Media and women: Images of reality

Violence against and discrimination towards women continues unabated in spite of steps taken by those more liberated in every sphere of life. Such violence is directly related to the way in which they are portrayed as stereotypes in the media. Isn't it time, asks VISA RAVINDRAN, that the latter re-examines and exercises more care in its role as the watchdog of the public?

WE live in a country where a woman sarpanch is gangraped and when she returns to her village and dares file a complaint, her own family and community accuse her of having "asked for it", humiliate her by parading her on the streets with a garland of slippers around her neck for having brought dishonour to them; where men brand their wives witches to get rid of them and buy concubines with the collusion of village elders and policemen who control the trade. Ours is also a country where girls commit suicide unable to bear the humiliation meted out to them in the name of ragging. Ours is the country where Suryanelli is an eternal blot because a 15-year-old paid for her innocence by becoming the forced plaything of unscrupulous men including politicians and high-placed officials and returned home torn, bleeding and scarred for life.

Yet, the unchanging situation of denigrated woman, despite the strides taken by her more liberated sisters, continues to be reflected in the stereotypical portrayals of housewife, mother, wife, decorative object, sex object and victim in our media. A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) laments the fact that there are still "Page 3" girls in British tabloids; observes that women in most countries continue to be described in terms of their appearance, rather than their ability, are shown as loyal supporters of men, rather than individuals in their own right, that they are "biologically located, not socially situated", and that these media images presenting "models of women become models for women". The media, being a powerful agent of socialisation, perpetuates these stereotypical roles/models among an audience/readership and mediawatch has, therefore, become an important aspect of women's studies.

Against this background we have adman Prahlad Kakkar proclaiming (Savvy, August 2000) "the gharelu image (of women) is truly exploitative. Showing women as dowdy, dabba-like, unattractive housewives who slave for their families without any personal ambitions is enslaving". He is also reported as saying that the perpetuation of this status quo is exploitative and that he found "Lalithaji" (made popular by the "Surf" ads, where she is depicted as the smart housewife getting the best for her family even while saving money) far more exploitative in terms of the kind of role model that advertising confines women to, than a deadly bikini-clad woman on top of a Porsche (the article's words). "I truly believe," Mr. Kakkar says, "that an ad which shows a woman as a sex object is not exploitative, just blatant and obvious. Yes, I exploit women because they are far more aesthetically beautiful than men. Since men are the main purchasing power of the world today, the image of a scantily-clad woman will make them buy anything," is his unashamed summing-up of the whole question.

I find this argument more convoluted than a corkscrew. Is "blatant and obvious" better than "exploitative", and so outside the pale of argument in Mr. Kakkar's rule book? And do these scantily-clad damsels lying supine on male power symbols like cars, provide better role models than the samajdhar "Lalithajis" of the ad world? How is one better, or worse, than the other when both plug stereotypical roles that the advertising world has exploited to the hilt for so long? At least the "Lalithajis" do something worthwhile well and appeal to the home-loving sort - the women's movement is all about increasing choice, not taking away alternatives - while the willowy one is hardly to be considered a role model, but is, with beauty queens mushrooming all over India (thanks to large markets opening for cosmetics manufacturers in developing countries), creeping into many vulnerable heads as the ultimate teen dream.

We are not speaking here of the impossible standards set by the "attractive" models - conforming to male diktats of dress and appearance for impressionable minds to copy, driving them to anorexia and self-hate, or the schizoid message of an urban culture that pays token respect to the goals of the women's movement even while signalling to them that liberation can be won by reposing confidence in the latest

cosmetics and self-esteem, by starving oneself to win a beauty crown. There is even a radical feminist view, to which this writer does not subscribe, that this badgering of young minds with the idea that slender alone is beautiful is a deepseated strategy to rob women of the power that they are beginning to gain - starve them to limit them. "Is it a conspiracy unknown even to those who participate in it? A whole culture is busily spinning images and warnings intended to keep women from developing their bodies, their appetites and their powers," says Kim Chiernan, author of The Tyranny of Slenderness. We are talking here of an even more exploitative, and insidious, use of the female form purely to lure men and promote sales, the sort of social irresponsibility that prompts an adman to claim the things Mr. Kakkar does in his statements.

It is this kind of attitude that makes Niqe Ware observe in an article published in 1996: "this contradiction, sanctioning the notion of women as autonomous and equal citizens while also endorsing the idea that women are around to be gazed at, is the contradiction that lessened our potential then (the 1970s) and has the same effect today. Although the media did foster the spread of the liberation movement through its vast amount of coverage, the media also hampered the movement's potential and women's potential as individuals by putting female attractiveness at the forefront." In support of her argument, she discusses the work of Susan J. Douglas and quotes a telling observation in the latter's book: "Narcissism as liberation is liberation repackaged, deferred and denied".

Violence against women is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to their attaining equality and freedom. This is not a "whatever you do I will also do" kind of short-sighted race, but an equality based on the recognition that all human beings deserve to exercise their right to equality of opportunity and enjoy freedom of choice without discrimination based on gender. And discrimination based on gender cannot cease as long as women are not made visible in all the nuances of their real and varied lives. Violence against women is directly related to the way women are portrayed in the media and anyone who says he exploits women because they are beautiful and capable of making men buy whatever an adman wants to sell is guilty of the greatest harm one can do to the depiction of women as equal and free.

In this reinforcement of the stereotypical roles of women, our TV serials are also to blame. Powerful women-centred tales on the tube have unbelievably good women driven to insanity by their husbands' families like a recent heroine, coming to know that live offspring had been substituted for the sister-in-law's still-born one and still not raising her voice against ill- treatment; men, in more than one serial, taking a second wife and the play showing the first wife as ill-tempered and therefore "what can the man do, but ..." etc. The husband and the mangalsutra are to be worshipped, the foreign-educated girl is always bad and of loose morals, her tight jeans a symbol of her moving away from her roots. The sacrificing elder sisters with wisdom beyond their years and a brood of empty-headed younger siblings to care for are other rigid moulds in which women are cast. When are we going to see women of flesh and blood with the contradictions and diversity with which we are wont to meet them everyday? The fictional stereotypes establish a certain train of thought by association, just as the use of women as sex objects reduce their dignity and create attitudes that contribute directly to violence against them. In a period of transition, extra care must be exercised by all those who have the power to shape public opinion. The sad corollary to the argument is that it is the women models who allow themselves to be used - glossing their reduction of one half of humanity to mere sex-symbols in the false names of art or self-expression - who enable the perpetuation of these demeaning stereotypes.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Net advantage
Next     : A peace movement is born