Should You be a Stay-at-home Mum?

September 2011: The decision and dilemma of choosing to stay home for the kids...

Shilpi Sengupta Jain's post about the "hardest choice [she] ever made", choosing work-over-baby or baby-over-work, got me thinking. Until a few decades ago, there was absolutely no angst attached to staying at home and nurturing the family. Far from it in fact, that's what we were expected to do—and, as women, we've fought hard to hold our own outside our homes. We've come a long way, baby... don't you think?!

But, there's a flip side. Having checked ourselves in to this rat race, it is hard to check out. With expectations from your career, the independence and achievement, and, of course, the moolah... staying at home can be hard! Plus, there's the point you set out to prove: that emancipated women can be as true to their careers as men are perceived to be. To prove my rude uncle wrong: “I'll never hire a woman because they never stay. Shaadi-bacche ke baad career khatam.” So yeah, that point: that you wouldn't be another one that bites the traditional dust. In this process, have we painted ourselves in to another corner—of being trapped outside the house?

Choosing to Stay at Home

So, can you do it? There are things to consider about your situation and personality...

Can you afford it? Expenses are bound to increase.

For how long? You'll need the maternity leave (between three and six months) to nurse and recoup, and it will barely be a blip in your work-life. For how long do you think your babies need you 24x7? Shilpi believes that the reason Raashi, 5, is an insecure child—she "freaks out" even when Shilpi goes for a run—is because she resumed work when Raashi was only two months old. "Somewhere I still keep blaming myself for all her insecurities around me."

While there is no ideal, the best time to resume work—from your children's point of view—is when they've started school and settled in. If you have a strong support system (and a good maid!), this can be sooner still—Roopshikha Mane credits their supportive joint family for her career in architecture. Simple rule: the happier and busier they are in the daytime while you're away, the less they will need you every minute.

Are you ready for it? Whether or not your staying at home for three-plus years is good for your child, do it only if it's good for you. Being a 'home maker'/'house manager' is the least appreciated job in the world, and if your work is a huge part of your sense of self and staying at home will just get you depressed... don't do it!

Like most women, Shilpi resumed work because she was "already tired of being at home." For all the joy that spending every waking minute with your child is, it is just that... every waking minute with your child! Are you prepared for the boredom, claustrophobia, tantrum-y days? It's better for your kids to have a happy you for two hours a day than a resentful or depressed you for all 24...

But, going back to work soon doesn't provide the answers either. Every working mother I spoke to described overwhelming guilt, along with an estrangement from her husband. Once Shilpi resumed work, she found herself crying as she drove: "I had a huge bag of guilt and compromise, tagging along with me." Says my own mum, who worked from within a month after I was born: "Work, baby, stress, guilt took everything out of me. There was no time left for my marriage. Thank god your dad understood."

Real-world word of advice: lower your expectations. Accept that you'll never be 100% happy as either, a working mother of a young child, or as a stay-at-home mum missing her career. That's tough to accept, isn't it?

Just Do It!

Shilpi stays home, and I'm sure she is slowly but surely working away Raashi's insecurities with her gentle understanding. She hopes to resume work when Raashi is happier about it. "I loved to work and I always needed some mental challenge to make myself happy... after Raashi I realised that I need more than that. I needed her and Rajeev to make myself complete."

As for you... you must weigh the money you'll miss against the wealth of memories you'll create; and other factors in your life. If you do decide that being a hands-on mum is the most important role you'll hold, plan how exactly you're going to reorganise your life around the family and a few personal goals, and how to keep yourself challenged.

And the expectations? If you want to stay at home, temporarily or long-term, do it. Without guilt. Because ultimately, being liberated means having the freedom to make your own decisions, irrespective of traditional or liberal stereotypes. Doesn't it?

---

This article appeared on Yowoto—a now-defunct parenting website startup that I helped incubate as Editor-in-chief—in September 2011.

While I’m now a firm childless antinatalist, my politics weren’t fully formed when I took this short-lived assignment to explore the digital side of publishing (though it was never a good fit). Nonetheless, some of the articles I wrote at the time are interesting.

The Name Game

July 2011: Looking for baby names? Find out eight things every modern parent must know.

Photograph courtesy Sahil Mane.

“When did naming babies become so damn hard?!”
A few generations ago, no one really gave a second thought to baby names. It was thumbs down to individuality, thumbs up to cultural naming formulas. So the first-born of Keralite Christians and Palghat Iyers carried the dad's parent's name; the second kid got the mom's parent's. There's the Maharshtrian rule: generic first name + father's name + ancestors' village+kar... and so on, right?

Cut to 2011. One of our mothers tells me that she and her husband have been agonising about what to name their to-be-born since she conceived. “That's it, I'm calling him Bozo from Love Story," she laughs, then adds seriously: "We're so fed up that sometimes I wonder if the quest for the perfect name is a waste of time. What's in a name anyway? ”

A Lot's in a Name

In his study on names published in the Journal of Human Resources, Professor David Figlio asserts that people should be more aware of the power of names. Agrees psychiatrist Dr Dhawale, “Most people form a mental image when they hear a name, and create an opinion from the get-go. If children are treated differently because of their names, they are bound to behave differently.”

Oh-ho, that's a lot of pressure! Don't worry, help's here. I've come up with some modern-day guidelines for parents-to-be to get their babies' names just right. Why don't you write in with your name suggestions to help Baby Bozo's mother, and others, out!

1 Avoid the usual: (Particularly if you have a common surname.) Today, getting first name-last name email IDs and a website, and being easy to find on Google is a huge advantage. Though the Pooja Mishra I know is a much-talked-about banker, her achievements are buried under thousands of 'hot' links to a VJ. Unusual spellings of common names have pitfalls too: “People just assume the spelling of a common name,” rues Archhana from Pune. “Though I always specify, I have heaps of misspelt documents and most get my email ID wrong.”

But, choosing too off-beat a name—Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter's called Apple—is also a no-no. In his book, Baby Name Report Card, psychology professor Albert Mehrabian says, “Parents who make up bizarre names for their children are ignorant, arrogant or just foolish.”

2 Explore unisex names: Though we've heard unisex names—Gurdeep, Rahat, Misbah, Prem—not many see the point. Karan, whose parents are the unfortunate combination of a male Anju and female Chirag, says emphatically, “I will never give my kids unisex names. They just cause complications and confusion.”

But, there are advantages. Mehrabian's study on instinctive reactions to unisex names found that men with unisex names are perceived as caring and giving. Unisex names on women were associated with power and success. More important are Figlio's findings: “Girls whose names are judged more feminine are often typecast.” According to his study, they are less likely to pursue advanced maths or physics, traditionally seen as predominantly male, because people would not expect them to. So if you're hoping to open a world of opportunities for your little girl, stay away from too feminine-sounding a name.

3 Check associations: Adolf... there, you thought it yourself, didn't you? Choosing a name with instant negative (or positive) connotations is not a good idea. Will a Shah Rukh ever emerge from his namesake's shadow?

4 Check meaning: No matter how lyrical a name, don't subject your child to it if the meaning is not inspiring, or at least neutral. I've had conversations with a Suvidha and a Manoranjan, and they tell me it hasn't been pleasant. “I'm used to it now, but come on, 'entertainment'?!”

5 Translate: Our kids will interact with far more people and languages than ever before. A Google search to figure out what a name means in popular languages and cultures is absolutely essential. “My parents had no clue,” Sushi George tells me, “and I was blissfully unaware too... until Jap food invaded India.” Don't get too cautious, just avoid the major bloopers, like Hardik!

6 Try the name-initials combo: We've heard the PK Tuli/Dubey jokes, and Bose DK even made it into a song... In real life, an unflattering name-initials combo can provide fodder for a lot of bullying. Think hard before naming your young one Bhavesh Ravi Arora, okay?

7 Simplify: It's no wonder that you know Abdul Rashid Salim Salman Khan merely as Salman Khan. Three words in a name is just about as many as will stick... any more will just complicate official paperwork. So will long names with unusual spellings.

8 Nip nicknames: How many people do you only know by their nicknames? An accepted shortening is fine, like Rajeev to Raju; it's the childish Tuntuns and Papoos that children struggle to shake. As loving as nicknames are, their overuse can throw your children's private/public identity and fuel complexes.

Author Khushwant Singh was once a Khushal: “I hated it because of its abbreviation Shalee... At school, boys tortured me by chanting a doggerel: Shalee Shoolie, Bagh dee Moolee (This shalee or shoolee is the radish of some garden). I got rid of Khushal and changed it to Khushwant to rhyme with my elder brother's name Bhagwant.”

What are the options you're considering for your babies' names? Have these tips helped you find what you're looking for? Send in your shortlists and suggestions... and save Baby Bozo from getting that name!

* No names were changed to protect identities!

---

This article appeared on Yowoto—a now-defunct parenting website startup that I helped incubate as Editor-in-chief—in July 2011.

While I’m now a firm childless antinatalist, my politics weren’t fully formed when I took this short-lived assignment to explore the digital side of publishing (though it was never a good fit). Nonetheless, some of the articles I wrote at the time are interesting.

Interview: Guru Swarup Srivastava

July 2011: Controversy-ridden art-investor Guru Swarup Srivastava, the man behind the headline-grabbing 100-Husains-for-100-crores deal in 2004, says the investment came first, the appreciation for art, second. I interview him on the recent death of MF Husain.

Walking in to self-made industrialist Guru Swarup Srivastava's Andheri, Mumbai, home is an experience in itself. This stunning, art-filled home comes across as a shrine to his aesthetic sense—but wait, he says he doesn't have one! Here, over a chatty evening, he talks about art investment, dispels the myths surrounding India's biggest art deal and reminisces about Husain. And, in his castle, this businessman from Agra and IIT Delhi patiently awaits the credit due for his contribution to the Indian art world...

---

Tell me about your interest in art. How did it start?

I had some money to invest in 2004, and was looking for a high-investment-high-return product. I considered land—but at a maximum of a lakh a square foot, it didn't hold a candle to art, at 20 lakhs a square foot.

I decided to test the waters and I bought assorted artworks for 50 lakhs—including Husain and Nikhil Chaganlal. The exhibition of these works, in the corridors of Standard Chartered bank, was a commercial success, and I decided this was the way to go.

When I started, I had no interest in art in the creative sense. I even told Husain up front: "I understand the colour of money, not the colours of paints and canvases!" Of course, since my business interest in art developed, I have begun appreciating it, and the artworks I have at home are soothing and thought provoking. I realise this is an unusual order of doing things...

But why did you choose only Husain? Why not the others?

Around this time, CitiBank in Dubai bought a Husain for 1.5 crores. I thought: I have a hundred crores to invest, what if I can convince Husain to sell me works for a crore each? Also, when I bumped in to Husain at The Ashoka in Delhi, I asked him why he didn't show as much in India as he did abroad. He said, “India mein paisa nahi hai.” I feel strongly about Indian talent having to seek appreciation and money abroad, and this became something I had to prove.

So how did the deal go down with Husain?

When I met him at his beloved restaurant Gallops at the Mahalaxmi Race Course on the 31st of August 2004, Husain was doubtful whether the deal in crores would go through. “It's all talk in India,” he said. But three days later, I handed him a banker's cheque. Once his son Owais told him it was for a crore, not a lakh, he simply said, “Kya karna hai? We'll talk after some time.”

We signed the deal—one hundred six-feet-by-four-feet Husains, plus 11 complementary ones after the deal was done—for one hundred crores. It was breaking news the next day.

The Earth is beautiful, with mankind and art and culture, and I believe India is the centre of it all. We agreed that Our Planet Called Earth would be a nice theme and name for the series. Husain had 25 works ready on the subject, and I bought them right then.

Then things went wrong with India's biggest art deal.

Legally, yes. With Husain, no.

I am fighting a legal battle with the CBI and NAFED (National Agricultural Federation of India) in the Bombay High Court, and the paintings are part of what we're tussling over. Contrary to popular belief though, the works are not confiscated by NAFED—they are in a locker at the IndusInd Bank in Andheri, that both parties must operate jointly. The way I see it, the Rs 12,000 per month I pay as locker fee is a great way to ensure the works are safe!

There have been several advantages to the controversy surrounding this deal...

Like?

Well, for one, the works are safe. Plus, during the court proceedings, the 25 works have been authenticated by an independent panel of professors from the JJ College of Art, appointed by the NAFED, CBI and me. The authenticity of the works can never be questioned again.

However, I would say that the biggest gain is not a personal one. Art in India has dormant business potential. And since the 100-crore deal hit the headlines in 2004, there has been a sea-change in the way people look at art. Like Husain who never clarified rumours, I have often chosen to let controversy and adverse publicity simmer in the media—at an enormous personal cost—to retain attention on the investment potential of Indian art. Today, art is corporatised and is considered an asset on balance sheets. Thieves in Hindi movies steal paintings. Banks have started art funds, with people expecting returns from art. There are more job opportunities in the creative fields. Artists are getting recognition and money, and those who aren't yet, are hopeful still... I feel I have done my duty towards the art community and the country.

I am curious—how were things still okay with Husain once the deal stalled?

From day one, the association was meant to be an ongoing one. Husain would create more works in this series, and I would pay him as and when I picked them up.

I had planned to pay Husain for the rest of the paintings by selling the first 25. But legal complications meant that, when Husain called me in 2008 saying the paintings were ready in London and Paris, and to pick them up at the agreed price, my funds were not ready. He understood.

Husain and I both realised the magnitude of this undertaking from the start, and acknowledged that one of us may not be around to see it to conclusion. In a heart-to-heart we had in Dubai in 2005, he said, “Mere ko kuch ho jaye toh bacchon ka dhyan rakhana,” referring to his children, including his son Shamshad, already in his 70s! It is a promise I intend to keep, even though he's gone.

From a business point of view, has his death made a difference to your investment?

Husain was lucky to have his genius rewarded with glamour, glory and gold during his lifetime, and our record-breaking deal took both of us to dizzying heights. Like Picasso, his prolificness only maintained and accelerated the stature of and demand for his work.

In 2007, the 25 works I own were valued at 50 crores. Of course, there is frenzied interest in the master after his death, something that Husain himself anticipated. He even told me which of the paintings I own—one of the Sheikh of Dubai's father—would be particularly valuable upon his death! I do not want to be opportunistic and sell the paintings immediately, but yes, art has certainly proved to be a good investment.

So what do you intend to do with the paintings once the legal issue is resolved? There was talk of a museum?

Husain drew up the blueprint of what was to be called the Maqbool-Swarup Museum. While he was keen to have in near Kamla Nehru Park in Juhu, Mumbai, we didn't get the municipal corporation's approval. I was inclined to have it built in Agra, near the Taj. But the idea is on hold right now; I am not sure what I will do with the works.

This experience must have been trying. What have you learnt?

Patience. From Husain, I have learnt to handle the adverse publicity with grace—demarcating the right from the wrong, ignoring what's not relevant and accepting the rest.

But I am happy that there are people who experience and live the advantages of this change in attitude, this new focus on art and its investment value. A few years ago, a man came up and thanked me on a flight. An old painting in his collection, bought for a few thousands, was sold for 20 lakhs, enough to fund his son's education abroad. I savour that memory as testament to the change I helped bring about.        

Future plans?

I will continue to invest in art, looking for newer ways to keep it in public consciousness. On Husain's birth anniversary, the 17th of September, I intend to launch a TV show art auction, the first of its kind in the world. Longer-term, I am working on a software that will quantify the selection criteria of artists and their works, helping systematise investment in art.

Finally, what are your memories of MF Husain, the person?

Husain was a family man, who missed his country intensely when he was, sadly, exiled during the last few years of his life. I felt that his creativity energised him spiritually, like meditative exercises, giving him wisdom, spiritual strength and a long life.

One of the most glaring disconnects between the media's projection and the truth was on the subject of Husain's fascination for Madhuri Dixit. While realms of gossip filled the newspapers, Husain's own reason was touchingly child-like. Having lost his mother at an early age, he simply believed that the actress resembled his mother at a certain angle—her left-hand side, to be precise...  

---

An edited version of this interview appeared in Andpersand in July 2011.

Art Show: Orgasm!

I co-created the international award-winning art show Orgasm! with Sahil Mane in 2011. All my work for the show can be found here.

The Colour Purple

August 2010: I wrote a poem for my mother. In ten minutes. On my Blackberry.

You're not the angelic boredom of white
Or the happy-stupid of yellow
Or grey that's mellow
Or the creeping gluttony of green. 

Would you really choose black
Or blue? 
(Which hue of blue do you think is you?)
Or the bubblegumness of airhead pink
Would you ever really choose brown ink? 

Do you really think
That the depthless orange
Tells true tales
Of all the women that you are
Of your travels wide and far
Of your deeps and shallows
Your intensity passion and courage? 
Does it lilt like your laughter... 

Why settle for (your favourite) angry red? 
When you can be purple instead!

 You're a purple, my dear mama. 
The intensity and experience of rich blue
Swathed in the salty-sweet-sour-bitter syrup of life
The giggliness and freshness of unjaded pink
In one whole multifaceted packet of perfection. Purple.

---

This poem was written in August 2010. 

The Colourful Sex

September 2007: "No," said Aman, after a 15-minute-long phone-searching session, "I don’t know a single guy who’d interest you, babe. I just realised though, I know so many fascinating women—should make it a point to call them more frequently."

"Sorry, there are just no interesting guys…. But I can give you the numbers of heaps of exciting women. You swing both ways, don’t you?" said Simran.

I pretended to work and not listen as my editor comforted some newly single, to-be-divorced woman on the phone. "There," he said as he hung up and looked at me, "there’s another remarkable woman who’s now part of the dating-mating scene. There are so many lovely, lovely women out there. No guys."

Err… what’s going on? One’s a one off; two’s a worry; and three’s a fucking national crisis!

Now, I’ve always been someone who tries to look at the positive side of things. So I’ve always thought that a skewed National Sex Ratio (also) means that there are heaps more men for us women to choose from. Maybe, maybe there are men. But where is that rare, at-the-point-of-extinction species—the Interesting Indian Man (let me specify: under the Uncleji age)?

At 24, my survey group is between my age and 34 or so (which is a stretch anyway). A ten-year age span should well compensate for the ‘women mature younger’ adage. And still, zilch. In this age bracket, in my sample group, the women are by far more engaging. I’m realising that there are such few options available to a straight, sapiosexual (‘someone who finds intelligence the most attractive sexual feature’) woman.

And now you ask what makes a person interesting. Obviously, it’s the ability to hold my interest (of course it’s my interest… what or who do you think this article is about)! Someone with many layers (like an onion—only, for the purpose of this analogy, I wish it was a more exotic vegetable)! Someone who is intelligent (I certainly don’t define intelligence by IIT-IIM-astronaut-scientist-doctor and all those titles/achievements), and can have great conversations (about as many things under the sun as possible). A combination of a thinker and a doer. Who reads, travels and has varied interests. Is either left- and right-brained, or right-brained. (I have this remarkably unfair prejudice against left-brained people. It’s elitist, I know, but I have this theory that they’re bad in bed, and fairly mechanical and boring. And art and creativity are such turn ons! Oh, we’ll get to this in another article, okay?)

Unfortunately, more often than not, the people who fit this description are women. Watch 'Sex and the City'. Okay, don’t. Just look at the interesting women I know. Arati: a lost-and-found childhood friend is in IIM Calcutta. She is as deconstructionist as I am; a voracious reader; a theatre person. She’s walking the straight and narrow, career-wise, because she wants the money to be able to do what she wants to do at 35. Neha: works with Star News and makes films, writes on music and reads Spivak in her free time. Tanya. Shriyansi. The list is endless.

The other day, M ("I’ll get killed, babe!" A filmmaker.) and I were discussing the circle of people we grew up with. How most of the guys have ended up way-below consideration level: one-dimensional and invariably in the Merchant Navy or in call centres, while the girls are really multifaceted: psychiatrists, researchers, writers (yours truly), filmmakers, designers. And while we were congratulating ourselves and patting each other on the back, neither of us realised how this was just a microcosm of a trend that would prevent us from ever meeting interesting men!

The other day, I met someone who is a senior editor with one of the leading national dailies. And he pointed out that the crop of young editors was predominantly female. And it’s true for the book publishing industry as well. Almost all the independent, unique publishing houses are run by women.

This leads me to the reasons for this phenomenon. Why is it that young women are more interesting than young men? Why? I don’t know. I can only speculate.

Perhaps it’s because of sport. Playing sport is one thing. Spending hours mindlessly watching men in cars (that look horribly cramped and uncomfortable) go around a track (like some merry-go-round thing gone horribly wrong)… just seems like a colossal waste of time. Not to mention test matches. Oh no! Five days of watching cricketers try to do their job while you consistently ignore your own. Or… gosh, I could go on.

Or it’s the gizmo craziness. How many women do you see who are gizmo-gaga? Addicted to their X-Boxes and Gameboys?

Or it’s the hormones. Women don’t waste half as much time as men do watching random porn on the internet or masturbating.

Not being into all these things frees up so much time, doesn’t it? To develop as people. Read. Pursue various interests. Grow.

Or it’s because women can multitask. And do all the above but achieve so much more alongside.

Or it’s because women, as a rule, are exposed to so much more colour and so many more layers in life than men generally are. Women’s clothes and make-up display and require so much more thought and imagination than men’s. As children, women are exposed to the arts, creativity and colour much more than men are. Activities that are considered, in a traditional sense, ‘feminine’—dancing, making rangolis, arranging flowers, going for art classes—all push the development of the right brain, the creative side. As opposed to traditionally ‘masculine’ activities—sport and well, sport.

Or it’s because the world women face and negotiate is way more intricate and complicated than the world men see and deal with. In every sphere, including the sexual, life is more emotionally, socially and physically complex for women than it is for men.

I don’t know. I can’t figure it out. Maybe I’ve generalised too much. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m an intellectual lesbian. You may disagree with this analysis. You may think it’s lopsided. You may know many interesting men in this age bracket. Hell, you may be one yourself. Oh wow! Show yourself! I’m just waiting for somebody, anybody, a man-body, to please, please prove me wrong!

---

An edited version of this article appeared in Man's World in September 2007.

I have been proved wrong many times since, by the spouse and my myriad male friends. 

Aunty Climax

September 2007: I answer questions on sex and interpersonal relationships as the witty Aunty Climax.

I had my first sexual encounter one day, many years ago, with a much older, married woman. Now, many women and much experience later, I realise that she had a yeast infection. And no matter how much I enjoy performing oral sex, every time I go down on a woman, I just cannot get the smell and taste of Aunty Reena out of my head. What do I do?

Now, here’s what I suggest you do—make a concerted effort to move on. You are a rare guy who enjoys performing oral sex—don’t deny yourself and your partner the pleasure. So this Aunty Reena—how do you know she had a yeast infection? Was there discharge and a foul smell? Well, I’m guessing so. Think of it this way—now that you know what a yeast infection smells like, you’ll be able to tell whether the woman you’re with has one or not much before your tongue gets involved. And once you’re secure in the knowledge that you have the ability to gauge hygiene beforehand, you’ll soon get over the fear of having another foul encounter.

I am a woman from a very traditional family. I had what is popularly known as a love-cum-arranged marriage eight months ago. We have not had sex. Not ever. My mother-in-law frowns on privacy and intimacy between us. But even when we are alone, I’ve tried initiating but he gets uncomfortable. I am not unattractive. And no, he is not gay. I’m on the verge of taking steps that will rock the boat fairly seriously. Should I?

This is not normal. First off, I’m assuming you are a 100% sure that your husband isn’t gay. Secondly, have you tried talking to him? What does he say? Eight months without the urge to have sex with a woman who sleeps in the same bed is too long to be justified by excuses such as exhaustion/work/lack of privacy. The two of you need to see a therapist. Now. Convince him through love and/or tell him that the stigma associated with seeing a therapist is less than that of getting the families involved in your problems and their reasons. If nothing works, leave. Today more than ever before, women have the right to a sex life and pleasure. You know that or you wouldn’t have written in, right? 

I am a 23-year-old guy. I dislike having sex with women. Correction: real women. Since I discovered my dad’s stash of porn when I was 12, I’ve become an addict. I watch/read/breathe/sleep porn. I find real women boring. They don’t look as good and aren’t as hot in bed. So how do I take my life from here?

Naomi Wolf, a famous, iconic feminist author, has a theory that she puts forth in her article 'The Porn Myth'. She believes porn dampens male libido with respect to real women who are flawed and well, ‘real’. That’s what’s happened to you. So unless you want to grow old in an empty bed with no companion or offspring, you’ll have to wean yourself off porn. And form realistic associations and expectations of flesh-and-blood women. Remember, porn stars too have chums and bad-hair days—they just aren’t shown to you! Like Wolf says, "If you associate orgasm with your wife, a kiss, a scent, a body, that is what, over time, will turn you on", and if you correlate arousal with unrealistic fantastic porn images, you won’t get aroused with less. Get it?

---

An edited version of this column appeared in Man’s World in September 2007. I wrote this column for six months or so, but can only find a few pieces.

Bravo Brassiere!

August 2007: I love the feel of a sexy, lace bra against my skin. I think it is one of the greatest pick-me-ups in the world—and so do most men!

Though the humble brassiere has been around—in various and not-so-evolved forms—for some centuries now, it was in 1907 that it was first mentioned in the media, in the American edition of Vogue. So this year is the bra’s official 100th birthday. And all of us ladies have much to be thankful for—or not, actually, depending on the way you look at it!

Clothing is often laden with political and cultural overtones. In fact, it can be said that the changes in social perspectives on women, the female body and the feminine are reflected in, and indicated by fashion for the female body in general, and breasts in particular.

The precursor to the bra, the corset has been traced back to about 2000 BC. Recorded history indicates that the corset of those times was used to lift and expose breasts. As the Greek and Roman civilisations grew more male-dominated, breasts were flattened and large breasts were ‘constricted’. Between the 12th and 14th centuries, fashion in France had women in corsets that deemphasised breasts. In the 16th century, the breast was acceptable again and corsets made of whalebone and steel created cleavage while reducing the waist-size to less than 10”, expectedly causing many health problems. It was only in the late 19th century that traditional views of the ‘ideal’ woman began to be challenged and questions were raised about the unhealthy undergarments women were expected to wear.

Designs that resembled the modern-day bra began to appear in the 1850s. Marie Tucek patented the Breast Supporter in 1893 and socialite Mary Phelps Jacob patented her Backless Brassiere design in 1914. With World War 1 forcing women into the workforce, the corset, that was time-consuming and uncomfortable to wear, lost popularity and the bra began to gain widespread use in the 1920s. In 1928, Ida Rosenthal created cup size categories though it was in 1935 that bra manufacturer Warner came up with the cup sizing system—A to D—which continues to be in use today.

Since then, many social, fashion and economic reasons and manufacturing processes have revolutionised the bra and the way it is worn.

In the 1950s, (fashion) necessity became the mother of the invention of the strapless bra. It is safe to say that the invention of Lycra in 1959 has been a defining moment in the history of the bra. As was the entry of the legendary Wonderbra in 1964. Those of you who aren’t familiar with what a Wonderbra can do, let me tell you this: it does a lot! Sangeeta, mosquito-bites-where-breasts-should-be, actually has people complimenting her ‘well-fitting clothes’ when she wears hers (reserved for special occasions, considering the Wonderbra’s price and lack of availability in India). She once remarked that the Wonderbra was uncomfortable. When I asked her why she continued to wear it then, she said, "Who cares about that! It makes me feel like the sexiest thing alive!"

It was in 1968 that the notorious ‘bra-burning’ incident occurred (or didn’t—the jury’s still out on that), though what is clear is that it didn’t happen quite the way it’s gone down in popular imagination. A group of women protesting the Miss America pageant threw ‘feminine’ items, which they felt hindered the liberation of women—including bras—into a rubbish bin, called Freedom Trash Can. Some say they set it alight, others say the media ‘misreported or invented’ the burning of the can and bras. Yet the bra is still here. And we’re as liberated as we’ve ever been.

The bra came out of the closet, as it were, during Madonna’s Blonde Ambition tour in 1990. The Queen of Pop’s pointy golden bra is etched in public memory. "She looked beautiful," says Aman, "glorious and Princess Leia-eque, but not!"

Today, the bra is hard to ignore. From the Wonderbra to the minimiser; underwired and padded; the sports bra to the nursing bra; backless, strapless, seamless… now, there seems to be a bra for every shape, size, form, utility and sag of that beautiful piece of creation, the female breast. There are numerous books about the bra—Bras by Rosemary Hawthorne, Hoorah for the Bra by Cheree Berry and others, an interesting site called aroundtheworldwithonebra.com, and bra ads that are now in a league of their own. From the outright sexy (Eva Herzigova addressing her Wonderbra-clad breasts with a "Hello Boys") to the demure (Enamour: ‘No bra fits as beautifully’), they run the whole range.

Of late, many have begun to question the medical and practical need for the bra. Some believe that bras cause health problems that include backaches, shoulder aches, headaches, impairment of respiration and increased sagging due to decreased efficiency of the chest muscles. Socially too, aside from the feminist movement, many women are questioning the traditional values that propagate the use of bras.

Much has been said about the feminists’ take on bras. In the 1960s, the women’s liberation movement denounced the bra as a symbol of servitude and some radical feminists saw it as a tool to make what is naturally feminine conform to male desire and aesthetics. Radical feminist and writer Germaine Greer sees the bra as "oppressive". And the image of the ‘bra-burning feminist’ is an urban legend that refuses to die!

I think the decision to wear a bra is a matter of aesthetics and comfort. Mahima hates the bra and goes braless when she’s in the States, where she’s studying. As for me, well, I see nothing wrong with the bra. And I don’t see that as contradictory to my strong, strong feminist leanings. Bralessness, brafreedom or breast freedom (whatever you choose to call it) is not for me. I’m a 36 D. On a practical level, besides dealing with the natural sag of my breasts (that I have come to accept as normal, despite what porn and silicon-enhanced fashion icons will have me believe), bras also give me the freedom to run without a bounce, that often leads to breast pain. (You know what they say—one man’s food, another man’s poison? Some feminists believe a bra is oppressive. I’ve called it freeing!) I love the way a lacy bra makes me feel—and not solely for the benefit of my partner. A peeking bra strap doesn’t embarrass me and I like wearing my bra as an accessory through a sheer top, as and when.

Today, the bra straddles the worlds of functionality and wild fashion. To belong in either category though, it is important that a bra fits well. Here lies the catch. We’ve all seen what a bad bra can do. A badly fitted bra can result in double breasts (those funny, horrible-looking pouches of breast flesh above the bra area and/or under the underarms) and quite a bit of discomfort and pain. Unfortunately, cup sizes and fits vary between manufacturers and designs. And in India, large sizes are so difficult to find! Much like shoes, one has to try bras to get ones that fit just right and provide enough support.

So can someone please share this information—about the fit, fashion and functionality of the bra—with our actresses in Bollywood and Down South! The plain dirty white bra showing through clothes has been a Bollywood staple, while in the South, the double breast created by an ill-fitting bra is considered almost fashionable and alluring!

The bra. At the very least, it is a garment that supports the breasts. On a grander scale though, the bra is loaded with sociocultural significance that outweighs its actual, practical use. Bravo brassiere!

---

An edited version of this article appeared in Man's World in August 2007.