In Mardistan, filmmaker Harjant Gill presents what it is like to be male in Indian society. The men in the film live in a patriarchy, defined by Dr. Conrad Phillip Kottak as a “political system ruled by men in which women have inferior social and political status” (Kottak, p.168). Whereas patriarchal thought is still prevalent in numerous aspects of Western culture, it is made more explicit in India, where males are given preference in education and family responsibilities, and families have the option to abort female babies. In such a society, male supremacy embodies the power of men over women, as well as older men over younger men. Furthermore, society expects men to be alpha men, and the smallest thing can shake the fragility of the alpha
…show more content…
However, there was intense pressure from his family to get married in his early twenties, and he states: “I resisted at first, but then I realized our society won’t accept me as a man who desires other men” (Gill, 12:30). In order to appear normal, his only option was to marry a woman. Although almost two-thirds of a cross-cultural study of 76 societies found that some form of same-sex sexual activity was acceptable (Kottak, p. 176), it is heavily stigmatized in some societies. Furthermore, several cultures that accept some form of same-sex sexual activity consider it a private affair, rather than “public, socially sanctioned, and encouraged” (Kottak, p. 175). In a patriarchal society, being gay counters the hypermasculine traits of alpha males and gay men are not accepted, belittled, and derided. Years later, Dhananjay came out as gay to his wife and family, and although his wife was generally accepting, he worried that was just “pretending to play the role of a husband” (Gill, 13:49), as he stayed and continued to fulfill his responsibilities at home. After coming out, Dhananjay was bullied regularly and was called a “fag” or “eunuch” by other members of his community. Since the identity of the alpha male is so fragile, gay men directly challenge what it means to be “masculine” and therefore challenge the foundation of the patriarchal …show more content…
For numerous reasons, these men did not embody the patriarchal concepts of what it means to be a man in Indian society, and tended to have negative views on the implications of the larger social structure at play. It would have benefitted the filmmaker to include accounts from men who agree with the patriarchal norms in order to provide counterarguments and develop a more holistic picture of Indian culture. By only including the accounts from Amandeep, Gurpreet, Tarun, and Dhananjay, the viewer is given the false view that all Indian men struggle with their masculinity, when in reality there is bound to be greater diversity among people’s perspectives. If all Indian men shared the views depicted in the film, then India would not have the reputation of a patriarchic society. Furthermore, the filmmaker only includes one woman in the film: feminist scholar Nivedita Menon. Masculinity affects all people – men and women – in Indian society, so the viewer is only hearing half of the story if the filmmaker focuses specifically on men’s
However, there was intense pressure from his family to get married in his early twenties, and he states: “I resisted at first, but then I realized our society won’t accept me as a man who desires other men” (Gill, 12:30). In order to appear normal, his only option was to marry a woman. Although almost two-thirds of a cross-cultural study of 76 societies found that some form of same-sex sexual activity was acceptable (Kottak, p. 176), it is heavily stigmatized in some societies. Furthermore, several cultures that accept some form of same-sex sexual activity consider it a private affair, rather than “public, socially sanctioned, and encouraged” (Kottak, p. 175). In a patriarchal society, being gay counters the hypermasculine traits of alpha males and gay men are not accepted, belittled, and derided. Years later, Dhananjay came out as gay to his wife and family, and although his wife was generally accepting, he worried that was just “pretending to play the role of a husband” (Gill, 13:49), as he stayed and continued to fulfill his responsibilities at home. After coming out, Dhananjay was bullied regularly and was called a “fag” or “eunuch” by other members of his community. Since the identity of the alpha male is so fragile, gay men directly challenge what it means to be “masculine” and therefore challenge the foundation of the patriarchal …show more content…
For numerous reasons, these men did not embody the patriarchal concepts of what it means to be a man in Indian society, and tended to have negative views on the implications of the larger social structure at play. It would have benefitted the filmmaker to include accounts from men who agree with the patriarchal norms in order to provide counterarguments and develop a more holistic picture of Indian culture. By only including the accounts from Amandeep, Gurpreet, Tarun, and Dhananjay, the viewer is given the false view that all Indian men struggle with their masculinity, when in reality there is bound to be greater diversity among people’s perspectives. If all Indian men shared the views depicted in the film, then India would not have the reputation of a patriarchic society. Furthermore, the filmmaker only includes one woman in the film: feminist scholar Nivedita Menon. Masculinity affects all people – men and women – in Indian society, so the viewer is only hearing half of the story if the filmmaker focuses specifically on men’s