How would you articulate the bell hooks’s notion of “oppositional gaze” with the way the bodies are positioned
in the films Alma no Olho (Zózimo Bulbul, 1973) and K’bela (Yasmin Thayná, 2018)? What would you say
about the place of gender in the films?
Sample Solution
ong stance with regard to the third condition and called it âgrossly unethicalâ and âdeep rooted sense of utter selfishness at the cost of all human valuesâ. After serving the organisation for a period of 4 years, terminating the air hostessesâ services due to pregnancy would mean forcing them not to have any children. The decision to continue work after having children is a personal one and should be made by the airhostess and not the airline. Pregnancy is a ânatural consequence of marriageâ and not a disability. Any discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy is unreasonable and arbitrary. This condition was held to be unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 and was struck down. With regard to Articles 15(1) and 16(2), the Court held that they prohibit discrimination only and only on the basis of gender. If discrimination based on gender is coupled with other considerations, it is not prohibited. Mrs. Neera Mathur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Facts The petitioner was an employee of LIC of India. Her employment was terminated by LIC after she returned from maternity leave. The reason given was that she had withheld information about her pregnancy in the questionnaire which was filled out at the time of her appointment. Judgment The Supreme Court examined the questionnaire and found that it required all female candidates to provide information about the dates of their menstrual cycle, past pregnancies, etc. The Court held that the questionnaire was an invasion of privacy and directed LIC to reinstate the petitioner and delete the offending columns in its future questionnaires. F.M. Kolia v. Manager, The Tiles and Pottery Works Ltd. Facts The petitioner had applied for maternity leave pay under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. The employer contested the claim on the ground that she had worked for only 143 days and was therefore not eligible. The establishment was a seasonal factory which worked for only 8 months in a year. The petitioner was unable to work during the rainy season as the factory was closed during that time. The establishment also remains close>
ong stance with regard to the third condition and called it âgrossly unethicalâ and âdeep rooted sense of utter selfishness at the cost of all human valuesâ. After serving the organisation for a period of 4 years, terminating the air hostessesâ services due to pregnancy would mean forcing them not to have any children. The decision to continue work after having children is a personal one and should be made by the airhostess and not the airline. Pregnancy is a ânatural consequence of marriageâ and not a disability. Any discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy is unreasonable and arbitrary. This condition was held to be unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 and was struck down. With regard to Articles 15(1) and 16(2), the Court held that they prohibit discrimination only and only on the basis of gender. If discrimination based on gender is coupled with other considerations, it is not prohibited. Mrs. Neera Mathur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Facts The petitioner was an employee of LIC of India. Her employment was terminated by LIC after she returned from maternity leave. The reason given was that she had withheld information about her pregnancy in the questionnaire which was filled out at the time of her appointment. Judgment The Supreme Court examined the questionnaire and found that it required all female candidates to provide information about the dates of their menstrual cycle, past pregnancies, etc. The Court held that the questionnaire was an invasion of privacy and directed LIC to reinstate the petitioner and delete the offending columns in its future questionnaires. F.M. Kolia v. Manager, The Tiles and Pottery Works Ltd. Facts The petitioner had applied for maternity leave pay under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. The employer contested the claim on the ground that she had worked for only 143 days and was therefore not eligible. The establishment was a seasonal factory which worked for only 8 months in a year. The petitioner was unable to work during the rainy season as the factory was closed during that time. The establishment also remains close>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples