Food for thought: Has Satheesan credibly deflected sexism charges?

Chief Minister V D Satheesan on Wednesday dismissed allegations that he made sexist remarks while speaking of mothers and their culinary secrets. He said he had only stated that mothers should pass it on to their children. "Where is it written that children mean only girls," the CM asked during his customary post-Cabinet briefing on Wednesday.

Satheesan said many who had criticised him had not seen or heard his speech. "I heard many responses. The charge is that I have made a sexist remark," he said. And then for the benefit of those who have not seen or heard, Satheesan excerpted the disputed portion from his speech made in Pathanamthitta on July 26.  

"At times I complain to mothers. Some of them will have their special dishes" Satheesan quoted from his speech. Digressing from the quote, he said these were dishes that only these mothers could rustle up. "Even 27 years after her death, I still can savour the taste of her preparations. In fact, I had my mother at the back of my mind (when these remarks were made)," the CM said and got back to quoting from his July 26 speech. 

"But these mothers are not passing on the secrets to their children. They should be able to pass on these culinary secrets to their children or at least to the person who comes into the house as her son's wife," the CM quoted from his speech, and hurled a poser: "Where is it said that children mean only girls?" 

"What is sexist in saying that unique culinary techniques should be passed on to children and also to the female who arrives freshly to the house as the wife of the son," he said. Put it this way, it does not look so.

But the way he phrased the remark on July 26 had touches of patriarchy. Problem particularly is with the use of the prepositional phrase "at least" in the sentence "they should be able to pass on these culinary secrets to their children or at least to the person who comes into her house as her son's wife". (aa makkalkko makante bharya aayi varunna aalkkenkilumo).

Implied are two ideas. One, it would be nice if the children - both sons and daughters as Satheesan pointed out - are taught the mother's secrets but it is asking for too much. Two, that the daughter-in-law should be taught is a minimum requirement. 

This hints at the patriarchal inclination of retaining the knowledge of a special dish within the family, especially for the benefit of the son. Even if the son finds it beneath him to learn a dish from his mother, the obedient daughter-in-law can spoonfeed him his favourite mama's dish. It does not really matter if the information is not shared with the daughter as she would be married off into another family.

However, Satheesan rebels at such interpretations. "You don't have to look at what I said with a microscopic lens. What is the sly need to detect misogyny in such remarks? Why do you want to steep to such lows?" Satheesan lashed out at journalists. "It is you who will lose your credibility, not me," the CM said.