So what do Wives and Cheerleaders have in common?

How do you translate ‘patni purani ho jati hai’ and ‘phir woh mazaa nahin rahta‘? Roughly translated it means, ‘When the wife is no longer new’, ‘it’s no longer fun’.

And this is what Union Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal said,

“Nayee nayee jeet aur nayee nayee shaadi ka apna alag hi mahatv hota hai, jaise samay beetega jeet purani hoti jayegi, jaise jaise samay beetta hai patni bhi purani ho jaati hai, phir woh mazaa nahin rahta hai” [Link]

What do you think?

              Wives lose charm over time: Jaiswal

“When I was inaugurating a Kavi sammelan news came that India beat Pakistan and people started bursting crackers. I stopped the sammelan and said that you celebrate the victory first since the charm of celebration is for new victory only,” he said.

“If it will get old, the charm will get lost like the way a wife gets old then celebration of marriage does not remain that enjoyable… ” [link]

And Vidyut shared this tweet

Vidyut Vidyut@Vidyut Naach, Chammiya! 😦 RT @twit2g2:Why no comment on this shit yet from feminists?… and… @meIHM@Vidyut

You need good looking girls.

Cheerleaders ‘not beautiful enough’ says Twenty20 boss

Sudev Abeysekarara: “The dance steps being performed are fine. But the thing is that in an event like this you need good looking girls… “

One comment:

         Benastrada  •  13 hours ago

They obviously were so short of money they couldn’t hire a boss with brains!!! Chauvinistic pigs: get one free!

Edited to ask: So what do Wives and Cheerleaders have in common?



61 thoughts on “So what do Wives and Cheerleaders have in common?

    • Well, that’s not fully true. In general, cheerleaders are expected to fit certain stereotypes (example: being fat won’t get you selected as one). Not saying that’s right or wrong, but that’s how it has always been.


  1. I don’t know what they have in common, but I can tell you what they do not have in common.

    A cheerleader gets paid for the work she does, has days off, gets vacation and if he/she does not like the working conditions, she can quit and find another job.

    A wife on the other hand is not paid, does not get vacation, sick leave, job responsibilities get harder over time, is under appreciated for the work she performs and god forbid if she wants to leave her “job” then society first of all makes it really hard for her to quit and secondly makes it almost impossible to find another job.


    • I am a “puraana pati” and my wife is a “puraani patni”.
      Our relationship is better than the relations this “puraana raajnaitik” has with his fellow politicians.
      Humour can be dangerous.
      Jaiswal is still learning.
      The latest I hear is that a court case has been registered.
      Let’s see if he wriggles through this somehow.
      Will he plead he was merely exercising his “freedom of speech” which perhaps includes his freedom to take a harmless light hearted dig at wives in a private function unconnected with his official duties?
      After all don’t we take a dig at politicians all the time?
      I am curious to know how his wife and married daughters reacted to this statement of his.


    • Please watch T20 cricket and IPL.There are Cheerboys .Chennai super kings team had mix team of Girls and boys with their male drummer for cheering Delhi team had exclusive Bhangra party of boys for cheer leading

      And BTW it is the Indian culture fanatics which are dead against western concept of cheer leading .A few states even had them banned


    • Isn’t every spectator some kind of informal “cheer boy”?
      Every four or six is cheered by the supporters of the batting team.
      Every wicket that falls is cheered by the supporters of the fielding team.
      Just a thought.


  2. So what do Wives and Cheerleaders have in common?

    Both need to be sexy, pretty and they should put a lot of effort in looking young and attractive..

    As if that’s not enough, they need to maintain their “mystery quotient” as well – no mystery, no charm


    • He was attending a Hindi Kavi Sammelan, and whatever I have seen of Hindi Hasya Kavi Sammelan on the TV, they seem to have a lot about not-so-new nagging wives, wives’s ‘belan’, neighbour’s better looking wives, the husband’s right to flirt with the wife’s younger sisters and friends (saleeyan) – not sure if he was attending such a kavi sammelan.


      • I don’t care if he was attending a kavi sammelan or doing a stand-up routine and allowed himself some “poetic license”. His remarks were extremely offensive. How come he never thought to say “Main purana pati hogaya hoon” or even ” Jaise shaadi purani ho jaati hai…”.

        He saying “biwi purani ho jati hai” he made women completely responsible for keeping the marriage alive and “maintaining the spark”. No wonder women are under so much pressure to look and feel “18 again’.


    • I think coal min did that on purpose. Choose a sensitive topic that wil cause outrage and gets him his 15sec of fame. He thinks he’s a very important person and the nation is waiting with bated breath for his opinion. Am sure he kew wat he was seaking and reaction of public.


  3. Women are judged by looks and the freshness of the youth! That is the truth na.!? That is why more and more young brides are preferred in the arranged marriage market, much unlike the west where a fairness, slimness and all those factors hardly play a role while the marriage happens! Indian sentiments have objectified women in all spheres of the life, as a wife and as a girl appearing on the tv trying hard to earn her bit of money as a cheer leader!


    • I beg to differ. Even in the West, women are viewed as sexual objects. A large percentage of advertisements still propagate gender stereotypes. The idea of ideal feminine beauty has changed from full figure to rail thin figure. Why do you think models live on cigarettes and water? Because they want remain anorexic looking. A full figure means no work. Why do you think women dye their hair blonde? Because men prefer blondes.


    • Objectification of women is at endemic levels in the US. I attended graduate school there, and was shocked out of my skin. There’s a lot of trash talk on campus and the women went along with it. They’d say things like, “I like being slutty.” The boys would just laugh.


      • I think women go along with trash talk because they want to remain in the group. What do you think would happen to a woman who objects to such talk? She would be called a feminist and no one would date her. Yes, in some circles feminism is equated to hating men.


        • Yes I know. I noticed a significant difference between graduate students and undergrads.

          Graduate students tended to be more focussed, more soberly dressed and more egalitarian during class discussions and assignments. I took a couple of undergrad classes and was scandalised at their conversations during class breaks and study groups. People sober up a lot by the time they’re in graduate school.


    • I second Sraboney. That kind of idealisation of the west is very purile, like Indian men who think women in the US are all easy, gagging to get laid. The west isn’t Bridget Jones Diary or Girls Gone Wild, no matter how it seems greener on the other side.


  4. Just the other day I happened to see baba ramdev on tv saying ‘99% of marriages break down in the west.. biwi ho to hindustani (the wife should be indian)’ and I’ve heard similar from other babas on tv too. They never talk about the pati (husband)! Only the biwi. They don’t even consider that women have a choice of men too.. it’s only the men that have the choice in their world. Just like in this uncle’s world only biwi gets old.. not the pati parmeshwar.


    • 99% of marriages break down in the west.. biwi ho to hindustani (the wife should be indian)

      I always roll my eyes when people make this statement, because the marriage failure rate in India is probably very much comparable, if not higher. Just because social pressures and cumbersome legal procedures disallow so many couples from seeking divorce in this country does not mean everything is A-OK. Among my (and my wife’s) friend/acquaintance circle, I have more divorced Westerners than divorced Indians, but far more Indians than Westerners who are deeply unhappy with their marriages. I don’t think I am unique in that regard. Western countries make it easier for unhappy couples to separate, but forcing a couple to stay together, as the Indian system often does, does not equate to ‘saving’ a marriage. Many of these marriages are in vegetative states, kept indefinitely on life-support by an interfering state, and interfering relatives.


      • Yes, I agree. Every time people say say ‘the west has lost the family system.. look at all the broken marriages.. mera bharat mahaan’, I repeat just what you’ve said here. I don’t know why it’s not obvious to most people.

        Does it boils down to the importance placed on staying married as opposed to being happily married? Or as we so good at putting up a fake good face that people really believe all continuing marriages in India are happy?


        • I think it’s more to do with the definition of a “happy marriage”. During therapy, my counsellor told me that one of her other clients would view my emotionally empty marriage as being a “happy” one. There was no violence, no dowry harrassment, no alcohol abuse and no sexual abuse. By her client’s standards, mine was a “happy marriage”.

          I suppose most Indians have a different yardstick with which to measure marital happiness.


        • I attended a wedding in the US, it was an american wedding and me and my husband were the only 2 indians, at our table were 4 other couples – all married for over 30 yrs. and int he whole wedding we saw 2 distinct groups 25% were friends of the couple – single/married/ etc., and the rest were friends of the parents – mostly all couples mostly past 60+ yrs… and both groups were so loving towards their partners. i wished i could get a picture of them dancing and having fun, would have shatered the 98% broken marriage of the west myth. Why cannot we accept that the west has culture, love, parental love, care ofr their elders etc., etc., just diff than our version !!!! I’m blaming the media for this one 🙂


  5. You know IHM, I think a lot of men make fun of their wives because it is the thing to do. If they don’t, they’ll be looked upon as joru ka gulams and most men don’t want to be seen that way. They want to be seen as macho – whether they are not is a different matter.


  6. The basic similarity between a cheerleader and a wife (new or old) is that both are sex-objects meant for the entertainment of some males. Dance steps are fine, but the cheerleaders need to look good. Just as managing the house (and managing the marriage) may be fine but the wife needs to look good (and fresh). Maybe that is what the minister is suggesting.

    And though us women may feel offended at such comments and/or comparisons, we cannot and should not ask such men to shut up because it is their right. At least that is exactly what I was told by a male blogger today. When I asked him if its fine when a filthy male at the bus stop comments loudly at the size of my specific body parts, this blogger says that though he does not agree with what such a man says, but it is his right to freedom of speech. You can check out my comments and his replies to them at

    So now ladies, when a male in public checks you out head to toe and comments how or not you fit his idea of a sex-object, you can fume, but you cannot stop him because he has the right to assess you as a sex-object.

    I have been through such an experience more than once before and my best friend experienced it just a couple of days ago. But I can see if a public figure like a minister can get away with such comments made in public, the eve-teaser on the road is nothing in comparison.


    • Neha, in Bhagwad’s defence, his libertarian leanings colour his perspective on gender issues.

      Also, I think most men don’t really TRULY understand what daily life is like for Indian women. Their privilege blinds them to our suffering most times.

      Back in college, we had an assignment called “A day in the life of….”. We had to interview and shadow people who were usually not from our social circle. A beat constable, a mailman, the newspaper boy, the chaiwala in the college canteen and so on.

      The assignment opened our eyes to our class privileges. Perhaps men should be made to do the assignment too — A Day in the Life of an Indian Woman. 🙂


      • I think that would be a very interesting assignment in a way that you perhaps neglected to take into account – it would force the student to choose between the various kinds of Indian women. Which Indian Woman’s life would he choose as a model? Would he choose a rural laborer, or would it be a middle-class homemaker? Perhaps a career-oriented woman intent on climbing the corporate ladder. Or maybe someone as familiar as one of his own classmates.

        Quite some years ago, when I was an associate at a large law firm in the UK, one of our (rather eccentric, but absolutely brilliant) senior partners assigned a trio of hapless interns something similar, just for fun, days before they were scheduled to end their terms with us.
        They had to write a description of the practices and philosophy of an imaginary, ‘typical’ law firm. In effect, they had to reveal what they thought was typical in the legal industry, and thereby reveal their feelings about it. The assignment was anonymous and they were not to be judged on it, but he invited some of the other associates to see what they had written and it was really quite fascinating to see how differently people viewed the exact same things. It’s one of the few times I’ve seen people in a corporate environment being that candid about their thought processes. Good stuff.


        • PT, congratulations. You’re a newly minted daddy — you now have have the right to wander aimlessly about wearing brightly colored T-shirts and three-fourths with numerous pockets. 🙂

          You have a point — a day in the life of a South Bombay socialite is very different from a day in the life of people like me. However, I still think that in India, gender is a more powerful marker of identity than is social class.


        • Heh, thank you very much, biwo. It is a hard won right, I assure you, but I intend to hold off on exercising it as long as I possibly can. 😀

          I still think that in India, gender is a more powerful marker of identity than is social class.

          I think the truth value of that statement depends on what you would call a powerful marker of identity.

          It is impossible to quantify something like that in ontologically objective terms, because the relative importance that people assign to various markers is a very personal thing.

          That said, as far as circumstance, opportunity and social choices are concerned, I do believe that men and women of a similar social class have far more in common with each other than do women with other women of a very different social class.

          Wealth and influence, regardless of sex, can always grant far, far more privilege than simply being born as one among the hundreds of million individuals of the ‘privileged sex’ ever will.


        • @ biwo – ” I still think that in India, gender is a more powerful marker of identity than is social class.”
          I don’t know what India you are talking about, but from what I have experienced and observed, caste/ethnic group and religion holds a far stronger impact on a person’s identity in India than anything else. If a person in India is not in the right caste or from the right religion, he/she can face a lot of discrimination – in job market, social life, professional life, schools, colleges and even whether one can get housing in a decent locality or not. The idea that gender inequality is among the many inequalities, rather than ‘the biggest inequality of all’ does not discount the cause of feminism.
          And frankly, crime against women generates far more outrage in India, than hate crimes against people based on their ethnicity, social class or religious group. When the Bodoland Massacre in Assam took over the newspace of the Guwahati molestation, there were voices of outrage against the molestation being overlooked for such ‘trival’ news as the massacre of 300 tribal people and displacement of 100,000 others. Mainland Indians are by far, far more racist than they are misogynist. And then people have the *gall* to call me a seperatist?


        • I think we’re missing an important distinction here, this is not a freedom of speech issue. I am all for freedom of speech. But as a women, a man staring at my body parts and commenting at my body parts at a bus stop is street sexual harassment. Just like in an office scenario, making uninvited lewd comments to a colleague is considered sexual harassment.. you don’t have to wait until your are touched or stalked.

          In a similar vein, saying racist things to someone is enough to be prosecuted for the laws against racism in the west. It is not considered freedom of speech to say racist things to someone, it considered racism. You don’t have to wait until someone literally hits you.


        • Just to add, this is not the same thing as making a cartoon or even expressing your views about a certain religion. The distinction is that you are actively threatening the safety of a person in street sexual harassment, while the cartoon example does not target/threaten attack to a person but an idea. There is a difference.


        • Carvaka, I just saw the reply you got on your comment at the blog I mentioned.

          About your views on a cartoon being different from street sexual harassment, I’ll just ask you what if a someone made a cartoon depicting a female being sexually assaulted/degraded ? It will not be threatening the safety of any particular person. And similarly, the ministers remarks on women in general didn’t threaten the safety of any particular woman. But still it is worth condemning. I hope you get my point.


        • @Neha,

          I didn’t carry one the thread on Bhagwad’s blog, maybe I should have. The whole point I am making is one man directing a lewd comment at me and staring at me DOES threaten me personally. One person. Me. Because I am standing there in close proximity with this man and will probably get on a bus in close proximity again.

          The minister saying what he did r someone making a lewd cartoon about women is free speech and non-threatening to any one person. I did not and would not ask for it to be banned, but obviously I am free to condemn it.

          Again, there is a distinction being missed here!


        • @ Carvaka
          Exactly. There is a not-so-fine line between opinion and harassment. Verbal bullying is verbal bullying, no amount of free speech makes it right. However, if the remark is general and not personal; and it is not aimed to spread rumours or incite violence, I think it comes under the reasonable purview of free speech.


      • biwo, I agree with you that most men don’t understand what daily life is for an Indian woman (specially if she has to step out of home for work).

        But about defending the blogger I mentioned, should a person’s libertarian leanings result in loss of his sensibilities ? First these persons with libertarian leanings expect girls to fight gender discrimination and exercise freedom in whatever they do. But then the same persons with libertarian leanings support sexist comments by other males in the name of right to freedom of speech.

        If you haven’t noticed already, the above blogger has been awarded not once but twice on this very blog for “feminism by Indian bloggers”. Please read his post about “the woman’s fault for dressing provocatively” where he says “Those who argue that men can’t be blamed for passing lewd comments and behaving in a rowdy manner when women are around would do well to think of dogs.”

        But in his other post he talks of defending till death, the right of a person to make sexist remarks ! I don’t know what more to say.


        • I read Bhagwad’s blog… and I agree with him on this one. Take the thing about you and your friend being subjected to sexist remarks. You have every right to feel outraged (you don’t have to stand there silently fuming!), and just like the idiot passing those remarks you have the freedom of speech to give him a piece of your mind. Fight against the discrimination.

          “And though us women may feel offended at such comments and/or comparisons, we cannot and should not ask such men to shut up because it is their right. At least that is exactly what I was told by a male blogger today.” Err… I read the comments and nowhere did he say you shouldn’t respond…

          I very definitely don’t support the sexist remarks, but I don’t think you can legislate good manners. Not that I think people should go around being rude to each other, but it should be their legal right if they want to.

          There IS a fine line when it crosses over and becomes sexual harassment (perhaps when you actually feel threatened, not just uncomfortable?), but until then everyone has the right to do and say whatever they want to.


        • BBD-Lite, so you want to suggest that it is better to indulge in fighting back an idiot than to expect being left alone by a stranger? You consider fighting against discrimination is better than having no discrimination at all?

          It is always sensible never to wrestle with a pig. Because if you do, you get dirty, and besides, the pig loves it.

          Just for the information of those who think that women who do not respond to lewd comments and rude behavior do so because they are scared or ashamed, the truth is that mostly women don’t want to stoop so low by replying to such idiots in their own language and prefer to maintain their decency instead of further spoiling the peace of their mind. I, personally, can respond to such behavior but decide against it so that it does not further spoil the peace of my mind which has already been disturbed by someone.

          Regarding your ‘fine line’ theory, who decides if a comment makes a person threatened or just uncomfortable? A comment may be nothing for one, uncomfortable for another and threatening for others. But you cannot use this logic in the defense of the person commenting. Who should be protected? The person feeling threatened or the person commenting? For ex., a girl with an extremely conservative upbringing may feel threatened even if a stranger male smiles and says a ‘Hello’. But my point is why should he interact with a stranger with whom he has no business with in the first place. One has the right to free speech and one can stand on the road and shout anything he likes. But he does not have the right to meddle with any stranger. That is not a right.

          p.s. : The language and references of your comment strongly indicate that you are the same blogger I have been referring to. I may be wrong though.


        • Neha,

          But my point is why should he interact with a stranger with whom he has no business with in the first place

          Why should he not? Is it a crime to interact with strangers? Should we walk around with blank poker-faces so as not to accidentally offend anyone who has been brought up conservatively?

          I often smile at strangers in elevators. It is hardly an unnatural thing to do. Many people do it. A large majority smile back at me when I do it. Some do not. A few frown. That’s fine by me. What if this hypothetical ultra-conservative woman was on the elevator too? What if I asked her the time, and this made her uncomfortable?

          Are you suggesting I should be penalized for this?.

          I think it is absurd to claim that there is no line to be drawn at all. I do not believe in unfettered free speech, I do not believe that deliberately making comments calculated to produce discomfort is a right, but I also do not believe that everything we say or do has to be judged through another person’s subjective sense of discomfort.


        • Neha: Okay, just to make my opinion really clear – I do not think being rude or passing sexist or offensive comments about other people is right. I do not support this behavior. I just think that trying to restrict these highly subjective offenses is beyond the scope of government. So, my comment was tied to the post you were talking about – the right to free speech and how the government should not be restricting it. Hopefully we all individually try to be nice people sensitive to other’s feelings, but the govt. shouldn’t be penalizing people for not doing so.

          I would also suggest that if you can respond to people who say rude things to you, please do! It only encourages them and indirectly says that this is acceptable behavior if you say nothing.

          The ‘fine line’ thing being subjective is exactly my point actually. How can the govt. decide what behavior/actions are ‘offensive’ enough to warrant punishment, when everyone’s definition of ‘offensive’ is different? What you think is ‘meddling’ might just be politeness to someone else. Obviously this is a grey area, there are a few things most of us agree are definitely offensive (e.g. racism), but a lot of these ‘offenses’ are just too subjective to be illegal.

          P.S I am not that blogger lol


  7. Pingback: “It is like if you can’t prevent rape, enjoy it” CBI Director argues for legalising betting in sports. | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s