Originally posted by: lostmymusic.
If the laws of Feminism say, "Her body, her rights" how does a girl who chooses to worship the ground her husband walks on become a doormat? Specially when she isn't forcing the husband to accept her devotion and just doing her own thing on her own.
I am a Staunch Feminist 😃 and I believe in a person's right to choose for themselves. My problem doesn't stem from the fact that Gauri chooses to worship Om because he is her savior. to me her character makes sense and does not offend my feminist ideals. It is her prerogative to choose to live out this relationship as she sees fit. What offends my sensibilities, is the fact that her "love" will be used by the writers to justify her being humiliated and subjected to countless stupid encounters with the in laws and Om himself.
Fighting with Gauri and telling her that everything that comes in Om's path will be run over makes sense, randomly throwing money at her doesnt...the former highlights the conflict and difference of interest. The later is just there to turn Om into a regular Gul Male lead (lazy writing in my opinion)
If you take that instant out of the scene, it still makes sense...without showing us that it is acceptable for men to do this to women they deem unnecessary to their interests.
Similarly, only judging Gauri from an overheard conversation, with a married man does not make sense. This instant required Om to Judge Kali T equally, since that man was stepping out of his marriage. Judging her to be the homewrecker, witnessing her behavior at Kali T's house makes sense...because to the outsider Om, Gauri does equal Svetlana. The former normalizes the fact that woman will be judged harshly for having relationships with married man, but the same married man will not be held accountable for their actions. The latter on the otherhand, shows Om's Valid hatred for Gauri.
Another Instant was pushing/shoving Gauri to ground after the wedding. Forcefully and Vehemently telling her that Om just used parts of marriage rituals as a ruse to protect her makes sense. Its not valid or real makes sense. Telling her he hates her and doesnt want to see her face makes sense. But Shrugging her off so forcefully, that she falls to the ground does not make sense. Telling her to get lost, when she is on the Ground does not make sense. The former adds to the story and the conflict. The latter is just tacked on to show us "oh woe is Gauri" or "Om is heartless" it does not add anything to the story. instead it normalizes this brutal behavior, telling us that men will be men. Expect your beast to be heartless and cruel but you must be nice and kind to turn him into a prince. Why is it a woman's responsibility to turn a beast into a man? cant men be expected to behave like decent human beings for once rather than using their dark pasts to justify unwarranted abuse of women?
Yes, certain parts of the writing offends my feminist ideals. It offends me to see Gauri adorn her head with the dust from the foot of a man who judged her so harshly and left her twice in the pit of vipers to die...not becuase it doesnt make sense in the story, but because it normalizes the fact that Man can be as unfeeling and uncaring as they like, but in the end if they do one good thing, their bad deeds are washed away. The Normalization of no accountability offends me...
As for Gauri turning into a doormat...the jury is still out on it...so I will wait and watch.
Just my point of view, not meant to hurt anyone...its all in the name of debate 😉
Farak Always,
Meera
Edited by devilsadvocate - 8 years ago
Hindi TV Shows
