I have said I do not agree with large chunks of this piece and indeed that the approach is problematic. I also said on Gopi Ratnam s wall that I would not say more on this topic, but on second thoughts, the comments I made there (i.e. I said some of it was drivel and not properly contextualised) need some elaboration. The whole article is a really long list which I found to be quite sterile and outside-in (i.e. formulated as critique of Tamil society from a western perspective which didnt understand context) - but some points jumped out as worthy of commenting on. So without rereading it - but going from memory - here was my response. Firstly on Goddess worship - and the offhand comment that just because you Goddess worship doesnt mean you can assume your culture is woman-friently .. I think thats a very dismissive take on the influence of Goddess worship. I have seem some Tamil feminists insisting that Goddess worship is problematic because it puts women on a pedestal. Neither of these comments are true. It is a positive compared to all major Abramic religions that Tamil culture arises from a religion where there is a positive & unrestricted acknowledgement of female energy. It no more puts women on a pedestal than Shiva worship converts all men into to graveyard plunderers (by virtue of the skull symbolism) or Ganesha worship stereotypes men as Elephant herders - these are ridiculous notions. Now I dont think this piece actually said that but it certainly failed to acknowledge any cultural positives from Goddess worship when common sense and some basic knowledge of Tamil culture would indicate that there are positives - which is a problem of the framework and the sterile way it is constructed. The treatment of these topics is disingenuously dismissive of the specifics and indeed of reality. Myth and symbolism obviously influence language and thought processes. I have a lot more to say on Goddess symbolism in Hinduism and also within Saivism (which of course has less of it than Shaktism) but the interesting point that jumped out were these really inaccurate assertions. People dont wear jewellery or silk sarees to weddings or to the temple because womens bodies are spaces to display a familys bank balance or some such formulation of the idea. By way of anecdote when I was at the Balaji temple in Birmingham a few weekends ago I had a chance conversation with my mother on what is appropriate attire to temples. My mum commented that when she was in Sri Lanka Sinhala friends would ask her why it is that Tamil women dressed up for the temple while the Sinhalese always went in white - and she (my mother) had never known the answer to this. The insinuation - coming from the Sinhalese - that Tamils were somehow uncouth because unlike Sinhala-buddhists and many Christian sects (Quakers, Lutherans..etc) they didnt wear simple attire to worship was not lost on me. But the answer which I know is this - firstly many ancient cultures (including celtic) place a symbolic significance to gold - in celtic cultures gold honours the gods. Even if you dont believe gold has special significance/ and is auspicious, ( this point struck me forcefully a few weeks back at the Amman Temple) the idols are always decked in gold cloth. Almost all the idols - both male and female - are heavily decked in gold. The psychology behind wearing gold to a temple is effectively when you are visiting gods house and god is dressed at his/her best it is not polite for you to be dressed at your worst. If your best is a cotton saree so be it. But the choice is an interpretation of politeness. In the same way that people dont normally go to weddings in shorts and t-shirts. It is rude - unless the bride and groom are so dressed also. So in many ways the article struck me as juvenile - the equivalent of a teenager complaining they werent allowed to go to a family wedding in a bikini. And as for inequality and policing - well the authors have obviously not seen traditional male Tamil attire (especially historical depictions complete with armbands, anklets, waist-chains), gold chains, turbans lined with gold, and vettis with gold thread through them or visited a temple where the priest is wearing a shawl around his waist with elaborate and very colourful gold work (and for exactly the same reasons I mentioned above, to show respect and not to show off his wealth). As for puberty ceremonies - worth pointing out there is a puberty ceremony for men (kesanta kala - in sanskrit), but it was dropped somewhere along the way in popular culture, all the other sacraments/milestones apply to both genders (ear piercing of babies, intro to the alphabet ...). While I am on the topic of people wearing gold, worth adding that saivite (& other Hindu) cultures have a positive relationship to wealth - unlike in certain christian sects, wealth and the legitimate pursuit of it is not regarded as sinful or something to be hidden. Which explains why the grandmas and aunties think its inauspicious to refuse to wear gold if you have it - it indicates a lack of appreciation of the positive things in your life (jewellery being seen as positive rather than as a burden). One could go through the rest of it with a fine tooth comb but the article as a whole is tainted by the facile, often false & pseudo-modern assumptions that underly it. I also have other things to do. It was for the authors to research all of their points and drop the less credible assertions. Enjoy. checkyourdesiprivilege.tumblr/post/97606070317/check-your-tamil-des-h-i-male-privilege
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:34:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015