Keep Calm & Carry On.....Honey

Recently it became newsworthy that PepsiCo's famous CEO Indra Nooyi hated being called‘Honey’ or ‘Sweetie’. I believe she found such ‘titles’ demeaning in an environment that needed to strive more towards gender parity. Of course, she meant that in the larger context of the contemporary work environment, with higher numbers of women in leadership positions, than ever before. Nothing against that, however, had she not been quoted in that article, a back and forth email thread would not have been generated among a few work colleagues; a heated argument on gender disparity at the workplace would not have resulted; and ultimately, as tends to be the norm, sexism, feminism and other isms would not have been invoked. 

 

Bottom line…a lot would not have occurred.

But it did. And here’s a snippet:  

“One shouldn’t take these titles too seriously”, said one person. “Whether I am called Honey, Sweetie or Babe is not important to me – what I get to do (at the workplace) is important to me”. 

“Yes, but that doesn’t imply a free pass for men to objectify women”, said another. 

“Women don’t support other women enough in professional spheres!” chimed in a third voice.

Not surprisingly, these voices were all of women. 

And so it went on till the discourse exhausted itself.

It was then that I, perhaps the only male in said email thread, interjected. I might have been a bit impulsive to jump in, but I couldn’t help it. At that time the question that occurred to me was: What if I were called Honey or Sweetheart – would it bother me? And then I suddenly recalled that I had been called Honey in the past - at a party. I distinctly remembered being quite excited about attending said party – in a dress. To get into a dress was perhaps a primordial need and tangential to this story, but whatever the actual reason, the outcome was interesting. 

“This might sound flippant and distasteful to some”, I addressed the email group somewhat apologetically, “But I must tell you my Honey story”.

And then I delved right into it.

“It had happened a few years ago. Now did I mention I had attended the party dressed up as a woman? I re-emphasize that I did so for a Halloween party, not because I routinely cross dress as a form of self-expression.”

Author in the middle, surrounded by two Rastafarians

I had put on a long blue and yellow, flowery summer dress, borrowed from a lady friend. I put on a wig with long curly tresses. I placed clip-on earrings on my ears (where else) and a faux pearl necklace around my stocky neck. The tawdry jewelry had been bought at a nearby Walgreen’s from its Halloween costume aisle. For the lipstick, I chose an intense red shade, which my wife had found after a lot of searching through her makeup (surprising, yes?). For shoes, rather than wearing heals and injuring myself, I chose to put on sneakers. Those, along with the dress and rest of the get up made me look like a cross between Sandy and Danny from Grease, the recently held musical at the Arts Council in Karachi. Suffice it to say, I was quite happy with the overall appearance.

I must have looked more than just half decent, because a man at the Halloween party commented, “Honey, you look better than ‘real’ women here”. Yes, with emphasis on the ‘real’.

Rather than being offended, I confess that I felt proud in that moment - for that compliment. Perhaps I chose to take it as such.

Author with his/her (much) better half

“But you were only dressed up as a woman at a party when honeyed-on by a man - that explains why you did not get offended. Would you have felt the same if you hadn't cross-dressed, and a woman had called you Honey at your workplace?” One of my female colleagues inquired.

“So if I flipped the situation, and I was referred to as Darling, Honey or Sugar by a woman, whether an equal, superior or inferior on the corporate ladder, would I feel belittled? I don’t know - it hasn’t happened as yet, but I will keep you posted”. I responded

On relating my ‘Honey story’ to my female colleagues, the overall response I received was lackadaisical. But then I hadn’t expected anything different from them – I think my revelation was too much to handle.

Anyhow, by declaring a need for gender parity, were my female colleagues interested in moving towards a society in which gender was less important - a gender-less or gender neutral existence? Per that token, maybe one approach towards gender parity was recognizing that both masculine and feminine traits were present in each human being. And therefore, part of the process might be to reach equilibrium between perceived extremes of gender.  

Is gender simply a social construct ready to be transcended? If yes, then perhaps it is easier for cross-dressers, but for the vast majority gender remains contentious. However, if one considers sex (biologically ordained) and gender (norms defined by the society) as different aspects to a person then blurring the lines for the latter could be made acceptable - more pink for the guys and more blue for the gals, for example. It may bring more diversity and open more avenues of thought, without posing a threat to the co-existing biology.

We might still be a long way off to that utopia hence for the interim here are a few points to ponder:

(1)   A few times, what I am called is simply a reflection of what and how I do (something).

(2)   At other times, what I am called is not necessarily in my control – it’s what the other chooses to call me, regardless of what and how I do (something).

(3)   Most times, what I let myself feel, when someone calls me something, is entirely in my control. 

To conclude I categorically state that gender-based issues are serious and not to be taken lightly. But with all due respect to my female fellow travelers out there, I urge recall of the Queen’s wisdom: 

“Keep calm and carry on, Honey”.  

[from Rambling of an Itinerant]

Acknowledgment: Thank you - Huma Baqir, AKU MBBS Class of 2017 - for critically reviewing and editing this post.