Colors of the Skin
September 8, 2020
Hey y’all, hope you guys are doing well. It is back-to-school season! I love this time of year. It is not a secret that I love stationary items: notebooks, pens, folders, planners, etc. There is just something exciting about starting a new year. Even though it feels like it is the same thing year after year, there are slight differences that make it memorable. This year, the difference might be a bit more obvious.
You know what I find a little ironic? That practically a whole year has passed and I am setting up a dating profile on another matrimonial site, this one was a recommendation from a concerned family member. I think it is important to note, though, a lot has changed since last year. Forget the fact that we are currently going through a pandemic and I still feel like a suburban Rapunzel. A lot has happened in the past few months that I think is incredibly telling of the times we live in.
Earlier this summer, we saw, on the wings of the Black Lives Matter Movement, a call of action against colorism, especially in the South Asian community. While there are many similarities between racism and colorism, they are significant differences. For one, racism is a preference for or a prejudice against the societal construct of “race”. What I mean by that is on self-identification forms, I mark the Asian or Indian box, even though I have spent the equivalent of seven months over the course of my twenty-seven years in India. But colorism is a preference for or a prejudice against the physical attribute of “skin color.” This is an important distinction because people of the same race can have a variety of skin colors and people of the same skin color can come from a variety of races. Obviously this is a brief and oversimplified explanation.
So what does colorism have to do with finding a partner or getting married? Unfortunately, a lot. If you recall my review of the m4marry website, one of the chief complaints was their requirement of a skin tone or complexion category. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the ability to absorb sunlight is a reflection of the person’s character or quality. Fairer does not mean kinder, nor does darker mean untrustworthy. Character and complexion are independent of each other. All that skin color will tell you is whether or not the person will likely need vitamin D supplements.
Unfortunately, many people do not see it that way. Generations have been brainwashed with the notion that fairer is more desirable. This perpetuates the harmful effects of colorism. An entire multi-billion industrial complex was built and is sustained by selling bleaching creams to people of darker skin tones, feeding them the idea that if they use those products, they will become the ideal beauty. Fair and Lovely was notorious for this because in their ads, the darker version was shown as sad and unhappy while the lighter version was smiling and cheerful. I mention Fair and Lovely because that is the product I used, but there are plenty of others in many forms, including pills, lasers, and injections.
Thankfully, things are starting to change. India announced earlier this year a bill that bans the advertisement of, among other things, fairness creams. Mind you, the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) (Amendment) Bill, 2020 does not ban the production of these products, just the advertisement of them. While it is no great leap, at least it is a step in the right direction. India is not alone in the matter. In fact, a number of countries (such as Kenya, Rwanda, Côte d’Ivore, Cambodia, Thailand, the European Union, and others) have already banned the use of skin-lightening products and/or their ingredients. Hopefully, we will see more added to this list.
While this legislature was proposed in February, Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) did not take any bold steps in addressing the impending issue. Perhaps it is because the Bill has not become an Act yet. But this past June, HUL announced they will drop the “Fair” from Fair and Lovely. Instead the product will now be known as Glow and Lovely. Is this a proactive move on Unilever’s part? I highly doubt it. I think they woke up to the outrage people were expressing about colorism and decided to change with the changing times. This was a reactive measure to stay relevant.
Am I mad about it? No, they are a business and are trying to sell their products. They do what businesses do. Do I have to accept or support them? Absolutely not! I will continue to stand against their principles until they reactively discontinue their products.
Another company that has made reactive moves is shaadi.com. The matrimonial website removed the option to filter searches by complexion. I wish this was something they did progressively, it would show that there is a desire from brands and corporations to be a force of good. But alas, this is not one of those stories. It originally started when Meghan Nagpal, a shaadi.com user, reached out to the website regarding their skin color filter. A representative responded to her inquiry stating that “this is a Matrimonial site and most parents do require this as an option so it is visible on the site.”
Now, I will give shaadi.com the benefit of the doubt and assume the representative was some average worker answering emails. Perhaps they have a script they have to follow regarding inquiries like this. While I do not know if this person expresses these same sentiments, they speak on behalf of the matrimonial website. Clearly, the website is catering to the wishes of the parents instead of the people actually getting matched.
This response was posted on Facebook and caught the attention of Hetal Lakhani. She created a petition on change.org requiring shaadi.com to “permanently remove its skin colour filter,” despite how parents feel about it. Within 14 hours it had over 1500 signees, myself included.
Was it this petition that caught shaadi.com’s attention? Was it the outcry of many on social media regarding their response? Or was it a public relations specialist who understood this was not a battle they could win in today’s climate? I do not know. All I know is that within a couple of days back in June, the matrimonial website issued a statement on twitter saying the skin color filter was a “blind spot” and they have since removed it. There is no denying this is another step in the right direction, and I will take this small, forced, win.
I guess other matrimonial websites took heed because when I was creating my profile on usnazrani.com, the skin color option was not a required field. Practically speaking, I do not know what to put for that category. I go from jaundice yellow in the winter to oompa loompa orange in the summer. I am fortunate that my skin tans very well, but it loses that tan very quickly. So my skin tone changes throughout the year. What does not change is my character. Regardless what shade of brown I am, I am still Aemi. And I will see y’all next week!
- Aemi
