Shahrukh Khan loves women!

What does “I love women” mean? Does the person who says this, really love all the women in the world? Why? They can’t possibly know all the women in the world – then what makes them ‘love’ them all?

They say ‘love is blind’ and ‘love knows no reason’, but still how can anybody know that they love those they have never met or known or seen or even heard of?

So do those who claim to love women, love only all the women or also all the children and all the men? Can this be compared to “I love kids/flowers/cats/technology/photography/dogs/animals/high heels/dancing/etc”.

Technology gets tedious chores done and makes life comfortable – so it’s not at all surprising that many of us love technology. I hope those who claim to ‘love women’ don’t believe women were created (specially for men, specially by god, with special strengths!!) to make men’s lives more enjoyable and easier? [Like in this post]

What is it that all the women in the world have in common that makes them all  lovable? Like cats generally show their affection by the trust they give to the people they adopt or live with and that makes many people love cats.

To me ‘I love cats/dogs/animals’ means it bothers me to watch their rights being trampled upon by humans and I wish they could fight for their own rights, but since they can’t I will do whatever I can to let them be seen as capable of feeling pain, sadness, fear, joy, hope, anticipation and loneliness (and more).

Is this what people mean when they say ‘I love women’?

But I also feel, animals are incapable of understanding and fighting for their rights, they need  to be looked after like little children, they also need protection (mainly from humans) and sanctuaries and organisations run by humans.

I hope anybody who says they love women does not see women as incapable of thinking, planning and acting to safe guard their own rights?

What does a man mean when he says “I love women!”?

Related Posts:

So why do women like Shahrukh Khan?

Ek Hindustani ladki ki Izzat.


54 thoughts on “Shahrukh Khan loves women!

  1. Sometimes we see ghosts when there are none. They are a figment of our own imagination. When there is distrust we tend to view everything suspiciously.
    Even a simple, straight forward comment like this invites doubts. Frankly as I see it, it could mean something like ” I love women and and it distresses me to see any harm come”


    • This is the crucial fact-the decision making power is still with SRK.He is choosing/allowing the actress’ name to be billed first.It is frankly patronising, despite his best intentions. An actress should be able to expect an automatic top billing if her role deserves it, without any largesse from SRK.
      Sometimes, the easiest way to achieve equality is to be blind to gender, instead of actively ‘seeing’ gender, where it should not matter.


      • Well, in an ideal world, an actress should be able to expect an automatic top billing if her role deserves it. But unfortunately we do not live in one. SRK does have the decision making power. And he is using it to make a nice gesture. Not that it is going to change the world, but it is a nice gesture just the same.


        • That’s akin to saying- in an ideal world, women should feel safe in public spaces and on public transport. But unfortunately, we do not live in one- so till then let’s have gender segregation in buses and on trains. It is definitely a gesture that looks like a solution without actually being one.
          The real problem, of establishing real equality, remains unattacked.


        • Yes!! It is exactly the same as saying, ” in an ideal world, women should feel safe in public spaces and on public transport. But unfortunately, we do not live in one- so till then let’s have gender segregation in buses and on trains.”
          It is great to work towards and fight for making public transport safer for women. But until that happens (which may not be in my lifetime) I don’t want to struggle every single day to commute to work. I don’t want to pass through/ sit with leering guys and fight with them when they pass comments. I will continue fighting against it. But if segregated buses/trains (I think you mean things like “ladies compartment” in trains) offer some respite from the never ending fight, I would welcome it.


  2. Sometimes we see ghosts when there are none. They are a figment of our own imagination. When there is distrust we tend to view everything suspiciously. Even a simple, straight forward comment like this invites doubts.
    Frankly, as I see it, it could mean something like, “I love women and and it distresses me to see any harm come to them.”
    Can loving anyone be derogatory in any manner?
    Why read more than what it there?


    • “Can loving anyone be derogatory in any manner?”
      Pedophiles say they love children, countless rapists & stalkers say they love women .. so YES, loving someone can be derogatory as well as downright exploitative ..

      “Even a simple, straight forward comment like this invites doubts.” – “Why read more than what it there?” — because it IS doubtful and there IS more to be read into it .. there is nothing ‘straight forward’ about it ..

      who are these ‘women’ he’s talking about? his fan-base? the women in his life? lesbians and transgenders (who identify as women)? what about *fat* or *ugly* women who don’t look anything like his *heroines*? .. the list is endless ..

      As desidaaru12 says in a previous comment – “An actress should be able to expect an automatic top billing if her role deserves it, without any largesse from SRK.” .. or any other actor for that matter .. they can keep their pedestals to themselves; we don’t want them to bother themselves by shifting in their thrones to allow a slither of space for the *lesser heroine* ..

      I realize this ad was scripted by someone else; however, since SRK is this ‘king’ of Bollywood, couldn’t he have influenced the language used in the ad? assuming, ofcourse, that he WANTED to in the first place ..


  3. he simply means that woman are objects and loves the object as loving and “showing off ” that he loves makes him more popular . ” i love woman ” can mean so many things but in case of shahrukh khan its simply a way to seek attention

    “i respect women” should be said but for that you really need to respect women
    love and respect can go together but only with people known to us


  4. In this case I think he means he loves women because they constitute the majority of his fan base.

    I found this ad annoying when I saw it. My husband laughed and said if it was really about equality, he would say something about how Indian actresses are paid far less than Indian actors.Not to mention that Indian actresses also seem to have a much shorter shelf life than Indian actors.


    • Being an actress in India is paradoxically a high-paying yet completely disempowering job. I’ve heard that female technicians in the industry however, claim that it’s an amazing space to work in-as far as gender equality is concerned.


  5. Hi!
    Love the thought process 🙂
    An answer from Shah Rukh would be enlightening no? And I guess it is Shah Rukh as a symbol for men who blithely talk about how they love women – putting them on a pedestal rather than seeing them for the people they are – with faults and foibles but most of all, with RIGHTS.
    Great post! Keep writing..


  6. Hate the way people capitalize on women’s issues to push their product forward. Sanctimonious. Ever heard a man say ‘I love men’?


  7. Only in this country, we’ll find famous heroes come on TV, endorse a product like tea, not knowing they are primarily endorsing their stupidity along with it. Are totally oblivious to what a moron they come across like and often, have the balls to compare themselves to Hollywood’s thinkers. Must take some ‘courage’ to go out there each day and keep being stupid just so that they can get rich. And to think we actually have people around that think this is all harmless like the commenter above!!! What a shame!!

    Your short little post packs a heavy punch! Nice.


    • shahrukh was patronizing was and full of himself as always but this kind of reasoning, “have the balls to compare themselves to Hollywood’s thinkers”, shows a deep rooted inferiority complex. It’s pretty sad.


      • Similar industries and industry practice in different countries are always compared- IT, healthcare, finance- so why not film and media?
        As to “Hollywood’s thinkers,” it is quite well known that SOME prominent stars and filmmakers have certain social causes that they champion- to the extent of being seen as obsessive about them. They tend to leverage their star-power quite effectively- where as in Bollywood, they shy away from this sort of thing, unless they’re entering politics. An exception would be Aamir Khan.
        How is remarking on these facts indicative of any inferiority complex?


        • It is not the comparison itself, but the “balls to compare themselves” to the “hollywood thinkers” part that shows the inferiority, like as though we shouldn’t even think about it.

          Even in bollywood, it is well known that a LOT of stars and filmmakers have certain causes they champion. You need to inform yourself better, if you think aamir is an exception. You seem to think charity is only for hollywood actors and not Indian actors and actresses. Why do you assume that charity is somehow totally altruistic in hollywood but has a hidden reason only in India? Is it because it is so well publicized in usa but not so in India? Aren’t you being a little naive?


        • @anon
          I’m not talking about charity. I’m talking about causes-political, social-that Hollywood celebrities espouse. Many of them are openly aligned with political parties, or with certain ideologies, or organisations.Does SRK or Salman have any publicly known political leanings that we know of? I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t, merely observing that in Hollywood, actors of similar stature make their position known. The Oscars ceremony that happened at the time of the Iraq invasion was used as a platform to support AND denounce US policy.
          Again, this is not about altruism or charity. Stars in India keep their social and political selves under wraps-for reasons best known to them.


        • @desidaaru12 most hollywood stars have a global market to please, just like shahrukh needs to be nice to people in pakistan and bangladesh. Why do you think shahrukh is a peacenik when it comes to pakistanis? Why do muslim stars need to show, they celebrate hindu festivals in India?Aren’t they secular, just like hollywood stars are liberal and war hating? It is the same reason in usa and in India, the reason for their public liberalness that is. The extent to which the stars take these causes is again dependent on other forces in the country. They strike a balance suited to the countries they live in and the markets they cater to.


      • @anon, Crunch expressed her opinion. How did that lead to ‘inferiority complex’??? As if the actors of our respective countries represent our views. I fail to see your logic here. It’s okay for you to disagree but labeling someone we don’t know is a bit of a stretch.

        And to address your point – besides the Hollywood actors who might do some publicity stuff, there are those that really make a difference – like Paul Newman and his non profit foundation, Kristin Davis’ efforts in Africa, Kate Winslet’s Golden hat Foundation supports autism related causes, Sharon Osborne’s ‘Stand Up to Cancer’ initiative. The list goes on. These are not publicity stunts. These are real people putting their time, effort, money into things they believe in.


  8. I love women is like an entity. It’s not about what SRK says in the AD, it is about the Ad world’s presumption about women in general. I mean, look at SILK chocolate ad, Cadbury is trying to showcase the silkiness of the chocolate by showing sexy women eating the chocolate in a seducing manner.


  9. IHM,
    I see no reason to make a big deal about this. It may be patronizing.. but not derogatory. Also, his words might have a greater influence than any intellectual’s. We could appeal to him to use it more often and to come forward more often.. However, there is no reason to doubt it.

    I have not heard of any incident where he has insulted a woman/actress or wife or anyone.. So I think he means it.
    Despite what goes on the society, we cannot mark all men as enemies and continue. I live with a great man who is as pained as I am when women get hurt or sidelined. I was born to a father who thinks in the same way.
    Patriarchy is the order. But small changes matter. Now, he can move on to make equal pay for women actors. 🙂


    • “It may be patronizing.. but not derogatory. ”
      Derogatory is a big deal and patronising is not? Two sides of the same coin, I would say.

      “Also, his words might have a greater influence than any intellectual’s. ”
      Exactly why we need to hold him responsible for what he says.. exactly why we are discussing his ad here.

      “So I think he means it.”
      Means what though? That he loves all women? He loves half the world’s population? I don’t think that means anything. I have no doubt that he loves specific women but can all women be meaningfully lumped together into ‘I love women’?

      “Despite what goes on the society, we cannot mark all men as enemies and continue.”
      Indeed. However, I don’t think we mark a man as an enemy by questioning this idolisation of women. Someone might genuinely think putting all women on a pedestal equals respect but it’s actually very limiting and divisive. Healthy questioning should be encouraged.


      • The whole point should be whether we need to pick this battle. ” I love women” may or may not mean anything. But is it patriarchal? What if a woman says ” I love men” ? This is just a careless remark at the best. Not enough substance to fight a battle.


    • Initiating a discussion on this ad really isn’t about ‘marking all men as enemies’. In fact, the patronising tone of the ad is all the more remarkable because it’s SRK- a man known to be a virtual feminist.:) A lesser mortal would have been excused:)

      Regarding equal pay for actresses- it cannot happen unless the role of an actress in a movie undergoes a fundamental change. When actresses do the kind of roles that male stars do, and attract huge crowds to the theatre, and carry the whole film on their shoulders, they will deserve to get paid equally.


  10. Women are just people though. Why do some see a significant enough difference between ‘people’ and ‘women’ to make these statements about special treatment?

    However, it’s not the ‘I love women’ line in this ad that bothers me. That sounds like a flippant line for his fans that I can ignore. What bothers me is this benevolent ‘women shouldn’t be equal to men, they should be ahead of them!’. That misses the whole point about equality! Women and men are just people and neither should be ‘ahead’ because of their gender. Let’s just focus on allowing equal opportunities and basic human rights and let people get ahead on their own. Not all women (or men) are loveable or successful but they deserve the same human rights anyway.

    Why should the actress’s name be the first in all his movies? I would be pretty annoyed at such a condescending attitude in my workplace. Going from a male-on-top to female-on-top rule doesn’t change anything. I’d much prefer no gender bias for the top spot. I’m quite happy to have to earn it just like anyone else.


  11. Im all for equal pay – equal human , equal pay for the same job, but i dont see the actresses do the sam ejob as actors.
    some actresses get equal pay or high pay as they carry a movie, but if you show up for 205 of the movie, wear pretty cloths and smile at the camera, then you will get paid accordingly.

    As for SRK, he needs a better scanning of what he endorses and maybe a better adviser who is more in line with the feminist he projects to be 🙂


  12. I don’t like the “I love women.” statement either, be it from Sharukh or anyone else. I’ve heard American guys say it too. It’s kind of creepy.

    When you say you love all women, you mean all women fit into this category called women that somehow dictates who they are? You like all women because they’re what ….. beautiful, affectionate, loving, sweet, soft spoken, curvy, smooth skinned, …. fill your favorite adjectives here. Please note that there are women who are also mean, ungenerous, nasty, cranky, boring, silly, dumb ….. just like men. Do you love those women too?

    I certainly don’t like all women. Nor do I like all men. So I can’t really say, “I love women.” or “I love men.” I can say I love dogs because all dogs are faithful and give unconditional love. My husband can say, “I love cars.” My son can say, “I love Legos.” Women (or men) are not dogs, cars, or toys to be grouped into one unrecognizable, cloned down mass of desirable qualities.


  13. I don’t think Sharukh meant anything bad by saying this. I don’t think he even thought through this. People say these things without thinking, but their words do carry prejudices, however unintentional. Like when Obama joked that with his poor golfing skills, he should try out for the Special Olympics. Most Americans were shocked and found the President’s remark distasteful. But then most of their grandparents would’ve probably thought it was okay to make such a remark because back then, we simply weren’t aware that putting down someone is not very graceful.

    In my company, we attended a training recently. The trainer was talking about a stylish product and looked at the 5 women in the room and said, “You ladies know what I’m talking about.” And we sat there with our jaws hanging – hello? 3 of them are engineers that couldn’t care less how they dress. One is from finance and she can eat anyone for breakfast when it comes to number crunching. What makes you think all 5 of us are into fashion? Simply because we’re women? And there were tons of well dressed, well groomed men in the room.

    People use patronizing expressions all the time – unintentionally of course – still doesn’t make them right – if someone can point it out, that might help them realize, “Oh I didn’t realize ….. yes, it IS kind of patronizing.” So we DID point it out politely to the trainer after the session. And he DID realize and said “oops”. We said, “No big deal, just wanted you to realize ….. etc.” And so he won’t be doing that again hopefully.


  14. And I thought I was the only one who find those women are kind caring most wonderful creation of God kind of FB updates and adds and cards ridiculous. We have to leave all these categorization and look beyond what gender , class , religion , country someone belongs to . People do not understand why i object when women are being praised .

    I found this add forced . Its like everyone is doing something related to women equality to get publicity , I cannot stay behind. May be he will get few more female fans who will say ” pati ho to SRK jaisa ” , I don’t see this ad doing any other good.

    I sometimes feel such statements rather widen men- women divide.


  15. I do see your points…. But should’nt we pick our battles? I was more offended by the vaginal whitening cream’s and fair and lovely’s ads than this Tata tea ad.


  16. If I ever say this sentence, and I can totally see myself saying this, I would mean two things: I love the women in my life and secondly I love women’s presence in the world in general and would want them to be as free as men are. Regarding the second part, I do feel that they make the world more beautiful and complete. BTW, exactly same things are true for men; I like my friends and world would be poorer without my male comrades. However, the word love used in connection to males is so loaded socially that I would probably never use it though from a logical point the feelings may be similar.


    • It’s like saying oh I love dogs. Or oh I love cats. Or oh I love animals. I mean really does one have to know every single animal or dog or whatever to love them? It’s a bit of a stupid statement but really, what is the point of getting so worked up?


  17. What’s the issue here? Did you hear that the reporter started off by saying: “Women love you”?

    Why cant we dissect that statement? Did she mean to say Shahrukh is a puppy or a kitten or a shoe or a purse that women love? Or does the reporter get a free pass from feminists because she is a woman?

    In truth, off course, neither the reporter nor SRK deserves any criticism. Both were joking. I would hate to live in the humorless, Orwellian world of feminists.


  18. This post truly amazes me. Consider the following two sentences said by SRK in this ad:

    Line 1: “I love women”

    Your Reaction: Oh my god, is he degrading and insulting women? We need to dig deep
    and think about what kind of language we use about women.

    Line 2: “In medicine, politics and engineering, women should always be ahead of men”.

    Your Reaction: None.

    It is stunning that while you suspected sexist language in Line 1, no alarm bells were set off by Line 2!

    It is because of this extreme tone deafness of feminists to the other side that large majorities in the West now see feminism as an extremist, perhaps supremacist, movement (and this includes majority of women). In India this disgust with feminist agenda pushing is beginning to surface, but hasn’t reached critical mass as yet.

    I hope you will have the honesty to publish this comment.


    • I found the second sentence equally, or even more offensive. Shail has commented on this and I agree with her. It’s not men versus women, and women do not need to do better than anybody to be happy/respected or to be seen as worthy.


      • Well, if you found Line 2, “more offensive”, you surely had a strange way of showing how offended you were: by writing a whole blog post raging about Line 1 with no mention of Line 2.


    • I really don’t mind the “I love women”. But I do mind the “women should be ahead of men in …..” and I do mind the ” from now on, the actress’ name will be billed before mine in the film”.
      Please read the comments again. In all fairness, I do think you’ve posted your comment before fully reading the preceding discussion.


  19. I don’t find the ad too offensive s a feminist but I do get that it is a bit patronizing. Maybe I am just become immune to listening to such messages all the time.


  20. What really bothered me most was the ending of the ad. The girl is looking pleased,content when he said His heroine’sname will come before his. Thats all it takes to please her? Is that all women need? Is that what she really wanted from SRK.?


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