 |
| Dress Code for men |
To change the tack from politics and other controversies and back to my favorite bugbear of religion and irrationality, I have decided to ruffle the feathers of devout Hindus.
Guruvayoor Temple in the city of Guruvayoor, is among the 3 most popular temples of Kerala, the other 2 being the Ayappa Temple of Sabarimala and Padmanabha temple of Trivandrum, all of which are orthodox and controversial.
Guruvayoor Temple is the worst of the 3 above, since in addition to barring non-Hindus (earlier this temple was notorious for allowing temple entry only to upper caste Hindus) from the temple, it imposes a silly and ridiculous dress code on the hapless devotees.
The male devotees are expected to wear a traditional South Indian skirt (called mundu) to cover the lower half of their body.
Coming to the upper half of the male body, the devotees can either be topless or they can cover some of it in some form of loin cloth. In short no stitched cloth is allowed to be worn on the male body
This is not to say that this kind of costume cannot make many Indian men look like handsome hunks, but for the less fortunate and anatomically less proportioned male multitudes, it can also expose their breasts, nipples, beer bellies and pot bellies.
And who can object to the women getting the rare pleasure of seeing waves of topless men parading their bodily wares, but of course without the dash, style and verve of a typical pageant.
Fortunately the orthodox and idiotic clergy of this temple was sensible enough in not dictating toplessness for the fairer sex.
But life is not very easy for female devotees of Guruvayoor Temple either. There are expected to wear only a Saree, which rule was relaxed sometime in 2007 to include a punjabi costume of salwar/chudidar. I am not sure if that gladdened the hearts of women trapped in the tyranny of religious observance, for I did not hear any news of celebrations to herald this melting of the hearts of the Guruvayoor Tantris (special priests who practice the voodoo rituals supposedly laid by the Vedantic voodoo master Adi Sankara )
As idiotic and nonsensical as this kind of dress code is, it is very puzzling that very few stop to think and ask why, let alone protest against it and demand its removal.
The reason is quite clear and this was pointed out by G Veluswami on his article on Temple Pseudoscience. The dress is most likely a relic of the old custom of verifying the caste origins of visitors to the temple by their wearing or not of the 'sacred thread' and weeding out the non-caste Hindus
A few Hindus who know this, don't want to admit and accept it and work for a repeal of this kind of needless sartorial restriction.
Majority of the devotees are too docile, gullible and 'god-fearing' to even question this.
This article hair-splits over the possible reason for this dress code in a labored effort to appear civil about an orthodoxical monstrosity.
As mentioned earlier, this temple also proudly discriminates against those who don't profess the Hindu religion. This news item has some details about incidents of discrimination in a so-called secular country.
To give company to Guruvayoor Temple in its crimes against the obedient faithful is the Sabarimala Temple whose doors and portals remain closed for women of menstrual age
One really wonders why people still flock to these temples!!!
I don't get what you issue with the dress code is? They want to maintain a certain ambiance what's wrong? It's like mandating a shirt and tie for some events.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how the absence of a dress translates into a sensible dress code. If there was a requirement of a Kurta or Indian top to cover the top half of the male body, that can pass for a dress code. Half nakedness is not a sensible, workable or acceptable dress code.
DeleteDress code is elitist by nature even if it is enforced in work places. But work places or clubs or events are not open mass public forums and are regulated/governed by membership/invitation. So it is hard to contest their exclusivity procedures.
A temple is supposed to be a mass public place and no membership/invitation is required for entry. The governing principle for dress code should be decency and convenience, not nonsensical traditions that are blindly perpetuated.
Dress code is not a military procedure or rule that one should be shy of examining and contesting.
I doubt if topless male bodies create a great ambiance though they will create a 'certain ambiance'. If people want to go topless that is fine, but other decent people who want to cover their tops should be allowed and this absurd rule book of a silly dress code need not be thrown at them to keep them out.
There is no objective way of telling what a "sensible" dress code is and what an "insensible" dress code is. It's an inane distinction to make.
DeleteTrue! The distinction between two types of dress code is not objective. But just because it is subjective or involves a moral judgement does not necessarily make the distinction inane or meaningless provided the arguments follow a course or approach of reasoning that is consistent with a line of thought.
DeleteWhat is inane in expecting a dress code to follow some principles that can appeal to our better senses?. Also the religious and prejudicial context that underlies the dress code of Guruvayoor can surely be examined, argued and opposed.
Argument for the sake of making one serves little purpose. Quibbling over such petty distinctions does not make one a critic.
Even if you are right in your convictions about the origin of the dress code, to abolish it today because of those origins would be to commit the genetic fallacy. From the same Wikipedia article I have linked to:
Delete"You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice." -- Attacking Faulty Reasoning by Damer
The above quote is an example of the said fallacy.
Did the post say that the silly sartorial restriction should be done away solely because of its origins in feudalistic and casteist practices?
DeleteTracing its origins was to bolster the argument that it would be good if people by tracing its roots would think of questioning these rules, instead of blindly accepting it and justifying it.
The example of wedding ring is a case of bad analogy fallacy with reference to this argument. The wearing of a wedding ring is not an injunction, the skipping of which would annul a wedding. I am sure many in the West may have skipped that custom or had alternatives to it and yet not incurred any outcry or ostracism.
The issue of exclusion and ostracism involved in the dress code of Guruvayoor has apparently been lost on you.
This post covered ground on argument and analysis beyond the supposed origins of this dress code.
If you disagree with the post and still want to argue for favoring the continuance of the dress rule, that is fine. The freedom to be adamant and the refusal to consider appeals to reason is also a privilege of such freedom.
But arguments devoid of the overall thrust and context of the issue will not be of much use and purpose and a waste of time.
The problem is, it is hard to make out from your article what the "thrust and context" of your argument is. You simply state that the dress code is "idiotic and nonsensical" over and over again as if that should be self-evident. I have already pointed out that it makes no sense to call a dress code nonsensical as dress code itself is a subjective item.
DeleteApart from a possible caste-based origin to the dress code, you seem to object to the dress code because it exposes the bellies of unfit males. Is this what you mean by the "ostracism" of the dress code? That is ostracizes those who are overweight? While that's a fair complaint, it leads to a slippery slope. Can you really not tell if a person is overweight, even if his or her torsos are covered? Also, if you want to abolish the Guruvayoor dress code just because of this, what about the informal dress code for men in swimming pools, which is largely the same and can be just as damaging?
The burden of proof is thus on you to show why this dress code is "irrational" or damaging in any way, and you have not done that. You have, however, continued to insinuate that my comments are a "waste of time--" do be more respectful to your guests.
I'm also still waiting for an admission that you were wrong about your speculation that Mohini was not included in the avatara list because she was a woman.
If you could not make out the sense or thrust of the article, that is fine as I mentioned earlier.
DeleteBigotry and priggishness come in many flavors and forms. But it can be seen thru and its thinning patience and irritability also becomes easily manifest in that comment about demanding respect where none is deserving.
You seem more of a troll than a guest, so don't expect any courtesies from here.
'Burden of proof' indeed!!!...A nice try at throwing the book of fallacies at your adversary. You have a lot of learning to do! like many of us.
And you didn't answer the post.
DeleteIt is a practiced tactic of yours that you don't answer the question when you obviously can't, resorting instead to invective.
I've bested you many times on this blog, and thankfully it's still on record. Unfortunately your stock tactic is to not reply and call names. One can expect no less of a former religious nut who thinks he's suddenly gained intelligence simply from losing his faith.
Peace.
That is s good piece of self-congratulation. Yes! your diversionary tactics and shifting of goal-posts is on the record along with your adamant nonsense because I have been gracious enough to keep it on record.
DeleteIrrelevant and arbitrary proclamations of victory is all that silly apologists like you can come up with.
The invective is in the 2nd para of your own comment above. I leave it to you to determine what kind of nut you are. If my loss of faith has not enhanced or preserved my intelligence, your defence of faith is not revealing your own intelligence or sense in any good or better light.
No thanks for your niggardly offer of peace.
Only a fool could think I am defending faith when I just condemned you for being a religious nut.
DeleteWhat I am defending is South Indian culture, which you are keen to denigrate with your Northern bias.
Take a Hitch-slap: it is well deserved:
Delete"This is an extraordinarily irritating book, written by one of those people who smugly believe that, having lost their faith, they must ipso facto have found their reason."
And by the way, I've been following Nirmukta, and you're still spewing that nonsense about the Vedas having meaning to medieval writers. Did you not understand the passage by Laurie Patton that I sent you? Or are you allergic to academia?
ReplyDeleteBullying is not allowed here!!
DeleteIf you disagree, dislike and cannot stand what goes against your beliefs and opinions, you can express it civilly, else you can part ways with responding.
Anonymous commenting has been permitted, not anonymous threatening or abuse!!
I asked you a question for a follow-up. There are no threats in the above post.
DeleteThe tone of your comment-responses were in my view rude, uncivil and threatening. There were loaded questions on my supposed allergy to academia. And vague accusations that I am spewing nonsense about Vedic texts. Then loaded questions that seek to force a response.
DeleteThese things are not tolerated here.
This blog is not a customer service place for intemperate and intolerant Hindu bigots and cultural vigilantes, who don't know how to conduct and follow thru a civil debate.
I am not in the business of customer satisfaction. You are welcome to take your battles elsewhere.
As if you have never been rude, in calling people Hindu apologists or whatever? It goes both ways, bro.
DeleteThis blog is not a customer service place for intemperate and intolerant Hindu bigots and cultural vigilantes
DeleteNow come on, Ranganath, you really need to stop that. I don't think Anonymous indicated anywhere that he was Hindu, he certainly doesn't seem like a bigot, and he never threatened you.
I read his quote from Patton, I think it's actually quite fascinating. Now I know why the BJP claims that nuclear secrets and stuff are from the Vedas. It's apparently a 2000 year old tradition of attributing things to the Vedas that aren't in there!
I should add that your insistence on the dress code reform smacks of a North Indian bias, essentially calling a dress code which is normal for South Indian culture irrational. Your arguments not only make little sense, but are smack entirely of Northern condescension to the South.
ReplyDeleteSo South Indians should abandon their traditional clothing to wear your traditional clothing of kurthas! And you have an objective way of saying that lungis are "irrational" but kurthas are not! Yeah right, try that idiocy somewhere else.
Refrain from leveling irrelevant accusations without reading the post and clarificatory comments properly.
DeleteI did not call for people not to go topless if they are visiting a public place. They are free to go topless if that is what they want or desire or feel no problems with.
No South Indian has been told or called to abandon his marks of ethnicity. Don't attribute things that were never said.
But men who would like to cover their tops in stitched fabric or cloth should not be debarred from entry.
What is so objectionable about this that there is a call to all kinds of fallacies from 'genetic fallacy' to 'burden of proof' to 'inane comparisons' to defend the barring of fully clothed men from a public place in the name of culture and custom.
You may have found my spoofing of topless men and the style of condemning of the temple orthodoxy to be in poor or bad taste. Which is fine and I can appreciate that objection, though I cannot do anything about it and find no good reason to retract or change it.
Accusing me of North Indian bias and condescension is a case of false attribution. These are the cheap tactics of Hindu defense and apology and it is not very difficult to see thru it.
Funny because I'm not even a Hindu.
DeleteI revert to my original statement: it's like mandating a shirt and tie. I would not be able to walk into certain restaurants without wearing them.
And the other question you didn't answer: are you prepared to extend the same level of criticism to swimming pools, which mandate that males be topless?
DeleteI recently visited a restaurant today which demanded that I not wear shorts. How dare those elitist bastards impose their dress code on me? Don't they know that shorts help me get vitamin D from the sun? How irrational of a dress pants are! Every rationalist must protest against those bastards.
ReplyDeleteMay I please help you two by summarizing this argument, before it descended into name-calling?
ReplyDeleteRanganath: The Guruvayoor dress-code must be abolished because it makes men conscious about their bodies and because it may have had a feudalistic origin. Furthermore, the dress code is nonsensical.
Anonymous: To abolish the dress code on the grounds of a possible feudal origin would be to commit the genetic fallacy, even if the allegation of feudal origins were true. Also, it doesn't make sense to call a dress code nonsensical.
Ranganath: (Didn't seem to understand the genetic fallacy). However, it should still be abolished because it makes males conscious. And while the term "nonsensical" is subjective, I still reserve the right to apply it.
Anonymous: To abolish a dress code because it makes males conscious is a slippery slope. Swimming pools, for example, mandate that men go topless. Ranganath's reasoning would abolish that dress code too if taken ad absurdum. Also, why should Ranganath decide what dress codes are "nonsensical" or not "nonsensical?"
I am apt to give this argument to Anonymous, and don't believe that Ranganath understood Anonymous's use of the genetic fallacy.
Sunil D'Monte posed an excellent article online about how to argue. I think you both would benefit from it, but particularly Ranganath. This conversation descended into bickering, but Ranganath clearly threw the first stone:
Argument for the sake of making one serves little purpose. Quibbling over such petty distinctions does not make one a critic.
Best,
Sachin
Thanks for this excellent summary, Sachin. I agree I got down to his level too. But what else can one do when talking to a man who says this:
DeleteWhat is so objectionable about this that there is a call to all kinds of fallacies from 'genetic fallacy' to 'burden of proof' to 'inane comparisons' to defend the barring of fully clothed men from a public place in the name of culture and custom.
He objects to the fact that I am calling out fallacies in his arguments! One doesn't point out fallacies to "defend" the barring of fully clothed men from a not-so-public place, one calls out fallcies to defend reason, which Ranganath R clearly doesn't have.