feminist sluts

What does Mathira do for feminism? 

She looks drugged.  She shrieks.  She has freak appeal.  She fascinates people;  she pouts; she gyrates; often she acts as if she were in a private sexy moment at a night club enjoying a dull buzz rather than under the scrutinizing eyes of thousands.  She has fans who adore her, people who hate her;  housewives who feel angry and resentful at her freely displaying leg, working women who perceive her as vulgar after a hard earned day, not insignificantly a large group of people who lust after her every antic, and perhaps most redeeming, young girls who say they want to be like her.  She woos them with her muahs-muahs and her kisses, loosens them up with her gujji gujjis, showers them with affectionate talk and somehow despite the multiple layers of distance she seems as if she were speaking to them alone.  Such is the power of her Oprah-esque  personality, and this remote intimacy is the basis of her mass appeal.  Then, callers emboldened by her accessibility cross the line over to offensive behavior.  One audaciously suggested she move her hair back so he could better view her left boob.  One said he wanted to fondle her.  The incidents are endless.

Could she be so trusting so as to not anticipate indecency from callers?  Perhaps she is not.  Regardless, she has the calmness of spirit and clarity of mind to promptly chastise them and dismiss them as "frustrated Pakistanis"-- not angrily, but firmly and sweetly.  Her detractors say if she is going to dress and act that way then she better be prepared for such comments.  From the ghost of feminism past, yet still applicable, this is a misogynist rape myth.  Sexy dress and actions do not (and should not) signify that a woman is asking  for it.  This is blaming the victim, the socially less powerful person for the violence they suffer, and absolving harassers and rapists of all responsibility.

This is analogous to the public humiliating by Maulana Mufti and a talk show host of Veena Malik for her candid moments with Ashmit Patel on the Indian reality Show, "Bigg Boss" - a virtual flogging of sorts for public consumption - which she brought upon herself, according to the rape myth, because she acted like a slut.

Herein lies Mathira's case for feminism, (and for that matter, Veena's).  They are what third wave feminists would call "feminist sluts."  Their feminism is contradictory and ambiguous - yet it is a positive as contradictions allows us to grow, struggle, and acquire new methods of self determination.

Mathira does not oppose the Hudood laws; she does not speak against domestic violence; she does not discuss the plight of home based women workers or harassment at work; she is not raising women's issues in any systematic or conventional fashion.  She simply projects that she be allowed to be, and by extension all young women be allowed to be modern, free to dress, free to speak, free to move, free to assert their sexuality, free to be silly, slutty, doped out, free to reject social constraints, ignore unsaid impositions on self expression such as laughing in public, and talking loudly -- and not be judged -- not be fed rape myths or scolded.

But Mathira's feminist slutting becomes more contradictory and paradoxical when you view it within the larger context of a patriarchal, capitalist economy and its hyper consumerists mindset.  Women who want to be like them will want to consume make-up, plastic surgery, designer labels and hand bags.

Moreover, Mathira works in an industry where there are, probably, dozens of incidents of female sexual harassment; she works for a capitalist structure that cashes in on her sexual appeal and allows space for her personal enrichment, but where most women will remain working at the lowest wages, and doing double days.  So what is Mathira makes her way groggily to a celebrity after party?  Her sisters are still neck deep in poverty.

Her act is ultimately a commodity; reality shows, in particular, feed on the uncensored, personal moments of real women for ratings.  The quest for ratings in Mathira's case is, insidiously, that she is open and sexual in a society that is obsessed that women not be publicly demonstrative. Moreover, in those awkward moments of dealing with indecent callers, viewers are privy to that intensely naked moment of mutual (and multiple) realization that something very bad has been said - something that represents society's dilemma about sexuality and violence, and that she must now respond.  She can do so in three ways:  with shame affirming that she is vulnerable, with old fashioned feminist rage, or with a controlled sense of indignation and humor.  She (consciously?) chooses the third.   Thus the immense amount of guilty pleasure in watching her is liberating, masturbatory, and for some perplexing and infuriating.  Either ways - she riles up peoples' emotions and emotions make money.

So be the case with Veena: A Pakistani on a reality show in a country where Shiv Sena inspired thinking warns Hindu women of the rapist (colonizing) tendencies of Muslim men.  Her image is that of a happy go lucky, bubbly woman who cuddles up with a Hindu man (who appropriately appears non committal).  She thus vindicates Hindutva fears.  And on her return to Pakistan, in a political tussle for ownership of her body, a Pakistani maulana tells her she has brought shame to Muslims.

Veena gallantly shut up the maulvi and reduced him to whimpers.  This is Veena's feminism.  "Let me be.  Men should lower their gaze and focus on more pressing issues like maulvis who molest their students.  I maybe slutting, but I am (arguably) within the parameters of Hadith, and on moral high ground as the sole bread winner in a family of five."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9Zd0KJsxVI&NR=1

But regardless, there is a ratings rat race - and her being Pakistani, Muslim, curiously vain, simple, manipulative, often crisp in her Urdu, naturally pretty, and in some scenes botoxed and puffy -- how much are profit focused channels marketing Veena for sinister reasons only their in-house psychologists understand?  And in turn, Pakistani viewers then drooling during her feisty exchange with the mufti (in the backdrop of blasphemy activism and murder by right wingers) - as Kamran Shahid the talk show host is permitted to (pornographically) gang up against her.

Yet no one will argue that, despite their sexualities being employed for profits in a generally exploitative system, Veena or Mathira are acting out of coercion, desperation, or oppression..  They are making conscious decisions and are negotiating their lives on their own terms.  Perhaps, Mathira does not need what Cafe Pyala paternalistically suggests -- a time lapse protection from lewd callers.  She knows her power lies in her making money for the channel, and these twisted exchanges are climactic, even if she is momentarily hassled by them.

http://cafepyala.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-time-delay-on-live-calls-is-good.html

Finally, this is my problem.

There are feminists who argue that pornography is not always oppressive, but maybe a mechanism for women to explore their sexuality   Yet that argument does not account for how the pornographic industry (and media in this example) is ultimately socially and economically exploitative for women.  Individual women may be making conscious and free decisions within the industry, and that's fine.  Kudos to them for making radical interventions.

But that does not alter oppressive systems - not with women's ownership of channels either.

Bottomline: If lipstick and slut talk liberates you, brilliant!  You've come a long way, baby.   But that does not eliminate the need to change economic systems from within and dismantle patriarchy.