series of events: In the same month, India elected its first
female President, and on the other side of celebrity turmoil, a judge
(male, ironically) condemned the whole of the Indian democratic
philosophy because: Of 4 remaining female Indian Idol contestants, 3
were on the brink of extinction, while less talented (in the
judge's opinion), male contestants settled comfortably into their
seats, one step closer to the coveted prize. The Indian President is
elected by members of the Indian Parliament and Legislature, while
the next Indian Idol will be jettisoned into stardom by the harsh
critics in the Indian masses. Surely this means that in the Indian
Government, we have done well by electing progressive,
non-discriminating leaders that have the gumption to appoint the most
deserving candidate, regardless of gender, while the masses in India
need to do some soul searching on whether it was Charu's gender or
her bland singing that led to her ultimate dismissal.
Or does it?
As I took a moment to be concerned about the state of my
democracy, I realized that the ringing in my ears was the farewell
song of the contestant who was voted off, and I have to say I was
relieved to see her go. Further, each of the girls clearly lacked the
ability to motivate the crowd into a bouncing, gyrating frenzy that
somehow the boys were able to pull off. I would vote all the women
off. I am a woman, and a music devotee. Where should my
loyalties lie? And why are they even in conflict in this event?
We need to pick our battles wisely. Gender biases exist
legitimately and there are several examples of situations in which
women have been disadvantaged, either consciously or inadvertently,
in social and professional spheres (there are also examples,
incidentally, of the reverse occurring).
I'd rather have a female President and a male Indian Idol any day!