From Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita in “Lolita” to Britney Spears’ sexy schoolgirl in the music video for “...Baby One More Time,” the media has an extensive history of sexualizing female youth and girlhood. American society in the 21st century puts constant pressure on women to look and behave as young as possible in order to be deemed desirable or worthy of attention.
On Thursday, Nov. 10, 2022, a small sign was put up in front of the swipe-in counter in the Dining Commons announcing that Gracious Dinner would start that night at 5 p.m. It was almost inconspicuous, and perhaps first-years and new transfer students paid it little attention. But word spread quickly among those who had experienced it before, and group chats flooded with plans to meet up for Mount Holyoke’s annual Friendsgiving-type celebration, complete with fall-themed decorations, special menu items like gyros, a berry bar, pumpkin pie and even a turkey-shaped bread display.
Here at Mount Holyoke, students have the opportunity to learn about Marx from an academic perspective, contrasting to how he is portrayed otherwise in the United States, where Marx is framed as a boogeyman, especially by conservatives. However, when you come to understand his ideas, even just the basics as described by Tucker, Marxism begins to have some appeal because it was arguably directed, by Marx, at the working class.
Wellness is an elusive concept because it is subjective and individualized. According to Pfizer, “Wellness is the act of practicing healthy habits on a daily basis to attain better physical and mental health outcomes.” Wellness has become even more complicated with the aid of questionable claims and products in recent times.
As an Indian Hindu living overseas, I started Diwali with lighting a diya in front of the Lord Ganesha idol on my desk. Within seconds of putting in a silent prayer for the god of new beginnings, I received news of new beginnings being celebrated elsewhere — the United Kingdom had elected Rishi Sunak to be their new prime minister. At the age of 42, Sunak is the first person of color and the first person of South Asian descent to become prime minister of the U.K, according to Reuters.
Mount Holyoke College returned to a fully residential experience in Fall 2021 for the first time since the campus began remote learning in March 2020. In an email to students from March 2021, former College president Sonya Stephens addressed the Mount Holyoke community about plans for Fall 2021 and beyond. Stephens stated, “Faculty and students will be engaged in our campus learning environment together, and we will make any adjustments needed to continue to protect health and safety.”
This summer, before I began my freshman year of college, I found myself bombarded by college-related content from peers and social media influencers alike. Their advice ranged from classes, making friends, dorm setup, organization, grades and discourse on the “freshman 15” — which refers to the additional weight some students gain during their first year of college.
As an Indian woman who lives to see a religiously-divided India today, it would be impossible for me to ignore that the origins of the religious strife can be traced back to the horrific British colonization and their heinous “divide and rule” land-conquering strategy. The list of harms done by the British Empire cannot possibly end at pitting religious communities against each other. The question for many of the once-colonized nations is not the scale of the offenses committed by the imperial power but what the monarchy can do next in mending the relationship between the United Kingdom and the rest of the Commonwealth.
Courtesy of Patina Photography.
The second season of “Indian Matchmaking” demonstrates that reality television often depicts situations and people in false, harmful ways that do not align with the experiences of people on the show.
By Jahnavi Pradeep ’23
Opinion Editor
On August 10, 2022, Netflix reality show “Indian Matchmaking” returned for a second season, drawing audiences back into its trap of arranged marriage matchmaking fiascos. The first episode of the season — titled “I’ve Dated Lots of Chicks” — opens to host and professional matchmaker Sima Taparia happily attending the marriage of two of her clients. Against the backdrop of her successful project, Taparia expressed her joy in being a matchmaker, “First is marriage, then love. That is the beauty of these arranged marriages.” The season subsequently picks up for eight episodes of Taparia’s matchmaking trial and errors.
“Indian Matchmaking” brings a strong potential to the screen in explaining what Indian marriages look like. In an article for The Juggernaut, Ishani Nath explores how “Indian Matchmaking” is more than just a “dating show” as it is “introducing and shaping how a global audience understands the matchmaking industry.” In fashioning itself as a reality show intimately following the lives of an Indian host and her Indian clients, it offers what viewers may assume is an authentic representation of the Indian experience in the arranged marriage landscape.
Unfortunately, both seasons disappoint. The second season shows no growth from the first and continues following the same apparently stubborn, upper middle-class clientele. Moreover, while carefully avoiding the controversial blunders of colorism from its first season, season two of “Indian Matchmaking” still resorts to dangerous stereotypes — one of the largest being sexism. As Nath aptly captures, the show begins to read as more of an “arranged marriage PR rather than a series based on reality.” The public relations scheme of the show bolsters single-sided narratives that subtly construct regressive ideas on arranged marriages wherein the Indian woman invariably gets left on the outside when not conforming to expected gender roles.
The show’s double standard is apparent in the season’s differential treatment of returning female and male clients from season one — Aparna Shewakramani, Nadia Jagessar, Shekar Jayaraman and Pradhyuman Maloo.
“The public relations scheme of the show bolsters single-sided narratives that subtly construct regressive ideas on arranged marriages wherein the Indian woman invariably gets left on the outside when not conforming to expected gender roles.”
Aparna Shewakramani, a Houston-based lawyer in her mid thirties and a client of Taparia’s, garnered significant negative attention in her first season. Taparia sets her up as a character with impossible dating criteria and an intolerable personality, resulting in failed talking stages that never move any further.
After the first season, Shewakramani received immense online hate and death threats. As a response to her inaccurate portrayal on the series and its consequential cyberbullying, she wrote a book titled “She’s Unlikeable: And Other Lies that Bring Women Down.” Shewakramani discusses not just her challenging experience with Taparia but the role of “Indian Matchmaking” in presenting her in a one-dimensional light. In an interview with The Indian Express, she reminded audiences that reality shows are still fictionalized versions of reality: “It is my hope that people move forward in consuming media more responsibly. We should, of course, enjoy it for entertainment purposes but we should by no means take it as absolute truth.”
“Indian Matchmaking” negatively portrays confident, self-sufficient women as “unlikeable,” thereby concentrating only on these aspects of Shewakramani’s character. Season two shows how this problem is not only encouraged by Sima Taparia and her often outdated modes of thought, but also by the creators of the show. In season two, Shewakramani is no longer Taparia’s client but works as her own matchmaker. However, the construction of Shewakramani, while including more of her personal successes and journey as an individual, does not completely abandon its assertion of her unlikeability. Episode one of season two — “I’ve Dated Lots of Chicks” — opens to a changed Shewakramani. She reiterates the life formula she had created for herself, the essence of her season one quest — getting married, having children, maintaining her professional life and moving into a “McMansion.” She then asserts, “I’m done with the life I thought I wanted.”
Situated in her New York City apartment, Shewakramani seems positioned for better things in her life and for the show. However, “Indian Matchmaking” does not follow through on portraying this stability. Instead, from this moment on, season two fails to sufficiently chart Shewakramani’s relationships, with similar unsuccessful dates to season one and a sudden disappearance midseason. As contributor Meha Razdan wrote for Buzzfeed News, “There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Aparna’s storyline, per se, but without the tether of Sima, the viewer is left scratching their head wondering what this has to do with the matchmaking aspect.”
“While sexism is a common reality in matchmaking, the show’s orientation does not tackle the dangers of this discrimination, but rather reinforces that any woman thinking outside of convention is set to lose when it comes to love, and is deserving of blame.”
It seems that Shewakramani is brought on the show merely to tap into the fame surrounding her book release. This becomes increasingly believable as none of Shewakramani’s fellow female stars on Indian Matchmaking are seen in a progressive light and are still portrayed as unlikeable when they break certain gender norms.
Nadia Jagessar is one such person. Throughout season two, Jagessar is made out to be unlikeable for supposedly breaking the heart of Shekar Jayaraman — another season one client — in pursuit of a younger man named Vishal Kalyanasundaram.
At the end of season one, there seems to be a possibility, though not fully defined, of a romance between Jagesar and Jayaraman, one of Taparia’s other clients. When we return for season two, both Jagessar and Jayaraman are seemingly single and have the will-they or will-they-not date question lingering over their interactions. Jayaraman visitsJagessar’s house in episode one, cordially and warmly interacting with her whole family. He is immediately set up as a likable young suitor for Jagessar. However, the situation between the two is still in a gray area, with uncertainties looming from both sides. When Jagessar hosts a party for Taparia’s clients later in the same episode, she hits it off with the twenty-something Kalyanasundaram. Jagessar is immediately villainized for her behavior toward Jayaraman and belittled for her romance with a younger man.
In an article for Indian Express, Nadia Jagessar explains how she never dated Jayaraman in the two and a half years she knew him and was hurt by how the show edited her story arc in the second season. The article discusses how Jagessar “noted that it is ‘unfortunate’ that the show edited it to look like she had broken Shekar's heart.” In looking for her own love interest and pursuing someone conventionally inappropriate, Jagessar is made unlikeable. She quickly disappears from the show after her fling with Kalyanasundaram comes to an end. The show erases Jagessar’s reality to replace it with a fictionalized account that reinforces the show’s idea that progressive women cannot function in the arranged marriage arena. Taparia’s failure as a matchmaker slowly nods in this direction as well, blaming women for the shortcomings of matchmaking in the modern age, rather than lauding them for breaking past convention, if anything. Jagessar and Shewakramani are molded into selfish creatures demanding the hate of audiences.
The returning men of the show are inversely coddled. Jayaraman is depicted as the heartbroken man begging audiences for their sympathy. He still very much receives the show’s favor. Similarly, returning client Pradhyuman Maloo is glorified as a success story in the season. Like Shewakramani, he no longer is a client of Taparia’s and has found a wife on his own, at a party. Maloo was as stubborn — if not more — than his female counterparts during the first season. And yet, we are asked to forget all about it in the second season. He is instead given the Indian wedding everyone has been waiting for and does not disappear midseason without a grand send-off. He is even invited back to the show’s coveted married couple confessional couch with his wife for tips on his success story.
Reality shows, while based on the lives of real people, cannot be conflated with reality. The genre still alters and even fictionalizes narratives to suit the requirements of their shows. “Indian Matchmaking” is a clear example of this, altering the lives of its participants to suit certain narrative tropes that insist on an stereotypical arranged marriage system that cannot accept self-sufficient women. While sexism is a common reality in matchmaking, the show’s orientation does not tackle the dangers of this discrimination, but rather reinforces that any woman thinking outside of convention is set to lose when it comes to love, and is deserving of blame.
On April 7, 2022, the U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, making her the first Black female to serve as justice. The 53-47 vote for Jackson highlighted the bipartisan support she received in the Senate. After two grueling days of intensive questioning regarding her judicial record and thoughts on controversial topics such as Critical Race Theory and abortion, Jackson’s appointment to the Supreme Court was celebrated by supporters as a groundbreaking win for Black women across the country.
I scurried quickly to my spot on stage with my seven other dancers, waiting in anticipation for the work lights to fade to black. I listened to the slow hum of the audience behind the curtain, most likely captivated by the artistry of the previous dances. A much-deserved reaction, in my humble opinion. Even though I only did a light warm-up, I could feel the sweat clinging my black leotard onto my skin as I waited for the music to start.
Thursday, March 31, was the 13th International Trans Day of Visibility. The holiday was started by activist Rachel Crandall as a response to Trans Day of Remembrance in acknowledgment of living trans people. The day also emphasizes that we deserve to be seen and recognized for our presence. This past Thursday was the first to receive federal recognition, as President Joe Biden issued a proclamation declaring March 31 the nationwide Transgender Day of Visibility. But as protective bills hang with uncertainty in the House and Senate, states rush to pass anti-trans bills and trans people continue to be disproportionate victims of violence, it is increasingly clear that visibility will do nothing to protect trans people. What we need instead is action.
As of late, the Save Our Departments movement, a student group of the same name advocating for the preservation of the Mount Holyoke arts, languages and social sciences departments, has garnered attention across campus. As the College merges departments and cuts programs, some students are increasingly worried about what budget cuts will mean for their areas of study. As a prospective history major, I have a lot to lose from potential budget cuts and the downsizing of departments.
Content warning: this article mentions racialized violence.
2022 is already a year of turbulence with global wars, a pandemic and the anxiety of upcoming midterm elections in the United States. This election cycle may challenge the Democratic party’s majority in the House and their 50-member stake in the Senate. It is also a year of state legislative elections in India, where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party could potentially be overturned in crucial electoral states like Uttar Pradesh. What makes this year of legislative assembly elections so important is the fact that it can dictate India and the U.S.’ moves toward tolerance.
The older I get, the more I realize how unfairly children and young adults with traditional academic interests are treated by both adults and their own peers. This criticism is a reflection of how intelligence is only valued in the classroom. This sentiment particularly affects children whose academic interests extend beyond the classroom. Furthermore, school has become less about actually learning new things and more about filling the requirements of academic proficiency that signifies success in education. Children are not being praised for being voracious readers because classes often treat reading as a checkpoint rather than a way to understand new material. Students whose interests aren’t being supported by their peers or teachers can feel as though their efforts and genuine interests don’t really matter. I know that was the case for me.
When we look at other people, we make instant assumptions about them, from the way they dress, act or even what they are interested in. These expectations can be damaging, not only because they are often untrue, but also because they can be incredibly hard to unlearn. This is often true for those who do not fit within the gender binary, and even more so for those who do not fit into the androgynous stereotype often ascribed to non-binary people. It is one thing to understand that gender identity, pronouns and gender expression are three separate categories, and it is another to actively deconstruct the notions of gender that place those groupings together.
Four years ago, a group of Mount Holyoke students organized a campaign aptly titled “Mount Holyoke Doesn’t Teach Me.” As archived by the Daily Hampshire Gazette in 2018, students at the time organized this campaign to address the lack of inclusion in our curriculum. The Gazette quoted several anonymous students who pointed out that Mount Holyoke fails to teach its students “that South Asian poets and authors are significant;” about “non-Western art history;” “about [their] culture without the colonizer’s perspective;” and about the “history of Muslim countries in an unbiased way.”
At the first meeting of Mount Holyoke’s Film Society, we discussed our plan for the semester’s screenings. I created a screening schedule featuring Black-centered films in February to honor Black History Month. It was also important that the club continue to show films led by people of color throughout the semester. The world of film criticism disproportionately recognizes white-centric cinema as the pinnacle of quality, even though filmmakers of color consistently produce remarkable work.
