Posted:
1. If women such as Nandini and Navya suddenly have to change their appearance to make a point; then that point is made in terms of a vocabulary and understanding that is male.
Not only does it flatten the multiple discourses that lead to violence (both physical and ideological) against women; it also dismisses the realm of 'romantic' relationships and issues like consent and reduces them to a matter of clothing, which can be taken off and put on at any point.
2. The 'campaign' was restricted to a bar, and came out of 'revenge' for one's friend. Not only was there a conflation of 'we'll teach them a lesson' and 'it's my choice'; it also completely dismissed the point that: IT WAS MUKTI's CHOICE. SHE CHOSE to do what she did. ONLY when she lost control did this became a broader 'movement'.
3. There was NO sensitivity about the terms that were thrown around: HOT? CHICKS?
Commodifying women is not helping ANYTHING even IF said women are called those things as endearment or are consenting to it. THAT makes it a matter of individual choice and shows hypocrisy on multiple levels, one of which is again: If you legitimate the use of certain terms and items of clothing, then you cannot suddenly make pass off your insults as a transnational feminist movement, which has a certain context, which yours CLEARLY WASN'T.
4. I won't even GET into the publicity gimmick of this.
Anupamaa
