That we love to do certain things is known. That when we love doing certain things they do not appear to be 'hard' is also known. That doing things with love can make life a lot more easier and purposeful is also known. But the question that remains is this. How do I love something that I really do not love? A job for instance - of accounting, of sweeping, of coding, of studying, of practicing, of running. How can I force myself to love?
The key is to apply the mind to whatever you are doing i.e. look at it creatively and strive to improve on it. Is there a better way of doing this? Is there my way of doing this? Can I make this chore into something else? Once your thought comes in, normally brought by an element of pride (I will make this the best job ever), creativity flows. Once the mind, the creative element is involved, all work becomes a passion. From studying to practising to working, everything takes on an urgency, a sense of purpose, a pride. Only the best works then.
Funnily even in matters of the heart. As Prof. Higgins finds out in 'My Fair Lady', once you put your mind into something (read as improving something), you slowly introduc your heart to it. And then God save you.
Involve the mind somehow, get it to look at whatever it is that is boring you, creatively, and it suddenly transforms into something wonderful. A livelihood for some, a new energy for all those around, but mostly a life of contentment.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Thought for the Day - Wealth and Creativity
The amount of time put into work is not commensurate to the return unless an equal amount of thought goes into converting the work into money. Mere work will remain work and earn wages, the most uncreative form of making money, but if one puts thought into converting work into money and multiplying it, then money starts gathering an energy, of creation. Money is a product of creativity, which in itself is a product of courage.
So the hard worker works for wages, with no thought. The smart worker works to maximise return on the work put in, often by expanding resources. It is the application of creative thought that is all the difference.
So the hard worker works for wages, with no thought. The smart worker works to maximise return on the work put in, often by expanding resources. It is the application of creative thought that is all the difference.
Thought for the Day - What Makes Us Laugh
They say that the highest form of creativity is to crack a joke. To make up a joke or to write or do something that makes people laugh is an amazing ability that few have. But what is it about a joke that makes us laugh either 'with' or 'at'? Looking back on things that made me laugh - cartoons, stories, jokes, people, movies - it would appear to me that there are certain elements that comprise of this act of making others laugh.
- The ability to surprise and constantly do something that is not expected is certainly one that makes for laughter (all the great jokes).
- Stretching any emotion to the limit, sometimes inappropriately, makes us laugh. Crying, laughing, anger, or any of the other emotions when pushed beyond a limit makes people laugh.
- Shouting at others, invectives (Captain Haddock), beating up people (Tom and Jerry and all other cartoons)
- Stupidity, overt or innocent, certainly makes for a good laugh especially if the person lands in the spot after the act of stupidity.
- A tangle of errors, that seem completely unintentional and puts the person in trouble is certainly worth a laugh 9Comedy of errors, Chupke, Chupke).
- In writing, the comparison or the use of a simile of something serious with something perhaps outrageously ridiculous could make you laugh (Wodehouse, Dave Barry).
- Characters with traits that people can relate to, traits that lead them to behave in a fashion that is expected brings on some smiles.
- Self-deprecatory stuff also brings on the smiles.
- Seemingly unrelated connections to topics does make for laughs.
- Situations where you know the character is headed for trouble, and where the character does not seem to know that he or she is, and is in fact trying to cover up, makes for laughs.
- Complete honesty is funny. Perhaps the funniest when written or shown.
- Naivete, complexity, villainy, innocence - anything pushed to the limit is funny.
- Razor sharp repartee that shuts up people, crudity included, seems to make people laugh.
- Complete idiocy also makes people laugh.
These are some situations I could think of. But going by the above, which may be only some, it appears that at the lower end or the baser end, we tend to laugh at others misfortunes, troubles, handicaps, at their beating beaten up, being abused, being troubled. Its funny, but it is so, that rarely do we laugh 'at' or 'with' happy people - more with troubled ones. On a higher end, we may have to create a subtle sense of humour that works on wordplay, on wit and repartee, but again leading to one upmanship of one over the other.
But the laughter does cleanse the heart and makes life so much better to have the jokes, the people who can evoke laughter, the see movies that make you roll in the aisles, tears down your face. I would love to do that everyday if I could.
- The ability to surprise and constantly do something that is not expected is certainly one that makes for laughter (all the great jokes).
- Stretching any emotion to the limit, sometimes inappropriately, makes us laugh. Crying, laughing, anger, or any of the other emotions when pushed beyond a limit makes people laugh.
- Shouting at others, invectives (Captain Haddock), beating up people (Tom and Jerry and all other cartoons)
- Stupidity, overt or innocent, certainly makes for a good laugh especially if the person lands in the spot after the act of stupidity.
- A tangle of errors, that seem completely unintentional and puts the person in trouble is certainly worth a laugh 9Comedy of errors, Chupke, Chupke).
- In writing, the comparison or the use of a simile of something serious with something perhaps outrageously ridiculous could make you laugh (Wodehouse, Dave Barry).
- Characters with traits that people can relate to, traits that lead them to behave in a fashion that is expected brings on some smiles.
- Self-deprecatory stuff also brings on the smiles.
- Seemingly unrelated connections to topics does make for laughs.
- Situations where you know the character is headed for trouble, and where the character does not seem to know that he or she is, and is in fact trying to cover up, makes for laughs.
- Complete honesty is funny. Perhaps the funniest when written or shown.
- Naivete, complexity, villainy, innocence - anything pushed to the limit is funny.
- Razor sharp repartee that shuts up people, crudity included, seems to make people laugh.
- Complete idiocy also makes people laugh.
These are some situations I could think of. But going by the above, which may be only some, it appears that at the lower end or the baser end, we tend to laugh at others misfortunes, troubles, handicaps, at their beating beaten up, being abused, being troubled. Its funny, but it is so, that rarely do we laugh 'at' or 'with' happy people - more with troubled ones. On a higher end, we may have to create a subtle sense of humour that works on wordplay, on wit and repartee, but again leading to one upmanship of one over the other.
But the laughter does cleanse the heart and makes life so much better to have the jokes, the people who can evoke laughter, the see movies that make you roll in the aisles, tears down your face. I would love to do that everyday if I could.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Paradoxes of Life - The Emptiness Paradox
What we think is full is really empty. Be it space, or our own mind, the feeling that we are appreciating great content is an illusion because all there is, in such works, is space. Just as they say that we are 99.99% nothingness though we all feel that we are full of something, so is the densest material in the world - full of nothingness.
In great music they say, the spaces are more important than the sounds. In great dialogue, the pauses say more than the words. In cricket, the extra moment sends the ball racing to the fence faster, not steely muscle. In dance, the extra moment, adds grace and transforms it into something else. So it is in any thing in life. From work to relationships, from dance to cricket, from children to adults, from lecturing to teaching, from plants to animals, from arts to science - spaces are almost everything. Spaces aid their growth, make them great.
The less we say, the more effective. The tighter the idea, the clearer it is. And the more space it gives for the readers, viewers to develop a relationship with the idea.
Less, is more. Full, is nothing.
In great music they say, the spaces are more important than the sounds. In great dialogue, the pauses say more than the words. In cricket, the extra moment sends the ball racing to the fence faster, not steely muscle. In dance, the extra moment, adds grace and transforms it into something else. So it is in any thing in life. From work to relationships, from dance to cricket, from children to adults, from lecturing to teaching, from plants to animals, from arts to science - spaces are almost everything. Spaces aid their growth, make them great.
The less we say, the more effective. The tighter the idea, the clearer it is. And the more space it gives for the readers, viewers to develop a relationship with the idea.
Less, is more. Full, is nothing.
Between Tears and Laughter - Mulk Raj Anand
I was gifted this book by Shobhs way back in 1997, a slim volume of 130 pages, priced at Rs. 45. It is a collection of short stories by Mulk Raj Anand whose writing career spanned from the 1930s to the 1980s. I read his 1935 classic 'The Untouchable' last year and became a huge fan of his, so when I found this unread book in my collection I quickly picked it up. I am glad I did not read it earlier - I would not have appreciated its content then.
There are 21 stories in all and they are all short, as short stories should be unlike some which are pretty much like novels. Some of the stories I did not understand (I have the same problem with some poems) but some were more direct and my style. But what hit me was the themes he chose to write his stories - the pratice of Sati in a world of Chitrahaar and Stardust where the young widow of a doctor with aspirations to become a nurse is burnt alive, the stories that revolved around untouchability and the fate of the young characters - often beaten till death, the stoning to death of a blind bard whose only crime was that he was blind and sang well and thereby earned more than the other beggars, of a young mother whose bowl is stolen so she cannot feed her young, of Buddha and of monks, of an insane child sacrifice which is accorded permission by the village, of a young untouchable who turns to Buddhism and who seeks to become the Buddha himself, of pension for prostitutes, of the way war affects us and our children, of the way religion is used by some to promote their interests. In small stories, Mulk Raj Anand lays bare all that the Indian society has been guilty of doing and perpetuating on its weakest and most vulnerable sections - the women, children, handicapped, the untouchables and even animals, as in how Moti the dog is killed and how a buffalo is left to die.
Mulk Raj Anand in a hard hitting style that one expects from him and no less, shows all that and more in his simple method of story telling without dramatising the scenes. They are potent enough as they are even if reported. It is written as it is, whether the father sacrifices his own daughter, or children of dead army soldiers playing war games shoot one of their gang accidentally, or the sati, or the untouchable boys murder because he ate a carrot - the horror sinks into the reader later and I guess, will remain forever, as it might with me. For those who wish to read about where we came from, this book offers a quick review. As always I am left wondering at the wonderful job Mulk Raj Anand has done in penning them down as they were so we could always carry our history with us, and learn from it. The stupidest thing would be to ignore it. Among my big regrets would be not meeting him in his lifetime - he died in Pune in 2004 - a time when was frequenting Pune often. But he has left enough of his legacy and I propose now to get my hands on his other books as well.
There are 21 stories in all and they are all short, as short stories should be unlike some which are pretty much like novels. Some of the stories I did not understand (I have the same problem with some poems) but some were more direct and my style. But what hit me was the themes he chose to write his stories - the pratice of Sati in a world of Chitrahaar and Stardust where the young widow of a doctor with aspirations to become a nurse is burnt alive, the stories that revolved around untouchability and the fate of the young characters - often beaten till death, the stoning to death of a blind bard whose only crime was that he was blind and sang well and thereby earned more than the other beggars, of a young mother whose bowl is stolen so she cannot feed her young, of Buddha and of monks, of an insane child sacrifice which is accorded permission by the village, of a young untouchable who turns to Buddhism and who seeks to become the Buddha himself, of pension for prostitutes, of the way war affects us and our children, of the way religion is used by some to promote their interests. In small stories, Mulk Raj Anand lays bare all that the Indian society has been guilty of doing and perpetuating on its weakest and most vulnerable sections - the women, children, handicapped, the untouchables and even animals, as in how Moti the dog is killed and how a buffalo is left to die.
Mulk Raj Anand in a hard hitting style that one expects from him and no less, shows all that and more in his simple method of story telling without dramatising the scenes. They are potent enough as they are even if reported. It is written as it is, whether the father sacrifices his own daughter, or children of dead army soldiers playing war games shoot one of their gang accidentally, or the sati, or the untouchable boys murder because he ate a carrot - the horror sinks into the reader later and I guess, will remain forever, as it might with me. For those who wish to read about where we came from, this book offers a quick review. As always I am left wondering at the wonderful job Mulk Raj Anand has done in penning them down as they were so we could always carry our history with us, and learn from it. The stupidest thing would be to ignore it. Among my big regrets would be not meeting him in his lifetime - he died in Pune in 2004 - a time when was frequenting Pune often. But he has left enough of his legacy and I propose now to get my hands on his other books as well.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Ra One - Movie Review
After everyone had finished blasting Ra One and I had absolutely no further expectations from it, I watched Ra One the other day thanks to the die hard Shahrukh fan at home, and hey, watched it fully. The key, like many say, is to have no expectations and things don't look so bad after all. I guess it works for everything in life, including ourselves. Like Tendulkar and his 100 for instance.
Ra One's creator is the geeky Shekhar Subramaniam with curly hair and curd and Maggi noodles, a game creator. As in normal fashion the geek gets the beauty and he gets Kareena or rather Sonia and between them they manage a small Prateek, about 12 years old I'd guess, considering his knowledge of contraceptives etc. Obviously he got his father's brains because Sonia is dumb enough to pronounce Konjem, Konjem as Condom, condom, which is probably a Freudian slip from her. Perfect match those two.
Anyway Shekhar is trying to impress his son and makes a new game for his Mallya kind of a boss. He makes a game with a villain who is surely scary to look at and a hero who looks like himself. There is some complex business of hearts in Ra One and G One that I did not quite get except that one is red and another blue and they are critical to kill anyone - just like humans you know. When the game is launched the Ra One, a real badass if there ever was, morphs into the Korean game creator and seeks Prateek who whips his backside in the first game. Ra One now wants to kill Prateek if that is the last thing he will do, even if he has to come out of the game. Now that is what happens when you give geeks all the big projects.
Anyway Ra One kills non-violent, curd eater Shekhar (surprising how the face-matching software did not work at that point) but its a relief because it gets the bore out of the way and in his place we now get a butt pinching, sex crazed (not really) robot or something like that (Shahrukh in his regular avatar, gay jokes, nose leak jokes and all) which has stepped out of the game and into the life of Sonia and Prateek to save them from Ra One who has also stepped out. While they are all dancing to the tunes of Chammak Challo where Kareena did some wonderful work with her arms and hands, Ra One has followed them across the earth in the shape of a bald Arjun Rampal who was a model on a billboard. Who is in the game now with both these characters out is the question, and all the creators dead? There is one left, the self effacing Shahana Goswami but all she does is have tea with Sonia and goes home. Perhaps she got fired for being on this disastrous and dangerous project. I'd have arrested her.
Before we get into a weird story of humans falling in love with robots, which they seem to be headed for, Ra one arrives and challenges G One. Prateek helps a bit, and in the end Ra One is killed, G One is killed, the Mallya lookalike is killed. But wait, these game characters might just come back thanks to that heart stopping logic so we have G One sitting on a chimney looking around like a meanie Cat Man. Now, isn't your job in the game young man? What are you doing sitting on a chimney as a deluded super hero with blue sparks? I found the sci fi effects fair enough and the game looked interesting. But the train stunt was a bore - you can't have him run along the train for five minutes, sometime on the top, sometime on the side, sometime inside, sometime outside and finally stop it. If it took you from Bandra to CST to get to the front of the train, then in all likelihood it was Lord Ganesha who stopped the train and not G One. Bro you got to check out the Rajini stunt in his Robot. And, what was that Delnaz shot about?
Anyway I thought it had promise and a plot that had potential. Somewhere after the first attack by Ra One in London, the film stopped being interesting and it was dull all the way. Perhaps because we know for a fact that G One would always be around to counter Ra One - even though he fancies his chances at 0.01% (again he almost terminates Ra One in the first encounter - funny). After that we only have to put up with his jokes, his attempts at romancing Sonia which seem better than what the geek did and wait for the inevitable showdown. Also we know that there will be no blue sparks flying between the two so that's another bore. Now if there was a Sonia lookalike robot in the game, there would have been more fun. Why did Shahrukh not think of that? Instead of dialogues like 'now I know that there are angels'.
Was it a film for children? Only twelve to fourteen year olds I'd think because the younger ones would get scared at the Ra One fellow. Even I got scared, at not just Ra One, but many other things as well. Kareena as Sonia looked most desirable. But all else falls flat gently. Shahrukh does not look like a super hero to me despite the costume. I did get confused as to whether the two game characters will stay in the game or step out - are they real? But when you stop caring if they are, that is a sign of disconnect I guess. Need to worry about those. Sometimes I feel these movies would do better without all the hype. Hype should only be to the extent of the content that you have. Or am I old fashioned? These days, its the exact opposite. But I did not shut it off, watched it all and thought it could have been slightly better handled in the second half. You know, more between the hero and villain, than the hero and someone else's wife.
Why is Sharukh failing and Salman clicking? My theory is that Shahrukh is heading out northwards to the stars while Salman is going southwards and getting more earthy. Maybe an earthy role Shahrukh, paan spitting and all? Worth a try.
Ra One's creator is the geeky Shekhar Subramaniam with curly hair and curd and Maggi noodles, a game creator. As in normal fashion the geek gets the beauty and he gets Kareena or rather Sonia and between them they manage a small Prateek, about 12 years old I'd guess, considering his knowledge of contraceptives etc. Obviously he got his father's brains because Sonia is dumb enough to pronounce Konjem, Konjem as Condom, condom, which is probably a Freudian slip from her. Perfect match those two.
Anyway Shekhar is trying to impress his son and makes a new game for his Mallya kind of a boss. He makes a game with a villain who is surely scary to look at and a hero who looks like himself. There is some complex business of hearts in Ra One and G One that I did not quite get except that one is red and another blue and they are critical to kill anyone - just like humans you know. When the game is launched the Ra One, a real badass if there ever was, morphs into the Korean game creator and seeks Prateek who whips his backside in the first game. Ra One now wants to kill Prateek if that is the last thing he will do, even if he has to come out of the game. Now that is what happens when you give geeks all the big projects.
Anyway Ra One kills non-violent, curd eater Shekhar (surprising how the face-matching software did not work at that point) but its a relief because it gets the bore out of the way and in his place we now get a butt pinching, sex crazed (not really) robot or something like that (Shahrukh in his regular avatar, gay jokes, nose leak jokes and all) which has stepped out of the game and into the life of Sonia and Prateek to save them from Ra One who has also stepped out. While they are all dancing to the tunes of Chammak Challo where Kareena did some wonderful work with her arms and hands, Ra One has followed them across the earth in the shape of a bald Arjun Rampal who was a model on a billboard. Who is in the game now with both these characters out is the question, and all the creators dead? There is one left, the self effacing Shahana Goswami but all she does is have tea with Sonia and goes home. Perhaps she got fired for being on this disastrous and dangerous project. I'd have arrested her.
Before we get into a weird story of humans falling in love with robots, which they seem to be headed for, Ra one arrives and challenges G One. Prateek helps a bit, and in the end Ra One is killed, G One is killed, the Mallya lookalike is killed. But wait, these game characters might just come back thanks to that heart stopping logic so we have G One sitting on a chimney looking around like a meanie Cat Man. Now, isn't your job in the game young man? What are you doing sitting on a chimney as a deluded super hero with blue sparks? I found the sci fi effects fair enough and the game looked interesting. But the train stunt was a bore - you can't have him run along the train for five minutes, sometime on the top, sometime on the side, sometime inside, sometime outside and finally stop it. If it took you from Bandra to CST to get to the front of the train, then in all likelihood it was Lord Ganesha who stopped the train and not G One. Bro you got to check out the Rajini stunt in his Robot. And, what was that Delnaz shot about?
Anyway I thought it had promise and a plot that had potential. Somewhere after the first attack by Ra One in London, the film stopped being interesting and it was dull all the way. Perhaps because we know for a fact that G One would always be around to counter Ra One - even though he fancies his chances at 0.01% (again he almost terminates Ra One in the first encounter - funny). After that we only have to put up with his jokes, his attempts at romancing Sonia which seem better than what the geek did and wait for the inevitable showdown. Also we know that there will be no blue sparks flying between the two so that's another bore. Now if there was a Sonia lookalike robot in the game, there would have been more fun. Why did Shahrukh not think of that? Instead of dialogues like 'now I know that there are angels'.
Was it a film for children? Only twelve to fourteen year olds I'd think because the younger ones would get scared at the Ra One fellow. Even I got scared, at not just Ra One, but many other things as well. Kareena as Sonia looked most desirable. But all else falls flat gently. Shahrukh does not look like a super hero to me despite the costume. I did get confused as to whether the two game characters will stay in the game or step out - are they real? But when you stop caring if they are, that is a sign of disconnect I guess. Need to worry about those. Sometimes I feel these movies would do better without all the hype. Hype should only be to the extent of the content that you have. Or am I old fashioned? These days, its the exact opposite. But I did not shut it off, watched it all and thought it could have been slightly better handled in the second half. You know, more between the hero and villain, than the hero and someone else's wife.
Why is Sharukh failing and Salman clicking? My theory is that Shahrukh is heading out northwards to the stars while Salman is going southwards and getting more earthy. Maybe an earthy role Shahrukh, paan spitting and all? Worth a try.
Women - The Real Dalits of the World
I read Kalpana Sharma's fine article 'On wearing 'Obscene' Clothes' in The Hindu today and decided to voice myself as well, on this issue. She does wonderful work Kalpana Sharma and I am an unabashed fan of her writing.
Going by what I have seen and heard in my life it would be a fair conclusion for me - that women are the real dalits of the world. (According to Wikipedia, the word "Dalit" comes from the Sanskrit, and means "ground", "suppressed", "crushed", or "broken to pieces".) They have been abused, kept backward, taken advantage of, used by men forever. And if the trend of the erudite statements by the DGP of AP Police and the Minister in Karnataka are anything to go by, will continue to be in that position (for those not aware of their statements, they have been saying that women are dressing more provocatively and thereby inviting rape or something to that effect). There is much talk of empowerment of women in all spheres, their education, financial independence, freedom of expression, equal opportunity et al but it remains that at the heart of society, it is a deep rooted thought that women always have to play second fiddle.
Sadly there are many who share the DGPs and the Minister's views and are not as vocal about saying it out loud like these two brave men (who have crossed over from the line of bravery to the other side by talking to our overactive press about their views). Several educated men (I know education is no sign of any intellectual progress) also feel strongly that the woman's space is in the kitchen, the bedroom, to clean up, to spawn children and keep the husband happy. Almost everything in their sphere is related to how the woman is able or not able to keep them happy. All blame is on the woman, for everything, including not being able to conceive. To this day!
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side one is, we are in a transition period. Women have jobs, are expressing their choices, are proving themselves better which is the worst scenario for man. Women have always made men feel insecure with their inherent strength, wisdom, patience and beauty and I always felt that women did hold back all these centuries because they are the more secure of the genders. But now that they are also competing and exercising choices and giving it back, man's insecurities only increase that much more. Now I cannot handle this, he says, you cannot look beautiful or attractive, you cannot wear these clothes, you cannot step out of the house. If you do that I cannot protect you. As if man was solely responsible for protecting women all this while. If the woman served no other purpose for man, they would have been exterminated by now.
One to one, women have more b*lls than men and that is a given. From their birth women are constantly challenged with new environments, situations while men sit in the pampered comfort of their homes. Man may be physically stronger but that is about it. Men cannot handle women, especially an attractive one. Especially alone. And the biggest insult for men happens to be about their manhood - talk of being insecure.
My guess is that the transition period will shortly go the other way when women might just call the shots. There might come one day when women in power might ask men to lock up their rather easily excitable and blameless and innocent parts, and any transgressions may result in corrective surgeries. I would like to see how the men would like to react to such a situation when they are policed by women and their transgressions dealt with in pretty much the same manner.
You cannot go and rob the ice cream van just because it is advertising itself and say that it looked really good and therefore was robbed and its the fault of the ice cream for looking so good. It is called a robbery and is punishable. Now if the DGP and the Minister are against all these distractions I am sure they can find many more things that they could focus their immense power, wisdom and energy on to make a difference. It is their job to allow the ice cream man to advertise, make the ice cream look good and get on with his life. It is their job to tell the robbers that they cannot rob anything because they liked it - not side with them. Not merely tell the ice cream man that his ice cream was too attractive and he is likely to get robbed. We all know that. What we don't understand is why these guys are getting paid.
Forget the slutwalk girls, its time for a kick-where-it-hurts campaign.
Going by what I have seen and heard in my life it would be a fair conclusion for me - that women are the real dalits of the world. (According to Wikipedia, the word "Dalit" comes from the Sanskrit, and means "ground", "suppressed", "crushed", or "broken to pieces".) They have been abused, kept backward, taken advantage of, used by men forever. And if the trend of the erudite statements by the DGP of AP Police and the Minister in Karnataka are anything to go by, will continue to be in that position (for those not aware of their statements, they have been saying that women are dressing more provocatively and thereby inviting rape or something to that effect). There is much talk of empowerment of women in all spheres, their education, financial independence, freedom of expression, equal opportunity et al but it remains that at the heart of society, it is a deep rooted thought that women always have to play second fiddle.
Sadly there are many who share the DGPs and the Minister's views and are not as vocal about saying it out loud like these two brave men (who have crossed over from the line of bravery to the other side by talking to our overactive press about their views). Several educated men (I know education is no sign of any intellectual progress) also feel strongly that the woman's space is in the kitchen, the bedroom, to clean up, to spawn children and keep the husband happy. Almost everything in their sphere is related to how the woman is able or not able to keep them happy. All blame is on the woman, for everything, including not being able to conceive. To this day!
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side one is, we are in a transition period. Women have jobs, are expressing their choices, are proving themselves better which is the worst scenario for man. Women have always made men feel insecure with their inherent strength, wisdom, patience and beauty and I always felt that women did hold back all these centuries because they are the more secure of the genders. But now that they are also competing and exercising choices and giving it back, man's insecurities only increase that much more. Now I cannot handle this, he says, you cannot look beautiful or attractive, you cannot wear these clothes, you cannot step out of the house. If you do that I cannot protect you. As if man was solely responsible for protecting women all this while. If the woman served no other purpose for man, they would have been exterminated by now.
One to one, women have more b*lls than men and that is a given. From their birth women are constantly challenged with new environments, situations while men sit in the pampered comfort of their homes. Man may be physically stronger but that is about it. Men cannot handle women, especially an attractive one. Especially alone. And the biggest insult for men happens to be about their manhood - talk of being insecure.
My guess is that the transition period will shortly go the other way when women might just call the shots. There might come one day when women in power might ask men to lock up their rather easily excitable and blameless and innocent parts, and any transgressions may result in corrective surgeries. I would like to see how the men would like to react to such a situation when they are policed by women and their transgressions dealt with in pretty much the same manner.
You cannot go and rob the ice cream van just because it is advertising itself and say that it looked really good and therefore was robbed and its the fault of the ice cream for looking so good. It is called a robbery and is punishable. Now if the DGP and the Minister are against all these distractions I am sure they can find many more things that they could focus their immense power, wisdom and energy on to make a difference. It is their job to allow the ice cream man to advertise, make the ice cream look good and get on with his life. It is their job to tell the robbers that they cannot rob anything because they liked it - not side with them. Not merely tell the ice cream man that his ice cream was too attractive and he is likely to get robbed. We all know that. What we don't understand is why these guys are getting paid.
Forget the slutwalk girls, its time for a kick-where-it-hurts campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)