When I searched for the recent Dirty magazine article, featuring Kareena Kapoor Khan on the cover, to see why it "broke the internet", it broke me too. The words used by the writer to describe how attractive she and the team that was present at the shoot find the actor and how in awe of her everyone was made me squirm. From the first paragraph till the end, I learnt nothing new about the actor, but a bit about the writer.
So why does the article have everyone's attention? It's because the writer has objectified the actor. Off the top of my head, I can think of multiple other ways to encapsulate Kareena's sensuality, talent, and all that makes her who she is, but I would not use a word from the said piece's intro and outro to do that.
We Have to be Careful About The Language We Use For Women
Having met the actor on a few occasions for interviews (I have loved each one), there is no doubt that there's no pretence, she's as honest as they come, she is absolutely stunning, extremely talented, and has somehow found the perfect balance between her sensuality and a raw vulnerability. We should celebrate everything the actor embodies, but tastefully.
Here's how the article on Dirty begins:
"We are shooting Kareena Kapoor Khan for dirty at Mehboob Studio 2 and everyone on set has a boner. The photographer is glassy-eyed, the stylist is salivating, the assistants’ mouths hang open. As for me, I watch her hungrily, wanting to bite her. Sink my teeth into the plump flesh of her arm, chew off a chunk of her thigh, tear into her moreish bum. She’s so… juicy. You can see the curve of her belly under her dress, a lovely soft swell that spanx hasn’t forced into submission. I want to put my face in it."
This excerpt made me cringe. And I would also like to state something - some people on social media are speaking about how women sexualizing other women might be considered as lifting them up and celebrating them. However, it's not. It's one thing to sensuously praise women, but it's another thing to objectify them. This is the latter.
The language we use for women, in public platforms or otherwise holds weight, no matter where it comes from. Some of the reactions to the piece are very telling; a real insight into the impact of words.
Titillation and sensationalism have been huge parts of the media discourse for decades, but 'language' plays a big role. The problem arises when the lines between titillating language and objectification blur.
For many years, hypersexualised depiction of women onscreen went unchecked and the item number is a glaring example - a female actor dancing, with the camera focused on her waist, bosom and/or her bottoms. However, with more female representation off screen, the narrative began to change and we are finally walking the path with an inclusive approach. In the past, media houses and public figures have called out films/series/songs which objectify women, but when the media itself becomes a part of it, who is accountable then?
If Ranveer's Interview & His Nude Photoshoot Weren't Sexualised, Then Why Kareena's?
Remember the Ranveer Singh photoshoot for Paper magazine that had gone viral some time back? It was aesthetically shot, and the piece seemed to come from a place of reverence. Ranveer was interviewed by the same writer and I enjoyed reading the article.
Here's an excerpt:
"He is smaller in person than you might expect, not unusual for movie stars. It’s his energy that takes up space and oxygen, making him seem bigger than he is, making you unable to take your eyes off him. He’s loud and obnoxious but in an endearing way, an excitable puppy that won’t calm down."
This is how he had been described. There's no explicit mention of his body. Why shouldn't we expect the same kind of respect for Kareena?
The Ranveer piece delves into his work, the kind of person he is, his journey over the years and his flamboyant fashion. That's not to say that Kareena's feature doesn't focus on her journey or her life. She talks about growing up in the industry, being scrutinised by the media and public, the decision to marry Saif and have kids, and the kind of choices she is making when it comes to her work.
However, paragraphs devoted to her physical appearance and sexualising her gives the impression that the piece was written only to get traction. Which, they did. But when you have a goddess like Kareena on the cover, do you need this?
Uorfi Javed's cover for Dirty also had people talking about her. She was impressive on the cover and the interview did justice to her. There was no use of questionable language to get people to talk about it, then why now?
'Blatant Objectification': How The Internet Reacted to The Article
The choice of words used to describe Kareena didn't go down well with readers either. Many took to social media to point out that there's a difference between writing something "sensual and sexy" versus penning something that's "creepy and violating."
Kareena, you know we love you and you deserve all the love and accolades that comes your way. I only wish people do it in the way you deserve it - tastefully.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)