Penned: Jahnvi in the stocks! - Page 4

Originally posted by: criticaleyes

I don't know in what context, which names were called and by whom. But, certainly as listed by you (out of context), the referred to name-calling of Jahnavi sounds abominable.

Regarding what is realistic and what is not, the whole serial is unrealistic. But, at the outset, the most unrealistic part of Jahnavi's journey is her landing up at lavish homes, always with lots of nice clothes to wear AND so many nice people who love her and respect her. I wish this happened in reality.

The other aspects I won't get into as we'd waste time arguing at cross purposes.

Originally posted by: BizzyLizzy

To Prime and Criticaleyes...I appreciate your replies, they give another PoV to this thread as do Butterfly's and Aya's. What I write will be aimed at the responses of the former...

Firstly, what really is realistic? Do any of us here, whether we have experienced any of what Jhanvi has gone through or not, have the right to decide what can happen in real life and what doesn't? Real life is no quick and simple list of things that will simply occur from day to day -- it's way more complex than that. Real life is a different ball game for different people.

Some say Jhanvi going back to Viraaj is unrealistic...but Stockholm Syndrome exists. Some say Jhanvi changing her name is unrealistic, Mr. Awasti being a lech is unrealistic (though I myself have heard of cases where kids have been sexually abused by their parents, rescued by social workers/authorities and placed in foster homes, only to find themselves raped there as well...will you call that unrealistic too?), Jhanvi staying in the ashram or taking up a job in the Singh house is unrealistic, Raghav being friends with Jhanvi and falling for her is unrealistic (though of course, may I add that branding this an extramarital affair isn't?). What I don't understand is how it's possible to assume that it can never happen. Storywise, you might not exactly like the idea or it may have been done in a serial or two prior, but that doesn't make it 'unrealistic', and I believe we don't exactly have the right to say that, when the same 'unrealism' allegation has never been passed on Viraaj. Acknowledged silently, maybe, but never ever used against him.

Viraaj spending money like water on getting people in trouble, despite his own admission in a Double V scene that he'd lost his company -- unrealistic, but hardly ever brought up.

People simply paving the way for him, even in Gurgaon, and joining him at the drop of a hat -- unrealistic, also hardly brought up. You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time! 😆

Viraaj being able to do - and enjoy - some of the more 'dirty' things he does (his whole obsession with cockroaches), despite the OCPD which would in real life make him want to wash his finger a hundred times possibly -- also unrealistic, but never brought up.

Viraaj getting away with his misdeeds EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. SINCE. CHILDHOOD -- not very realistic either...maybe realism is expected only out of Jhanvi, then? 😊

Granted, even if by your standards, Jhanvi's portrayal and the portrayal of her fight is unreal -- does it still make the names she's been called, and blame that's been dumped on her even before she met Raghav at all...right? Because we can't deny that she's been judged for her actions ever since she stopped trusting Viraaj and ran out of the house...ie. immediately after she left him. For instance, should a mere friendship she has with someone who happens to be a man, be called an extramarital affair even prior to either of them offering the possibility of a relationship or accepting it? Is that fair?

Originally posted by: Elysia

Please refrain from basher/provocative behavior. Before you comment, keep in mind that victims might read your comment. Thank you.

>><<

For quite a while, I've been noticing the kind of comments made on Jahnvi. Not just in this forum, but outside it as well.

The comments disturbed me because, upon research, this kind of perception/mentality in relation to a victim of DV/rape is considered victim blaming. It's a behavior defined as the observer blaming the vicim rather than the abuser. It is an attitude that only reinforces the very thing that the abuser always tells the victim: that it's her fault, that she's to blame for whatever happened/is happening to her. In fact, by sharing this attitude, society supports and permits the abuser to commit violence against his victim and avoid any responsibility for his actions.

But we all know that abusers have a choice and if they commit a crime such as abuse, it's their choice that leads to this act. It's how they choose to respond to their partner's actions, comments, whatsoever. Because there are alternative ways to deal -- aside from abuse. One option would be walking away.

Examples of victim blaming in Jahnvi's case:

"Jahnvi doesn't deserve V."

"She ran away instead of fighting him."

"Jahnvi should've tried to treat him."

"Why the hell did she stay in the first place?"

She has been called names, of course. She's been called a "#itch", "sneaky, slimy", and a "compulsive liar". She has also been called "worthless" and "w#ore". There are some who believe that she is "devious" and her thinking is considered "twisted", "self-seeking".

It's interesting how no one blames V for abusing Geeta, Jahnvi, Priya, and even the maid. No, the victims are blamed. "Why didn't they fight him?" or "Why did Priya fool him?" The victim is blamed and held responsible for running away -- even if staying back destroys her. The victim is called a "gold-digger" for a marriage that she agreed to only because it was something that her parents thought to be a good match.

The victim is called an adulteress for allowing a friendship to a man who happens to like her and who she happens to look up to. The same victim is now being called slimy and a cheat for using less-than-squeaky-clean methods to get rid of her abuser. And the same victim is required to fight her abuser alone -- even though the abuser has unfair advantages and has found her before she's been able to let go of her past.

How is it that she can only be a "good" character if she fights alone and uses the cleanest of all methods in order to rid of him? And if her methods are underhanded because of the demands of the situation, then her character is called into question?

Why should she have to adhere to such high moral standards?

Either way, she's in danger and her mental state is barely ever paid attention to when she is critisized. The fact that she hasn't even healed, that she suffers nightmares and panic attacks frequently, and V returns before her healing has even begun, is never taken into account. Instead, she's the one put in the stocks.

When she does become self-serving, looking out for her own safety first, the fact that she hasn't even gotten out of her PTSD yet isn't even taken into account, nor is the fact that she takes help because her own experiences have reinforced her own sense of low self-worth.

Victim blaming is a serious issue and it's a dangerous thing. If victims know that they will be blamed, they will not feel safe speaking up about their abuse and there'll be much less of a chance that they'll seek support.

Originally posted by: BizzyLizzy

Hmm...if you can state that carriers of diseases such as salmonella and staphylococcus aren't dirty...then I'm not quite sure what to say! Not subjective here.

Originally posted by: BizzyLizzy

I'll begin with this. Of course it isn't 😆 However, you have to admit that given the circumstances she's always been in, expectations from Jhanvi have always been ridiculously high. If she should fight, she should fight alone, she should not come up with these hairbrained schemes, she should be consistently honest, she should not play games even if her opponent was happily cheating every step of the way. IMO what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as well.

I don't believe a women like Jhanvi can fight alone. We need support & help in situations like this, but I don't believe in "punishing" the abuser. If you want to get rid of him, just send him to jail rather than playing games from here & there. Just because someone is cheating every step of the way, it doesn't mean you should do it like them too. What's wrong in being honest ? You can't tell a lie every single time just because you think you are right & innocent. Like I said, this isn't Manali ! Viraj does not OWN Gurgaon ! You can put him behind bars in a snap.

Because the psychological state you go through in a situation like that isn't cut-and-dried. It's easy, from an observer's PoV, to see leaving the relationship as the only option, which indeed it is. The victim's perspective is, however, a complex and often mangled thing, and the reasons for returning or staying back could be numerous - their children, the feeling that maybe they were at fault, the hope that maybe, maybe this time he would have changed. Logically those are easy to pooh-pooh on. But being in a situation of that gravity, where you are likely stripped of your sense of agency, your self-esteem, probably even your sense of entitlement to your own body, things might start to seem very, very different. Subjective.

Every victim has their own story to why they went back. Some for this, some for that. So, I'm not going to comment further.

If I were Gayathri, I'm not exactly sure I would agree 😆 Wasn't Tanisha introduced as a person who stayed in a hostel and Komal as a doctor who actually went to her workplace? At that point in time, I'd likely say that the script required that Komal was working and Tanisha had college stuff to think about, and there was no way in hell Gayathri would let Raghav handle Krish. Of course once Jhanvi started making herself at home so did everyone else 😆 Also likely could be the fact that Krish hadn't responded to anyone in a long time the way he responded to Sia (except for Raghav...who was, of course, out of the question entirely). Again, subjective.

What about the maid ? It prolly looks real to you, but not to me. This is why I love Indian shows ! 😉

I feel the serial had handled the question of 'why Raghav?' pretty well. She begins by distrusting him entirely and equating him with Viraaj, and doesn't fully possess that trust until probably the end of the ashram track. Even then they're not very close. Until she opens up to him, you actually see her being very guarded around him. Too early? Maybe, maybe not. But she definitely didn't get to that stage of friendship very easily. Subjective again.

& how many did that take ? Days ? For victims, becoming friends or opening up to a guy just after days, or even a month, is a bit too early. It's called a complex which victims have.

Never shown. We're just meant to believe that his money drops from the skies. Politics and business are a cyclical thing - one feeds on the other. To suppose whether that is real or not...subjective.

Well, you don't expect Obama or the Government or even Congress to show you everything they do, right ? Everything is done behind closed doors.

An armed policeman scared of a sword? This I'll have to see...again, subjective.

What about when Raghav was beating up those cops ? They were armed too.

Hmm...if you can state that carriers of diseases such as salmonella and staphylococcus aren't dirty...then I'm not quite sure what to say! Not subjective here.

I was being sarcastic ! 😆

Agreed. Some do, some don't. Subjective too, to a degree.

What goes around comes around.

And we've never stated that you have. But there have been instances of victim-blaming, and it's not just a stray one or two.

There's nothing you can do about it. You can't change the way people think about someone/something.

Edited by Aya. - 13 years ago

Originally posted by: Aya.

There's nothing you can do about it. You can't change the way people think about someone/something.