Cinderella didn't need a prince Charming!

Cinderella didn't need a prince charming, she just needed a day off!

Snowhite didn't need need a prince either. She was already kicking ass when she met him!

So why do we have these delirious notions where a 'damsel in distress' needs to be rescued by a prince? Why can't a girl slay all the dragons and rescue herself? Why can't she be 'the Saviour' (quoting: Once Upon A Time)?

Though these stories were written ages ago when the world was dominated by patriarchy, nothing much has changed since then.

Take Elena for instance. While Stephan treated her delicately as if would break like a glass, Damon's love was so consuming that she forgot herself (quoting: The Vampire Diaries)! And how can we forget Meredith, who sort of flipped her humanity switch (even though she's very much human) when McDreamy died (quoting: Grey's Anatomy). Granted that the circumstances these characters endured were extra-ordinary and anyone in their situation is allowed to act out, yet its not an excuse that only a lass should be in trouble.

Why can't these shows show their male leads being rescued by women?

Look how Christina Yang's career flourished when Burke left her and she left Owen. Khaleesi (quoting: Game of Thrones) became the 'mother of dragons' etc. when Khal Drogo died and she decided to take on the world herself with her loyal followers. Bonnie is the single most powerful witch that there ever would be. The way she single-handedly saved the 'vamipre world' several times making countless sacrifices in the process makes me wonder why aren't we focussing on her?!

Another area of conflict is the Marvel and DC Comics series. There is Batman, there is Iron Man and then there is Superman. What about their female-counterparts? Although there are some female characters- Catwoman and Wonder Woman to name a few, yet are they being projected at equal footing with their male counterparts? No.

Why aren't any of the super-human series showing women as their lead (please don't quote Powerpuff Girls)?!

In this era when women are showing the world a new light, the society is still polarised. A woman is still expected to micro-manage her life. She is expected to be a homemaker first and then care about her career. She is still expected to be an 'epitome of sacrifices and selflessness'. She is still expected to change her surname (and identity) after marriage. She is still expected to remain behind the curtains and obey orders by the so called alpha-male of the family.

My question is why can't she be the 'alpha-female'? Why can't she do anything without being surveyed by those judgy little eyes like men? Why is the society always expecting things from women? Is it the code for saying that 'men won't be able to handle the pressure' or is our society (lead by its male members) theatened by the female community and the things they can achieve if given complete authority?

It is interesting to note that even the so called advocates of women's rights haven't highlighted/protested over the fact that all the documents ask for either father's name or husband's name. No document asks for just mother's name. It's like secretly these documents are screaming that women are under male guardianship and they cannot exist without these 'assigned identities'.

Women in Saudi Arabia are under male guardianship. That guardian can be anyone- father, husband, brother or even the son who learnt all his life lessons from his mother. Many people have openly criticised it. But I think that it 's still better. At least they own up to it. We (the Indian and many others like us) don't. We just point fingers while forgetting that we're sailing in the same boat!

Talking about marriage, I don't get the concept of 'Kanya daan'. You donate an object or a thing. If you're donating a human i.e. your daughter, you're basically objectifying her. How's that right and how can anyone in his/her right mind label that as the 'highest form of donation'?! And how can our ancient texts call it 'sacred'?

Even our traditions are biased. A girl when married goes to her husband's house, says the tradition. She must change her surname, says the society. But why aren't similar norms applicable to men? Why can't men shift to their wives' homes? Why can't men change their surname instead? Why is that women have to adjust in their brand new families with a whole new set of do's and don'ts while men get a free pass?

I believe 'all or none' approach is the fair thing to do. Either both change their surnames or both don't. Why should one person do all the adjustment?

And now the classic argument that never loses its pun- we pray to goddess yet we treat our women like they're nothing at all. We fast and feast during Navratras, we visit Vaishno Devi, we tell tales of how the great eight-handed goddess saved the world from the demon king, yet we disrespect, objectify and mistreat women! It's like you're murdering people the whole year and when you take a dip in a river, it's going to magically even out all your sins. What you're forgetting is that even after taking the dip, dead will be dead. Now apply the same analogy in case of worshipping and respecting women. (Hope you get it now!)

The point is that the society needs to change as a whole. We can't preach something and practice something else. There has to be a balance and the society collectively needs to work towards a common goal. Its like taking out a really complex tumour. Sometimes you do it in one go. The other times things must proceed in stages.

The world can survive only if the creator and the creation are in sync not otherwise!