But then what is day without night? So I have my critisisms about women too. At a time much prior to now, when my wife was not my wife, but just a person I was talking to - I asked her this question " Do you know about this thing called nightie ?" Confused and half-suspicious that this could be a trick question, she said "y..ye...yes! I know about this thing called nightie." Now... the difficulty in deciding about stuff like marriages is that you have to ask certain tough questions. Questions, which may ultimately decide the level of compatibility and thereby the marriage. It maybe too embarassing to ask such questions but nevertheless essential before committing to the "I DO". So I asked her "Are you one of those chics who wears this nightie thing to the temples, to the milk booth to buy milk, to the market to do grocery, to the bus stop to drop off kids, to the neighbor's house for idle chat". I asked again " Are you that kind of a person.". Thankfully the answer was "No! I am not that kind of a person."
Now! the reason why this question was important is not so much because of the fear that your loved one could belong to that wretched category of women but more because it gives so much pleasure to trash the kind of women who fall in this category. And it would really be difficult to pass all my sarcastic remarks and verbal abuse at these women, if I know fully well my loved one is in that category. Even worse the temptation to remark at such obscenity is so high that you would rather say something and get beaten up by your wife than not say anything at all. Thank god! I did not have to walk that road. She hates it as much as I do.
Now! what do women think when they buy a piece of dress that is called nightie? Do they realize that five of those seven letters in the word "nightie" forms a word called NIGHT -- that actually gives the dress a purpose and meaning? If they do realize it, then why do they insist on wearing them during daylight? Do they feel nobody else will notice it is day? Much like a person who kept picking his nose when he sat on the passanger seat of my car 3 days before - who thinks that if he does not look at me while he picks his nose - I won't notice that he is picking his nose and sprinkling nose-shit in my car. Have you seen that? Have you actually seen people picking their nose in public? They are so focussed on locking the damn goop in their fingers that they actually think nobody else is noticing them. They are thinking in the minds "I almost caught the darn thing.. its slippery now.. wait I'll catch it with my ring finger.. thank god nobody is seeing.. my hand is completely blocking my sight but not to worry.. I know nobody is seeing me. Even I can't see myself and even if I don't wash my hand before dinner it is not a problem I did not see me pick my nose so I never did it". These "nightie" clad women are like that. They actually think that if they don't look up and see the sun -- people will think it is still night. And people will not notice the ghastly dress that they have come out wearing. This pretension gives them the right to goof off and parade this ugly dress in public. Now I am not critising the nightie because its not an Indian dress or because in some Tamil Sentiment way it shows the women to be a slut. No I dont think of it that way. I think its tasteless, useless and sometimes a very scary dress. Go ahead wear a bikini and strut yourself -- I will clap all the way and cheer you on. But a nightie!!! chic you are givin me the creeps.
These are the levels in which women wander outside in this hideous costume. (a) They just wear it like a ghost until 9:00 in the morning -> (b) they wear it all day long -> (c) they actually wear it outside the house while talking to neighbors -> (d) they wear it outside when they do grocery ( you know while buying vegetables sold by the mobile-cart-pullers) -> (e) they wear it until the bus stop where they talk with other "nightie" clad women (a hag consortium) -> (f) they wear it to the temple. Now among these obsceneties ( which are difficult to distinguish in terms of their obnoxousness factor) the one that stands out completely is the nightie to the temple. They have finished their bath, or so they would have us believe with all the sintoor and viboodhi on their forehead. So they know that they are well past the nightie time. But they choose to (a) wear the nightie for that day's night early in the morning itself (b)re-wear the dirty nightie from yestdarday. Eitherways it does not make a difference as far as looks are concerned - both look pretty dirty. Why nighties to temple reach unknown heights of abnoxiousness is because of the "dhupatta" factor. I have never understood the saree. I dunno why a dress has to be worn the way a saree is worn.
Let me digress to the topic of sarees for a moment just to set the context. To me saree is a reflection of man's cruelty women, much the same way a veshti ( dhothi) is a reflection of women's cruelty to man. In the olden days when man saw and understood for the first time the differences between a man and a woman, he saw the difference in the anatomical structure of a woman. He also may have noticed women were physically weaker than men. So he wanted to dominate his woman. He said "here lady! there are 5 pieces of cloth here. Each piece incrementally covers the vital parts of your body. go wear them!". The woman, who had never seen a saree before, dutifully starts wearing them one by one. After 4 of those 5 pieces have been worn the woman notices that althought the important sections have been covered there are still some "gaps" that result in moderate to negligible levels of nakedity. She thinks "Will I be warm enough? Won't other men stare at these still naked parts?" When she notices the 5th cloth, which is our famous saree, she is happy. She thinks, "Here is a bedsheet like thing and I can happily cover my whole body with it. At least I will be warm". But men those days were smart.. "aha", the man says, "Wear this bedsheet sort of cloth in such a complicated style that it will extensively re-cover what has been already covered but will only marginally cover the previously naked portions." So the woman wraps meters and meters of this cloth around in a style that requires 4 PhD's and 10 years of study to master. But to her horror! she finds that her nakedity has not significantly diminished. She has ended up naked in the places that were already naked before this weirdly long cloth was worn. But she never asks " if its redundant why the hell do I still need a saree? " Lot of cloth but not so bright..the women were in those days. Meters of cloth is expended, wasted and particlarly aimed at covering and recovering the same body parts. This makes me suspicious of the medeival man. I think there may be a third ( the second one was obviously to stare at ladies mid-riff section and make all the rain dances and a billion dollar bollywood industry possible) and yet unidentified reason as to why this saree strategy was adopted by the early man. Makes you wonder if the undisclosed idea was to cover up a specific part of the body so much that other people wont recognize that the anatomy of a women's body was different from that of a man( fits in with the medeival mentality doesn't it?). I think saree's express purpose is to hide the concept of any anatomical differences between a man and women's body. So much so that it is not a problem if some small parts are still naked but the delta parts ( the ones which signify anatomical differences) must be masked. In short they want to mask the differences in the top half of a woman as much as possible.
Salwar is a dress that I can vaguely understand. There are no confusing knots and turns. It is simple pant and shirt but just that the shirt is longer. "Dhupatta" on the other hand is baffling. It almost looks unnecessary. Given that some piece of cloth is already covering the top half, there is no need for a another one. But I have noticed women suddenly wear a dhupatta when elders or strangers come visiting. This dhupatta serves the purpose that the saree serves - masks the anatomy. I bow my head to the medeival man. He has not only acheived his purpose but also made women actually respect his devious plans. Men Rock!!!
Now why did I mention all these things? Coming back to the topic of the Nightie. When a woman wears a nightie there are no complications that comes with a saree or a salwar. This darn dress is so ghostly that you are left wondering if there is any other body part apart from the head. This ghost like structure is so vapid that it hides the entire person let alone any talks about top half, bottom half, structure etc. But the women are still not satisfied. They take a dirty towel. A towel so dirty that it has been used to wipe off everything from baby shit to the fungus like dirt underneath the fridge. The women take this towel and wear it across their nighties like a Dhupatta. Why? is it because it masks their anatomy in the top half of her body? is it because of sheer habbit? is it because women, like those nose-pickers mentioned above, think that if they wear this dirty towel other people would think they are actually wearing a salwar and would approve them without giving a second look. I have no idea. I only know what the nightie eventually does. It takes away all the gracious structures that women are known for and replaces them with a legless ( and dirty) ghost. Why do you need a dirty towel for? where is the sense in this?
Some women who have bore the brunt of my sarcastic comments have shot back and attacked men's habbit of wearing shorts. I have only one defense in that regard. You forget the shorts. Consider the small handkhercheif that men wear - the cloth called komanam. The nightie is worse, more undignified and more ugly than the komanam. Because atleast the komanam guys have reached the maximum capability of their dressing senses. They can't help their situation and have settled to their wretched states. But women on the other hand are doing what Seinfled said, they take a look at themselves in the nightie and say "This is it!!! I have worn this. I am not going to improve upon this! Damn my wardrobe I am just wearing this and going out".
The Lungi was an interesting topic thrown at me by Atta Girl. It is an undeniable fact that only the men who wear lungi think it is even remotely close to good. I have never heard any woman say " that lungi gives him the sex appeal". But then men as a rule aren't shy to wear dirty stuff. It is also undeniable fact that lungi is so horrible a dress that there ought to be a law against it. My gripe against the lungi starts with the design and then its colors. Does it have to be that checked. The horrible thick stripes that run across it. What sort of a dress is this? And whats with the blue and brown color. Men who wear lungies - I have a news flash for you - You look horrible in it. This is the only dress that can rival the obnoxiousness of the nightie.
Lungi is like cheating on a sack race. You have a material that worse than a sack on you, but you have the bottom part cut out to enable you to walk. whats the deal aren't the judges watching you or something?