Undermining woman empowerment through anupama - Page 2

Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika

Sorry, but I would really like to differ on the point of the condition of the society here.

Firstly, agree with the blantant and unapologetic misrepresentation of sensitive issues like re-marriage, Adoption, Legal process of victims of heinous crimes among many others.

About society at large, globally, we are a patriarchal society.

About representation of women, condition of women in society, the sheer population of Indians, a general perception due to travellers, invasions the nation has endured over centuries have been a contribution to how India's image appears even after centuries.

Even USA were invaded and had civil wars and fought for independence first from britain and than from each other states also (war of independence) to make one single country out of many states (just like india had princely states)

Also original inhabitants of USA were red indians not white Americans at all. They went from europe killed most red indians and occupied USA

Also USA had population of 17 crores(now its 30 crores) in 1950 while india had was 36 crores (145 crores)

he situation of women in USA in 18th century was as pathetic as india only with no rights no freedom no jobs etc. they were ruled by their husband and had recognition only as wife of X or y> only after 1930s women in UA started going out for jobs. Its wrong to assume USA was much better than india even in 1930s in women rights etc . Women in USA were treated like second class than in USA if you read history. Indeed india was better we had woman rulers like nur jahna, rani lakshmi bai etc than USA

So we are wrong in assuming that other countries were better off than us during independence 1947. I am taking USA name because everyone assumes USa gives max freedom to women in world and job and pay too than other country of world.

Current condition of women in india is definetly not as good compared to men and USa women. And definitely its has very less to do with invasion as most countries were invaded by Britan even USA and had tough times to get freedom and to give rights to women too

Imagine there are countries that waited centuries to give equal voting rights to the female population which was not even a point of contention considering our country always hailed fearless and able rulers notwithstanding their gender

No indian women usually depended on thir husband or brother or father to rule than rule independent before indira gandhi came along(i mean after independence). Even nur jahan could not have ruled fjehangir was not with her because it was patrichial socety and all men followed her orders in fear of jehangir only. Razia Sultan had her dad and than slave commander to help. Only Rani Lakshmi Bai ruled by adopting a son. So everyone ruled using power of their family men be it hubby, dad or lover who were powerful man than on own. Voting rights were given to most countries women by 1950 who were independent and hence given to indian women too. Nothing great about it. But even today indian women vote as per their father or hubby orders only. Even many women minister in MLA or panchayat requires her hubby to get work done today like Nur jahan they definetly do not work independent most of them. So there is no real use of giving reservation or voting rights in patriarchal system

Media representation of society:

I wholeheartedly agree that media plays a vital role in correct representation of the society of today, in grooming society and bringing about a positive change.

There has been subtle stereotyping and perceptions that media (ALL forms) has done over the decades based on regions, language, culture, traditions, etc.

For some reason, there is this stubbornness against breaking against these stereotypes and perceptions.

Media only wants TRP no societal change

The India is not how it is shown in "Slumdog Millionaire" nor is it as shown in "Dharma Productions".

The real India is somewhere in between and is ever evolving. The sheer diversity across the length and breadth of the country contributes to differences which has further had to endure centuries of turmoil.

That is definitely Not to say, there are NO darker chapters to the story of India. That is NOT to say, its ALL good here. It is just to say, the we are a more discussed society as against others.

Many practices were perhaps as a solution for the challenges at the time. Perhaps, we never retrospected this.

Shows such as these, could have better represented the society of today and provided a more solution based, sensitive, pragmatic and realistic approach that is representative of and portrays the society of today which is totally lacking here.

Actually what i was trying to say is that in reality (forget anupama serial) even a 45 year old aged man will want to marry 25 year old virgin only although hes widower or divorcee in india in 2023. That is not case in europe or USA where woman can marry 3-4 times without family and society boycotting them or abusing them. 45 year old man in USA will still marry a 35 or 45 year old only with 3 kids and 2 time divorcee. Society in USA/europe is many times more liberal than india or asia can ever dream off for a woman rights. We would be fooling ourelves if we think UsA and india woman have same rights and treated with same respect. It is truth that asia treats woman as second class over males. May be japan and south korea or china and some other country may be an exception case. But majorly most asian countries treat woman very badly includes india.

But anupama serial started with trying to change that perception and say its ok if 45 year old unmarried male marries a 45 year old woman divorcee with 3 adult kids. But now the way they are making serial no man in india or asia who watches this serial would want to marry a 45 year old divorce with kids and ex hubby baggage anymore. The serial has done disservice to woman rights than any empowerment

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Actually what i was trying to say is that in reality (forget anupama serial) even a 45 year old aged man will want to marry 25 year old virgin only although hes widower or divorcee in india in 2023. That is not case in europe or USA where woman can marry 3-4 times without family and society boycotting them or abusing them. 45 year old man in USA will still marry a 35 or 45 year old only with 3 kids and 2 time divorcee. Society in USA/europe is many times more liberal than india or asia can ever dream off for a woman rights. We would be fooling ourelves if we think UsA and india woman have same rights and treated with same respect. It is truth that asia treats woman as second class over males. May be japan and south korea or china and some other country may be an exception case. But majorly most asian countries treat woman very badly includes india.

This could be attributed to the social fabric, isn't it?

Family and marriage have a different concept in different parts of the world.

The social construct of family was a concept "forever".

Parents forever take care of their children, however old they are, earning or not. It was perceived that children will forever take care of their parents.

Similarly marriage. Marriage has been a sacred institution in our culture and breaking away has been but the last option when it was beyond repair.

Societal norms or rules were designed to protect these that are held sacred: family and marriage.

The rigidity in enforcing these norms have happened over time due to various reasons.

Hence something that is not common in a culture is difficult to accept.

However, things are now evolving and changes can be seen. Technology for ALL we know has changed the power dynamics and what took decades to change is now much faster.

Modernity is something that is defined differently by different people.

But anupama serial started with trying to change that perception and say its ok if 45 year old unmarried male marries a 45 year old woman divorcee with 3 adult kids. But now the way they are making serial no man in india or asia who watches this serial would want to marry a 45 year old divorce with kids and ex hubby baggage anymore. The serial has done disservice to woman rights than any empowerment.

Wholeheartedly agree about the absolute tarnishing of every sensitive topic and total derailing of what must have been the comcept at the time of inception.

Which is why I have liked Neena Gupta-Kanwaljeet Singh-Kavita Kapoor 's "Saans" on the same channel, a show with a similar concept.

A couple other shows that beautifully handled sensitive topics are Sony's Alpaviraam, Ek Ladki Anjaani si and Family No. 1 (another comedy show of 2 single parents re-marrying).

Originally posted by: myviewprem

No indian women usually depended on thir husband or brother or father to rule than rule independent before indira gandhi came along(i mean after independence). Even nur jahan could not have ruled fjehangir was not with her because it was patrichial socety and all men followed her orders in fear of jehangir only. Razia Sultan had her dad and than slave commander to help. Only Rani Lakshmi Bai ruled by adopting a son. So everyone ruled using power of their family men be it hubby, dad or lover who were powerful man than on own.

About Indian Women rulers. I couldn't help but quote a few (excluding what you have already mentioned).

Abakka Chowta, Kittur Rani Chennamma, Keladi Rani Chennamma, Ahilya Bai Holkar, Maharani of Mysore, Kempananjammani Vani Vilas Sannidhana, Rani Durgavati, Chand Bibi.

Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika

This could be attributed to the social fabric, isn't it?

I did not understand this sentence can you elaborate what is social fabric. What happened is may be US/Europe society evolved faster once they got independence from Britain? Or may be something like French revolution or holocaust forced them to treat woman better than asia. But if independence and french revolution helped them give freedom to women even in india independence happened 75 years back and bengal famine and partition happened just like holocaust and french revolution in europe. I am not sure but Europe/North America

Family and marriage have a different concept in different parts of the world.

Not necessary. Even in USA orthodox christians there who never divorce once married no matter what happens till death do them apart. Like in india bollywood and high society too divorce many times or marry many because they have money can afford. And no society norms can bind rich and powerful ppl.

The social construct of family was a concept "forever".

Parents forever take care of their children, however old they are, earning or not. It was perceived that children will forever take care of their parents.

Similarly marriage. Marriage has been a sacred institution in our culture and breaking away has been but the last option when it was beyond repair.

Societal norms or rules were designed to protect these that are held sacred: family and marriage.

The rigidity in enforcing these norms have happened over time due to various reasons.

I can say men have taken advantage of the fact that women in india and asia cannot divorce easily. They have used this to abuse and suppress their wives. Its not only wife who are supressed. Men have upper hand in every relation be it father, husband, son, grandson over a daughter, wife, mother or grandmother. That is because they are finnacially superior. India and asia as such never allows most women to be finnacilally independent or gives jobs to only men mostly because they feel the moment women gets money they will demand rights or go free. Even today only 25% woman have jobs rest 74% work where they never get money in their hand like farms or house work, house farms

Hence something that is not common in a culture is difficult to accept.

I am trying to say a UK king had to leave his throne and be in prison for daring to divorce his wife as recent as 20th century. If you are trying to say only india does not accept divorce no even England king was in prison and his lover in prison for daring to divorce his wife. This was less than 100 years back from now. His brother was made king than. Imagine a king leaves his throne and put in prison for daring to divorce his wife in 20th century. No one in india will go to jail for divorce. So our assumption that india as ulture does not like divorce is wrong. Even UK/USA are rigid in some ways but improved over last 70-80 years. But india and asia has not progressed in thinking they still have rigid backward thinking. Husband can hit and burn wife but she should not get divorce. Husband can keep another woman but wife should not leave him. Husband can rape wife every day but she dare not divorce him. Laws and society in india gives upper hand to men in family matters. In US/europe it was same 100 years back but as years went by laws evolved society evolved but asian thinking is still in 16th century in 2023 the thinking never progressed much. Why is the real discussion? If someone can shed light

However, things are now evolving and changes can be seen. Technology for ALL we know has changed the power dynamics and what took decades to change is now much faster.

Modernity is something that is defined differently by different people.

Things are changing by only for top 10% rich society who are educated not for other 90%. Dont we think Karishma Kapoor or Malaika are top 10% rich in india but they are trolled and abused for divorce . So if rest 90% dare divorce what society may do to them. Also in india what happens after parents death house/property goes to son. Son does not like sister coming back from hubby house back to parents house as he may have to share parents property with her. Because son does not want mother's burden full life, brother does not want sister, parents do not want daughter in their home so if hubby dies she can die too or go ashram . Even in 2023 parents, brother do not accept girl back in mayka mother house if things go wrong in husband house. A major reason for that is property and money only as i have observed around. Brother does not want his parent property to go to sisters so best they stay in hubby house no matter how much torture or they are burnt. Exception are there but very less.

Even very rich Karishma Kapor was sent back by family to her hubby to save her marraige and save marriage. This after he tried to auction her to his friends after marraige. How cheap can a man be to talk this to a famous super star like this. Also Karishma mom in law used to hit her frequently. Imagine this babitha, karrena all living on karishma money for 12 years and karrean went to us university on karishma money but never help sister. So if millionaires behave so what happen to other women middle class lower class how their parents and sibling accept them back home?

Which is why I have liked Neena Gupta-Kanwaljeet Singh-Kavita Kapoor 's "Saans" on the same channel, a show with a similar concept.

A couple other shows that beautifully handled sensitive topics are Sony's Alpaviraam, Ek Ladki Anjaani si and Family No. 1 (another comedy show of 2 single parents re-marrying).

Originally posted by: myviewprem

This could be attributed to the social fabric, isn't it?

I did not understand this sentence can you elaborate what is social fabric. What happened is may be US/Europe society evolved faster once they got independence from Britain? Or may be something like French revolution or holocaust forced them to treat woman better than asia. But if independence and french revolution helped them give freedom to women even in india independence happened 75 years back and bengal famine and partition happened just like holocaust and french revolution in europe. I am not sure but Europe/North America

Har samaaj ka apna ek taana baana hota hain. Apni ek thought process hota hain jiske basis par samajh banta aur chalta hain.

Isi taane-baane ko social fabric kaha hain.

About the contrasts in the Asian and European/American History during a specific time period may not be an exact representation.

It could well be possible that, the revolutions of the time, world wars and internal conflicts may have been contributors to it. These still are from 1750 onwards, basically 18th Century.

We have heard of stories of how Britain was, despite having a female monarch. Stories of even 75-80 years years before when Prime Ministers treated women in various administrative positions.

So, while I agree that revolutions have a tendency to bring about liberalisations, I am not aware of the sustenance and reforms over a period of time.

We became an independent nation After so many conflicts being reduced to an impoverished nation state.

We were trapped in a state where there was only one string to hold on to and held on, we have.

We ALL say, we cannot identify with the newer generation because there is hardly any commonality.

We grew up to treat telephones and television as a privilege and now have to deal with 10-somethings demanding a smartphone.

Earlier a generation gap was attributed to 18-20 years when things change to an extent, we cannot identify with what was earlier a norm.

Growing up, this changed to 10 years, and now, we can notice differences in siblings who are just over 5 years apart.

That means, the pace at which times have changed is much much faster than what it was 75 years ago.

So, the world, that changed at a certain pace is sprinting, the only way to survive is to adapt and sprint along and that we are doing.

It has taken us time, but that is, how things are everywhere.

If anything, in the 75 years, our story us a story of resilience.