Selfies document women's struggles and accomplishments, as they step out from their traditional roles in the home, into the male-dominated public realm of the city.
New bill aims to fix key issues with IBC 2016, including delays & patchy implementation, and protect creditors, with window for genuine promoters to retain control of their companies.
New Delhi: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi Tuesday pushed for a “dual-track” progress for ties with India, separating economic ties from the boundary question,...
Now that both IAF and PAF have made formal claims of having shot down the other’s aircraft in the 87-hour war in May, we can ask a larger question: do such numbers really matter?
Let me clarify. I was a saree wearing woman all my working life. And non saree wearing in my retired life! So this is not about tradition or orthodoxy or even prescription ? But really? saree is meant to cover all of the body? Hardly ever. Midriff bearing and hipster saree were around even in my youth in the 1960s. And necklines that got deeper as the years went by. And now it is a fashion statement in its various avatars. The saree (and the dhothi with top cloth)) suited our climate well..well ventilated and yet with enough give to cover the face and body against the harsh sun. Indian women have been smart enough to hold onto it while Indian men have succumbed to western clothes meant for colder climates. Agree with Tejas that this is a rather dated argument. Need better nuancing from our journalists. Agree with you though that all of us need (self) reflexivity to realize how much we ‘normalize’ ourselves in our minds while yet judging others. Needs great skill though!
I have not understood the author’s problems with the Indian saree. No women is forced to wear a saree. There are many working women who do not wear sarees and even wear pants to work. It is left to the functionality of the dress and the women are free to use it. The saree has no religious connotations and is mostly worn in South & East India.
How much a woman exposes her body while wearing a saree is entirely based on their cultural traditions as well as her own body type and choices.
The author does not seem to be aware of the various methods of saree wear and how the saree can be modified in a jiffy to look sexy and alternatively dignified which has been shown in many art forms.
Do not compare the saree with the hijab or burqah. Just goes to show your own bloody ignorance and how much you have been brainwashed by your own religion about other religions.
All through the recent tragedy, PM Jacinda Ardern acted with compassion and empathy, standing out on a global stage because these qualities are becoming a little rare in public life. Wearing a hijab when she visited the families of the victims, to offer condolences, was a very gracious act. The Muslim world is changing, most of the orthodoxy will be gone in the next fifty years or so, but it is for the community to decide the pace of change.
Wow, this would be a brilliantly insightful article in the early to mid 1900s, when sarees and make-up weren’t questioned or problematised. Both are today extensively questioned and recognised as being just as oppressive… Although the author’s weak attempt at asserting equivalence between those things and hijab by saying “culture is a derivative of religion” does not hold up because certain versions of Islam (a religion) prescribe clothing, which Hindu/Christian scriptures don’t in terms of saree or make-up (hence the prescription is cultural; regressive, but cultural).
Anyhow, it’s not “social conditioning” that makes women in Iran or Saudi Arabia “cover up”, is it? It’s the existence of a theocratic State that claims allegiance to Islam. To sweep this under the carpet (at least in this particular article) suggests that the author is guilty of the naiveté she accuses others of.
Let me clarify. I was a saree wearing woman all my working life. And non saree wearing in my retired life! So this is not about tradition or orthodoxy or even prescription ? But really? saree is meant to cover all of the body? Hardly ever. Midriff bearing and hipster saree were around even in my youth in the 1960s. And necklines that got deeper as the years went by. And now it is a fashion statement in its various avatars. The saree (and the dhothi with top cloth)) suited our climate well..well ventilated and yet with enough give to cover the face and body against the harsh sun. Indian women have been smart enough to hold onto it while Indian men have succumbed to western clothes meant for colder climates. Agree with Tejas that this is a rather dated argument. Need better nuancing from our journalists. Agree with you though that all of us need (self) reflexivity to realize how much we ‘normalize’ ourselves in our minds while yet judging others. Needs great skill though!
I have not understood the author’s problems with the Indian saree. No women is forced to wear a saree. There are many working women who do not wear sarees and even wear pants to work. It is left to the functionality of the dress and the women are free to use it. The saree has no religious connotations and is mostly worn in South & East India.
How much a woman exposes her body while wearing a saree is entirely based on their cultural traditions as well as her own body type and choices.
The author does not seem to be aware of the various methods of saree wear and how the saree can be modified in a jiffy to look sexy and alternatively dignified which has been shown in many art forms.
Do not compare the saree with the hijab or burqah. Just goes to show your own bloody ignorance and how much you have been brainwashed by your own religion about other religions.
All through the recent tragedy, PM Jacinda Ardern acted with compassion and empathy, standing out on a global stage because these qualities are becoming a little rare in public life. Wearing a hijab when she visited the families of the victims, to offer condolences, was a very gracious act. The Muslim world is changing, most of the orthodoxy will be gone in the next fifty years or so, but it is for the community to decide the pace of change.
Wow, this would be a brilliantly insightful article in the early to mid 1900s, when sarees and make-up weren’t questioned or problematised. Both are today extensively questioned and recognised as being just as oppressive… Although the author’s weak attempt at asserting equivalence between those things and hijab by saying “culture is a derivative of religion” does not hold up because certain versions of Islam (a religion) prescribe clothing, which Hindu/Christian scriptures don’t in terms of saree or make-up (hence the prescription is cultural; regressive, but cultural).
Anyhow, it’s not “social conditioning” that makes women in Iran or Saudi Arabia “cover up”, is it? It’s the existence of a theocratic State that claims allegiance to Islam. To sweep this under the carpet (at least in this particular article) suggests that the author is guilty of the naiveté she accuses others of.