Over the years, your support has made Women’s Web the leading resource for women in India. Now, it is our turn to ask, how can we make this even more useful for you? Please take our short 5 minute questionnaire – your feedback is important to us!
Via Nature blogs, I came to know about this challenge jointly being promoted by the Government Department of Science & Technology and P&G – and what is it, but another goodie for us brown-skinned masses – a “better” skin whitening product.
The issue is not about whether companies should manufacture fairness products. Personally, I believe that they are totally unnecessary, but I’m not sure if they promote a craze for white skin or capitalise on an existing prejudice. In any case, I’m not for banning products unless they are physically harmful – beyond that, in a free market economy, it is up to users to banish poor products by not opening their wallets.
The issue is whether a government owned department, which runs on our tax money – should be spending any money at all to help develop a product that privileges one skin type over another. While the market may have its own verdict on fairness creams, certainly the government should not be using our monies to endorse them.
The issue is not, unlike what the current DST secretary contends, about “how much” money is going into the project; if the aim of the DST is to promote scientific research and education in India, I fail to see how development of a fairness cream fits into that – so any money is too much. Yes, the individual researchers(s) working on it may learn something, but does it have any potential for larger application?
The fundamental definition of a public-private partnership is that both come together to build something that benefits the private party (usually in the form of revenue) and the public (in the form of a common resource/skill/ asset).
While it is clear enough how the company would benefit, it looks like we, the public, can look forward to the dubious benefit of yet another “new and improved” fairness cream.
Founder & Chief Editor of Women's Web, Aparna believes in the power of ideas and conversations to create change. She has been writing since she was ten. In another life, she used to be read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2 might have had a box office collection of 260 crores INR and entertained Indian audiences, but it's full of problematic stereotypes.
Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2 starts with a scene in which the protagonist, Ruhaan (played by Kartik Aaryan) finds an abandoned pink suitcase in a moving cable car and thinks there was a bomb inside it.
Just then, he sees an unknown person (Kiara Advani) wave and gesture at him to convey that the suitcase was theirs. Ruhaan, with the widest possible smile, says, “Bomb mai bag nahi hai, bomb ka bag hai,” (There isn’t a bomb in the bag, the bag belongs to a bomb).
Who even writes such dialogues in 2022?
Most of us dislike being called aunty because of the problematic meanings attached to it. But isn't it time we accept growing old with grace?
Recently, during one of those deep, thoughtful conversations with my 3 y.o, I ended a sentence with “…like those aunty types.” I quickly clicked my tongue. I changed the topic and did everything in my hands to make her forget those last few words.
I sat down with a cup of coffee and drilled myself about how the phrase ‘aunty-type’ entered my lingo. I have been hearing this word ‘aunty’ a lot these days, because people are addressing me so.
Almost a year ago, I was traveling in a heavily-crowded bus and a college girl asked me “Aunty, can you please hold my bag?” It was the first time and I was first shocked and later offended. Then I thought about why I felt so.