'Padmaavat is pure misogyny dressed up in diamonds and drama' Barkha D

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

1042617

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#51

glad i did not skip this topic 😆

Quote

angrybread

@angrybread

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#52

Originally posted by: ZanduBaaM

😆

Lol Zandu ji facial features resemblance and calling a woman's looks as manly is 2 diff things 😛

I would say in that sense govinda looks more feminine in the photo 😛😆

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

707793

Suspended

Posted: 7 years ago

#53

Originally posted by: angrybread

Lol Zandu ji facial features resemblance and calling a woman's looks as manly is 2 diff things 😛

I would say in that sense govinda looks more feminine in the photo 😛😆

Kaan kaise bhi pakdo pakdna to kaan hi hai na ...🤣

Quote

Sri D

@SriRani

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#54

In Telugu we call sati as sati sahagamanam which means loyal and obedient wife(sati) burns( gamanam) along wit(Saha)h husband. I read it during school,days...in ancient times some wives treated husbands equivalent to god and couldn't take their death and hence decided die with them. So they set a standard for all wives ...and some women to prove their loyalty started doing it and later it beacame forceful . It is all good as long as people don't try to rub those ideas on today's women by watching these movies.

But in this movie it looked more like padmavati hitting Khilji ego who killed her beloved husband to attain her. Husband gave his life protecting her and she justified husbands death by not letting Khilji win. So I kinda liked her bravery and her fight till her last breath.

Edited by Sri-R - 7 years ago

Quote

807116

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#55

Originally posted by: Flame.

Jauhar and Sati ARE different. During Sati, after the death of the husband a woman kicking, screaming, begging was thrown into the fire, even if her husband had died of a heart attack or just by taking a fall. It just didn't matter as she just had to die with him - that was the sick mentality.

During Jauhar, these women jumped into the fire to escape sex slavery. Fire was chosen as the mode to die (the most painful) because it completely destroyed their bodies, leaving behind only ash. Thus, avoiding necrophilia (Yes, it actually used to happen).

Even Sati practice was a voluntary act. May be sometimes, greedy relatives (viewing property) etc may have pushed the women to take that route. (Thereby, making it involuntary). Efforts of reformersin 18th century, stopped these involuntary acts.

But mythological and historically, we have seen many women, choosing not to die. Society had not forced them.

In Mahabharata, Madri preferred to die after Pandu died. But Kunti lived to raise her children as well as Madri's. Rani Lakshmibai did not go for Sati. Shivaji's mother did not go for Sati. When he died, one of his wife committed Sati. Other two didn't.

Jauhar is a mass suicide. Sati is an individual one. But both were voluntary acts, not compulsory. My explanation, is not a justification for any of these acts.

I ignore the intellectual Barkha's rants.

Quote

Flame.

@Flame.

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#56

Originally posted by: here4reviews

Sati and Jauhar are related and stream from the same social conditioning- to remain pious and chaste after the husband's death. What you are saying about women being thrown into fire forcefully is just a part of the whole custom and not the complete truth. We have been accustomed to Sati as an 'involuntary' practice due to our primary school history text books and popular culture. There have been enough research papers, debates and studies by historians that who that Sati was as much a voluntary practice by some as it was involuntary to someone else.When popular regressive traditions become a regular activity, involuntary participation doesn't become a choice,it becomes a habit.

Sati by practice was rampant in the north western part of India because of the folklore surrounding Rani Padmini's jauhar which was believed to be the supreme sacrifice by women to protect and safeguard their honour and chastity and be devoted to one man only, the very reason why women decided/were made to jump on their husband's pyre-so that they stay chaste. It didn't always had to be forced. It was also voluntary because of the social conditioning women went through back then where they were fed stories of heroes like Rani Padmini and how self immolation was the most superior form of sacrifice and devotion to the husband. Many women also committed sati voluntarily, especially in the Bengal region to escape the torture they would face by the community after being a widow in the form of shaving their hair,wearing white clothes, having boiled vegetables for food only once a day, having their property and jewellery seized and being excluded from every celebration. Even Akbar could not stop Sati despite many efforts because even the widows were willing to die with their dead husbands.

Like I said, Sati streams out from the practice of Jauhar.Both had the same thought- wives die with their husbands by either jumping into the pyre or self immolating oneself. Sex slavery was ONE of the reasons but not the only one because the whole issue of sex slavery wasn't just a problem back then but existed even after the Islamic invasion in different forms and it exists today as well like the state of the widows of Vidharba region who are being forced into sex trade and prostitution after the death of the farmers. Jauhar and Sati were clearly a way to equate a woman's existence with that of her husband's and that there was no purpose to life after the man of the house dies.

Now again coming back to the depiction of Jauhar in the movie, if it was a voluntary act of sacrifice,why was the child bride shown to be jumping into fire along with the other women? Was that a voluntary act as well? How can a child decide voluntarily whether she wants to live or self immolate herself? And also the very fact that Rani Padmini herself had to ask for PERMISSION for the Jauhar from Raja Ratan Sen moots any point of 'choice' here.Similarly what Deepika says here was what the ritual of Sati pratha was based on- give your life with your dying husband to be united with him and only belong to him,forever.

And anyways,the very person on whose name the term Sati comes from,self immolated herself voluntarily and by choice, not forcefully. And even now, there are places where Rani Padmini is worshipped,seen and portrayed as Sati Padmini.

Also, there's this fantastic post on whether Sati was really involuntary back then that's supplemented with excerpts from research materials. Quite a fascinating read.

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/21235/how-voluntary-was-sati-during-the-mughal-era

I wont dispute that Sati for some was a voluntary act. There are incidents where the women have willingly done it be it due to the mentality of no life after the husband's death because the society says so, or because they really loved their husband and genuinely felt it.

Now on Jauhar - The rajputs didnt face defeat only at the hands of the Mughals. Instead there were defeated decisively by the Marathas where the rajput men and kings did lose their lives, but there was no jauhar committed by the women. The Rajputs were also defeated by their own, one Rajput kingdom versus another, and again there was no jauhar committed. All the documented Jauhars happened during a Mughal invasion. Even the Jauhar that took place in Bundelkhand happened during a mughal conquest.

According to some Islamic teachings, it is permissable for an invader to take women of the invaded as sex slaves. It was a practise that was religiously followed by the Mughals of india. Mind you, its the same practise that was followed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria citing the same teachings. In fact they even had pamphlets distributed that explained the do's and dont's of sex slavery -the number of times she can be passed on To another soldier of ISIS, and so on.

If the thought process behind jauhar was the same as Sati, why would these women not commit suicide during an invasion by tje Marathas or the Rajputs? Why did they decide to live their life and also spare their daughters when it was the Marathas and the Rajputs? And those little daughters that were made to commit this act had no husbands. Thus, proving it had nothing to do with just the husvand dying.

The mentality may have been of being chaste and pure and placing honour upon their bodies, and it may have been due to the years and years of teachings and conditioning, but if they truly believed in it, who are we to judge them? Who are we to question a woman's belief when there's an army of barbarians standing outside to have her body? She may have chosen it due to her belief, or conditioning but she did choose it.

Yes, I agree, the little girl shown in the film had no say in this matter. Pretty sure she wasnt asked by her mother whether she wanted to live the life of a sex slave that the other princess did who was shown earlier in the film, or she wanted to escape the torture and die. But, put yourself in her mother's shoes. There were a lot of parents who had poisoned their daughters during parition withouth asking for their permission. They didn't do it because they liked to see their young daighters dying, and they certainly weren't thinking about feminism and the right to life. in that tense moment, they were only thinking about the safety of their daughters. They were only thinking aboit what would happen to her at the hands of a rapist, and did ehat they felt was the right thing. Sitting in our conforting homes, what gives us the right to judge those actions that were committed only out of love and concern?

And Deepika asking permission from her husband? No idea whatsoever. Ask Bhansali what he was trying to portray there.

And I guess if there ever is a moment in my life, where I end up meeting a Yezidi whose friend burned or hanged herself to escape rape and slavery, I should question her, disect her painful experiences to find a reason to question her friend's discision.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#57

How does comparing or making fun of faces create a credible argument?

Quote

Zeal17

@Zeal17

Stunner

+ 10

Posted: 7 years ago

#58

Barkha is KRK of Newstainment industry

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#59

I saw the movie Padmaavat keeping the historical context in mind. Most of the film is not misogynistic at all. In fact, it does keep Padmavati opinionated and lets her make decisions. Towards the end of the film though everything unravels.

Padmavati who has been decisive her whole life apparently cannot live or die without the permission of her husband. So she seeks permission for Jauhar. Then the entire Jauhar sequence is glorified. It is portrayed as the greatest, bravest, and most honorable decision. Jauhar is placed on a pedestal as Khilji's greatest defeat.

While Jauhar was a fact of life during the era, a modern filmmaker needs to be more careful. Secondly, even though Jauhar was deemed "voluntary", social conditioning made it less voluntary.

Here is the deal - there is no shame in being a prisoner of war or sex slave. Being raped or abused does not strip a human being of their basic dignity or humanity. There is nothing wrong with the desire to live. One can surrender with the hope to live another day.

However, society instills shame on being a rape victim. It makes it seem that victims have lost their dignity, honor, and humanity. It paints that death is preferable to being a sex slave. It looks down on such victims and does not allow them to assimilate back into society ever.

So when faced with the prospect of being taken as a sex slave - women had no choice but to commit Jauhar. It was a social shame to survive. They would never again be respected or accepted. Jauhar was the only choice that let them keep their humanity.

That is not the message we want to portray in today's era. We want victims to know their life is precious. Victims will continue to commit suicide because the trauma of abuse can be overwhelming. But we need to let them know that there is no shame in submission or survival. That they are whole and will be embraced by society.

Two other sidebars

Raping and pillaging was not something done *only by Islamic invaders. It is a war tactic of demoralizing the enemy and encouraging troops practiced since time eternity. Alexander's army did it. Many Hindu kingdoms did it. American troops did it in Vietnam and even Afghanistan.

----------

It was not always rape and torture. Many harems were actually well cared for. It was possible for slaves, including sex slaves to gain favors and live a more comfortable life.

Mamluk literally means property and were usually slaves converted to Islam. Both in Egypt and Delhi, Mamluks gained favor from Emperors and were gifted their own kingdoms. Malik Kafur himself was a child slave who rose to the rank of general and personal favorite.

It is also disputed that Mastani's mother was not a queen but a slave in the King's harem.

So there was a decent reason to cling to hope and survive. But our societal perception of sex and how it taints women makes that less desirable.

*edited to add the word "only" to clarify my statement

Edited by return_to_hades - 7 years ago