If you are a professional in an emerging industry, like gaming, data science, cloud computing, digital marketing etc., that has promising career opportunities, this is your chance to be featured in #CareerKiPaathshaala. Fill up this form today!
Religion has always treated women as second class citizens. Why, then should we fight to GET into a temple? Let us all women boycott temples and any places of worship!
Opposite my aunt’s apartment in Dombivli, towers a huge behemoth of a temple. It is a beautiful temple built out of intricately carved marble, kept spotlessly clean. Every time I visit, I see a pair of cleanliness workers hanging from precariously suspended slings, cleaning the lofty shikharas of the temple. In addition, there are others sweeping the floor, polishing the large chandeliers, and making sure that the grime of the city doesn’t deface the blinding white cleanliness of the temple.
So clean. And yet, the entrance is marred by a large ugly sign, and even more by the offensive instructions on the sign. It says (among other things) – ‘Women on their period may not enter the temple premises’. The message is reiterated in Hindi, Marathi and Gujarati.
During a family get-together at my aunt’s, my cousins and I heard about this offensive signage, and we were obviously appalled. Not visiting temples during one’s periods is a well-practised rule in most Hindu households; however never had we seen a temple so blatantly advertising its prejudice. So charged up were we, that the three of us decided to flout rules and visit the temple. As luck would have it, one of us was playing host to Aunt Flo. And so we bestowed our ‘impure’ menstruating presence on the temple, clicked a picture or two of the offending signboard and finally headed back home.
Sure, it felt good to rebel. It was liberating. It was exhilarating. We felt like heroines delivering a well-aimed kick to patriarchy. But did it make a difference? Other than increasing the footfall at the said prejudiced temple, did our small rebellion help spur feminism further? Had we made a difference beyond ourselves? In the case of Sabarimala, which received national media coverage, have we feminists broken the stigma attached to menstruation by forcing entry into the temple?
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in the principle of it. Women (and men) should have the right to worship sans discrimination. And I love the Supreme Court for standing in solidarity with women (and in another wonderful ruling – with the LGBT community). But in the twentieth century, in the age of science and technology, why, oh why are we fighting to enter temples? Aren’t our efforts quite misplaced?
By fighting to enter a temple, we are actually fighting for inclusion into yet another patriarchal, sexist institution – Religion. Women have traditionally been excluded from the upper echelons of most major religions. In Hinduism, women are not allowed to enter temples when on the period. Not just Sabarimala, you guys. ALL TEMPLES. This is enforced by mothers, aunts and grandmothers, in a perfect example of internalised misogyny. Women are not allowed to preside as Pundits or priests at temples and even at household Pujas. Because menstruation.
Before a ‘What-about-er’ comments about how liberals only target Hinduism, let me say that the other major Indian religions – Christianity and Islam – are the same, if not worse. While there are nuns, there are no women priests, let alone a female Pope. The recent rape of the nun in Kerala and the Bishop’s Council’s lack of support speaks volumes of the value of women to religion. Islam too, forbids women from entering certain mosques. Again, there are no women Imams. And let’s not even get started on practices like Triple Talaq or the Hijab.
In mythology as well, women have never been given equal status. The Greek myth of Pandora and the synonymous myth of Eve, blame women for humankind’s fall into sin. Hinduism has the Apsaras who are routinely sent by the gods to disrupt a sadhu’s meditation by seducing him. Women are portrayed as vehicles of lust and the onus of a man’s celibacy somehow falls on the woman. Incidentally, this is also one of the traditional reasons for barring women into the Sabarimala temple. The god Ayyappa is celibate and so the temple doesn’t want any women.
Religion (and by extension tradition) is filled with sexist rules, even in present times.
Women are supposed to be the homemakers while the man is given the title of ’Head of the family’. Women are subjected to a number of traditional but regressive practices like changing her name after marriage, kanya-daan or ‘giving away’ one’s daughter, being barred from reciting certain mantras, wearing a mangalsutra or sindoor as a sign of marriage, wearing a hijab or veil, and many more. The practice of triple talaq is similarly one-sided.
The truth is that religion has long since treated women as second-class citizens. So why then do we fight for inclusion? That’s like saying- because men smoke, we women want to smoke too. Sure, you can, but should you? Men shouldn’t, either!
Religion has traditionally been the domain of men. And let it remain that way. Let’s topple the patriarchy by boycotting all temples, churches and mosques. Because the problem is not just Sabarimala, it’s all temples. If fifty percent of the population (or near 50%, given India’s penchant for female foeticide), boycotts religious institutions, religion will come to a standstill. In fact, women perpetuate religion much more than men do. Let’s stop please!
Let’s break the glass ceiling, but let’s aspire to climb and better ourselves. Break the corporate ceiling by coming out as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, as top doctors, scientists, lawyers, engineers, artists, diplomats, entrepreneurs, police officers and more. That is a good use of our time and energy. Not Sabarimala. Let the glass ceiling at Sabarimala stay intact. Let their doors stay shut.
Even though the Supreme Court, like a benevolent old Uncle, has provided us entry into Sabarimala, just take a rain check. Thanks but no thanks Mr Ayyappa. We ain’t got no time for your misogyny.
Image source: Twitter
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. If you have a complementary or differing point of view, sign up and start sharing your views too!
Yashodhara is a brand-new mommy, IT professional and cat lover who lives in Mumbai. When not changing cloth diapers, she’s trying her best to read, write and catch a few extra winks. 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!
Shows like Indian Matchmaking only further the argument that women must adhere to social norms without being allowed to follow their hearts.
When Netflix announced that Indian Matchmaking (2020-present) would be renewed for a second season, many of us hoped for the makers of the show to take all the criticism they faced seriously. That is definitely not the case because the show still continues to celebrate regressive patriarchal values.
Here are a few of the gendered notions that the show propagates.
A mediocre man can give himself a 9.5/10 and call himself ‘the world’s most eligible bachelor’, but an independent and successful woman must be happy with receiving just 60-70% of what she feels she deserves.
Darlings makes some excellent points about domestic violence . For such a movie to not follow through with a resolution that won't be problematic, is disappointing.
I watched Darlings last weekend, staying on top of its release on Netflix. It was a long-awaited respite from the recent flicks. I wanted badly to jump into its praise and will praise it, for something has to be said for the powerhouse performances it is packed with. But I will not be able to in a way that I really had wanted to.
I wanted to say that this is a must-watch on domestic violence that I stand behind and a needed and nuanced social portrayal. But unfortunately, I can’t. For I found Darlings to be deeply problematic when it comes to the portrayal of domestic violence and how that should be dealt with.
Before we rush to the ‘you must be having a problem because a man was hit’ or ‘much worse happens to women’ conclusions, that is not what my issue is. I have seen the praises and criticisms, and the criticisms of criticisms. I know, from having had close associations with non-profits and activists who fight domestic violence not just in India but globally, that much worse happens to women. I have written a book with case studies and statistics on that. Neither do I have any moral qualms around violence getting tackled with violence (that will be another post some day).