Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Nightie ( Updated with the Lungi )

Now..... I like women. It is not as if I consider them to be my enemies or some sort of an object of ridicule. I always appreciate them. Ask my wife!! she will tell you how much I appreciate and observe women. From Manisha Koirala, Aish, Trisha to Reema Sen, I have profound appreciation for the women folk. So much that sometimes she has to tell me explicitly to stop appreciating them so much.

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".



Edit:

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?

31 comments:

Ekta said...

HAHAH!
This is hilarious!...
And "Oh My gawd"..this so read out my sentiments every time I see a Nightie women on the road!!!

And well this seems to be almost like a family legacy...mom , daughter, grand-daughter...its a family ritual and always seems to be carrying on in the family!!

sri said...

Very Recently , I observed a pocket for a nightie . my aunt was wearing it and she is using the pocket to keep her mobile @@@###$$$$$$ %%%^^^^^. so even nighties are getting modern :-) for the 21st century women.

also ...I haven't seen any women above 40 years wearing this.

. this is a hilarious illustration of a very common observation.

No offence meant.
good work bharath.

Atta Girl said...

LOL! You are mad!!! Your extensive research seems to be terribly skewed!

btw what do you say about those men in lungi's on the road...

Just after my shopping at Nallis, I was walking down the road in T nagar. A lungi clad man was walking ahead of me. The distance between both of us would be say 3-4ft. Suddenly, he halted. Guess what, he stopped to lift his *semi-transparent* lungi in the middle of the road....I dunno, why he had this sudden urge to expose himself...or was it the chennai heat!!! but I almost collided with him!! Eeeks..!

Even the lungi men can be spotted in temples, at grocery shops, posh market areas, almost everywhere!!!

Harish said...

Ever considered a PhD in this? :)

Brilliant write up! :D semma comedy-a irundhudhu!

Anonymous said...

I disagree with you on the 'saree' analogy. I am of the opinion that the saree enhances the sensuality and the gracefulness of the female form like no other apparel in any part of the world can, and was also designed for that very purpose- to reveal the beautiful contours of the female form in a way that is not offensive(as opposed to aiming at covering the female body with layers of clothing) And in olden times, the 'additional 5 pieces' were pretty much non-existent, and evolved much later.

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous,

I think the whole explanation that you gave supports bharaths logic.
The last line hits the nail on the head(again in favour of bharaths logic).

Graceful, beautiful contours, adding sensuality are just lousy excuses that men give to make sure that they can legally ogle at women.:)


Anonymous2

Anupadmaja said...

Ha ha ha ha ... good one :)

Although i wouldn't believe that sarees are totally stupid. When the purpose of wearing a saree is not to show-off that you are a babe, a saree makes a woman feel elegant and majestic ("when worn properly").

Anupadmaja said...

"I think saree's express purpose is to hide the concept of any anatomical differences between a man and women's body"

Can you believe ... going by all this logic, faces are the least attractive parts of the human body :)

sri said...

just to add to the list of other habits besides the nose picking habit ....

1. Using a pencil to remove the dust in ear in a busy meeting.
2. sitting in a chair with only 2 legs on the ground.the front two in air... that too in a busy meeting.
3. clearing the white organic material material between the teeth ( and beieve me... i saw some people tasting it too... )

Hawkeye said...

Ekta,

wanted to blog about this for sometime .. then saw a nightie person in the temple who was confused between catching her falling towel(every time she bent down) and praying. This propelled a blog!

btw.. buy rat poison. they are cake like things available in stores. just dont eat em' by mistake :-)

Hawkeye said...

sriki123,

thanks for your comments!

/* 1. Using a pencil to remove the dust in ear in a busy meeting.*/

pretty dangerous.. i have seen some people use car/bike keys also.

/* 2. sitting in a chair with only 2 legs on the ground.the front two in air... that too in a busy meeting. */

man! you are bad :-) you dog you! you knew thats what I do in meetings. You should think of it as "will he fall or wont he??" kind of entertaintment in our meetings!

/* 3. clearing the white organic material material between the teeth ( and beieve me... i saw some people tasting it too... ) */

he he.. gross .. havent seen this b4...maybe he wanted to be a dentist and then later wanted to be a chef and failed at both and so the after effects remain :-)

Hawkeye said...

Atta Girl,

/* LOL! You are mad!!! Your extensive research seems to be terribly skewed! */

no! there are many things I have to critisize about men too.but nightie is way on top of the list!

/* btw what do you say about those men in lungi's on the road... */

I have updated my blog to now include lungi's :-)

/* Just after my shopping at Nallis, I was walking down the road in T nagar. A lungi clad man was walking ahead of me. The distance between both of us would be say 3-4ft. Suddenly, he halted. Guess what, he stopped to lift his *semi-transparent* lungi in the middle of the road....I dunno, why he had this sudden urge to expose himself...or was it the chennai heat!!! */

I can understand the whole situation AG but what I cant understand is...

/* but I almost collided with him!! Eeeks..! */

why? why did you collide.. you should have been running on the opposite side :-) I cant seem to understand the attraction :-) have you heard of tractor beam :-) just kidding!

Hawkeye said...

Anu,

/* Can you believe ... going by all this logic, faces are the least attractive parts of the human body :) */

ahaaa! you are wrong! I did not say - "the attractive parts of women were covered" (although... well... never mind). I said the parts which showed that women and men were anatomically different were the ones which were covered.

Are you suggesting men dont have faces :-)

Hawkeye said...

/* I disagree with you on the 'saree' analogy. I am of the opinion that the saree enhances the sensuality and the gracefulness of the female form like no other apparel in any part of the world can, */

I never said women don't look good in saree. You must sit alone and think why and how you inferred that from this blog.

For the record.. I dont like saree very much! in madras heat its just too much! poor women!


/* and was also designed for that very purpose- to reveal the beautiful contours of the female form in a way that is not offensive(as opposed to aiming at covering the female body with layers of clothing) */

I did say this.. remember the "second reason" :-)

/* And in olden times, the 'additional 5 pieces' were pretty much non-existent, and evolved much later. */

aah! the "kuchi kuchi rakkamma" factor. I hear you! but you said 5 pieces evolved later! since i was thinking all along the 5th piece was the "saree" itself.. i am confused.. err..but..well..man! a curious mind drives you crazy..

like the anonymous2 said.. you actually supported me.. Men Rock :-)

Atta Girl said...

////why? why did you collide.. you should have been running on the opposite side :-) I cant seem to understand the attraction :-) have you heard of tractor beam :-) just kidding!///

Actually the answer lies in heisenberg law of uncertainity. I couldn't figure get a fix of his position & velocity simultaneously!!! I was moving...and all of sudden the stranger halted. Before the message cud reach my brain that I have to halt or run in the opposite direction his lungi was lifted. I had no option but to look horrified...!!LOL!!!

Anonymous said...

>>Are you suggesting men dont have faces :-)

Bharath, Its kinda obvious that the faces are anatomically different for men and women. I think inspite of the face being distinctly different, and and given that face wasnt covered by the medieval people. It makes me wonder if
1. Either the face was considered important at all in a girl?
2. Or did medieval woman have 'similar faces' which was no different than anyone else ?
3. Is there any importance at all to what the woman actually want/like :) ?
4.All the woman that bharath spoke about in the first para of his blog have beautiful faces. So when bharath wants to appreciate their beauty I think he is talking about their faces(or more about the faces, coz thats the part of the body that you get to see more/first)..So I am kind of confused as to what carries more importance at this point of time,The face or the body and what carried more importance in the past.

-Thunaipeyarvendhan

Anupadmaja said...

Thank you anonymous thunaipeyarvendhan - woah :)

Hey it has been proven "scientifically" (i am not using this word to make u believe it :)) that women and men have anatomically different faces. Thats why they look similar as children. But as they grow, their faces develop in surprisingly opposite ways. Thats why women look softer and men look much stronger from their jaws. I have noticed that the softer a woman's face looks, more drool floats around her (in today's world - eg. Aish, Manisha, Trisha, Reema Sen in same order) :)

Its just funny to know that medieval man did not realize this anatomical difference leading to fatal (c'mon someone cud slip coz of the drool and break their skull) attractions.

Hawkeye said...

Anonymous,

I actually agree with you here. But did you notice in many parts of north india women sometimes draw their saree upwards to cover the back side of their head to point of hiding some parts of their faces. And religions like Islam there is also a practice of women covering their entire faces.

All this makes me suspect the medeival man even more. I think men have suceeded in masking the anatomical differences between men and women with varying degrees of success.

I think the answer to # is unfortunately "No" during medeival times. In todays times it would be...a "No" still. But todays coercion is more indirect through peer pressure and other mechanisms.

/* So I am kind of confused as to what carries more importance at this point of time,The face or the body and what carried more importance in the past.*/

okay... i''ll stick my neck out here.. contrary to popular opinion..in the medeival times ..i think the face carried minimal weight. it was the body that counted for a lot. In todays times it more of an either/or scenario..where women with at least one in the A, A+ are found *physically* attractive by men.

Since my wife is reading the blog I have to put a disclaimer saying that while mentioning those actresses I only look at their faces and nothing else. This fact has been Duly supprted by thunaipeyar..

..phew!!

anantha said...

ROTFL! (and thats for the third time in 3 hrs)

Bharath: u rock!

Anu: Medieval man's fatal attraction! indeed :D

AG: What's next? Schrodienger's Cat :))

anantha said...

Bharath, unrelated comment! I just realised that you are the only person who had positive things to say about both MX and CM! Refreshing, considering all the rancor at Teakada.com. One guy even goes as far as to label all Rajini fans as rowdies who shout to drown out the voices of Kamal fans :p Am totally pissed with the guy...

And I got the idea that you really felt what you wrote and was not trying be politically correct. Good ones boss. Both movies are available online now and I think there will be repeat watches thro the weekend. On the whole, a couple of friends (non Rajini fans who were actually complaining that CM was only so so) were equally or more unhappy with MX. Anyways, me will see MX too, just to see what Kamal has done with this one...

anantha said...

Bharath, another unrelated comment. I saw this on The Hindu's entertainment section. Did u see it?

visithra said...

Hhhehehe ROFL - hilarious - I never figured out the love for the nightie. Though I do know why the towel dupata emerges on the way to temples. Hehehehhe Go Figure.

Anonymous said...

Kinda late here but posting anyway since I wanted to know your comments. This is about your comments on the lungi. Dont you all think that western clothes are overrated (probably because of the marketing which the West is much better at than the East)? I do agree that checks and stripes are a BAD design but thats not the ONLY type available FYI. Also this is not a dress which should be worn in public (like the nightie!). But if you can avoid those two "pitfalls", then it may not be so bad. Specifically I dont think a single color lungi is any worse than for example a pair of shorts. Or even ones that a multi-colored but with no checks! Just my humble opinion!

Anonymous said...

Why Lungis and Nighites? Here is my analysis:

I think it all boils down to ease-of-use ,comfort and lazyness coupled with I-dont-give-a-f@#* attitude.

It is comfortable wearing a lungi on a summer night than say a pajama/short. It feels good when the air flows in free.. ain't it? ;-) and it takes no time to put them on or take them off, for whatever reasons ;-)

Now, why they wear in daylight in the glare of public is - they are comfortable,they are lazy to change into something sartorially elegeant and they dont give a s@#$ about what you and I might think of their 'ghastly' appearence.

PS:My first vist to the blog and it is hilarious, I must admit! :-)

Veena said...

O my God!This disease has spread to US too. Just saw a mami going for a walk in the nightie - ofcourse with a sweater as a fashionable accessory!

Preeti said...

hilarious....Semme comedy....

Anonymous said...

I must take strong exception to your making fun of men in lungis.

I think they look extremely sexy in a dress that gives grace to their movements and creates an insinuation of easy access for sexual activity.

In fact, the more colorful a lungi the more eye-catching a wearer appears, something like a peacock...

I am sad that fewer of the south Indian men nowadays are wearing lungis. Such a loss...

Take care, you write well.

bluejay said...

HOW..HOW .. HOW is it that ur ires againts the lungi were far less than the nightie!!!!! Agreed that a nightie is really really horrible!!!..so is a lungi!!..:/

Anonymous said...

A lungi gives confort. The breeze that flows makes wearing a lungi confortable. The freedom of leg movement is also there. Relaxing in a lungi gives a sense of relaxation.

My Space said...

Hilariously entertaining  your candor is Commendable!

My Space said...

Hilariously entertaining  your candor is Commendable!