Dear TOI, it's 2014: Slut-shaming Deepika Padukone over her cleavage is so passe

First of all, thank you Bombay Times. For showing us, with a big, red, educative circle on Deepika Padukone's body and on your much-coveted-by-Bollywood frontpage, which part of a woman's body qualifies to be called 'cleavage'.

The said cleavage, I reckon, is possibly also feeling quite privileged since you chose to address it as the 'famous cleavage' in a bold red font.

It's a rather sad reminder for the sisterhood of repressed cleavages that they have no control over you breathing down their length or gasping at them with the orgasmic finesse of a sixteen-year-old watching his first porn film. Because in case no one told you so, 'OMG, Deepika's cleavage show' sounds pretty much like that.

Another parallel to the TOI's tweet that comes to mind is an insect-unfriendly human's response to a cockroach under the sofa or a lizard dangerously close to the window curtain - 'OMG! Cockroach/lizard/unpleasant-looking moth'.

AFP

But since I have deep faith in your literary aesthetics, I am sure you meant that sentence to be an expression of ... umm, appreciation? After all, like our editor Sandip Roy pointed out, you, like many other portals, have pioneered wardrobe malfunctions as a veritable subject for film journalists to closely track and follow. Here's evidence a photo post gloriously titled 'Hotties' peek-a-boo moments'. 

Now that we have this very necessary acknowledgement out of our way, let's look at the crux of the whole TOI vs Deepika Padukone issue.

While most people have been very vocal over whether or not Deepika was right to call out TOI for its 'sleazy' tweet,  this intellectual war over what qualifies as objectification and what should rather be regarded as a woman's personal freedom, overlooks the biggest issue. That is The Times of India's lousy language. It would be completely hypocritical to say that men, or even women for that matter, have never gawked at any cleavage.

However, what separates most of us from street-side louts is how we manoeuvre that gaze. Did we climb on the roof of the nearest building with a microphone, point at a person and howl, 'OMG, look, cleavage'? Because that's exactly what TOI did.

And what's more, the paper never for minute, thought about apologising for the sheer ludicrousness of its language.

In fact, managing editor of Bombay Times, Priya Gupta rolled up her sleeves and vehemently countered all the bad press that TOI received with the stellar defence that, "Yes, the headline could have been better. But the world of online is very different from that of newspapers. It is chaotic and cluttered — and sensational headlines are far from uncommon." Unfortunately, the other bunch of people who frequently resort to this they-did-it-too defence are street harassers.

Even websites like Yahoo have sections dedicated to the implications of a slit on a actor's sleeve, so TOI must have thought it was perfectly alright to do the same, never mind, if it's wrong or right. By that logic, most humans should consider hitting, cursing and running over each other perfectly legitimate behaviour, because, hey, other people do it too.

And The Times of India didn't just stop at that. They printed another six pictures on the front page, where Deepika is seen wearing various tops with deep necklines, and asked what they clearly thought was a poignant question: "Deepika, we accept your reel vs real argument, but what about all the times, and there have been many, when you have flaunted your body off screen — while dancing on stage, posing for magazine covers, or doing photo ops at movie promotional functions? What 'role' do you play there?"

Consider the writer, TOI's managing editor's choice of words here: "you have flaunted your body off-screen". Though she quickly assumes moral high ground and says that TOI has no problem with her 'showing off her' body, the fact that she uses the words 'flaunts' and 'shows off' in her sentences to address Padukone's wardrobe, instantly makes it evident that the writer is not making a statement, she is hurling an accusation. Where the actor is the 'cause' behind the 'effect' that was evident in the TOI tweet. It is a time tested, primitive defence, enthusiastically endorsed by the patriarchal frame-work of our society: slut-shame a woman to silence her.

In fact, the paper doesn't just stop at pointing an accusing, disapproving finger at her clothes, it even refers to her career to suggest that she better pipe down on the outrage drama. While making an argument on the objectification of male bodies, they refer to a completely unrelated piece of information about her career.

The article says the actor 'began her career as a 'calendar girl' for a liquor brand'. Remember the stereotype of vamps in the sixties and seventies - the woman who drank, who wore bold clothes and who danced in bars? With that one reference, put slyly in the beginning of a sentence which pontificates on a completely unrelated issue, the TOI 'point of view' immediately asks its readers to judge Deepika through a similar, archaic prism of morality.

Let's simplify the message for you: "Look this is woman who was a calendar girl for a liquor brand. She wears skimpy clothes. Then she wants us to refer to her and her body parts with dignity. How absolutely audacious is that?"

The Bombay Times page one.

What The Times of India did, in their petulant desire to score a point over Deepika Padukone, will not really affect the actor.

By resorting to every trick in the book employed by the upholders of patriarchal conventions - pointing at clothes, pointing at career choices and then villanising them to put women in their place - they just used the powerful front page of a widely circulated supplement to kick the women's movement in the gut.

Given that TOI reaches a cross section of people and lakhs of them at that, the paper just legitimised that old excuse our country falls back on to defend harassment - one that says 'she asked for it'.

We hope the paper realises that while patting themselves on their back, they also patted the backs of an entire clan of creeps who would think nothing of pointing their mobile phones down a woman's cleavage in a crowded bus, or an empty bus stand.

After all, like they claim, they are the most circulated English daily in India.