Yesudas, during a function, had lashed out against jeans being worn by women much to the consternation of thousands of his admirers, especially women. They're stunned, saddened and angered by his observations on a piece of their clothing that had become a comfortable and necessary accessory in their wardrobe, over the years.
Women's groups and the society, in general, are angry with his orthodox views for the following reasons:-
(a) A person, who has an iconic position in society, must be careful while making statements.
He's to realise that a 'curbing of freedom of expression' is a necessity however much strongly,
he feels about an issue, failing which he can swing the mood of the people towards
uncontrolled behaviour.
(b) Jeans is a respectable casual wear that's neat, comfortable and reduces travel baggage by a
considerable amount as it's wearable anytime, anywhere except for formal occasions.
(c) A few bitter critics of the singer's outburst had gone a step further asking him as to why he
he permits his daughters-in-law to wear them and wasn't it, then, a classic case of following
double standards?
My take.
(a) Icons of the society are prisoners of sorts, by virtue of the exalted positions that they've been
placed at and therefore, the very same society expects to hear only that stuff that's music to
their ears.
(b) It requires guts for him to have said that because I'm sure he was fully aware of the
repercussions/reactions over his utterances. He's entitled to his views, doesn't he, however
unpalatable they're for the rest of us?
(c) And the paradox about his daughters-in-law wearing jeans? Perhaps, he hasn't voiced them in the
confines of his family for the fear of a backlash from the daughters-in-law or even the sons,
perhaps?
Jeans are a neat, comfortable and convenient wear for the wearers as well as for the beholders! But the deliberately torn ones - especially at the knees and elsewhere - are jarring and must be avoided. Wonder what's being conveyed by such wanton destruction of a good pair?
Tailpiece.
Many of us have a different set of rules within the family and outside it. This is the set of double standards we live with, in our normal lives. A huge paradox, indeed!
Women's groups and the society, in general, are angry with his orthodox views for the following reasons:-
(a) A person, who has an iconic position in society, must be careful while making statements.
He's to realise that a 'curbing of freedom of expression' is a necessity however much strongly,
he feels about an issue, failing which he can swing the mood of the people towards
uncontrolled behaviour.
(b) Jeans is a respectable casual wear that's neat, comfortable and reduces travel baggage by a
considerable amount as it's wearable anytime, anywhere except for formal occasions.
(c) A few bitter critics of the singer's outburst had gone a step further asking him as to why he
he permits his daughters-in-law to wear them and wasn't it, then, a classic case of following
double standards?
My take.
(a) Icons of the society are prisoners of sorts, by virtue of the exalted positions that they've been
placed at and therefore, the very same society expects to hear only that stuff that's music to
their ears.
(b) It requires guts for him to have said that because I'm sure he was fully aware of the
repercussions/reactions over his utterances. He's entitled to his views, doesn't he, however
unpalatable they're for the rest of us?
(c) And the paradox about his daughters-in-law wearing jeans? Perhaps, he hasn't voiced them in the
confines of his family for the fear of a backlash from the daughters-in-law or even the sons,
perhaps?
Jeans are a neat, comfortable and convenient wear for the wearers as well as for the beholders! But the deliberately torn ones - especially at the knees and elsewhere - are jarring and must be avoided. Wonder what's being conveyed by such wanton destruction of a good pair?
Tailpiece.
Many of us have a different set of rules within the family and outside it. This is the set of double standards we live with, in our normal lives. A huge paradox, indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment