Protest against Misogyny as Portrayed in Meena Kandasamy’s When

I Hit You: Or, a Portrait of the Writer as a Young Wife (2017)

Rahmat Taufik Rangkuti

, Tommy Christomy

Department of Literature, University of Indonesia, Al Farouq Street, Depok, Indonesia

Department of Literature, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

Keywords: Protest, Criticism, Misogyny, Feminism, Indian Modern Era

Abstract: Violence against women is actually not a new experience faced by women throughout the world. India,

which is portrayed as a country that respects and adores women through the story of the Goddess, in fact has

complexity in women's issues. This is marked by a surprising finding by Thomson Reuters Foundation in

2018 which stated that India is the world’s most dangerous country for women. Referring to the issue, this

research aims to reveal how the biographical novel criticizes misogynistic views in Indian modern era. This

can be seen through the marriage of a married couple from different caste classes. The husband is a person

who belongs to the upper caste and works as a lecturer (professor) in the field of literature. He also claims

himself as communism adherent who gets involved in political and revolutionary movement that fights for

social justice. Meanwhile, the wife comes from the middle class and works as a young feminist writer. In

analyzing the data / text, the researcher applied a feminist literary criticism approach combined with the

concept of gender écriture feminine by Helene Cixous to see the independence of the main character at once

the narrator in voicing her feminine world such as happiness, desire (to fight back), and her freedom.

Meanwhile, the method used is qualitative method. The findings show that Indian women who have

sufficient class and power remain very vulnerable when faced with caste and patriarchal domination. This

research also shows that the misogynistic view is not only believed by the people who belong to lower caste

and is close to backwardness. In other words, groups that have a high level of literacy are also very likely to

have extreme misogynistic views. Urban spaces in India also become the arena for the men and the caste

elites to maintain and to assert their power. To fulfil their ideological and political demands, men or the caste

elites, including Indian politicians, continuously show their supremacy even though they are well established

hierarchically.

1 INTRODUCTION

Violence against women in reality is not a new

phenomenon or experience faced by women

throughout the world. India, portrayed as a country

that respects and adores women through its story of

Goddesses, in fact has a complex women issue. The

problem can be seen through the culture and unequal

treatment toward women. In Indian culture, women

are deeply believed to belong to the second class and

part of male ownership. Indian women are often

positioned as a group that does not have a proper

place other than in the shadow of men. One factor that

perpetuates the practice of subordination of Indian

women is ideas or thoughts that have taken shape for

a long time, collectively believed in the Indian

culture.

This collectively believed culture creates

disadvantages to Indian women, and even makes

them vulnerable to violence. In most parts of Indian

state, men are considered as a group that has a higher

degree than women. This culture or tradition makes

women not considered and unheeded in decision

makings. The positioning women in such an unequal

way seems to be a normal narrative in Indian society,

making women tend to be marginalized. Therefore,

women’s rights and voices are never truly heard as

something to consider, even by relatives and family.

In the struggle for their rights, Indian women

often experience deadlock or even resistance.

Referring to the issue, Heise stated that: “Violence

against women is an extremely complex

phenomenon, deeply rooted in gender based power

relations, sexuality, self-identity, and social

institutions. Any strategy to eliminate gender

392

Rangkuti, R. and Christomy, T.

Protest against Misogyny as Portrayed in Meena Kandasamy’s When I Hit You: Or, a Portrait of the Writer as a Young Wife (2017).

DOI: 10.5220/0008999503920401

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Language and Society (ICELS 2019), pages 392-401

ISBN: 978-989-758-405-3

violence must therefore confront the cultural and

social structure that perpetuate it” (Heise, 1994: 24).

In this context, to eliminate acts of violence in a

community that tend to be patriarchal, any individual

or group must deal with the cultural beliefs and social

structures.

In history, Indian women did not just stand still

and accept the violence they experienced. In the

Middle Ages, several Indian women’s movements

came out and fought for the rights of Indian women to

get protection from the violence they experienced.

The movements succeeded in making the Indian

government incorporate the issue of female violence

into Indian amendments, one of which is the Mahar

Law or also called The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

(Act No. 28 of 1961). With the existence of the

women’s movement and government amendments to

protect women from violence, Indian women then

began to gain positions in public spaces, including in

politics. This was followed by India’s democratic

power and shown by the election of Pratibha Patil as

India’s first female president in 2007.

The progress experienced by Indian women has

made Indian women today in a paradoxical situation.

On the one hand, Indian women actively participate

in various public activities, such as education,

politics, media, arts and culture, and also technology.

However, on the other hand, Indian women suffer as

silent victims of the violence they experience. This

paradoxical situation has continued and led India to

become the fourth most dangerous country in the

world and the worst country among G-20 countries

for women.

There are various forms of violence experienced

by Indian women, but based on rankings, the highest

form of female violence in India is rape. In every 20

minutes, an Indian woman becomes a victim of rape

regardless region, including in New Delhi as the

capital city of India. Sense of security for Indian

women seems to be priceless because rape is almost

everywhere, and the country in this situation cannot

provide the security that women need. This is

confirmed by the name given to New Delhi as “Rape

Capital of India”.

This social phenomenon in India, especially

regarding the problem of misogyny, so far has

aroused the attention of many Indian writers to

express their support and sympathy for women.

Indian writers such as poets, novelists, essays, and

playwrights today have contributed significantly to

raising women’s voices. Those who raised the theme

of women’s emancipation in their writings are Anita

Desai with Cry, the Peacock (1963), Chitra Banerjee

with The Arranged Marriage (1995), Arundhati Roy

with The God of Small Things (1997), and many other

authors.

The work used as the primary source in this

research is English-written novel; When I Hit You: Or

a Portrait of a Writer as a Young Wife (2017) by

Meena Kandasamy. This novel raises the issue of

class culture and misogyny that is so entrenched in

Indian society and gets carried away into family life.

This novel is written based on the author’s authentic

experience during her marriage. When I Hit You: A

Portrait of a Writer as a Young Wife is Kandasamy’s

second novel work, published in 2017. A year after its

publication, the novel ranked second in the Women’s

Prize for Fiction award in 2018.

When I Hit You: Or a Portrait of a Writer as a

Young Wife (2017) is a biographical fiction that

narrates of a couple of unnamed characters from

different backgrounds. The wife who is also the

narrator is a middle-class woman and works as a

young writer. Meanwhile, the husband is a man who

comes from a higher class and caste, and works as a

lecturer who holds the title of professor. For the

husband, this is his second marriage, after his

previous marriage to an upper caste woman ran

aground. During this current marriage, the husband

slowly and systematically subdues and oppresses the

wife.

At the beginning of the marriage, the husband

begins asking for full access to the wife’s email

account and all of his wife’s social media accounts.

The husband’s reasoning is that openness will make

their relationship more intimate. With his access, the

husband removes all contacts connected to the wife’s

job as a writer. As the marriage unfolds, the husband

strictly corrects every choice of word in the wife’s

writings. As a feminist writer, the wife character

realizes that what the husband does is an effort to

bring down her dignity as a woman. At this point,

both of them no longer see their partner as a living

partner, but an opposition that potentially threatens

their respective existence. This then leads to battle or

contestation in the domestic space. At the end of the

story, the wife manages to escape and leaves her

husband behind.

2 FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH

This study aims to uncover women’s efforts to

challenge gender inequality in Indian modern era

and what is the motive behind the oppression of the

Wife. The analysis will be focused on looking at

the position of the text through the focalization of

Protest against Misogyny as Portrayed in Meena Kandasamy’s When I Hit You: Or, a Portrait of the Writer as a Young Wife (2017)

393

Wife character who is a feminist writer in voicing,

urging, and even demanding equality that is still

absent in Indian modern era.

3 LITERATURE REVIEW

There hasn’t been any research on Meena

Kandasamy’s novel When I Hit You: Or Portrait of a

Writer as a Young Wife (2017) so far. Nevertheless,

studies that raise the same issue regarding violence

against Indian women and women’s resistance have

been done many times. Thus, the research gap will be

seen based on previous studies that raised similar

problems, namely female violence, misogyny, and

liberation struggle of Indian women.

Related to the issue of misogyny, Athwala (2014),

Hubel (1993), Naikar (2010), and Yadav (2015)

emphasize the conditions experienced by women and

the implications for society. The three researchers in

their findings express that the protests carried out by

female characters became a social criticism of

government agencies and the tendency of the public

view of women. Athwale, Hubel, Naikar, and Yadav,

all four researchers use a sociological approach to

literature. Athwale (2014), for example, suggests that

Meena Kandasamy through her poems express sharp

criticism about sexual politics and the systematic

domination of men who see social strata as privilege.

Hubel (1993) reveals that the practice of female

suicide is a strong criticism of patriarchal culture that

is deeply rooted in society. Naikar (2010) states that

leaving Hinduism to later embrace other religions on

the basis of emancipation and self-liberation is a

criticism of the patriarchal caste culture. Meanwhile,

Yadav (2015) concludes that the resistance and

struggle shown by Gauri as a female character

becomes a social criticism, considering that India

through government agencies often expose and

commodify women as goddesses and holy figures.

Based on the mapping of previous studies related

to the topic of this research, protests by Indian

women are generally voiced through the focalization

of the lowest-caste women or the Dalit/untouchable

group. In previous researches, violence against

women is in the form of extreme physical and sexual

violence (violence in the domestic space of the lower

caste). However, in When I Hit You, the voices of

protest come from a woman from a middle caste

(Vaishya) who has sufficient power in Indian society.

This research is considered important to look at

the position of women, how women who have strong

position and power in society remain very vulnerable

when faced with extreme caste practice and

patriarchal domination.

4 THEORY AND CONCEPT

In this study, the approach that will be used to address

the issue of misogyny, gender, and women’s

resistance in When I Hit You: Or a Portrait of a

Writer as a Young Wife by Meena Kandasamy is

feminist literary criticism. Elaine Showalter’s

approach of the woman as writer (1977) in feminist

literary criticism is used by focusing on the position

of a female author as an autonomous entity,

emphasizing rights and power of women’s

perspectives and experiences.

In its application, feminist literary criticism is

inseparable from gender-based analysis. Therefore,

this study will also use the concept of écriture

feminine by Hélene Cixous to see the main

character’s (at once the narrator) agency and

independence in voicing the world of her femininity.

4.1 Feminist Literary Criticism

This criticism is divided into two types; feminist

literary criticism that sees women as readers and

feminist literary criticism that sees women as writers.

The theory used in this study is feminist literary

criticism that specifically uses woman as writer

approach or what is known as the ginocritical term

proposed by Elaine Showalter in 1977.

The feminist literature criticism, in this case

women as writer, becomes a basic point for the

researcher to see aspects of femininity, sexuality, and

extreme misogyny contained in the novel. This

criticism is used to read the power relations of

gender, women’s resistance, and author’s criticism

(Meena Kandasmy) in protesting against gender

injustice in Indian society.

4.2 écriture feminine by Helene Cixous

Cixous writes écriture feminine after Simone de

Beauvoir’s ideas in her book The Second Sex (1949).

Cixous has different focus of thoughts about role and

women as an entity. Cixous applies Derrida’s

reasoning (regarding the rejection of Western

logocentricism) by deconstructing patriarchal

thinking through text using feminine writing and

reading of texts in different ways. Cixous thinks that

the masculine writing method is rooted in the male

genital with the libido being wrapped in the phallus.

The masculine way to write is self-oriented, even

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

394

what is considered meaningful is only related to male

or father, the phallic owner. For socio-cultural

reasons, masculine writing is more considered

superior than feminine writing. Cixous rejects

masculine writing that holds binary opposition and

always puts women in a negative position, being the

object, passive, and the other; whereas men are

identified as positive, active, and have full power

over their subjectivity.

In her book The Laugh of the Medusa, Cixous

thinks that writing is a revolutionary act that must be

carried out by women. In a quote, she said “And why

don’t you write? Write! Writing is for you, you are for

you; your body is yours, take it.” According to

Cixous, writing is something that must be done by

every woman. By writing, women will be able to

change the world and will reconstruct people’s views

about women. Women must include themselves in

the text and write for themselves as well as for other

women to provide insights about their femininity and

about the advantages they might not realize. A

woman is a good writer. When a woman writes, she

will bring unconscious experiences and insights into

the text so that those who read it will be able to

understand what women really are.

Thus, Cixous’ concept of écriture feminine will

be used to see the independence of the main character

who is also the narrator in voicing the world of

femininity such as happiness, desire (to fight),

feelings, body, and authenticity as a woman.

5 RESEARCH METHOD

This research uses qualitative research method that

focus on close reading and textual analysis. The

interpreting of the text will also be carried out by

using feminist literary criticism that focus on

gynocritics approach (woman as a writer).

6 ANALYSIS

In introduction, it has been explained that one of the

main points in the text is the Wife character’s

freedom in expressing and defining all things related

to her feminine world. It becomes a space where the

Wife can reject and counter all negative prejudices

that are often addressed to Indian women, especially

if they succeed in escaping marriage. In other words,

the Wife through texts offers an opposing perspective

toward socio-cultural efforts that see and perpetuate

the practice of subordination to women as something

normal.

In this research, the analysis will be focused on

highlighting the position of the text in representing

misogyny in the context of the modern-day India. The

analysis will be carried out by exploring the main

character’s point of view in seeing and responding

misogyny that lead to subordination to her as an

Indian woman.

6.1 Protest against the Continuity of

Misogyny

As a feminist writer, the wife character highlights and

criticizes the tendency of modern-day Indians who

still consider women as part of the second class. The

wife’s criticism cannot be separated from her

surroundings that tend to be negligent in maintaining

and enforcing equality between men and women.

This is apparent when the Wife compares the

bitterness experienced by a feminist in the past with

the bitterness she experiences in Indian modern era.

This can be seen in the following quote:

Old-school feminists will speak about

economic independence. A woman is free

if she has the money to support herself.

With a job, she will find her feet. If she

has a job, it will miraculously solve all

her problems. A job will give her

community. One day she will walk into

the office, and they will ask her about the

bruise above her eyebrow and she will say

she walked into a wall, but they will know

it is her husband hitting her, and they will

wrap her up in a protective embrace. In

the framework of a job, a woman will find

that one female friend who will see her

through thick and thin. The job will create

a support group for her, people who will

give her access to the police, to the

lawyers, to the judges.

Abstractions are easy, but my story, like

every woman’s story, is something else.

When I visit my husband in his college to

hand him his lunch and I come across his

students and friends.

How are you? Have you eaten? Do you

like Mangalore? Do you like the weather?

Do you like the rain? Do you like the

Mangalore food?

How was last weekend? What’s your plan

this weekend?

Conversations here follow the same

pattern. An endless back-and-forth relay

Protest against Misogyny as Portrayed in Meena Kandasamy’s When I Hit You: Or, a Portrait of the Writer as a Young Wife (2017)

395

of absolute pointlessness. No question

demands an honest answer. A question is

asked as an exercise in formal behaviour.

Whatever its benefits for the rest of

humankind, I have now come to look at it

as a design flaw in the construct of

language. There’s nothing in the structure

of language to flash a code-red in the

middle of polite verbal back-and-forth,

nothing that can interrupt the staged

niceness by being a secret cry for help.

I do not have anyone I can talk to about

what is going on behind these closed

doors. At the moment, I am not even sure

if I want to talk to anyone about what I

am going through.

I do not have anyone I can talk to about

what is going on behind these closed

doors. At the moment, I am not even sure

if I want to talk to anyone about what I

am going through.

I did not know that this was the

exemplary life awaiting a newly married

woman. (Kandasamy, 2017: 34)

In the quotation above, the contrast of the

bitterness experienced by feminists in the past to the

bitterness experienced by the wife can be said as an

attempt to show that the Indian modern era in fact has

not become a friendly place for women. The

emphasis of the Old-school feminists phrase

(followed by an explanation of the friendly

environment at the time to victims of violence),

contrasted with her as a modern Indian feminist

becomes one of the points the text wants to convey,

that (apart from Indian modernity, rapid economic

growth, and many efforts has been put to guarantee

gender equality in the past few decades) India in fact

still becomes an unsafe or even dangerous place for

women. This is in line with the research conducted by

Chapman (2014). Chapman states that the idea of

misogyny does not only operate in rural areas, but

also in institutions and public spaces that are close to

literacy and modernity.

In the quote above, the Wife complains and criticizes

the tendency of Indian people who are ignorant in

paying attention to women. When the Wife takes the

initiative to deliver lunch to her husband and at the

same time shows her bruised head, it can be said that

she tries to show the pain she experiences to the

public, hoping that she will get proper attention.

However, the quote above is part of the criticism

about the neglect she experiences. The emphasis of

the sentence I have now come to look at it as a design

in the construct of language (Kandasamy, 2017: 34)

contextually can be understood as a response to the

tendency of the community to question things that are

very general and have no significance. However, the

sentence above can be seen textually as the Wife’s

protest. The emphasis on the sentence I have now

come to look at it (as a design flaw in the construct of

language) (Kandasamy, 2017: 34) indicates a new

awareness encountered by the Wife, that neglect or

normalization of violence operates behind a series of

questions from a husband’s colleagues. So, the phrase

a design flaw in the construct of language

(Kandasamy, 2017: 34) can be said as a critical point

of the text, that the notion of misogyny in India is not

only constructed or actualized through direct verbal

contact, but also through interactions that appear to

be normal. This is in accordance with a research

(Sapra and Jubinski, 2014) suggests that normalizing

violence against Indian women is part of the violence

itself. Both explained that Indian men often neglects

violence experienced by women, aiming to build

opinions that women are part of the second class who

should accept all her husband's treatment as a form of

loyalty.

In the above quote, “There’s nothing in the

structure of language to flash a code-red in the

middle of polite verbal back-and-forth, nothing that

can interrupt the staged niceness by being a secret

cry for help I do not have anyone I can talk to about

what is going on behind these closed doors”

(Kandasamy, 2017: 34), this sentence becomes an

affirmation of the misogynistic practice experienced

by the Wife. The emphasis of the sentence above is an

indication that the bitterness experienced by women

is not something to be appropriately highlighted by

men. Thus, the friendliness and hospitality shown by

Indian men in the public sphere can be said as an

hypocrisy behind the misogynistic view they keep in

mind.

Still in the quote above, the italicized phrase closed

door (Kandasamy, 2017: 34) is also a point that the

text wants to convey regarding the bitterness that

wife character experiences. The closed door phrase

can be interpreted as a metaphor in explaining the

various closed parties in Indian public space, be it the

closest people, the community, up to state institutions

that have the authority to uphold the rights of

freedom, protection, and equality for Indian women.

In the next quote, the Wife expresses her criticism of

the misogynistic view passed down through

generations and becomes something collectively

believed. When the wife fills the vacancy left by the

husband to teach in his class, she receives

discriminatory treatment for her appearance. Students

presume that women’s hairstyle under the British rule

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

396

(sex workers for the British army) is still ideal for

representing Indian women today. The students make

fun of the loose wife’s hair and identify it as part of

traitor’s legacy during the British rule.

Two days later, I have thought enough

about the incident to formulate a fitting

comeback to the student. Two days later,

unfortunately, is a time-frame in which

I’ve been reduced to irrelevance. The

class that I was handling – on

post-colonialism – was not entirely

disconnected to the way in which I was

being read. Hair is a vexed topic in the

many subcultures that make up India: in

the Kamasutra, a woman standing in the

courtyard of her home, combing her

untied hair, has been seen as the symbol

of a wanton woman; the wild, untameable

hair of possessed women has been seen as

the sign of the devil itself; the matted hair

of women saints and the shorn head of

widows, a symbol of their having given

up all claims to exercising sexuality. Not

a pretty picture by any means. Where and

how does the monster of colonialism enter

this picture and pose for a photograph?

The superficial backstory is not very hard

to spot: shorter, untied, loose hair was

seen as an influence of European women

– a corruption of the local ideal; a

symbolism of unbridled, shameless

desires; an effort at modernity at the

expense of tradition; a betrayal of the

national through an allegiance to the white

man through a replication of the white

woman’s styling. [...] in the eyes of the lay

people, a woman with short, loose hair in

the bazaar also became synonymous with

the white man’s prostitute. She was the

one who was sleeping with the enemy,

sexually servicing the oppressor, and she

deserved the greatest disdain.

In the six decades since the British left,

some perceptions do not seem to have

changed. In our postcolonialism classes,

we speak of the empire writing back. But

within these classrooms, we are still

products of the same empire – carrying

our bags of shame and sin. (Kandasamy,

2017: 74)

In the quote above, the wife’s protests by using a

post-colonial perspective can be said as a part of the

criticism against the students’ misogynistic view. On

the one hand, the wife highlights the ambivalence of

Indian people who still believe that the way women

define themselves (in this case through hairstyle) has

not completely detached the negative stigma of

colonial heritage. On the other hand, the wife

highlights how the issue of hairstyle in the colonial

period became something that is detrimental to

women in the modern era of India today. In the

quote above, the sentence In the six decades since

British left, some perceptions do not seem to have

changed and we are still products of the same

– carrying our bags of shame and sin (Kandasamy,

2017: 74) becomes a part of the wife’s criticism. The

emphasis on the phrase some perceptions can be

interpreted not only as a matter of hairstyle, but also

in view of the misogyny that has existed since the

colonial period. Barbara and Antoinette (1994)

suggests that women in the British colonial period

were seen as an inferior group by Indian men,

despite the existence of regulations issued by Britain

to improve the status of women at that time.

The emphasis of the two sentences above

become part of the wife’s protests against the

sustainability of misogyny. The new generation or

students are convinced to believe in misogyny, so

that the misogyny becomes a stimulus for the new

generation to associate everything about women

with infamy. In this case, the students associate

Wife’s curly hair with prostitutes’ in the period of

English colonialism. The sentence we are still

products of the same empire – carrying our bags of

shame and sin (Kandasamy, 2017: 74) becomes the

point the text wants to convey that students or young

generation are trapped by the notion of misogynistic

view that tends to be detrimental. The emphasis of

the shame and sin phrase is also part of the criticism

of the wife, that the strong conviction of most Indian

people over this misogyny is something that is very

detrimental and should be stopped.

6.2 Protest against Dressing Rules

Restrictions on human rights and freedoms,

especially for Indian women, are still a social issue

that has not yet found a light. In fact, Indian women

are still limited every day in obtaining their rights

and freedoms, one of which is the limitation on

freedom of expression/dressing. Parents, husbands,

and Indians living in rural areas usually limit

women’s freedom by demanding women to wear

sari, purdah, or scarves (Maharani, 2016). Maharani

added that this is done as a “disciplinary” effort to

limit the movement of Indian women who are

considered potentially damaging to the patriarchal

order in one particular area.

Protest against Misogyny as Portrayed in Meena Kandasamy’s When I Hit You: Or, a Portrait of the Writer as a Young Wife (2017)

397

In the following quote, the wife character

highlights how the character of mother tries to limit

her daughter’s freedom to wear clothes. As someone

who still believes that women should look as

housewives, the mother demands her daughter to

wear sari to limit and discipline her. However, as a

feminist writer, the wife realizes that the mother’s

attempt is to confine and limit her rights and

freedoms as a woman. In response to the tendency of

the mother do such attempt, below is the wife’s

criticism:

I’m sorry, mother dear, but I disagree.

Clothes shouldn’t be a battleground. To

me, they are about the way men undress

themselves – always the joy of watching a

lover’s awkwardness when he hurriedly

removes his shirt, first the left sleeve and

then the rest of it pulled up from the neck.

It is the easy way women dress and

undress in front of each other, our clothes

made for the hands of our friends, the zip

that runs along the length of the dress, the

bra hook, the sari pleats at the back, as if

we become complete only when we take

part in dressing each other. From me, you

will only hear about clothes as things that

we want to shed, clothes that remind us of

the time we were lovers. (Kandasamy,

2017: 101 )

In the quote above, the text (through the Wife’s

focalization) criticizes the misogynistic and

conservative view that the mother still believes

regarding dress rules. The first two sentences

become part of the points of the Wife’s rejection

against the confinement set by the mother. The

emphasis on the word battleground is an indication

that the wife realizes that her mother has ambitions

and desires to reduce her and put her back as a

woman who accepts patriarchal culture. The wife’s

rejection with the emphasis on battleground is also

an indication that she accepts and is willing to be an

opponent of the mother to obtain her own rights and

freedoms as an Indian woman.

The analogy of the freedom to dress to the way

men take off their clothes is also part of the textual

criticism: To me, they [clothes] are about the way

men undress themselves – always the joy of

watching a lover’s awkwardness when he hurriedly

removes his shirt (Kandasamy, 2017: 101). The

sentence above implicitly emphasizes that every

woman should have the same authority and rights to

define herself. This is marked by the emphasis on

the sentence – always [feel] the joy of watching a

lover’s awkwardness when he hurriedly removes his

shirt (Kandasamy, 2017: 101), indicating happiness

and freedom (of men in dressing) as if it was a

power that allows women to feel awkward when

they see the opposite sex. In other words, women are

designed to respect the way men express themselves,

which has been completely absent in Indian women

themselves.

The text’s criticism is also seen through the

sentence contrasting – always [feel] the joy of

watching a lover’s awkwardness when he hurriedly

removes his shirt (Kandasamy, 2017: 101) and our

clothes made for the hands of our friends, the zip

that runs along the length of the dress, the bra hook,

the sari pleats at the back (Kandasamy, 2017: 101).

The emphasis of the first sentence (explaining the

wife’s stiffness when she sees her husband taking

off his clothes) is an indication that men are

powerful over their clothing (untouchable). In other

words, women, even mothers and wives, do not have

any power over men’s clothing. Conversely, the

emphasis of the second sentence (describing various

women’s clothing that is easy to open) is an

indication that women are very vulnerable and do

not have strong power to refuse control over their

own clothes. Thus, contrasting the unequal rights

and freedoms of Indian men and women can be

understood as a form of the wife’s demands to

obtain equal treatment. This is also confirmed by the

next quote: From me, you will only hear about

clothes as things that we want to shed (Kandasamy,

2017: 101), emphasizing that the wife supposedly

has the same rights and freedoms to define and

express herself as a woman.

6.3 Protest against Modern Patriarchal

Culture

In one specific chapter in the novel, the wife writes a

letter dressed to a lover she has never met. In this

chapter, the wife conveys her agetated voice about

how patriarchal culture operates in spaces that

adjacent to modernity and people who have a very

good level of literacy. The wife highlights how

misogynistic views are also very likely to grow in

someone who is knowledgeable and trustworthy to

be impossible to commit violence against Indian

women. In addition, the wife also highlights how

modern Indian men keep their misogynistic desires

for later channel them to women they consider

appropriate.

In the following quote, the wife highlights how

her husband as a professor deceives her with

positive promises before marriage. As a person who

believes in communism, the husband (before

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

398

marriage) emphasizes the importance of class

equality and the harmful capitalism for ordinary

people. The husband also gives his nod to the wife’s

view that considers Lenin’s opinions in the book A

Glass of Water and Loveless Kisses sexist. But after

marriage, the wife sees that the husband’s

progressive ideas solely become trick and deception

to attract her attention and to find an opportunity to

exert violence against Wife. In protest, the following

is the wife’s criticism against the husband’s

intentions and his misogynic views:

I write letters to lovers I have never seen,

or heard, to lovers who do not exist, to

lovers I invent on a lonely morning. Open

a file, write a paragraph or a page, erase

before lunch. The sheer pleasure of being

able to write something that my husband

can never access. The revenge in writing

the word lover, again and again and again.

The knowledge that I can do it, that I can

get away with doing it. The defiance, the

spite. The eagerness to rub salt on his

wounded pride, to reclaim my space, my

right to write.

Communist ideas are a cover for his own

sadism.

I wonder how an opportunist like my

husband managed to make inroads into a

political party that I have always

respected; how he succeeded in

hoodwinking the leadership at every

stage, how he came to be what he is

today. For all its celebration of

introspection and self-criticism, how

could they not have seen him for what he

is? Were they relaxed with what they saw,

did they wash it all away as patriarchal,

feudal tendencies that are inevitable in

someone coming from a small village?

Did they not notice his attitude towards

women – were they fine with it, did they

try to censure him, or did they themselves

share the same kind of nervousness and

disdain towards feminists? Was respect

and love something that the radical only

reserved for women who were gun-toting

rebels, women who attended and

applauded at every party meeting, women

who distributed pamphlets and designed

placards? How did these women survive

these violent, aggressive men in their

ranks? Did they walk out? Did they fight?

Did they leave their sexuality behind or

did they barter it to make life in the

organization easier? (Kandasamy, 2017:

89)

In the quote above, the sentence Communist ideas

are a cover for his own sadism (Kandasamy, 2017:

89) is a point that the text wants to emphasize about

the domestic violence she experiences. The emphasis

on italicized cover is an indication of hypocrisy or

something that is kept secret as an effort to achieve

certain goals. The wife in this case as a victim of

violence criticizes the hypocrisy of her husband who

use communism as a cover for manifesting his

misogynistic demands. In other words, the husband

(who from the beginning keeps his misogynistic

desire) uses his knowledge and what he believes (in

this case communism) to deceive and lure the wife to

enter into his trap.

In the quote above, a series of question marks that

question communism and its relation to misogyny

become the points the text wants to convey in relation

to men’s perspective in Indian modern era. The

intense question marks series indicate doubts and

even the wife’s tendency not to believe communism

as the origin of the husband’s misogynistic view. In

other words, the wife believes that every Indian male,

regardless of his social, economic, and educational

background, is very likely to keep an extreme view of

misogyny and the desire to manifest this view. This is

in line with Lukose (2005) who affirms that men in

major cities of India still believe that they have more

privileges than women. Lokuse added that Indian

men also have a tendency to harass women, if

situations and conditions allow them to do so.

In the next quote, the wife highlights how

hypocrisy becomes a cover for the husband to

deceive her. As a person who claims to be part of the

revolutionary movement of communism, the husband

positions himself as a person who greatly contributes

to the struggle against the capitalist system. The

husband also explains how perspectives and values in

communism could become the core in building a fair

and just society, including for women. But during

their marriage, the husband she sees is an absolutely

different figure from the man she knows before. This

can be seen in the following quote:

I fell in love with the man I married

because when he spoke about the

revolution it seemed more intense than

any poetry, more moving than any beauty.

I’m no longer convinced. For every

genuine revolutionary in the ranks, there

is a careerist, a wife-beater, an opportunist,

a manipulator, an infiltrator, a go-getter,

an ass-licker, an alcoholic and a dopehead.

For every militant fighter who dies on the

Protest against Misogyny as Portrayed in Meena Kandasamy’s When I Hit You: Or, a Portrait of the Writer as a Young Wife (2017)

399

front-line, a fraud comes and claims the

slain man’s greatness. For every original

thinker, the parrot in the ranks who claims

the wisdom as his own. Parties build

themselves on the shoulders of real heroes,

nurture themselves on their bloodshed,

even as the imposters make merry.

(Kandasamy, 2017: 89 )

In the above quote, the emphasis on the last two

sentences in the quote above become part of the

criticism the Wife would like to point out. Simply

put, the deception and committed by the the husband

tends to be synonymous with a politician’s effort to

use certain things to achieve goals. Likewise, the

husband, as someone who (claims) believes in

communism and has been involved in the

revolutionary movement, he promises to build a

good and just marriage. In addition, during the

marriage, the husband also claims many things that

are in reality beyond his rights as part of the

revolutionary movement of communism. This can be

interpreted as the husband’s indirect strategy to

deceive and build a narrative for the wife that he is a

figure with power, an important figure that need to

be looked up to. However, the wife who works as a

feminist writer sees massive contradictions in her

husband and sees such contradictions as an

indication of an attempt to trap, oppress, and confine

her freedom.

As a protest and criticism against the husband’s

hypocrisy, based on the following two sentences:

For every original thinker, the parrot in the ranks

who claims the wisdom as his own. Parties build

themselves on the shoulders of real heroes, nurture

themselves on their bloodshed, even as the imposters

make merry (Kandasamy, 2017: 89) become a point

of emphasis by the wife. The word parrot indicates

that the wife sees the husband as an animal which

masks himself with attractive appearance and voices

when viewed from the outside. Identifying the

husband with a parrot can also be interpreted that the

husband only has instincts without PFC process

(ethical and moral considerations) regardless of all

the good promises and self-cult attempts that the

husband expresses before marriage. Meanwhile, the

second sentence affirms the husband’s hypocrisy

who claims his involvement in the revolutionary

movement.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Misogynistic views in India are still growing and are

very detrimental to Indian women. This view in fact

does not only operate in a space that is close to

backwardness and villages that tend to be

patriarchal, but also operates in a space that is close

to modernity.

The continuity of a misogynistic view for

misogynists is crucial and is deemed necessary to

continue. This can be seen from the neglect and

normalization of violence as something normal.

Women who experience violence generally will be

ignored and even convinced that what they

experience is something that needs to be received as

an evidence of loyalty to their husbands. This is

done solely to build an opinion that women will

always be in an inferior position, and also prevent a

shift in power that is culturally controlled by men.

The same motives are also applied in educational

institutions. To ensure that women are always in an

inferior position, students are projected by teachers

who have a misogynistic view to make fun of and

even look down on women who have the potential to

damage the patriarchal order.

Regarding the vulnerability of Indian men, in this

case the husband character, his decision to marry a

lower caste woman and familiar with literature

seemed to be the strategy of the husband (who is a

professor of literature) to be able to assert his

identity and dominance over the wife. In other

words, the decision of the husband' to marry a

Vaisha and young writer woman is a deception and

intention based on misogyny. Thus, this shows that

the views and ideas of misogyny in India are

growing not only believed to terrorize the

lowest-caste women and not have the power to fight

back, but also terrorize higher-caste women who are

considered potentially threatening men's power.

REFERENCES

Athwala, Shuddhodhan. 2014. A Quest for Gender

Equality in Meena Kandasamy’s Touch. International

Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature

(IJSELL) Volume 2, Issue 5.

Cixous, H. dan Clément, C. 1992. The newly born woman.

In Eagleton, M (ed.). Feminist literary critisism (page

110-134). New York: Longman.

Cixous, Hélène. 1976. The Laugh of the Medusa (K.

Cohen., dan P. Cohen.). Chicago Journals, I (4),

875-893.

Gothoskar, S. 1980. Politics of Rape, Paper Presents at

National Confrence on Perspective for Women’s

Liberation in India. Bombay.

Heise, L. L, Pitanguy, H., & Germain, A. (1994). Violence

against women: The Hidden Health Burden.

Washington DC: World Bank.

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

400

Kandasamy, Meena. 2017. When I Hit You: Or, a Portrait

of the Writer as a Young Wife. Atlantic Books,

London.

Kuiper, Kathleen. Ed. 2011. The Culture of India. New

York: Britannica Educational Publishing

Srinivas M.N. 1995. Social Change in Modern India.

Orient Longman Limited, University of California

Press, Los Angeles.

Roy, Arundhati. 2014. The Doctor and Saint. Verso

Publication.

Teresa, Hubel. 1993. Charting the Anger off Indian

Women through Narayan’s Savitri. Department of

English Publication, Huron Univerity College,

Canada.

Yadav, Shashi. 2015. Gauri as woman protagonist in

Mulk Raj Anand’s Novel. International Letters of

Social and Humanistic Sciences Online: 2015-09-22

ISSN: 2300-2697, Vol. 60, pp 134-136.

Online references:

Barbara N. Ramusack & Antoinette Burton (1994)

Feminism, imperialismand race: a dialogue between

India and Britain, Women's History Review, 3:4,

469-481, DOI:10.1080/09612029400200065

Chapman, J. 2014. Violence against Women in

Democratic India: Let's Talk Misogyny. Social

Scientist, 42(9/10), 49-61. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24372976

D’Cruz, Premilla. 2015. India: A paradoxical context for

workplace bullying. In workplace abuse, incivility and

bullying (pp. 55-70). Routledge. Tautan:

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/978131757785

0/chapters/10.4324/9781315739724-5

Lukose, R. (2005). Consuming globalization: Youth and

gender in Kerala, India. journal of social history, 38(4),

915-935.

Maharani, E. R., & Rosiandani, N. L. P. 2016. A Mother’s

Involvement in Preserving Patriarchal Power in Anita

Desai’s Fasting, Feasting. Journal of Language and

Literature, 16(2), 147-164.

Naikar, Basavaraj. 2010. The Weave of My Life: A Dalit

Woman’s Memoirs: A Study in Subaltern Vision. DOI:

10.2307 / 27871161. Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261778600.

Narayan, Deepa. 2018. India is the most dangerous

country for women. Guardian News. Retrieved from:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/

02/india-most-dangerous-country-women-survey

Sapra, K. J., Jubinski, S. M., Tanaka, M. F., & Gershon,

R. R. (2014). Family and partner interpersonal

violence among American Indians/Alaska Natives.

Injury epidemiology, 1(1), 7.

doi:10.1186/2197-1714-1-7

Sengar, Shweta. 2018. In Delhi, The 'Rape Capital Of

India', Five Women Were Raped Each Day In First

Quarter Of 2018. [online]. Retrieved from:

https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/in-delhi-the-ra

pe-capital-of-india-five-women-were-

raped-each-day-in-first-quarter-of-2018_-344881.html

Protest against Misogyny as Portrayed in Meena Kandasamy’s When I Hit You: Or, a Portrait of the Writer as a Young Wife (2017)

401