How a woman's body-size is like an ATM PIN

A few days ago, this article from the Guardian popped up on my social media news feed. I wouldn’t have clicked on it were it not for this excerpt – “I don’t think it's important to return to the shape you were before. I think if your body grew a baby, that’s an amazing thing and you should be proud of that.”

On the face of it, this seems an important and empowering message. I clicked on the article and read it. The article itself was also undoubtedly important, as it highlighted how pressures to return to a pre-pregnancy body lead some women to taking risks with their health in order to stay slim. My only issue with the entire article was the idea of pride in oneself and accepting one’s body being linked to the fact of having grown a baby. The human body is amazing, and true, one of the amazing things about women’s bodies relate to how they prepare and change for childbirth and childrearing. But the pressure to conform to a certain body-type isn’t specific to pregnant women and mothers. The conditionality introduced into the sentiment – “if your body grew a baby- subtly disempowers and excludes women who aren’t mothers. This isn’t to say that health risks of wanting to be slim aren’t more pronounced in case of pregnant women. They are, and they’re vital issues to address from a health perspective. However, rather than justifying why it’s okay that we are “not the shape we were before”, the message we should be putting out there in response to societal pressures around body-size/ shape should be one of unconditional acceptance and choice (because I believe it’s important for women to be able to choose whether or not their bodily appearance is important to them, instead of telling them it “shouldn’t be”). Instead of empowering people to stand up for their rights unconditionally, the “because you had a baby” part is like giving someone a temporary crutch with which they can ward off societal pressures to conform to an externally imposed standard that shouldn’t be there in the first place.

I’ll segue into another example from a few months ago to illustrate my point. Sania Mirza, a tennis player was asked by an interviewer on Indian media why she hadn’t ‘settled down’ (the colloquial meaning of which is “why haven’t you had children yet?”). Sania’s response to the question was as follows:

“…that’s the question I face all the time as a woman, that all women have to face- the first is marriage and then it’s motherhood. Unfortunately, that’s when we’re settled, and no matter how many Wimbeldons we win or numbers ones in the world we become, we don’t become settled. But eventually it will happen, not right now. And when it does, I’ll be the first one to tell everybody when I plan to do that.”

This response went viral as ‘the perfect response’ on electronic and social media. I -and others with similar thoughts, such as my close friend TQ (who has appeared on this blog before)- thought that while it was good in that it addressed the fact that women are considered complete only once they’re married-mothers, it was just short of perfect.  This is because once again, there was an implication that she shouldn’t be asked this because she is a top tennis player. A society in which traditional, patriarchal expectations are shut down through justifications grounded in successful careers is desirable, but not perfect.  Perfection would be a society where people don’t have to justify their personal choices, period.

Returning to the article, I messaged TQ almost immediately (as I usually do, about most things) and shared my annoyance about the “because you had a baby….” part. I said that as a child-free woman, I resented the implication that the rest of us child-free or childless (because the two mean very different things, and I respect a person’s right to choose a term they identify with) shouldn’t be proud of our bodies just as they are. If mothers get the “you just had a baby” crutch, what legs do the rest of us have to stand on if the ideology itself-- that women should either conform to external standards of beauty or give solid reasons as to why they should be ‘exempt’-- goes unchallenged?

TQ agreed, and added “there is a lot written about pride when it comes to mothers. Whether it’s about body image or about work-life balance or many areas of life that all women, mothers or not, struggle with. As a pattern, it becomes excluding, and therefore problematic.”

This led to a discussion about other situations in which as non-parents, we have felt excluded, disregarded or dismissed. A classic example was offered by TQ, who found herself on the receiving end of much eye-rolling by someone in her neighbourhood concerned about the numbers of stray dogs in the area. A notice had been put up about this “menace” (I use the quotation marks ironically, because neither TQ nor I are the sort of people that would think of large numbers of dogs as a menace. Far from it. More the merrier, we say!). The notice supposedly came from the hearts and minds of concerned parents.

TQ told me how she and her partner got into an argument with one of the concerned parents when they asked if anyone had been harmed because of the dogs. “The guy stutters”, TQ went on, “and then says ‘well no one yet, but I am sure you wouldn’t want your kids to be the ones to be bitten first’. We replied that we aren’t parents…. The guy just rolled his eyes as if to say ‘That explains!’ and walked off.” 

I noted to TQ how the “concerned parents” line is often used to close arguments. Is there a respectable retort to that that won't make you look like an evil sociopath who wants the world-and-all-good-things-within-it to end? 

I often find myself pushing back against the notion that the child-free are just, oh I don't know, soul destroying scum who clearly don’t care about anything. We just guzzle fossil fuels from beer bongs, sit around in our underwear scratching our crotches with one hand while clutching a bottle of tequila with the other, watching trash on Netflix and you know, NOT calling our parents because of course we-are-not-parents-ourselves-so-how-could-we-possibly-know-that-parents-want-to-hear-from-their-kids. While we’re at it, we also like to have sleeping parties to celebrate all the sleep we clearly get (“Because you’re lucky you don’t know what it’s like to have a toddler waking you up in the middle of the night”) and like to roll around naked on all the wads of cash we have lying around (“Because you don’t have to worry about kids’ college fees”).

I can’t keep track of the number of times I’ve been told how I wouldn’t understand something because I don’t have kids. Whether it’s debates about vaccinations, climate change or organic food, casual conversations about being sleep deprived or Brexit (yeah, Brexit. Apparently the legitimacy of my socio-political views is directly linked to whether or not I’ve given birth. Sidebar: I #Remain terribly sad at the looming prospect of Brexit). 

The “you won’t understand because you don’t have kids” line is strange for several reasons. Let’s start with the fact that no one really understands – on an experiential level- what it’s like to BE another person. A lot can get in the way of this. The laws of physics, for one thing. Privilege, for another. All we can do is try to understand the other as much as possible.  Of course I don’t have experiential knowledge of being a parent. Just like I don’t have experiential knowledge of what it’s like to be a skydiver. Or a beetle. Doesn't mean I can't imagine the anguish the poor creature must feel when it's lying on its back, tiny legs flailing, trying to turn itself the right side up. Secondly, it implies that those who don’t have kids can’t empathise with being a parent – which is a very narrow and inaccurate view of the capacity for empathy. There are people who can’t empathise with challenges of parenthood. There are people who don’t have children. They don’t necessarily overlap completely. Plus, due to things like, say, PRIVILEGE, it’s not like some kind of magical shared understanding exists between all parents. A single parent from a low-income household doesn’t see the world the same way, or even see the same world as a parent with a  lot of financial and social support. If I were to represent the capacity for empathising with parents in the form of a basic Venn diagram, it would look like this:

So maybe it’s not just about some of the non-parents not being able to understand till we have kids of our own. Maybe it’s also a case of some parents not being able to see beyond their own experiences and imagine a scenario in which someone could care about principles, values and issues even in the absence of any direct offspring that may be affected by said issues. For instance, I don’t need to have children in order to be concerned about climate change. My love for polar bears and feeling of solidarity with people in the rapidly sinking pacific islands has that covered.

To this category of parents, I’d just like to say the following: I am pleased for you if you anchor your moral and ethical compass around your children. In some cases, maybe it took having kids in order for you to discover or strengthen your morals and ethics. But if you could please refrain from assuming moral, ethical and intellectual bankruptcy on the part of those of us that don’t have kids, that would be great.

As for challenging social pressures, when you start to justify yourself in response to ridiculous expectations, it gives them a legitimacy they don’t deserve. Worse, it does absolutely nothing to challenge the insidious ideology behind the expectations.

So I propose the following, alternative response. Here's how I'd like to see such conversations go-

Person A:  “When are you going to lose all that weight?”

Person B: “What’s your ATM PIN number?”

Person A: “That’s none of your business!”

Person B: “Exactly. Glad we clarified that.”

The Cabin in the Woods: A cinematic lesson in existentialism

A few months ago, against all my natural instincts, I watched Cabin in the Woods. My reasons for doing so were largely due to the trailers that promised something unexpected and the words ‘you think you know the story, but….’ aroused sufficient interest in me. I convinced a friend- who is horror/ thriller aficionada and didn’t need much convincing- to tag along.

!!SPOILER ALERT!!- Do not read further if you intend to watch the film and want the film’s plot to remain a secret. You have been warned. My responsibility ends here.

 

The story revolves around five college goers (being represented by a jock, a somewhat provocative blonde woman who is also the jock’s girlfriend, an academic guy, a stoner and a demure, brunette woman) who take a weekend break to a cabin in the woods and like any other slasher film, start getting killed off one by one.

Usually, films of this kind have plots that offer thrills and little else. Remember the episode of F.R.I.E.N.D.S in which Rachel suggests that Joey can't take her bra off because on some level he doesn't want to, and Joey responds with “No! I don’t have another level!”? Well, that’s my opinion of slasher films of the I-know- what-you-did-last-summer and Scream genre. Cabin in the Woods however has several levels. In fact, I think the film offers rich subject matter for a discussion on philosophy and existentialism. And having sat through some rather tedious films in the course of my academic life, I can honestly say I’d be happy to attend such a class.

Some of the dialogues and one-liners are quite witty and the film definitely has its moments. It offers thrills and humour in somewhat equal measure, sending an ever so slight chill down your spine or making you laugh at appropriate junctures.

Secondly, it’s gory. Now all slasher films necessarily involve some amount of blood and gore, but Cabin in the Woods leaves most of them far behind by depicting a colourful tumult of blood, body parts and bodily fluids. I loved it. I’ve always enjoyed blood, gore, decapitations and disembowelments. Some of that is down to curiosity about the human body I suppose (‘I wonder what slicing through flesh feels like?’). I am not a violent person in my real life. That being said, I am also not in denial of the fact that certain actions – cruelty, bullying or abuse of any kind- make angry enough to want to rip the perpetrators to shreds with my bare hands and wish them a slow, painful death. I find that indulging my aggressive side in the form of fantasies, videogames etc. is quite therapeutic. The key is the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, thought and action, desire and behaviour and to accept the psyche’s various inclinations without judgment or suppression.

Those are the textual elements of the film, what is seen and heard. What sets it apart from other slasher films is what can be inferred from the plot.

Before I delve into the film’s subtext, I feel the need to expand on the plot somewhat for the benefit of readers who ignored the spoiler alert because they don’t want to watch the film or don’t care much for its surprise element(s).

So the youngsters are on vacation but what they don’t know is that in passing through a tunnel they have crossed over from the real world into a world controlled by white-collar technician type of people. These technicians are employed by their bosses ‘downstairs’, referred to in the film as the ‘ancient ones’, and the travellers are essentially sacrificial lambs who are to be killed off to please the ancient ones. Similar events are shown to be taking place all over the world. The cabin world contains a plethora of evil creatures that can potentially be the cause of the youngsters’ deaths, each one the result of a separate action taken by the vacationers. Long story short, in the end only the brunette and stoner reach ‘downstairs’ in their quest for answers and discover that their sacrifice is essential for the survival of the species because the ancient ones (aka Gods) are mad at human beings for their transgressions, and they will destroy the species unless placated.

Call it delusional over-thinking or unparalleled creative prowess in film interpretation (there are no prizes for guessing which one I prefer), but here’s why I think Cabin in the Woods is a film of great relevance to human existence.

 

Puppets and puppeteers

 

The human-beings-as-puppets theme was apparent on two levels- philosophical and cinematic. On a  philosophical level the film was significant because of its allusion to aspects of human existence that we cannot control. In some ways, we are puppets in the hands of destiny, fate, biology, science, god- whatever you choose to call it. I resort to lines from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam to make my case:-

 

'Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:

Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,

And one by one back in the Closet lays.

 

From a cinematic perspective, and as someone easily scared by scary films, I like the idea of there being a finite number of gimmicks employed by filmmakers to frighten audiences. In the moment that we watch these films and submit to fear, we are like puppets in the hands of puppeteers/ filmmakers who are able to evoke certain reactions from us by pulling the right strings. In Cabin in the Woods, we see the two survivors travel in an elevator of sorts across different rooms, each containing a different scary character. This scene was quite comforting for me because once you’ve seen scary creatures tucked away in closets by other humans it makes them less scary. Context is everything. If the guy from Texas Chainsaw Massacre approaches you in the dead of the night in an isolated dungeon it’s much scarier than if he were to be walking around in a crowded mall on Halloween.

Free will

 

The film highlights that even in the midst of a world they cannot control there is some element of choice afforded to the unsuspecting vacationers. As one of the technicians points out, they have to choose to ignore the extremely creepy guy in the run down petrol station, they have to choose to go down to a cellar in the night, and the reason for their demise is directly dependent on which, of many different objects strategically placed in the above mentioned cellar, catches their fancy. The final choice facing our protagonists is whether to kill themselves and save humanity or save themselves and face the consequences. The relevant point is that even in a world under the influence of an entity other than you, you have the capacity to make choices and the consequences you face depend on those choices. Additionally, though you don’t choose to be born, how you die can be up to you. I think the right to self-determine how or even whether one lives is a fundamental and unconditional right, well depicted in the film by the final decision taken by the protagonists to sit down with each other and smoke a joint while the world comes crashing down around them.

Tied to this idea is the eternal struggle between fear and freedom. For the religious- particularly followers of a prescriptive religion that tells you you’ll go to hell if you are gay, drink alcohol, have pre-marital sex, use contraception etc. etc.- many decisions are motivated entirely by fear of some allegedly negative consequences of deviating from the prescribed path. I’ve met many people who are all too willing to relinquish any rational thought or introspection in the face of religious scripture or doctrine. The answers to questions such as “Why/ why not?” are mind-numbingly simple – “Because my religion says so”. And more often than not, the follow-up question “Why do you follow said religion?” doesn’t yield an intelligent answer either.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with an old African woman. She said “The fear of God is a great excuse to make people do what you want them to. When I was young, my mother used to tell us not to play in the street because God would punish us if we did. We listened. We wouldn’t have listened to her if she’d said we’d get run over by a car”. This particular story made me smile but how many people the world over perform the cruelest, most despicable acts of hatred and aggression because they believe they’re doing what their religion asks of them? “People are never so completely and enthusiastically evil as when they act out of religious conviction”, writes Umberto Eco in The Prague Cemetery.

In the film, the threat of extinction is used to persuade the girl to kill her friend, and she very nearly succumbs to it. In the end however, they both choose not to kill each other despite Sigourney Weaver’s (who by the way, seems to be in every science fiction film!) attempts to scare them into taking each other’s lives. This is refreshing to say the least because what you see is a human being exercising free will in the face of catastrophe, taking a stand for what feels right to him/her, choosing a friend and fellow human over the alleged dictates of a God they’ve never met.

The end of the human species

Those who know me and/or have read this blog may be aware that I don’t have a high opinion of the human species and in fact delight at every little thing that puts us in our place and drags us down from the high pedestal on which we usually park ourselves.  Consequently, I thoroughly enjoy watching films in which people come under attack from other creatures – aliens, spiders, dinosaurs, sharks and suchlike. Even better if the attack is the result of human arrogance and/or stupidity (like in Jurassic Park). Watching such films, there is a huge part of me rooting for the non-humans to win. I mean, I thought it was tragic when the shark gets blown up in Jaws! :-( I find it utterly disappointing and boring when we are promised the end of the world and at the last minute, Tom Cruise or Will Smith manages to single-handedly save the day.

Films in which human beings end up vanquished rather than victorious are a breath of fresh air. Cabin in the Woods such a film. The film suggests that the survivors’ decision not to kill each other leads to the ancient Gods rising from the depths of the earth to take over (a giant hand comes out of soil and engulfs the screen). The last dialogue of the film is “Maybe it’s time we gave someone else a chance”. That’s terrific I say, because it reflects an awareness of something bigger than us, in whose plans human beings are just another species that happened to come into existence because the conditions were right rather than having some kind of central or special place in the cosmos. Whether due to Gods or physics or both, the universe is ever changing. Species come and species go. Stars are born and they collapse. Even the end of the world is not necessarily the end of the world. It’s only the end of the world as human beings know it.

If there is a choice between between fear and freedom, quantity and quality, longevity and liberty,  one hopes that one has the courage to make the right choice. The way I see it, the final decision of the people in Cabin in the Woods is a respectable one.

 

I am a team player, and that looks like two cuddly bears hugging

On a grey day made worse by a blocked nose and tired body, cancelled appointments come to my rescue.

Cancelled appointments, and something to write about.

********************************************************************

"I taste you and you taste me. I am your taste and you are mine,

but I do not taste your taste of me in your ear. One cannot both be

everything and have everything at once"

-R.D. Laing

The manager thought it would be a good idea to hand-out Belbin's Self Perception Inventory at a team meeting to assess the role we play within a team.

Her: 'Would you like to take one and fill it out?'

Implicit message: Take one and fill it

Me: Oh yeah yeah, sure.

Underlying thought: I couldn't care less about my team role.

A slight detour here to mention that if there is one thing I have mastered, it is the art of concealment. No, I am not referring to the cosmetic concealer (which btw, I still do not know how to use), but rather to the finely tuned skill of letting others see only what I want them to see.

Psychological tests I am particularly good at. I don't even understand why they are used as diagnostic tools. All one needs to be able to deceive is a basic level of intelligence. Okay, I just realised what I said and before you point it out, I hasten to add that it is missing in most people (at least people I seem to hear about). Seriously though, I think the average person would find them fairly easy to crack. But when one has administered them on unsuspecting others, analysed results and made interpretations, it becomes much easier.

Remember the Rorschach inkblot test being administered on Rorschach in Watchmen? Where he is thinking of dead dogs and hanging, rotting, bleeding flesh and answers 'that looks like a pretty butterfly'? That's the kind of stuff I am talking about.

Man, Rorschach is one of the greatest fictional characters ever.

Anyway, I picked up the pen and paper and went through the BSPI in a flash, ticking boxes, scoring them and arriving at my 'team-role description'

It was -

Monitor/Evaluator:

Sober, strategic, and discerning.

Sees all options. Judges accurately.

Lacks drive and ability to inspire others.

Uh huh. I see.

What it doesn't reveal is my sheer hatred for working in groups or as part of a team. Hmm.... I write this while the world cup match is going on and Slovenia have unfortunately drawn 2-2 with USA. I love watching football. But could I ever play it the way it is meant to be played? All this passing? All the uncertainty? All this relying-on-another-to-finish-the-job? My partner will testify to my inability to play a passing game. While playing FIFA '10 on PS3, I flourish and bloom the most when I play a one-man game. I am talking defensive tackle, a long, solitary run across the field, and a goal.

I am an individualist and a perfectionist. I genuinely believe that if I want something done right I am better off doing it myself. My experience working in groups (and this applies to forced, not selected groups) has been utterly disappointing and wholly frustrating. I am intolerant of stupidity, slowness and lack of depth and unfortunately have been dealt with all of these in varying combinations while working in a "group".

Methinks groups bore me a little. I have evidence to back this up. The only time I fell asleep while reading a book was when I had to read an entire book devoted to groups. The poor print quality and dull, mossy green cover didn't help either. I might find an activity by a so-called group interesting, and this might lead people to conclude I am interested in the group itself, but the fact is I would probably be interested in the said activity even if one person were doing it. Gymnastics is a good example. Curious rituals undertaken by people in a religious frenzy yet another.

I don't know what a "group identity" is to be honest. I don't think I have had any first hand experience of it. People have unsuccessfully tried to convince me of my group identity. I have successfully deflected all these attempts.

I think the very idea of a group is a myth. A big fat illusion crafted by the guardians of civilisation and all that sort of rot.

Freud said something about love thy neighbour being a cover-up for the allegedly more sinister and dangerous notion, kill they neighbour.

There is no way to express this other than as a paradox- we, a collective, are all individuals. The only characteristic that unifies us is our individuality. I have expressed my thoughts on the unavoidably solitary nature of our lives, even within the scaffolding of close interpersonal relationships.

Laing wrote that 'our relatedness to others is an essential aspect of our being, as is our separateness, but any particular person is not a necessary part of our being'

He called this a potentially tragic paradox. To me, it becomes tragic only when it is accompanied by the hope of it being any other way.

Art, literature and a little metaphysics

"The pure present is nothing but the ungraspable advance of the past devouring the future.

Every sensation is already a memory"

- Murakami Haruki

You know you are in England when...

1. You step on someone else's toes, and both of you end up apologising.

2. You hear people apologising for a lot of things. For example, asking for the bill after a meal at a restaurant ("Sorry, but I could I request the bill please?"), or asking for anything from the person at the till ("Sorry, but could I also have ....."). Sigh! All this unnecessary apologising!

3. You get referred to as "My love", "My darling", "Sweetheart", "My sweet" and other terms of endearment by total strangers. This usually happens if you are female and the stranger in question is male*

4. No. 3 feels strange at first, but you get used to it and may even find it kinda nice.

5. You feel compelled to hold doors open for other people who feel compelled to hold doors open for people after them and so on and so forth so that nobody except the first and last person to walk through the door actually has to pull/push it open. You may, like me, even wonder what the appropriate distance between you and the next person has to be, before this social rule of holding the door open comes into play.

6. People will often ask you if you would like to do something for them (For example, "Would you like to pop your PIN in there for me?") Now there are two things to be mindful of here. Firstly, they are actually not interested in whether you would like to do the thing in question or not, but just want you to do it. Secondly, do not be confused by the "for me" at the end. The only person you're likely to be doing the thing in question for is yourself. When I am at the receiving end of this particular question, I feel like clarifying that I would do it, but solely for my own benefit.

7. Bus stops are named after pubs nearby, rather than the names of the streets they are on. Says a lot about what the real landmarks are.

8. You begin to realise that the word "Cheers" is filled with possibilities, and in the past your usage of the word was rather limited. You probably just said it before sharing a drink (or some sort of other consumable good) with near and dear ones, but now find that it replaces "Thanks", "Bye", "Take care" or other social niceties.

9. The greeting of choice is usually followed by "You alright?". This is something that befuddles me. I usually ask people if they are alright when I suspect that they might not be. Personally, if I had to choose, I prefer the more open ended "How are you?"

10. A bright sunny morning can turn into a grey, wet afternoon, transform into a bright sunny, evening before ending up as a windy, dark night. The eye-rolling can stop. You think you can be in England without commenting on the weather?! The famous English obsession with weather-chat is no myth my friends!

(Note: This list is a work-in-progress and will be updated over time. After all, the learning never stops)

* Edit: I was later informed that the reverse is also true. Whether equally or not remains to be decided.

Oh these little gendered boxes into which we must all fit!

(Started writing this some time in March 2008)

For a long time I have held the opinion that men are also creatures oppressed by society.

What made me realise this again was an incident that occurred involving my car and me. Basically, it wouldn't start. Even though I have been driving for about 6 years now, and know where the hawa-paani goes, I get stuck when something out of the ordinary happens. I was quite close to home, so our driver came and tried to figure stuff out for me, and was soon joined in by other men eager to help. I was feeling quite silly just standing around helplessly in the parking lot.

As a woman, if I don't know much about cars, I know I will not be mocked. I feel quite comfortable asking for help and admitting my limitations. I have to admit, that a woman can play the "bhaiya, dekho gaadi start hi nahi ho rahi" (The "Look, my car wont start" plea) card. They don't expect us to know anyway. So they have mixed feelings of superiority, sympathy and wanting to be the knight in shining armour to save the damsel in distress.

What would have happened if a man had been driving? If stuck, I doubt he would be able to ask for help as easily as I could. He would of course be crumbling under the pressure of the expectation of having to know. He would fear becoming the subject of other men's jokes- "Arre yeh bhi nahi pata? Aur saala gaadi chalata hai!

I felt bad, and I sighed for women and men. Women and men who are members, perpetrators and victims of a society where expectations of one's capability are frequently based on one's gender.

Two days later, someone sent me a ".pps" entitled "Boutros Boutros Ghali's Thoughts on Women"

Some seem poignant enough to be shared here now

"For every strong woman tired of faking weakness, there is a weak man tired of faking strength. For every woman tired of being labeled 'emotional', there is a man who has been denied the right to cry. For every sportswoman whose femininity is questioned, there is a man forced to compete in order to give testimony of his virility. For every woman who has not had access to a dignified salary, there is a man forced to bear the economic responsibility for another human being. For every woman who steps forward towards her freedom, there is a man who rediscovers his road to liberty."

I don't know if BBG really thought these thoughts, but it doesn't matter. At least not for this post.

In a dissertation submitted a few years ago, I volunteered the suggestion that the solution to societal problems pertaining to gender lies in a mythological construct- Ardhinareshwara. A symbol of a God who is half male and half female. In the language of Carl Jung, someone who combines the Anima and Animus in perfect balance. Gender stereotypes that lie at the bottom of nearly all oppressive attitudes and practices against men and women will dissipate if one recognises as one's ideal, the attainment of an inner self that is 'human' rather than 'man' or 'woman'. Isn't that obviously a more wholesome ideal to aspire towards, than shutting off your 'masculine' or 'feminine' side?

I dislike using these terms. I recognise that using gendered terms to signify a certain way of being automatically assumes the very categorisation based on gender that I am trying to place the blame on for many of society's problems. As I discussed at a conference on Carl Jung with my good friend Comfort, I had a problem with his use of the words Anima and Animus to mean the unconscious feminine parts in the male and the unconscious masculine parts in the female respectively. Of course, I understand that Jung used the words he did, and I am using the words that I am, partly for linguistic convenience, and partly in recognition of the fact that society is organised a certain way, and in order to move forward from that way to a better one, one must begin by communicating in the language of the present. I am merely highlighting the gendered nature of our constructions by asking - Who decided that these parts were feminine or masculine? Let it be known that I do resent the fact that certain traits are considered 'masculine' or 'feminine'.

For women, this coming together of so called masculine or feminine traits may involve, among other things, admitting their interest in football (and having a discussion about it where one's views are taken seriously rather than assumed to be the result of a crush on a good-looking footballer!), curiosity to learn how a car works, or greater freedom to follow their chosen career path. For men, it might lead to being able to admit they have no interest in sports or don't know how to fix a broken car engine using their (pardon the metaphor) big, manly tool.

I don't think it is fair that women have the option of staying home and not working after marriage, for example, where the very idea that a man should want to do so is regarded with shock and horror. Most people dislike working, but do it because they have to. Why is it okay for women to relinquish economic responsibility for themselves, but god forbid a man should do the same ? It is sad that one has to work to survive, that much is true. But given that the state of affairs is such, given that everyone must work to survive, why are women excluded more easily from this "everyone" than men are?

Nor do I appreciate the fact that a woman has to know how to cook, while a man can get by on takeaways for years without having to hear "Tsk tsk, you should learn how to cook!", or be received with shock and surprise when they admit they enjoy cooking. Do men not eat or enjoy home cooked meals? Or do women have fragile digestive systems that can't stomach takeaways? As an example I offer myself. I never cooked for the first 24 years of my life. Then I moved to a foreign country and picked up the ladle and pan. Not because of any externally imposed expectations. My actions were motivated wholly by self preservation and interest because a. I am a vegetarian and b. I love Indian food and neither of these two things are available in sufficient amount and/or variety in my new country of residence.

People's decisions about their own and others' lives should be based on what is best for an individual, rather than for a man or woman. Different rules mean different attitudes and assumptions about what a man or woman can do/should do/ should not do/ is good at/ is fit for/ or deserves. And that, in my humble opinion, is something we can all do without, non?

Oh how glorious the day shall be, when we no longer say or hear the words "Be a man!" or "Don't do that, it's not womanly!"

The latter brings to my mind a situation in which this phrase is most often used- adopting a certain posture while seated. Agreed that it may look unattractive when a woman sits slouched in her seat with her legs splayed apart. But believe me, the sight of a man doing the same doesn't really set hearts racing either.

On marriage

Beyond thyself shalt thou build. But first of all must thou be built thyself, rectangular in body and soul...

...Not only onward shalt thou propagate thyself, but upward! For that purpose may the garden of marriage help thee!

...Marriage: so call I the will of the twain to create the one that is more than those who created it.

...The reverence for one another, as those exercising such a will, call I marriage.


...Far from me also be the God who limpeth thither to bless what he hath not matched!

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

Hum jaante hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin, dil ko behelaane ke liye yeh khayal accha hai

(Snippets of an old conversation with someone)

hmm...old age can be weird. I don't mind it as long as all my sense organs are working fine, I can still walk/ run around, and other body parts don't give up. Basically, age doesn't matter as long as qualitty of life doesn't deteriorate.

I am very amused by this talk about "wanting to be dead"

I mean death is so amazing as a thing! It's the one thing you can't really talk about 'wanting' in seriousness without sounding stupid. Because wanting something always connotes desiring something because you anticipate a good result. i.e. you want something because of how it will make you feel once your desire is satiated.

With death, that's impossible. You can want it all you like, but when you get it, you won't be around to experience the fulfillment of the want. So till the time you are capable of feeling and thought, you are left wanting. and when one isn't capable of feeling and thought, how does anything matter anyway?

death is not the end of suffering. If you suffer in life, and are seeking escape in death, its pretty hopeless. Because you will suffer till you are alive. and when you die, it doesn't matter if there is suffering or not because you wont be alive to suffer its presence or enjoy its absence.

.....

Having said that, I talk about wanting to die all the time! :-) but that's more for the sake of drama. And finding expression of an extreme kind for what is otherwise inexpressible.

I think my attitude to death is one of indifference. Not wanting or not-wanting.

................

To escape pain for what? Why do we want to escape pain? Because absence of pain is desirable. Otherwise there is no point wanting it. But with death even that wont be there. Except for others to discuss at an intellectual level. Or for us to discuss it now, at an intellectual level.
Not for the one who has died. For him, as long as he "was" he was suffering. When he "was" no more, well, the verb "to be" can't be applied in any form

.............

For whom is it over? You talk about something unpleasant being "over" for someone, only if they have experienced its absence. Otherwise you wouldn't know it is over right? And how is that possible after death? Except for the alive ones to talk about and discuss?

There is no 'you' after you die.. except in the minds of others you have left behind.
And yes, the idea of death as the end of suffering offers us solace when we are alive. But actually, its a delusion.

.............

But no matter when you die, the pain remains till you do. Even to say "extra pain" and "extra suffering", one has to go way beyond the here and now and it is still a very distanced perspective on the matter.
For instance, lets say I have died. This question of "would have suffered more if she were alive" is something others will discuss after I am gone.
also, "if he hadn't died, he would still be suffering", again this doesn't mean much to the person who dies. If I think that "if I die, I will no longer suffer" makes no sense at all. There will be no "I" after I die who "will no longer suffer"

It is as if a pigeon is trapped in a cage, and one day the cage is opened and it has its first shot at freedom. What I am trying to say vis a vis death is the equivalent of the pigeon's neck snapping just when it is reaching the open door.

............

yes... it sounds like quite a plan in theory. That's what I am saying. It's great comfort for the alive ones to talk about it like this. But in actuality, and if one doesn't believe in life after death and what not, then death is the end of you. Not of the suffering. And no, it doesn't suffice to say if you are not there, then there is no suffering.

Your saying "if they continued to exist, they would continue to suffer" still doesn't help the dead man. Again, you may not say it that way, but the desire for something positive (in this case the avoidance of continued suffering) is implied in the cessation of something negative.

It's not an enemy you can outsmart or defeat.

Imagine it like this. Let's say there's an ostrich who buries its face in the sand to escape a predator. When its face is buried, it can't breathe, see, hear, or feel. It is closed to experience of any kind. In order to experience again, it has to come out, and when it does, the predator is still there.

As I understand it now, your argument is that when it can't experience anything, it can't experience the predator either. But what I am saying is that the second part of this statement is incorrect. For to say "it cannot experience" implies an "it"'s existence. But that is not the case. You can say "it isn't". But once you establish that, any other or further negation is not possible. For when something isn't, the possibility of other verbs being negated ceases to exist

.................

For me to hold the idea that death brings an end to their suffering is a functional one to have. But it doesnt help the one on the other side.

For example, I was glad when Arundhati (an injured and suffering elephant) succumbed to her pain and died. For it gave me mental peace to think that her pain had come to and end. But really, thats a belief I have in order to comfort myself.

For till the time she could feel, she felt pain. So when she died, it was not like she was relieved from her pain. There was no "she" left.

................

The only thing I am suggesting is that however adaptive and great this idea of death as an escape is, it is a purely theoretical one and it can never be anything else. Experientially, it is impossible.

Suffering is a constant companion, a sangdil saathi.

Plant Talk : Ways of dealing with a cruel world (Part 3) - Look happy and do a little dance*

(Parts 1 and 2 of these plant-ly pearls of wisdom)

* Warning: May be construed as "Denial" in some circles, but ignore them.

Plant Talk : Ways of dealing with a cruel world (Part 2) - Droop till you turn upside down

(Part 1 here)

Plant Talk : Ways of dealing with a cruel world (Part 1) - Make faces/ Scowl

Animal Talk: Ways of dealing with a cruel world (Part 3) - The Angry Stare

(Parts 1 and 2)

Animal Talk: Ways of dealing with a cruel world (Part 2) - The Perfect Shrug

(For part one go here)

Animal Talk: Ways of dealing with a cruel world (Part 1)

Of poetry, love and keeping the fantasy alive

There are two songs with some similar lines. Both songs are beautiful and can be easily related to by anyone who has loved or lost, or both.

The songs I speak of are Mujhse Pehli Si Mohabbat Mere Mehboob Na Maang by Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Kabhi Kabhi Mere Dil Mein Khayal Aata Hai by Sahir Ludhianvi.

The first song has the line

“Tu jo mil jaaye toh taqdeer nigun ho jaaye
Yun na tha maine faqat chaha tha yun ho jaaye”

(Were I to have you, my destiny would not matter.
This was not the way it was, but only how I desired it to be)

The second, by Sahir Ludhianvi, ends with

Kabhi kabhi mere dil mein khayal aata hai
Ki jaise tu mujhe chahegi umr bhar yun hi
Uthegi meri taraf pyaar ki nazar yun hi
Main jaanta hoon ki tu ghair hai magar yun hi

(Once in a while, a fleeting thought settles upon my mind
That you will want me forever
And your eyes will always find me through the lenses of love
I know you are not mine, but nonetheless
Once in a while…)

I think both songs are brilliant and I am a fan both of both the poets, and relate to both songs equally. But as far as these two parts of these songs are concerned, I favour the second more than the first.

Let me tell you why.

One starts with a fantasy and then crashes it against the wall of reality. The other recognizes the constraints of reality but is belligerent enough to reiterate the fantasy that exists nonetheless, and almost enjoys it.

Playing, in children and in adults through imagination and fantasy, is an integral part of the experience of an unburdened sense of existing. A child who cannot play, adults who cannot dream or be spontaneous have lost parts of themselves that allow them to be free without being afraid.

The capacity to be surprised also shuts down when one has had to abandon fantasy and playing too soon to the demands of harsh reality. Being surprised means not knowing and not being in control, which creates a vulnerability that causes anxiety. The titles of both songs are significant if one thinks of them in light of the above. One says it can no longer be the way it used to once in a while, while the other wonders and allows itself to be carried with that wonder.

Sahir’s lyrics have two qualities of good psychotherapy (I refer to the psychoanalytic or depth psychological approaches). It has the capacity to surprise, for when I heard the song for the first time I was caught by surprise both at the point where he dips into the level of reality after giving a glimpse of what the mind has fantasized, as well as when he rises again from reality back to fantasy with the very last ‘I know…. But..”. A second quality it has is of giving something to keep the listener going, by not putting an end to his fantasy-ing and imagination. To go on being. What philosophers and others have called Eros.

Keeping the fantasy alive is important for one to feel “alive” in the true sense of being. Life is not about going towards something. It is about the here and now. The chase is more important than the capture. The capture brings about an end to the game. What do you do then?

The entire meaning of a wide range of emotions and their whole worth comes from your experience of them. Love, for instance. The maximum you can derive out of that emotion is to be in love, to feel it from the depths of your being. Not to feel it towards a certain object alone but rather to experience it within yourself. Being with the one you love is an advantage, but doesn’t, or shouldn’t change your experience of it in any way, because it became a complete emotion the moment you began to feel it.

It need not “have” the other in order to attain a greater or more evolved state.

Love is an experience inside your own being that leads you to find things outside of you to give it an outlet or an organized form. You may like someone or admire them because of their qualities, but you love them only if you have opened yourself up to feeling love in general in the first place.

But the beautiful thing is, the moment you are able to do this you feel like you have reached the pinnacle of what is pleasurable and makes life worth living.

Poets in their wonderful double entendres and their prose have captured the essence of life and love like no one else has.

Ghalib, (insert “Sigh” here) once wrote

“Tere vaade par jiye hum
to yeh jaan jhoot jaana
ki khushi se mar na jaate
agar aitbaar hota ? "

(To say that I live because of your promise to me

Would make this life of mine a lie.

For would I not have died of sheer joy

Had I trusted it to be sincere?)

Apart from the surface level meaning of the inability to trust the love of a beloved, I think what he is also trying to get at is the essence – the juissance- of life which is in the journey between wanting and having. We live in a valley of desire and longing, and to attain all that we want would be equivalent to ceasing to live.

Like delaying an orgasm indefinitely

So that the heightened arousal, which in itself is pleasing, doesn’t come to an immediate end.