I’m happy to see members of India’s gay community come out and demand their rights, and I support their call for the scrapping of the outdated and ridiculous section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Picture courtesy Mid-Day, Mumbai
What caught my attention was this picture of a placard at the Rainbow Pride Walk in Kolkata. Seems to me this placard contributes more to gender stereotyping than gay rights. What do you think?
The Quirky Indian 
June 30, 2008 at 1:41 pm
QI: I think it is not as simple as saying it ‘contributes to gender stereotyping’. What it does do is exploit pre-existing gender stereotypes about gender-based division of labour to claim their rights to an alternative sexuality.
In the process of doing so, gay men may even dent that stereotype, simply by being men who demonstrate that the jobs normally allocated to women are not as lowly or nearly as darned difficult as men have believed them to be.
There is a very good reason girls like their male gay best friends: they are the best of both worlds wrapped in one package, minus the constant need to guard against giving any wrong signals through our choice of words or behaviours. 🙂
June 30, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Gender stereotyping is deeply related to gay rights. It is gender stereotyping to expect guys to like girls.
I too want Article 377 to be scraped. It gives police and law undue advantage when it comes to harassing gays.
June 30, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Shefaly – my point was that this just reinforces the popular misconception that (a) only women/girls are “supposed” to play with dolls and/or cook, and (b)that being gay automatically means relinquishing masculine stereotypes and adopting feminine ones. Ergo, gays are necessarily seen as effeminate, effete and exotic. I think rather than dent the stereotype, this strengthens – for the average Indian, man or woman – the fallacy that being gay is “womanly”, along with perpetuating the very notions that women would like to see in the trash.
Over to you!
Cheers.
June 30, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Poonam – Precisely. Not sure if it helps when one reinforces one stereotype to debunk another.
June 30, 2008 at 11:46 pm
QI: This is worth telling you. A friend of mine just told me that she saw on TV this priceless placard:
Hindu Muslim Sikh Isaai
Hetero Homo Bhai Bhai…
Cute at many levels, eh.
July 1, 2008 at 8:16 am
Happy Pride QI! 😉
Delhi had the parade on the same day Toronto did- my heart did headlongs!
I understand what you’re trying to convey here and I agree with you (brownie points!). My struggle to grasp the logic behind transgender identities was similar. Shouldn’t we be trying to rid ourselves of gender-roles all together?
Sadly, we live in a highly flawed dualistic societal gender bias. If one feels out of sync from one genderized role, perforating/subscribing to the other seems like the only resort.
When the base itself is flawed, how does one make gender-roles nonexistent?
July 1, 2008 at 9:00 am
Hmmm…. Still thinking… The homophobic part of me is cringing… 🙂
July 1, 2008 at 10:24 am
Shefaly – that is priceless! At all levels. Was this also part of one of the gay pride parades?
LM – I agree with you there. It’s a tall order, but it has got to be done.
Nikhil – work on it, dude!:-)
July 1, 2008 at 11:03 am
QI: Yes, it was being shown on one of the desi news channels on Sky. She phoned to tell me.
As for gender roles, they are a result of socialisation. If they are the nearest shorthand available to those claiming the right to their sexuality, I do not see any harm. We do much worse to women every day anyway. So let’s not get holy about this.. 🙂
All that we really need is to stop imagining what others do behind closed doors. And _that_ needs a mind that really is as unprurient as Indians want to be viewed as..
July 1, 2008 at 11:32 am
Shefaly – I see where you’re coming from, but would still disagree. Just because “We do much worse to women every day anyway” doesn’t make it OK that another group – however marginalised or sinned-against – perpetuates the same trash. By that logic, some very dangerous people out there could justify far worse things. So I guess we have completely different points of view on this!
Prurient is what Indians are, unfortunately.
July 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm
QI:
A reader on a blog once said he thought I was a ‘boy’ and said my photo was misleading. That is the first time I have heard that my photo looks like a ‘fashionable boy’ (his words, not mine). I recognise he was reacting to my ferocious, ‘male’ way of arguing but was too chicken to say so.
A classmate (42 and English) in Cambridge once said to me in the course of a conversation, “That is the problem – your socialisation has not happened at the hands of a woman.” I asked him why it was a problem for him. He shrugged and said, See what I mean. I said, Actually, I don’t.
I have played with a doll at age 2, but not thereafter. I still cannot tie a saree and see it a pointlessly air-conditioned garment, unsuitable for where I live. I can change tyres, fix fuses, open up – and more importantly, put back – renegade electrical appliances. And I have been financially independent since 17.
I guess that makes me anything but a ‘typical’ woman, right.
I can assure you I have had no help from any change in society. It is all my own doing.
That is my point.
If we want things to change, _we_ have to change – one person at a time. If women are upset about how they are treated, _they_ need to stand up and tell people to get lost.
That is a separate battle altogether. Women in India fight it every day.
The damage done to women will be far outweighed by any gains the gay community may make. Life is about such choices. This is of course an academic debate. Lives of women or gay people in India are not.
Here is an idea – ask what a gay person thinks, now that you have heard more than one woman’s view. 🙂
July 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Shefaly – I agree with you when you say this debate is academic. In your opinion, the damage done to women will be far outweighed by gains the gay community may make. I, on the other hand, feel that not only does something like this reinforce popular stereotypes about gay men, it also does disservice to women who battle such perceptions in India every day.
It is entirely possible that gays would justify such statements using the same arguments you have. That still does not make it seem any more logical or “right” to me. It is entirely possible that some women may feel the same way I do, but that wouldn’t make it seem logical or “right” to you.
Since we have such divergent opinions and seem to be heading nowhere on this one, I think we should agree to disagree and move on.
July 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Shefaly – just curious, and since I think it falls within the broader area of your expertise (definitely not mine) – would I be correct in surmising that your argument is based on the doctrine of double effect? Any good links where I can also read more about this?
Cheers.
July 1, 2008 at 3:11 pm
QI: Yes, insofar as intended and unintended consequences are concerned, this line of arguing is effectively the doctrine of double effect. 🙂
One of the original papers you may like is: “Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect” by Warren S. Quinn (Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 334-351).
Let me know if you do not have access to this and I will try and find it for you.
July 1, 2008 at 6:07 pm
S: Thanks, will try and find it!
July 1, 2008 at 9:30 pm
@ Shefaly: This is going to be a long one, so try to bear with me. 😉
I respectfully disagree with you.
– Resistance doesn’t necessarily mean liberation. Gay men can do what women can do is not gender debunking. It’s a resistance to hetronormative gender stereotyping- which itself is restrictive. Gay men are considered effeminate and not masculine (which is what “real men” are). So, the issue at hand here isn’t denting any myth- it’s just making femininity an exclusive domain of queer men. So much for obliterating hegemony!
– While I agree with you on the issue of “wrong signals” between queer men and women, you are homogenizing queer men and straight women. Relationships are based on a lot more than the sexual-innuendo safety net. Gay men aren’t one group- they belong to various classes, sexual groups, socio-economic statuses, social circles etc… as do women. So, yes that some women may feel secure being the ‘fag-hag’ but that isn’t solely due to their sexual preferences.
-“Hindu Muslim Sikh Isaai
Hetero Homo Bhai Bhai…”
It’s adorable. But women, bi, dykes, and the trans community are not being acknowledged in mainstream homosexuality. Lesbianism and different sexes should be acknowledged (making the Indian queer community more inclusive for trans- etc… communities).
– I understand that you don’t subscribe to most of what stereotypically women should. But, that is not an accomplishment. Subscribing to monthly fashion magazines, not knowing much about cars or being linguistically subordinate is not a problem. Men who know nothing about policy making and subscribe to Haute Couture aren’t viewed as delinquents, and neither should women who do the same.
What needs to change is how feminine attributes are viewed. It should be OK to care about fashion and be passive. These are individual traits and should have nothing to do with men and women. Being aggressive is masculine and that alone should not make it valuable. And you must understand that you are subscribing to resistance, and it isn’t you ALONE who made you that way. You are a product of social construction, as is Paris Hilton. You were influenced by resistance as was I- that by no means makes it a landmark change. It’s restrictive and regressive none the less.
We need to have the freedom to be passive, nurturing, cut throat, effeminate etc… regardless of our sex, gender, religion, socio-economic status or sexual preference. That’s what needs to change.
July 1, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Lastly,
“Here is an idea – ask what a gay person thinks, now that you have heard more than one woman’s view”.
Again, Gay people aren’t an entity (neither are women). They have different interests and share different world views (and republican queers baffle me the most). Just because one gay man subscribes to femininity doesn’t mean another who caters to Alabama red-necks should do the same. It’s not about sects, it’s about individual freedom (which can’t exist since we live in a cluster-catering society). And that precisely is the problem.
and, I’m DONE!
Kisses and Caroms,
LM
July 1, 2008 at 11:18 pm
LM – I’m done commenting on this post as I’ve said what I had to and have nothing new to add.
However, I must say – very well put and very well crafted!
Cheers.
July 2, 2008 at 7:13 am
India was quite a liberal society at first. The British imposed their Victorian morals and overnight we became uptight. The British changed with changing times and we stick to laws framed in 1860 criminalising homosexuality.
But what i loved was the open defiance and the rally inspite of the fact that homosexuality is a crime in India. Means the even though the govt maintains it as criminal, its willing to turn a blind eye. Hope society will change its perceptions soon.
July 2, 2008 at 8:26 am
I do not have anything substantial to add to what commenters have already said; however, here are a couple of enjoyable links that are somewhat pertinent. Apologies to those who have seen them before.
First, a funny, whimsical, oft-quoted article by Andrew Sullivan on the maturing gay male culture and their breaking free from feminizing stereotypes.
Next, a really cute video
July 2, 2008 at 10:30 am
Liju – hopefully, the times they are a-changin’….
Abhishek – thanks for both the links. Very interesting.
Cheers.
July 2, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Aaahhh !! .. I am sorry but I dont agree ..
I dont like homosexuals .. I dont like gays .. I mean it’s against the nature .. It’s against the human divinity .. If pigs dont do it, why do you??
November 23, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Soham – Actually about ten pecent of the animal kingdom is gay (that’s also the percentage of gays in humanity). There are gay sheep, dogs, and probably pigs. So if it’s a part of nature (instead of against like you said), what’s the problem?
July 2, 2008 at 2:31 pm
LM:
“Gay people aren’t an entity (neither are women).”
Ergo, _some_ gay people want to claim their right to be effeminate and _some_ women do not care about female stereotypes being used to advance their cause, because they know that social stereotypes being written on placards no more strengthen the stereotypes than making laws/ policies weakens them. 🙂
Thanks.
July 2, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Hey Quirky Indian –
Certainly an interesting conversation here. A frightening comment from Soham, though. Comparing humans with animals can be a slippery slope towards de-humanisation. And the de-humanisation of people, no matter what their respective sexuality, can only have terrible consequences.
I hope that we can discuss issues of sexuality without resorting to attacking the humanity of those with whom we disagree.
July 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Soham – to begin with, one should respect the right of others to choose. The right of a gay person to choose an alternative sexual lifestyle is a personal decision, and it should be as respected as your decision or mine to be heterosexual, drink or be vegetarian. In fact, in some religions, sex for the purpose of anything but procreation is frowned upon. As is contraception, or abortion. Would either you or I want our right – or the right of our girlfriends/wives/sisters – to choose in such matters to be taken away from us?
Further, and perhaps someone can confirm this, I do recall reading sometime ago that there is evidence of homosexual behaviour in the animal world, particularly among primates and birds. In fact, if memory serves me right, bi-sexual behaviour is not uncommon. Please note my use of the word behaviour, instead of sex or intercourse.
And finally, it would do us all good to remember that some of the worst moments of human history have been caused by the fear and prosecution of deviance in any form…..and all progress has happened because someone, at some time, went against all the established norms and standards of that time. Norms and standards that seem ridiculous to us today.
So I’m afraid it’s not all that simple. Regardless of the second point I made, the first point itself should be all that matters!
Liam – couldn’t agree more. Some of the worst incidents in history have been the consequence of the dehumanisation of the “other”.
July 2, 2008 at 3:59 pm
QI:
For Soham’s benefit, a link from the poor man’s Britannica:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
July 2, 2008 at 4:58 pm
@ Quirky Indian:
Yes, indeed, there is enough and more scientific literature on homosexuality in animals. The most famous is Bruce Bagemihl’s 1999 book “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” – the product of 10 years of scouring for data on alternative sexuality in animals. And perhaps you’ve heard of the bonobo – a great ape, one of the closest relatives to humans (it shares 98% of our genetic profile), a species that is completely bisexual and even matriarchal.
In fact this whole gender dichotomy business (of male and female) is not even as “straight” as we’d like to think. Do read Thomas Laqueur’s “Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud” – a fascinating account of the making and unmaking of sex over the centuries by our predecessors – physicians, anatomists, political activists, literary figures, and theorists of very stripe.
July 2, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Shefaly – thank you.
Asmokescreen – thank you. And I will try and get hold of these books.
July 2, 2008 at 7:58 pm
QI:
This Hawt Post from today may have caught your eye – or not:
http://disembedded.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/the-modern-man-macho-replaced-by-sexual-ambiguity/
PS: Did you find that article? I realise it may need JSTOR or ScienceDirect access. Let me know. So long as you do not intend circulating it – as if! – I could send you a PDF if that is what JSTOR has.
July 3, 2008 at 11:32 am
Shefaly – cannot access the article. Would be great if you could send me a PDF. I promise I will try to hold off the hordes trying to take the article from me! 😉
Thanks.
July 4, 2008 at 12:34 am
@Quirky Indian & @shefaly
I completely agree with you..I respect their rights to choose to be gay or homosexual.. Tht’s why I said I dont like them.. If I would have said ke I want to kill all of them like Idi amin said once then that should have been sounded as an autocrat behaviour and I would hv been in real trouble..I just dont like gays and that is my personal opinion.. But thatnks for the other information.. I did not know that in animals too, there is homosexuality present..
SO now if pigs can do it, why cant humans.. LOL !!
😉
March 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Yes and there is more than one thing that is not right here… we are saying girls who like cars and boys who like dolls are not being how girls and boys should be, and boys not liking cars and girls not playing with dolls means they must be gay …
I have seen kids joke like that, and it is stereotyping.
July 3, 2010 at 1:56 pm
QI I reached your blog through google search for images for no gender stereotypes!! I thought, “interesting looking image… what is that a saree? Ar Indians also creating such awesome images?” and then I saw the url 🙂 Wow !! Now going to read the post 🙂
July 3, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I have read this post but don’t remember seeing this picture… for a moment I thought you picked this tag – http://indianhomemaker.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/my-sins-against-gender-stereotypes/
It would be great if you do 🙂