s parents’ plain wouldn’t let them come.
The 2nd ad, the Indica Xeta where 4 girls in a Xeta are shown serenading a lone guy – yes that I consider harrassment. However am not as vociferous or upset about it as anti-women ads, because honestly have you EVER seen women in public sexually harrasing men ? Ever seen a woman sing lewd songs to a man, or grope a man in a bus ? That Xeta ad to the public, is obviously fictional.
The real damage comes when you re-inforce negative stereotypes – the “boys must be boys” idea. When you say that IT IS OK TO CHASE SKIRTS NOW (boys will be boys), because you might have to wash them later (SO UNCOOL for a man to wash a skirt /do domestic chores ?). The idea that men cooking is something for which they must be applauded, while women ARE expected to work with equal efficiency BOTH at home and at work (and no applause my dear). And that women MUST depend upon men for their existence. Those are dangerous ideas, and do great disservice to a nation (broadcast on TV for the whole wide world to see) where women as it is are repressed and not aware or too afraid to claim their rights.
Besides, considering the fact that most of the ppl going to US to study are boys, the HDFC standard life ad should have had a guy to show the true picture.
Just because we haven’t seen males being harassed, it does not mean that male harassment in ads is fine – this tolerance will lead to it in the future. Besides, if you haven’t seen males being harassed by females, then it does not mean that it does not happen. Most of the high profile rape cases are false meant only to harass males(including the Abhishek Kasliwal one) and so are most of the cases of dowry harassment filed. And there are tons of cases of women publicly harassing men during ragging that happens in colleges. And it is a fact that women are not expected to work as much as men in office – the slightest excuse is enough for a woman to leave the work and go home while in the case of men, no excuse is acceptable. If women are not to depend upon men, then they should set the example by not demanding alimony in the case of a divorce and if they have the guts, to marry a guy who earns less than them. And todays women are so liberated that they are not only out to claim their rights, but also out to suppress the rights of others(namely men)by demanding that a case filed by a woman should be accepted without any proof, and any offence against women should be non bailable while denying men the same facility.
Today women want so much rights that they dont want to face the consequences of their actions and want the right to abort a kid which they have out of an indiscreet act, or keep the kid if they want and get the money out of the father. Women like Girija Vyas are so unprincipled that they want legal protection for live in relationships also exclusively for women.
The reason why women dont make the crime stats is because crime by women is deliberately ignored. I have seen many schoolgirls travel without ticket on trains and nothing happens to them because the TTE’s are males and dont want to touch them – but I have seen guys get dragged out and beaten. That attitude of going soft on women which results in women not making the crime stats whether it is drugs or drunken driving.
Anonymous,
It looks like the world you stay in looks a lot different than mine. In mine I see the suppression of women a great deal and little (if any) harrasment of the male by a female. I do not disbelieve you, however can’t agree with skewed statements like :
“they dont want to face the consequences of their actions and want the right to abort a kid which they have out of an indiscreet act, or keep the kid if they want and get the money out of the father”
Please note that the “indiscreet act” in question takes 2 to accomplish. I do believe that harrassment of either sex is NOT OK. I also believe that Indian society in it’s current state is not in any danger of encouraging male harassment.
I may not agree with everything the NCW does, but Ms. Vyas I believe, has the good of women at heart. Please feel free to comment to this, but do leave your name, and specify if you are a member of the “Save Indian Family” or a related site.
I dont think Vyas has the good of women at heart – she is more interested in rakhi sawant than anything else.
An indiscreet act takes two to accomplish, so both should be responsible and not just the male which the current females want.
I am not a member of SIF – which is anyday better than the NCW, SC/ST commission and the Minorities commission – just a sensible bachelor who understands the implications of todays stupid laws and has chosen to act accordingly. And besides, I dont believe in family anyway – everything runs on market principles today – which is why women dont care about filing false harassment charges and false rape charges – since their loss is minimal – how many women have been convicted for making false charges anyway?
And to give you an example of male suppression – which women have actually enforced, the nursing body states that 90% of nursing seats should actually be reserved for women – would women actually tolerate anything like that – say 90% of mechanic seats(ITI) should be reserved for men?
And one more example of a woman who does not want to face the consequences of her actions – khushboo – after making the remarks she made, I dont think she has any right to sue maxim for spoofing her. She should be sensible enough to understand that her actions obviously make her a target – if she was too stupid to understand that, then it is her problem.
You may not believe that Indian society in its current state is in any danger of male harassment – change that to large scale male harassment. The harassment is already happening in a small scale and if unchecked the way you propose, it will only result in the small scale becoming large scale.
And please comment on the fact that women still want to marry males who earn more than them – if they dont want to be dependent, then why do they still want to marry higher earning guys? A generation ago, fine , no education and no jobs, but now that women have them, what is the problem? They want just opportunity wihout responsibility.