The last few days have been very exciting for my online self. Lots of gossip, controversies, pseudo online stands for the right causes and what not!
This all started when The Times Of India (TOI) published Ms. Deepika Padukone's picture showing-off her cleavage.
Well, publishing Masala to boost sales, is a practice sadly adopted by almost all media houses. Sadder is the fact that it has worked for all of them. I could write and be noble about discouraging media houses from these practices but the sole reason this kind of non-sense exist is us, the consumers. So, I don't intend to be the social police in this blog.
Deepika says she is pissed because the world sees women as objects, which is wrong and hurtful.
But where is this objectification coming from? Ever heard of an ITEM number? Who is the ITEM in that number?
This all boils down to what people want to see! Item numbers, bikini scenes, kisses and smooches! Imran Hashmis, Sheelas and Munnis did not exist a few years back, but they do now and everyone including the celebs are accepting it, willfully catering us!
If a celebrity takes a strong stand against objectification of women, shouldn't the stand be a 360 degree phenomenon or just where it would suit the celeb?
I completely understand that looking at her own self in the newspaper with a raunchy title would have made her feel disgusted of the publisher. But lets take this a little slower and more logically. Objectifying a person is wrong in so many ways, but haven't these celebs accepted it as per their audience's requirements? A very strong argument is that the Role demanded that kind of exposure. Think about it, why do all the roles demand exposure these days? Why weren't the parts offered a few years ago, so demanding?
Actually, you can't even say the Script demanded the Item Number! Yeah right! The script did demand it cause the script sucked and you needed people in the theaters!
Remember Dum Maaro Dum, potty pe baithe nanga and what not... Deepika had no Role in the movie, just that item number flaunting her long sweet legs and the same cleavage... But that isn't objectifying when she has agreed to do it, yeah?
So isn't the anger misplaced? TOI is not really objectifying women, TOI is only cashing the fact that women already are! And why just women, SRK's 6-packs or John's bums too!
I wouldn't even say TOI is encouraging it, because its a business which demands profits, which means whatever sells has to be in it! But how does TOI confirm that this kind of pics would increase its sales? Maybe some Chikni Chameeli told them. Or maybe they read how J Lo insured her thighs! Oh, what assets! (aaaa... asset = object, no?)
But anyhow, passing a judgement on a media house categorizing them as the ones objectifying women would be a tad bit incorrect.
We would need to accept the kind of world we have created. We buy it, that's why it sells. And, someone is producing it too! So no-one is completely in the white here!
Everyone who stands by Deepika in this, should stop promoting such stuff, don't go and watch Bang Bang, cause Hrithik has flaunted like crazy in the movie and stop hanging those topless John Abrahms in your rooms! Run away, lock yourself up in a pseudo world and throw away the keys somewhere deep!
If you choose to stand against something so evident and obvious, it has to be a stronger stand than a sweet noble speech in favor of women on your blog.
I am a marketer and I understand TOI's point of view. Being human, I can sympathize with Deepika and her anger but can't ignore the contributions made by her and the likes of her in this!
I mean, Deepika carries an item number, but when TOI plays it, it gets cheap. Sorry, beyond me!
Not troubling myself with this complexities of the glamour world, I'd rather just enjoy the view from far far away! :)