Caution: Apologies for the non-brevity of my thoughts regarding the scathing article related to cultural stereotypes of Bihari families.
First of all, there are two clear aspects and angles to the article. I will address each one separately.
1. Cultural and Regional stereotypes:
First of all, bringing a cultural rhetoric and discourse to understand criminal minds and mindsets is a way to create a reality check for the society.
Certain examples:
1. Dowry deaths: Cultural norm of patriarchy.
2. Rapes: The existing patriarchy that blames women Etc.etc.
So, is it important to create such discourses? Of course yes!
But, is it relevant to the stereotypes created in this absolutely non-sensical article? Definitely NO!!!!
Why is the article problematic?
It uses a cultural discourse which is NON-RELEVANT to the case. A class divide exists in the BIG cities and small cities, agreed. There’s also a scathing patriarchy and women shaming that exists in the society. Bihar or otherwise, it exists but how is it relevant to the allegations of a FINANCIAL fraud that was done to perhaps someone who was not in a proper state of mind?
2. Big City Girlfriend & Feminism:
Let’s consider an opposite scenario. If it was a big city boyfriend and a small town girl? Will that stand relevant or would we be even supporting the ‘BIG-CITY Boyfriend’
Hypocrisy much?
We have such pre-conceived notions in our heads about big city small city. But, sorry, HYPOCRITES are HYPOCRITES! Big city, small city, girl, boy doesn’t matter.....
3. The Shravan Kumar- Viewing a common norm in a different era, discoursing about it today with an era inappropriate lens is hypocritical. In ancient times, men were considered to be care-takers of the family and women the givers. It was a norm centuries ago given the strong sense of men having to take care of their parents.
So, the term Shravan Kumar was used for a man who could serve his parents and their old age.
So, coming back to this era, ‘Burden of Shravan Kumar’
What was exactly his BURDEN? No one was financially dependant on him. He lived with various women without any societal burden. He was INDEPENDENT! So, if he was close to his family despite being independent, how does it make him burdened Shravan Kumar?
Conclusion: So, it’s currently fancy to dis people and some cultural issues in the garb of feminism!
Do we need to change the way families think in India? YES!
Do we have toxic families around us? YES!
But, does that mean whatever is happening with SSR and his family is a result of the ‘witch Bangalan vs Bihari’ issue? NO, A BIG NO!!!!!
The writer of the article seems to have misplaced a cultural perspective with a CRIME CASE! The discourse which she wants to have is INDEPENDENT of SSR’s family. At any other time, it could have made sense without the stereotypes! In the current perspective, it’s neither relevant nor does it make sense.
Edited by Transference - 5 years ago
1