Tweet
Sometimes I wonder if something is sexist, or if it's just a way of saying something.
One Hindi (and Sanskrit) word for a woman is "Abala" (अबला), which literally translates to "one without physical strength". "Bala", by default, without any qualifiers, refers to physical strength, and the prefixed "A" means "without", or "devoid of".
One thing I noticed while reading the Mahabharat (in its Hindi translation) it that the author uses this word when he wants to be sympathetic to the woman in question. Usually, it's used either when describing a woman who was a victim of something, or in a bad spot, or whenever he wants us to feel sympathy for the character. For instance, Krishna uses it when he refers to two women from the Yadava clan who were abducted by and forced to marry Kamsa (a thoroughly despicable guy all round).
I have seen it being used, in general, whenever the author wants to build the reader's sympathy for the character being described as such, when he wants us to empathise with how they feel. It is not used for strong-willed or independent women, such as Kunti or Draupadi (though it could be used for the latter during her humiliation at the hands of Dushasana, because then she could not resist their attempts to disrobe her, purely because she was physically weaker, and it was Krishna's intervention that saved her).
One thing to note here is that books in India are not supposed to be read only for their content - they are also supposed to make you feel something. That is why immense time and effort is expended into building characters up into believable people, where even the best have flaws, so that we can identify with and share the emotions of the characters we like (that's probably why the book is 1,00,000+ verses long). So if the use of this word builds sympathy and compassion for the character in the mind of the reader, and that is what the author intended, that is a plus point.
I have to admit that as a literary device, it works. I do feel more deeply for the characters when words with the right connotation like this are used judiciously in the right places.
And I haven't come across even one instance of it being used as a form of abuse, or as a taunt. In fact, men who did use it what way would be given very dirty looks, both in those times and much more so today.
On the other hand, it is still a word that technically applies to all women, even though it's use is usually very context specific.
So is this sexist? Or is it simply a literary device? Or is it both?
One Hindi (and Sanskrit) word for a woman is "Abala" (अबला), which literally translates to "one without physical strength". "Bala", by default, without any qualifiers, refers to physical strength, and the prefixed "A" means "without", or "devoid of".
One thing I noticed while reading the Mahabharat (in its Hindi translation) it that the author uses this word when he wants to be sympathetic to the woman in question. Usually, it's used either when describing a woman who was a victim of something, or in a bad spot, or whenever he wants us to feel sympathy for the character. For instance, Krishna uses it when he refers to two women from the Yadava clan who were abducted by and forced to marry Kamsa (a thoroughly despicable guy all round).
I have seen it being used, in general, whenever the author wants to build the reader's sympathy for the character being described as such, when he wants us to empathise with how they feel. It is not used for strong-willed or independent women, such as Kunti or Draupadi (though it could be used for the latter during her humiliation at the hands of Dushasana, because then she could not resist their attempts to disrobe her, purely because she was physically weaker, and it was Krishna's intervention that saved her).
One thing to note here is that books in India are not supposed to be read only for their content - they are also supposed to make you feel something. That is why immense time and effort is expended into building characters up into believable people, where even the best have flaws, so that we can identify with and share the emotions of the characters we like (that's probably why the book is 1,00,000+ verses long). So if the use of this word builds sympathy and compassion for the character in the mind of the reader, and that is what the author intended, that is a plus point.
I have to admit that as a literary device, it works. I do feel more deeply for the characters when words with the right connotation like this are used judiciously in the right places.
And I haven't come across even one instance of it being used as a form of abuse, or as a taunt. In fact, men who did use it what way would be given very dirty looks, both in those times and much more so today.
On the other hand, it is still a word that technically applies to all women, even though it's use is usually very context specific.
So is this sexist? Or is it simply a literary device? Or is it both?
Comment