By kaaaamna on Jul 25, 2007
Interesting 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! (Go, Chang!).