A ‘feminist’ is a one who cuts her hair short, wear pants and refuses to get married or ‘bow’ to a man. Perhaps that definition of the word was drilled into our heads by the generations before us by the women who had to fight for their basic rights, hence took the other extreme.

A ‘feminist’ movie by today’s definition has an ending where woman shoots everyone and walks off into the horizon. Or where is a whisky-drinking, short haired, corporate honcho. And of course, single. Those movies never run and I wonder why they are even made.

Feminism, someone I was talking to a couple of days ago said, does not mean prioritizing women.

The definition merely added another job to the already long list of tasks – of being a man, she added.

If feminism went by the archaic definition, most women today are not. Because the old impression was very anti-feminine.

To my generation, it just means being able to make our choice. We do not even think of it as feminist. It is just something that we do.

But I’ve so often heard the line ”I cannot support these feminist ideas.”

This could be in response to a suggestion that she delay getting married/having babies/move to another city on her own/cut her hair a little shorter to keep it healthy.

To many of us, all these things are just a lifestyle choice. It is about knowing who you are, your likes and dislikes. It is a requirement, not a particular fancy, to most of us. We do not think of it as being feminist.

When someone advises a woman about moving away from an abusive husband, about using birth control, about choosing to move to another city for a job, it is not really about feminism. It is about making choices for a better life. Yet, perhaps somewhere, these choices are considered feminist choices.

These little freedoms that we take for granted are the result of someone being branded an extremist.

Feminists always asked for equal rights. They never claimed anybody was better than anybody else. That is an interpretation made by today’s generation. Why? That is a different story… like every freedom fighter, feminists too lost their shine after some victory was achieved perhaps. Like being a Gandhian. Or maybe the extremist behaviour tired some people and it stuck as being annoying.

Whatever be the reason… all they asked for was a chance to fuck up as much as the rest of the world did and not be blamed any more than the next person would be.

Her latest book was what caught my interest. It is the Ramayana told from Sita’s perspective. I had not read the book, but the conversation sparked enough interest to find a quick look at the first two chapters of her next book – Searching for Sita.

It reminded me of several questions I had as a child about Sita. I always found it ridiculous that Ram would give up Sita after all that they had gone through. I thought both of them should leave… I mean Ram and his brother were the reason that Sita was arrested in the first place. But it was explained to me that Ram had bigger duties and responsibilities. Therefore, off went Sita alone to raise two kids in the forest.

But I never was convinced. Where was Sita’s perspective? Her voice in this entire epic novel? She was like a really crucial character but had no voice. Like an object. A line from another book I read seems to fit – yet another voiceless victim.

Sita was shunted from her mother’s house into her adoptive father’s house without a choice. Okay, she was a baby. Then she is married to the guy who can shoot really a well. Again, not really given a choice. Her good luck – the guy seems to be quite good. Too good sometimes.

The only choice she seems to make is to follow her husband into exile. Perhaps it was born out of a sense of duty but she does and that makes a difference. They go where he chooses, eats what he hunts.

Then she makes yet another choice, again out of a sense of duty and this time, majorly screws up by stepping out of the line, literally. And so people use this incident to state that women should not really be trusted yadda yadda yadda.

But why isn’t there a single chapter from Sita’s perspective? If Ravana had not been the hermit in disguise, would Ram have come back and yelled at her for not really stepping out to give him food? He’d have probably said she valued herself more than the hermit. Maybe all she was doing was trying to please him.

I’m not trying a feminist’s perspective here. I’m just curious about the woman who has been held as “the standard” for all of us. How can she be a standard if we really do not know anything about her?

I always wondered why she did not turn around and ask Ram also to step into the holy fire with her. Of course, when a movie dared ask that question, it was nearly burnt to death and banned. Why did not Urmila ask that question of Lakshmana? Where is the other perspective?

The author I spoke to today mentioned that in rural areas, many of the folk songs are from Sita’s voice. They talk about their troubles, worries and victories, which are linked to their partners.

“Sita still has a voice here,” the author said. It is just in mainstream, everyday settings that she is forgotten. That she is just a footnote, as they say.

Considering how big an impact Ramayana has on Indian culture, there has to be the other voice – the other person who was the cause of this all!

But mostly, we were talking about Stewie and it struck me that Family Guy will probably be studied by students and anthropologists and cultural experts decades from now to figure out how our generation was.

It is a brilliant satirical take on today’s civilization. Yes, I’m one of those people who enjoy Family Guy and the jokes, including the ones that are not politically correct. Perhaps those in particular.

Our society as such has gone so overboard on narcissism. We broadcast our thoughts every single minute of the day and obsess over details that do not require a thought.

Stewie is the perfect anecdote to such a society… sarcasm at its best – Family Guy.

(And that is what people who hate it perhaps do not get – sarcasm)

Of course, I’ve been seeing some aspects of PR for a while… but being in the line of fire… that just makes you respect the PR people at another level completely (least the ones who do their jobs). And as I often say, you just can’t be paid enough to do this job.

It is simpler being a reporter sometimes… you’ve to get your story, write it up and go home. Of course, there are those horrible deadlines, cranky and overbearing editors, people who do not give you the information on time or worse, go missing and all that. You’ve to be cautious about stepping on toes…

But being a PR means you get hit on both ends. You cannot afford to piss off the client. And you cannot afford to piss of the reporter and you need to keep them happy as well. Because the reporter is all encompassing when it comes to you… you annoy them once, they’ll block you several times.

True, the reverse works too… but somehow, it feels like the PR needs the reporter more (unless you are working in the business world).

So here you are juggling several things, trying to keep the reporter happy and occupied despite the several delays, frantically making calls to organize the rest of the things and being polite, firm and not nasty but trying to get the work done… and doing all this while looking like you are just chilling out on a nice evening.

It sorted of reminded me of my waitressing days… pretty much the same things applied. You’d to make sure all the tables were served and served the right things, take the orders of whatever they wanted, make sure the kitchen was working smoothly to get what the customers wanted and do all of it looking like you were having a ball.

It was quite a fun evening and I’m definitely glad I got to do it. But the PR people in India – paid no where close to what they should be!

A few years later, I watched a rerun on TV happily, knowing my parents wouldn’t really fuss about it.

But watching it last night on TV was like the parents had already gotten to the movie and deleted not only every single swear word, but also words like ‘sex’, ‘dick’ and its synonyms that were used in the movie.

What is happening with Indian television? We still use vats of glycerin on TV, with women decked up more than an average Christmas tree boohooing about their in-laws, husbands who are having affairs or missing children. We have Hindi movies that swear like a local hooligan on the Delhi metro.

And they bother censoring words like ‘sex’? And not just censoring, they subtitle it as ‘making love’ every time, if they absolutely have to. And they do not dare subtitle the word ‘ass’ as ‘ass’. They say ‘buttocks’ or something even more stupid.

REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!? That is supposed to clean up our language and save our culture? What exactly is the point of such censorship? And why has this gone unnoticed so long?

They sneaked up on us… They changed content. And then there was that horrible black line “If you have a problem with the content…” and then all the offending words just disappeared from TV.

In the age of cable, everyone has the freedom to watch what they want. Parents can install child locks on TV, they can give open access to only certain kinds of programs to their horny teenagers who will get sooooo worked up by even hearing the word sex or seeing people exchange a quick peck on TV. Who the hell is the government to censor what I want to watch?!

Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” has been permanently etched in my mind through these discussions.

Long before that though, someone gifted me a book (whose name eludes me right now) that had modern fairytales with strong women and critical analyses of some old fairytales, like Little Red Riding Hood.

When I read that story as a kid, I never questioned the male and female roles in it. I never felt offended as a girl because the girl got swallowed by a wolf. I read Cindrella and Snow White and enjoyed it and never thought of it as being demeaning to women. I still do not.

Perhaps our cultural roles are defined as children. But how far should we take the analyses of such fairy tales?

There was a lesson in one of my text books in third grade. It read “Kamala helped her mom in the kitchen. Raju helped his dad in the garden.” That was probably more defining of gender roles and had a subconscious effect, if any. Because these roles were enforced by the teachers teaching them. They used this as a prelude to a lecture about how girls and boys were supposed to behave.

But reading Cindrella, or its Indian equivalent of Suryakanthi, Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood or any of these classics had no role in defining gender roles for me.

A book I was reading today said Enid Blyton was racist. Because his books do not talk about brown or black people. They are all about blond and blue-eyed children and their adventure.

When I read The Famous Five, I wasn’t thinking about White or Black. I was thinking ‘o I wish I could have a similar club and be a detective’. The concept of discrimination comes from adults. Blyton’s books were written in the 19th century when immigration and intermingling was not as widely spread as today. She wrote about people around her. It becomes racist only if we make it so.

And if you can make anything racist that way… take Harry Potter for instance. The Indian characters there are shown as gaudy and frivolous with their pink fluffy gowns and ribbons. Should I be offended because of that? Should I be offended that a brown man is shown as a joker in most movies? Or when a Hollywood movie says the world will be destroyed, they usually show only New York or sometimes, Chicago?

Literature does have a role in shaping ideas. But how much does children’s literature shape one’s gender roles? Do children really think about it or do we plant these ideas into their heads as adults? Do we plant these ideas in children by quoting these fictional characters as examples for some thing? And did you believe that Prince Charming existed by reading Cindrella or by reading Mills&Boons novels?

Why can’t we let children’s books be just that?

Hope you enjoy this selection.

Here’s looking to a much more successful new year. Happy 2012!

July was all about kids and fashion…

August: Blooms, food and fashion. Attended one of the bizzarest fashion shows I’d see so far. Interesting times.

September: A pretty mother-to-be and her husband…

October: There were other things this month but these two photographs remain my favorites… indulgence and the price we pay. Shot at a birthday party and the aftermath of the Ganesha festival respectively.

(Part 1 of the retrospective is here)

January… My first ever official assignment as a photographer – to cover an arts show. I wandered around, juggling shooting what I liked and what I was supposed to shoot.

February: The season of fashion shows begin. My first ever Fashion Show – Bangalore Fashion Week. I knew how to shoot… but I wasn’t sure what to capture. And fashion shows actually seemed exciting!

March: Kids. Celebrities. Weddings. The three things that seem to be the theme for the month.

I start my project at the Indriya Foundation, working with kids and covering their everyday life.

I start working for magazines, which requires shooting a lot of celebrities.

I get a hint of my interest in weddings that are to follow in that year.

At the Akon Concert

April: April was a month of concerts. Summer sunshine makes it perfect. There is something absolutely awe inspiring about being right underneath the stage and watching the performance. Of course, I got to shoot one concert and just listen to the other. But it worked out quite well, in terms of music.

May: Winding roads and a bike trip, and a lazy afternoon spent shooting beautiful antique jewelry.

Like the comments made by some moronical politicians and cops about fashionable women and rape.

I do not want to talk about the year gone by and hopes for the year ahead. I’ve read so many “best things of 2011″ and worst of 2011 posts everywhere that my mind is on the verge of exploding. Who cares what movies rocked or not? There are probably a handful that I remember 10 years from now anyway, and I’m sure I won’t particularly remember which year it came out.

As long as there are quality movies to watch, I don’t want to make a list.

But then I came across Variety’s Best Dressed People of 2011 and I wondered – why the hell do we pay so much attention to fashion?

Possibly a stupid question from someone who shoots fashion… but then again, how many female fashion photographers are there? If we really love shoes and bags so much, shouldn’t we be wanting to shoot them as well?

But nope… not really. It is the men… and it isn’t because they have a better perspective. Would it be the sight of attractive women that keeps them going? The steady stream of bags, dresses, belts and more just bores me to death. I like the challenge of being able to capture objects but somehome, I like shooting more realistic moments.

My loss or my USP, as it may be.

But I’m still on the look out for those strong female photographer icons. Men and women approach things differently… it might be cultural or social training, but there you go. I’d like to see how much of the difference exists on this platform.

Who is your favorite female photography icon?

… and yes, here’s to a healthier, wealthier, happier and good-er 2012.