Women in Positive Roles on Screen

Someone asked this question, and it is a good one, so the write up.

Various shows come to mind, from Ally McBeal to Practice to Good Wife - I am sure there are a lot of others - and Friends does show Monica as leading the group in a mother of the group role (without her providing the space and food there might not be a setting so comfortable where so much happens). Even Penny in Big Bang Theory is intelligent enough to match the scientists and more, just not grown up in circumstances that would encourage her to pursue a more intelligent career, but the other two are more than a match for the males, and so is Leslie who looks down her nose at Sheldon quite openly because she is able to correct him. Mayim Bialik who plays Amy is by the way actually a neurologist with a doctorate.

West Wing has the two women rise up from relatively junior positions to what they deserve. Scandal obviously has several of them. Brothers and Sisters has several, and Revenge at least one (Emily Van Camp). Even Three Is Company and its original English Man About The House had Janet the smart one.

Films, begin with Courage Under Fire, I don't offhand have a list but there are more. Mona Lisa Smile is a good one. Catherine Hepburn had a few, then there is Ingrid Bergman's Joan of Arc.

Hitchcock's first version of The Man Who Knew Too Much had a woman expert at shooting who saves her daughter due precisely to this skill. That was set in English background, where it was normal. Later he remade the film in US and accordingly dumbed down the mother who saves her son by singing but needs to be put under sedation by the husband to begin with.

Ingrid Bergman's Notorious has the woman play a very crucial role in fighting for allies using her life. The film about Christina the queen of Sweden (hope I am right about the names here) has Greta Garbo in a good role, and her Ninotchka is pretty good.

The films I saw about Catherine of Russia - Young Catherine, perhaps television movie - and Elizabeth I were good generally, the characters being inspiring.

Divine And Scientific Spirit

Dawson and other general community of atheists is usually reacting to social pressure of authority, whether church or merely parents as in case of India, to defy them and assert oneself in that if it is not perceivable and reasonable or provable, one would not go with a blind belief; this is perfectly reasonable.

But often they stumble further, and assert not only this much but that if they do not see it or are not given scientific proof of it (whatever it is), it is thereby impossible and proved false. This is scientifically incorrect thinking, but no one in science is usually likely to point that out, most are busy fighting church authority. (Or trying to not look ridiculous to those that might look down on anyone from India.)

A true scientific spirit does not go "this is not possible, therefore it cannot be, because nothing I know can justify this". Unfortunately many supposedly rational or scientific thinkers do this and do not realise how unscientific this logic is.

A true scientific spirit is to observe reality and gather data and find correlationships, possibly with a new theory or even with a discarded one that one might have not agreed with, but not by throwing out data that does not fit pet theories.

When a final, conclusive, decisive proof one way or another is not yet at hand, a scientific spirit leaves it as undecided and unknown, the only possible respectable scientific conclusion, and perfectly acceptable.

So a true scientific spirit could very truthfully say "I don't know, but neither do most" when it comes to theism vs atheism; after all belief is not something unfamiliar to anyone, if only one gives a moment of thought to something no one would like to think about.
..................................................................................................................

Belief in the knowledge of one's blood is what most of us (those not geneticists) can affirm, not knowledge, actually; only a geneticist could possibly really know who one's parents are. As for the rest they have to take someone's word for it. If this were not so, anyone expressing doubts about one's parents would not involve anger or worse. One does not get angry if someone says "hey, you have only two fingers" when one can perfectly well see and hold out ten.

This is true about much of knowledge discredited, whether evolution by creationists or homeopathy by scientists of west. Ayurveda, Acupuncture, Yoga, Astrology, ... reincarnation, .... Gods, ....

At one pole of possibilites Dawkins does not know, and if and when he does he will be reasonable about it. At the other he could be right. Doubt the latter but that does not diminish his logic and scientific methods applied to thought and perception.
..................................................................................................................

The story about a normal person tumbling into a valley where everyone is blind, and finally needing to escape few days before his wedding to someone (he had decided to stay on due to falling in love), because they mandated he needed to be normal like them and not delusional about this thing he called sight which was impossible, comes to mind. So the one with sight escaped before they could remove his eyes with surgery.

While it seems unbelievable they could do surgery without sight, what we consider normal might still be able to inflict a great deal of harm to people they perceive as extraordinary in any way, because people usually don't tolerate anyone superior.
..................................................................................................................

A colleague of mine who was of the supposedly rational mind (did not believe anything that could not be proved scientifically, and asserted it was impossible, out of question) once was asked "what if I told you there is someone who can block off a part of your brain (without any touch of anything physical, just with use of mind)?" and he promptly with not an instant's hesitation replied hotly "I will break his head".

I laughed and asked if he realised that this meant he thought it was possible, else he would not have this reaction, and simply would laugh and shrug it off, or even better, invite anyone to try. (Better only in the sense of how strong his belief in impossiblility of scientifically not proven things was, not in the sense of someone blocking his brilliant mind. )
..................................................................................................................

Aarya, caste, race, India

Theory of "Arya" referring to a race is not Indian, in India it refers to civilisation and to those that embody the code of the civilisation (somewhat like but not exactly that of code of Europe re knights or chevaliers), irrespective of colour, while racism requires colour and other physical specifics to differentiate people. Aryan is a word in Europe, and identifying it as a race is a European idea, false in India.

Also, race has nothing to do with castes in India, where regions have somewhat identifiable sets of features (not precise or complete) and colour can be dark or fair not only in the same region or caste but also in the same family, with no difference of communities of parents, perfectly traditional marriages arranged by elders and nevertheless some children with lighter colours than others. Variety does not amount to class or caste or region in India, and colour is a poor choice of indicator of anything. Try boarding a local train in Mumbai or even standing at the gate at say Dadar at rush hour and identifying males by race, caste, region - chances are unless they wear something indicative you cannot be accurate about their religion either.

Theory of Aryan invasion was invented according to Macaulay's explicitly advised, accepted by the empire, and well published doctrine of dismantling and destroying society and psyche and culture of India, for which dividing the society was extremely necessary, as was demolishing anything good about it by badmouthing it relentlessly. Much that was said against Brahman is in fact true of policies of church and in particular Rome, while Brahman were and are free not institutionalised and thus required to follow orders from above. Example, Ekanaath and his bringing his thought into practice.

Theory of Aaryan invasion was convenient for the colonial rulers to justify their looting of the nation, but it has been majorly debunked even by professional historians, unless someone is a blind hater of all things Indian and blind follower of all things western of colonial era. It simply does not hold.

Moreover the colonial rulers wrote off all Indian works as mythology, while insisting on bible as literally fact and their own views of history as entirely accurate (proven false for example when Troy was discovered and Homer's work was conceded to be more historical than until then avowed as pure fiction); but much of Indian well known legends is since vindicated, for example Himaalaya rising from oceans and the fact that Dashaavatara is precisely parallel to Darwin's evolution (try arguing evolution with anyone with faith in church, especially from bible belt but even from south India).

Anyone not from India views Sindhu (Indus) as the major river, obviously since historically that was the only way unless one was willing to risk perils of Himaalaya passes or oceans. In psyche of India it is not the major river, only about sixth major or so, and stays on the outer periphery of consciousness (India did not need to look outside the country generally, and crossing Himaalaya was the more routine way), with Himaalaya and the two main eastern flowing rivers being huge in the conciousness. Ask your grandparents and ask what their grandparents thought.

Learning from everywhere is good, but blind adherence to those that would turn you into sheep is likely to get you jumping off cliffs to prove your obedience and slaughtered when it suits them.
...................................................................................................................




As for caste -

Caste is an English word, originating in German where it relates to box. It was not invented for India, which ought to tell you castes exist everywhere, they have just dropped that word to refer to their own castes so India can be pointed at. Galsworthy mentions the word in relating to them in his works about England, and various other works show how rich separated from poor even as to have separate church (separate building, not different faith). At the very least, front pew if not separate facility.

The major difference between India and everywhere else is about the baiss for castes - elsewhere power and money, land ownership and race are the key factors that determine castes, and the rung of a particular caste, on the social ladder, with royals and their relatives at the top (money replaces royalty where monarchy is done with).

India has a different scheme. Basis for caste here was the categorisation of work, and that defined one's ideals and life and duty, as it does without anyone telling you what one should do. Knowledge and its keeping was the top, physical power and protection of society next, and so on. Money or physical power was not the top, making it different.

Another major difference is that spiritual life is open to everyone, and not only that includes being a monk (saadhu, sanyaasi) but achieving unity with Divine, and what is more latter does not require leaving the world behind, either.

That the castes got fixed by birth was due more to onslaught of foreign attacks and rule that prohibited indigenous schools teaching students (aashram system) which in turn made it possible for people to teach only their own progeny in privacy of home.

Anyone dislikes caste, and they should, realise that determining ''women's role'' or their work is just as much caste; if men are not allowed to learn from their fathers or pass on their own professions to their sons, why require girls to limit to mothers and mother in law? That is caste in its most entrenched form.

Anyone who follows and likes caste and untouchability (which really is about hygiene more than anything - European system of emptying buckets of soil into streets in morning obviously says little about how clean one could expect to be unless on a horse or in a carriage, and Europe still is not used to bathing more than once a week or even changing clothes for that matter, from personally testified details from various acquaintances) - know this:- if you eat out, or touch paper money, and do not fully cleanse yourself ritually (not just a bath but a praayaschitta) every time one does either of that, well you have been untouchable and just did not know or bother to think!
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

India, to be Fair

Far too many people in print and in person have been questioning if India is racist, what with marriage markets asking for "fair" matches and "fairness" creams now being sold. There are personal grievances of those traumatised by being called dark, and there sense gives way to generalisation of unviable sort.

Added to that there is the latest Miss US of Indian origin - and some stupid person declaring she would never have made it in her ancestral land. Trust Indians and their colonial heritage to make some westward looking Indians always going "we too" whenever there is something going on in west, as if every crime is fashionable when originated in west.
Hence this refuting.

If India as a whole really had a colour preference for light skin or other things like hair and eyes, roster of top stars of Indian cinema would be very different - Kabir Bedi instead of AB, Prithvi instead of SRK, Sarika instead of Rekha and Zeenat, Mandakini instead of Madhuri, and as for Karisma she would rule forever with Kajol and Priyanka and everyone else far behind. As it is the fair ones - fair by standards followed in west, that is - had it harder, and not due to lack of talent or even due to discrimination against them.

If India were racist, the list above would not have missed but instead would be dominated entirely by the children of Shashi Kapoor, what with their blond heritage of Kendall blood and blue eyes of their Kapoor grandmother along with extreme good looks of Prithviraj Kapoor ensuring their pink blond blue eyed colours adding to the Kapoor beauty, and their Kendall heritage of theatre topping their Kapoor theatre and film heritage. Sanjna Kapoor alone would have ruled among female stars last quarter of century, with her brother Karan leaving no space for other males what with his gold hair adding to his Shashi Kapoor's photocopy features. As it is, they had a fair chance, and chose other paths, but not because of discrimination by viewers one way or other due to colour.

If India were racist, Sangam would be ridiculous with the damsel falling for the tall dark educated silent gentleman while the fair pink blue eyed lover is spurned on and on and on.

If India were racist Madhubala would not be the beauty in Mughal e Azam, rather it would be the light eyed fairer damsel whom most people not only don't notice but have no clue when reading this what I am referring to. Anyone from west with a racist mindset on the other hand would not only notice first and foremost this one but ask why she was not the heroine, or did the prince prefer dark women.
If India were racist Meena Kumari would not be top heroine never mind her supreme talent, fearless Nadia would.

If India were racist Rajanikant would not be the huge star that he has been, and Tom Alter would sweep all film industries in every part of India. As it is he has had a fair share of roles including some Indian characters.

As for personal criticisms faced by various people who were dark shared here, hey, if you were all pink you would face some other point of criticism, because it is only an excuse for people to be mean to make you feel bad about yourself. If you are as beautiful as Aishwarya is, guess what, people find excuses galore anyway to talk rubbish. You can have beauty, education, intelligence, friendliness, all you can imagine, they would still do it some way. More if you are a woman, but even if you are a man they would do their best to make you feel like garbage, just so you are in their power. AB faced this too, and so do most people.

Except those with clout of particular kind. Perhaps.

Or may be not.

But even on personal and social levels, who do you think anyone's parents and grandparents would prefer - a person of one's own culture with education albeit dark skin, or a blond blue eyed person of another culture and questionable culture or education? We all know the answer, and that is, most relatives would prefer the indigenous darker one over the other, unless there were overwhelming other factors equalising them. (What the young person prefers for oneself has nothing to do with racism, it is about personal choice dictated by youth and falling in love.) Such overwhelming factors are likely to be educational superiority of huge kind in favour of the outsider, for one thing, or something unpalatable against the desi one, for another.

For a true racist behaviour try reading Tehmina Durrani's autobiography and particularly about her ancestors marrying European women only to whitewash the progeny; not Indians! Acceptance of outsiders, yes, not easily, but such preference for sake of results of fair children, no, not Indian way.

As for skin products, they are neither better nor worse than other cosmetics now India and the world takes for granted - lipstick, powder, rouge, mascara et al, not to mention hair colouring that is now almost compulsory if one wishes to not be taken for a rural bumpkin. None of these products are any more necessary for anyone than the hugely sold cola drinks, so they have to advertise to sell, so they have to make people feel inadequate without them. Profit by guilt, much like the industry devoted to trimming people down by constant hammering at psyche so women starve and rich go get surgery. Health is not their concern, it is something you should need to worry and pay yet more to get over your health damage caused by starving or surgery or other stupidity.

Never mind the cosmetics and people and other stuff - and look at ancient Indian concepts and epics if one is looking for what India thinks or feels. Beloved Krishna was dark, whether born or due to running around after cattle, as was the revered and loved Raam, but more to the point, the whole war of Mahaabhaarat was fought over a beauty whose hue was dusky. Indian concepts of beauty have to do with geometry - large eyes, acquiline nose, delicate lips, long hair, well shaped body (which is not skin and bone of size zero of today's idiocy but rather explicitly visible in temples of yore), and no particular preference for colour in gradation of beauty.
...............................................................................
.............................................................................. ...............................................................................
...............................................................................