This Is All That Is Wrong With ‘Lipstick Under My Burkha’

Lipstick Under my Burkha
Poster of Lipstick Under My Burkha

The other day a feminist friend almost convinced me that Feminism does not mean male-hatred. So, we decided to agree on disagreements and to go for a hardcore feminist movie Lipstick Under My Burkha.

This was the story of four women searching for their liberties, especially sexual liberties. If we saw this as a personā€™s sexual freedom, it looked good. The way the characters were struggling with conservative mindset is everybodyā€™s story today. But then it was made women specific by painting the wrong image of men.  There were four female characters in the movie and all four were living dual lives as they were not allowed to live a life of their own choices. But that raised a serious question, did men have same liberties?

Four women Shireen Aslam, Leela, Usha, and Rehana lived in a small locality in Bhopal city. Shireen lived with her three children and her husband Rahim Aslam lived in Dubai and visited her for few days to rape her and make her pregnant every time. Her neighbor Leela worked in a parlor and had a boyfriend Arshad but was all set to marry another man Manoj. Usha Buaji, a 55-year-old widow, was fond of reading erotic books hidden inside the religious books. The youngest one, Rehana Abidi was the daughter of a tailor (Burkha) and had a dream of becoming a singer.

They all were struggling with their dual lives. Usha Bua alias Rosy had a fantasy of having sex with the young swimming instructor Jaspal ā€“ that was her lipstick wale sapne. She called Jaspal one night and had phone sex. He did not know that he was speaking with the old woman who he taught swimming. This was shown as acceptable as she had become a widow at a very young age.

Ours being a conservative society, sex is a taboo for us. A single old man having similar desires is often called a ā€˜Tharkiā€™, ā€˜Potential Rapistā€™ etc. The people who praised Usha Buaā€™s character, wonā€™t accept the same in males, despite ā€˜desireā€™ being gender neutral.

Shireen, a saleswoman earnt well but her husband who believed in traditional gender roles did not like his wife working for money. He wanted to provide for her needs. He was the one who raped his wife every night. To make it worse, he was also shown as having an extramarital affair which Shireen confronted boldly.

This movie also showed marital rape. As a feminist PIL is pending in Delhi HC, a lot of movies are coming up showing marital rape ā€“ a tactic to train our brains that it is a widespread phenomenon in our homes, All Indian husbands are being shown to be raping their wives. The Marital Rape scenes filled our minds with disgust – he came home every night, took dinner, shouted at kids and raped his wife”. This was shown as if men were such emotionless creatures.

To make the audience believe, the movie showed Leela asking Shireen if her husband ever touched her lovingly.

While the movie showed men as rapists and sex-maniacs, women wanting more sex was shown as their ā€˜needā€™. Leela was only interested in Sex She earned well from her job and wanted to live an adventurous life. She cheated on her fiancĆ©e by keeping a relationship with her boyfriend. She was bold enough to demand sex from her boyfriend and also took initiative in having sex with fiancĆ©e. Her fiancĆ©e instead wanted to first get married before sex.

While cheating of the husband was criticized in the movie, Leelaā€™s cheating her boyfriend was shown as her sexual freedom. When Shireen’s (Konkana Sen Sharma) husband demanded sex, it became marital rape but when Leela demanded, it was her sexual freedom.

Rihana Abidi, the youngest among the four, wanted to be free from the Hijab and carried out her role well. Rihana was a college student and became a part of jeans ban protest. As a mark of rebel and freedom from Hijab, she tore her jeans. She was a shop-lifter from high-end stores, too. The movie tried to justify the act as well and that was no surprise as feminists are all masquerading thieves.

The movie ended on a note, ā€˜Forget the world and live life on your own termsā€™. But does oneā€™s freedom of choices mean, living an uncontrolled life? We all have restrictions in our lives and feminists seemed to be encouraging breaking laws as usual.

This film tried to project men as emotionless creatures who only saw women as sex objects. The film tried to project men as predators while women wanting more sex, as freedom. This one-way projection showed how a new legislation on marital rape is going to take away all sexual freedom from men. Men are already shown as rapists here keeping in mind the pending Marital Rape PIL.

This movie showed a strong woman as sexually explicit, drunkard and a smoker, they hated males, spread sexism and were shop-lifters. This movie thus not only painted a negative picture of Indian men, it also demonizes women. This, however, did not come as a surprise as we knew feminists as a bunch of criminals. They also justified crime in the movie.

The movie wanted us to believe that every man forced their wives for sex like Shireenā€™s husband did. Women were projected as so weak that they couldnā€™t even resist unwanted sex when they were bold enough to buy condoms from a shop.

The movie Lipstick under my Burkha is a desperate feminist attempt to make sex scarce for men. Make men scared to be happy in a marriage in the name of marital rape, or to trap him in a rape case outside marriage, while women go on raping men in various ways. In short, this is what the world is going to be if Marital Rape PIL is passed.

***

By Jyoti Tiwari

For other movie reviews, see – here

8 comments

  1. I want to ask few questions regarding marital rape law before it get passed –

    1) When a legitimate consent of an adult female obtained on the pretext of marriage becomes rape, if the pretext is not fulfilled, then that means marriage makes the consent of women a permanent stuff for sex. Wouldn’t that mean for enacting marital rape law the current interpretation of rape law needs to be changed, where not fulfilling promise of marriage after having pre-marital sex is termed rape.

    2) If a man forcing marriage on a woman is violence and also rape in many cases when such marriage is consummated, then what is filing rape case after consensual pre-marital sex? So literally a man can be raped and forced into marriage slavery and government & state machinery is the enforcer of that slavery.

    3) If women are equal to men, then consent should be two way street, and rape should be gender neutral. If fooling someone for obtaining consent becomes rape & consent made null and void, then what is fooling a guy with makeup and what not and having sex?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. This is utter, shameless feminist propaganda.film makers should be ashamed of themselves for making this film that propagate falsehoods about indian men, where in a country, the highest number of suicides occur with biased, ill conceived and draconian laws like 498a. Shame on these clowns.

    Like

  3. Beautiful and honest review! Feminism has become a hypocritical joke nowadays. Women want equality, but still demand reserved seats! So, as per the opportunity, they change stances and become a weaker sex or vice versa.

    Like

  4. I completely agree with your first point about old people having “desire” is to be perceived normal and should be gender neutral. Old men unless they molest or do anything forceful at the cost of another person’s dignity should not be seen as a pervert just because he has sexual desires. He can as well have sex with any younger woman who is “interested too” and should not be judged.

    While coming to the other points such as showcasing men as emotionless rapists, i guess you have watched “pyaar ka punchnama” and many other movies …they showcased women as idiots who use men in all kinds of ways and have no personality of their own, as if the world is only filled with such women but no other kinds of women, as if women are the epitome of everything wrong ever done to a man.
    But women didn’t go on rallying against it, coz its fine… so what if they showed only one or two type of people out of thousand types, the directors just chose to put those particular characters under the light and build a cinema around which is the exact same case in this movie as well.So, grow up !!

    Regarding marital rape PIL all the opinions you and the commentators have blurted out, I understood only one thing that the most important thing for men to look forward in a marriage is to get a license to anytime sex( and at no cost that can compromised!! No way !!). Well, it’s not.
    Sex is not a promise to be kept its something both should feel like and enjoy doing at that particular moment. All that the PIL says is we are equally as a participant in sex, not a submissive.

    It’s what is wrong with the society, women are brainwashed to serve husbands their sexual needs even if they don’t feel like at a certain moment in the act of being a good wife. And I also believe if this is being questioned then even men are not to be pressurized to provide money, both should contribute to everything into a marriage or at least come to an agreement on who is to do what. A man earning and woman taking care of family is fine or woman earning and a man taking care of family is also fine or both earning and split family work is also fine and should not be judged whichever way it is.

    I am a feminist and I work for both genders because that’s what feminism is to neutralize gender and it hurts me to see some people exploiting the very motive of it like false rape cases, misuse of alimony (Really can’t help it, anything is exploited these days eg. caste reservations!) but it’s important to realise it is at least helping some real victims. So don’t put only bad feminism under the microscope and realize not all feminists are not male-haters, we fight for sexism against men too.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.