Good stereotypes and bad stereotypes

We who think and act are aware that stereotypes exist in this world and that for almost everything there are stereotypes. But on further observation, I reckon that there are good and bad stereotypes. It is the so called 'bad' or 'negative' stereotypes that we should be wary of. Sometimes even the positive ones might land us into trouble.

Now what are the good or positive stereotypes? When we say that a people of certain community cook delicious food, we positively stereotype that community. We assume that every member of that community cook great food. But taking for granted that everyone in that community has to cook well is taking the assumption too far. You get what I mean? Sometimes it so happens that when we ask a member of that community to cook and that individual knows no cooking, then the stereotyping turns into shades of gray. In one film, I think, Freedom Writers, a teacher asks a young Afro-American girl to narrate her 'black experience.' But that girl hasn't experienced anything like that and is at a loss to explain what was asked. Here, the teacher takes it for granted that since the girl is coloured, she will be able to explain the 'black experience.' The girl is offended. Look what stereotypes could do! Now this is an example of a negative-positive stereotype.

Matters associated with beauty, art and specific techniques commonly classify under good stereotypes while certain peculiar habits, and their ilk are examples of bad stereotypes. What I understand is that stereotypes, either good or bad should be used in moderation. Sometimes even the good stereotyping can turn out to be premeditation of a particular person or community. Hence, I reckon that it is always best to restrain our preconceived notions about anything and anyone, otherwise we will lose the element of being surprised.

My dear readers, I know that you are wise enough not to stereotype, so please tell me what did you think about this post.

Image: Internet

Laying aside the mantle of a 'superwoman'

When the word 'super' is prefixed to any word, the word assumes a greater importance. For example, the word, 'woman' is nothing special but the word, 'superwoman' makes a great deal of difference. Doesn't it? Even words like 'superspeciality,' 'supermom' and the like take on a completely different meaning. And, if one could stress that 'super' in 'superwoman,' nothing like that!

Well, two days ago, I was quite tired of my role as a 'superwoman' that I decided to take a break. Ask me how? I am now the proud mistress of a domestic help. I give instructions and she carefully follows them. I cannot tell you how empowered I feel by having someone to do my work. To hell with the superwoman, I said and employed a help. So the title of 'superwoman' is at rest.

A few months ago, I was frantically searching for someone who could help me out with the quotidian chores of our home. I could not find any. Our neighbours, who are very kind and considerate suggested that doing house-work would actually help me to work out a little. A wonderful suggestion. And, in any case I had to lose weight so why not try two mangoes with one stone: housework done and weight gone. Hence, grudgingly I became a superwoman!!! I worked at home and also outside home. I must confess that I enjoyed the attention and warm smiles of acknowledgement when people asked me: Do you have someone to help you at home? And when I replied, 'No,' I could sense people thinking, "Wow! She does not look like the working types. She wears lispstick and dresses up well. She actually washes dishes and clothes at home!!!?!?!?" I was a superwoman multitasking various jobs and actually performing them well.

I didn't much enjoy being a superwoman

Ah, I don't need to work out by washing, cleaning and moping. I enjoy cooking and will be happy to do only that. The role of a 'superwoman' lost its charm on me. I employed a lovely woman to assist me and now the title is gone, the work is gone and I am just a woman who enjoys her work, loves to cook (experiment as well) and give instructions to M (the woman who helps me).

Sometimes being a 'normal' woman is what matters. The prefix 'super' is not sought by me to validate my status quo.

Well, are you a superwoman at work or just a woman who enjoys her cuppa tea and idleness. If you are a man, what does 'superwoman' mean to you?

Image: Internet

Does wisdom really come with age?

The older, the wiser is something I have been hearing almost at every junction of my life. But do people really become wiser with age and experience. What if I ask the question: What if people don't learn from their experience even after 55 years? Why should the old saying be viewed in a general manner that is meant for every single individual.

Well, when I see some old people around me, I wonder if they are any wiser than they were about fifty years ago. The same jealousies, anger  . .  . and other agressive emotional states that they should have gotten rid of years ago. I wonder whether they can set any example of being wise and carving themselves to be individuals worth emulating. In fact, I find some young people who are worth emulating in spite of them having no "experience," as the world would want them to have. Of course, one can learn from anyone or anything and that's why I seem to disagree with the phrase, 'With age, comes wisdom.'

Placing emphasis on the old and connecting wisdom to them makes things difficult for the so called old people as well. Let's illustrate this. An old man/woman wants to be naughty and frivolous but the wisdom tag will prevent them from doing so and so they start pretending to be wise, as the adage says and hence they are not themselves (read foolish and naughty). Well, why place the burden of wisdom on individuals who don't want to live so. Well, I guess I am stretching this a bit too far.

This again brings us to the old discussion of labelling and tagging. It all boils down to that. Every single word is loaded with a trillion contexts which continue to baffle and exasperate.

Age and wisdom, don't always walk hand-in-hand. Maybe some get wiser with age and some get aged but not wise.

Well, it's for you to tell me which one holds good.

Image: Internet

Romanticising the term 'single mom'

After a lovely break from the routine humdrum of my usual life, I am back to blogging and reading blogs. Among the many things that surfaced from the break, one was the fruitful discussions I had with my girlfriend V. I was telling her how the tag 'single mom' is almost used like an occupation/job. One of the contestants in a popular reality show is a single mom and while every other contestant is introduced as SK, 37, Entrepreneur; RK, 26, Lawyer and so on, one contestant was introduced as WE, 29, Single mom. Now I was baffled. Why was WE introduced as a single mom and not by her profession. Is being a single mom another profession or is the media romanticing the term, single mom.

Viewing many programmes in the telly, I observe that there are many single moms who are often introduced with the term single mom. While there are single dads as well, they are never referred to as single dad. Are we as a society raising single moms to a pedestal and while we are secretly happy that we are better off, are we trying to pseudo-sympathise with the moms who are single. Why should the term even be used? Agreed that single moms are doing everything single-handedly but why choose that tag?

It is not enough that being a woman itself invites many troubles (not everywhere but atleast in India where harrassment/teasing/stereotyping/discrimination is quite rampant), the added burden of being a single mom and also romanticing it is a bit unwarranted for. But it should be noted that the single mom tag is mostly used in cases where the woman is divorced. What about women who are widowed? Even they are single moms, raising kids without a man and also bearing the brunt of bringing up children in a society which can be quite taxing on various aspects of life. And, there are men who are divorced who sometimes get the custody of children but do not carrying the tag/label of single dads. Why?

It's strange that on one hand we love to hate stereotypes but on the other, we also tend to glorify a certain gender for doing something which is not as great as it is made out to be.

I certainly wish that the term single mom is not used as a professional tag for in the world that adores equality (atleast it professes to be), the term seems quite inappropriate.

And, it would be wonderful to hear your thoughts on this.

Image: Internet

LaBels limit me but save time!

Sometimes for want of a better word and saving time and energy, we resort to already existing labels. In the process of using a particular label frequently, we deny ourselves the opportunity to think beyond that particular word. Conveniently we slot people, objects, places and other things. Therefore it requires a feminist to point out and condemn labels that define women, are sexist. If not for them, we could not have realized that we are slotting women into a particular category.

Just take a look around you and you find that there are labels for almost everything. It is these labels that slowly make way for prejudices and stereotypes. Spaces have to be either urban or rural/country side. But most of the times we use labels just because we can’t think of any other word. Most of the times, these labels are also historical and sociological. Things are simplified for historians and sociologists if groups of people are slotted into a particular label.

In academics, one can observe this trait predominantly. If an individual gets slotted into a particular label, then that one remains with him/her throughout the career span. Even if the individual has changed loyalties and prescribes to another, the tag is sure to follow. It is therefore quite difficult to remain in the academic circle and not be labelled. These labels can sometimes be the area of an individual’s research. For example, if someone is passionate about the theory of post colonialism, then he/she is labeled a poco (short form for postcolonialist). Unwittingly, one gets pulled into the vortex of labels.

Labels can be limiting and suffocating. I am trying to think an alternate to this. I cannot seem to find any. Perhaps, you could suggest something. I would like to read what you have to say on this. 

Image: Internet

Contesting the term 'Non-Vegetarian'

About two months ago, I read a book by Kancha Ilaiah titled Buffalo Nationalism: A Critique of Spiritual Fascism. I agreed on many things he had to say but one argument that stood out is the usage of the term 'non-vegetarian.' Ilaiah contests the term 'non-vegetarian.' He coins another term "meatarian." Somehow Ilaiah seems to say that by using the term non-vegetarian, it gives an impression that vegetarianism was the previous order and after a point in history, people started to eat other food items such as meat and related products.

Now, I am not quite aware of this part of history but his argument seemed quite sensible and valid. Why should one divide the category of food based on vegetarianism. It is like a racist exclusion of one group. Though the term 'non-vegetarian' is used quite commonly by all and sundry, the sudden realisation that the word spells out a division which quite favours vegetarianism is quite amusing and interesting (no wonder, I wanted to write a post on this).

Well, some of you might ask: What is there in a name? But name is the first criterion by which identity is established. I am being quite mild here on this issue but if you read Ilaiah's book, his scathing remarks might leave many with a taste of ash in the mouth.

All said and done, vegetarianism and meatarianism is a matter of personal choice so please don't take this post as a tirade against vegetarianism or vegetarians.

After having read the book, I have resolved to use the term 'meatarian' instead of 'non-vegetarian.'

What say, dear readers? Which term do you prefer and do you agree with me when I say that meatarianism is a suitable word than non-vegetarianism?

Image: Internet