<p>I have never been a fan of television news or debates. I have a strong feeling that the anchors surreptitiously check out our homes, while they are just looking at their camera lens. On the screen, there’s a ticker here, a market update there, some scroll on the side and an ad flashing all the time, with a spokesperson sounding like a doomsday predictor telling us we could probably be dead instead of watching him/her now. When the internet began to give news its due importance, I was more than happy. I would check a few websites and read through a handful of blogs to get my fill. Instant messaging made it easier and broke into our lives with more ‘breaking’ news. Of course, on the side is family/friends/local residents WhatsApp groups telling us good things they seldom read themselves. But then soon enough, having realised every click gives me specific ads, leads to particular content, and feeds into algorithms, I am back at my original choice of news vendor.</p>.<p>My pet ‘print’ doesn’t tease or manipulate my perception. It lies there till I pick it up over my morning tea/breakfast. It does not foment emotions if I move from one article to another. It doesn’t collect data about my eyeball time vs scrolling. Most importantly, it does not pop ads in my face. But then, just being a print person doesn’t make me adequately guilty, as much as the television and internet do. For instance, I need to know that women ‘harping’ on feminism should hold sole propriety over all evils happening on earth. If I say I mean it in jest, I’d be killing the sarcasm. But if I don’t, hare brains may assume feminism is (not even) a joke on them.</p>.<p>It wasn’t too long ago that we used to read funny-but-true kinds of esoteric statements from fundamentalist religious leaders, and the Taliban who basically held women accountable for failed rains, floods, earthquakes, drought, volcanoes, and aliens visiting us or for not visiting us.</p>.<p>Little did I know few years down the line, my country, which was on the path to stunning progress, would be making a pitstop at this insanity and we would be stuck here for a long time like that giant ship that strayed into the Suez Canal and remained stuck for a long time halting every trade en route. Whether it is a woman engaged in a brawl with a food vendor, or a woman who had to deliver sexual favours to a minister and recorded the act on a secret cam; feminism needs to stand in the witness box and explain every charge levelled against it. As if feminism owes an apology every time a woman does wrong. Feminism doesn’t defend a wrongdoer. Simple. A CM can judge women based on a mother wearing ripped jeans, and masculine privilege won’t call it out. A million rapes continue to take place, but dare you to hold the patriarchy responsible. Why? Because #NotAllMen you see. A wealthy and powerful man can be left completely off the hook by our own women, who will rush to dissect THAT woman because ‘she doesn’t look like a victim’. Pray, tell me, how does a victim look? And even if she isn’t one, can we not let the courts decide?</p>.<p><em><span class="italic">(The author is a journalist deeply seeped into the theatre of (&) politics.)</span></em></p>
<p>I have never been a fan of television news or debates. I have a strong feeling that the anchors surreptitiously check out our homes, while they are just looking at their camera lens. On the screen, there’s a ticker here, a market update there, some scroll on the side and an ad flashing all the time, with a spokesperson sounding like a doomsday predictor telling us we could probably be dead instead of watching him/her now. When the internet began to give news its due importance, I was more than happy. I would check a few websites and read through a handful of blogs to get my fill. Instant messaging made it easier and broke into our lives with more ‘breaking’ news. Of course, on the side is family/friends/local residents WhatsApp groups telling us good things they seldom read themselves. But then soon enough, having realised every click gives me specific ads, leads to particular content, and feeds into algorithms, I am back at my original choice of news vendor.</p>.<p>My pet ‘print’ doesn’t tease or manipulate my perception. It lies there till I pick it up over my morning tea/breakfast. It does not foment emotions if I move from one article to another. It doesn’t collect data about my eyeball time vs scrolling. Most importantly, it does not pop ads in my face. But then, just being a print person doesn’t make me adequately guilty, as much as the television and internet do. For instance, I need to know that women ‘harping’ on feminism should hold sole propriety over all evils happening on earth. If I say I mean it in jest, I’d be killing the sarcasm. But if I don’t, hare brains may assume feminism is (not even) a joke on them.</p>.<p>It wasn’t too long ago that we used to read funny-but-true kinds of esoteric statements from fundamentalist religious leaders, and the Taliban who basically held women accountable for failed rains, floods, earthquakes, drought, volcanoes, and aliens visiting us or for not visiting us.</p>.<p>Little did I know few years down the line, my country, which was on the path to stunning progress, would be making a pitstop at this insanity and we would be stuck here for a long time like that giant ship that strayed into the Suez Canal and remained stuck for a long time halting every trade en route. Whether it is a woman engaged in a brawl with a food vendor, or a woman who had to deliver sexual favours to a minister and recorded the act on a secret cam; feminism needs to stand in the witness box and explain every charge levelled against it. As if feminism owes an apology every time a woman does wrong. Feminism doesn’t defend a wrongdoer. Simple. A CM can judge women based on a mother wearing ripped jeans, and masculine privilege won’t call it out. A million rapes continue to take place, but dare you to hold the patriarchy responsible. Why? Because #NotAllMen you see. A wealthy and powerful man can be left completely off the hook by our own women, who will rush to dissect THAT woman because ‘she doesn’t look like a victim’. Pray, tell me, how does a victim look? And even if she isn’t one, can we not let the courts decide?</p>.<p><em><span class="italic">(The author is a journalist deeply seeped into the theatre of (&) politics.)</span></em></p>