'Papa Takle Ho Gaye'

 

Picture credit

There is a neighborhood kid of about 6 who used to play with me a lot. He was visiting our home after a few weeks. I had recently colored my hair, hence I showed it to him and asked him how did my grey hair turn into total black? He did not reply. After repeating the question and making him recall how my hair had lots of whites earlier, he finally said that he did not know how it turned back. I realized that he had not noticed my hair; whether grey or white! It reminded me of another incident.

My kids were seeing me after a long gap. My daughter was about 3.5. I went to get a hair cut and as soon as I returned home, she came, noticed me, and said, “Papa takle ho gaye”, pointing to my short hair! She had not only noticed that I had a haircut, but she had also noticed that I had short hair now! Plus, she thought to share her observation with me. I was really impressed with her intelligence as well as thoughtfulness. And somewhere, it was also got to do with gender. My son did not notice my haircut at all!

At any given age, we can notice in small children that most of the times girls are cleverer than boys. Their minds work in slightly different manner than boys. We can notice the differences in the way they choose toys or express themselves. Now, imagine a society which tries to raise boys and girls in the same manner! Will that be called feminism? By all means, it will cause harm to both boys and girls. We need not force our gender-righteousness on our kids. Let girls be ‘girly’ and boys be like ‘boys’ if their natural inclinations are showing in that manner. Let us not force them to behave and be the “same”.

Thoughts triggered by the kind of news media outlets expose to me these days.

- Rahul Tiwary

Article: Femininity is Fragile

I came across a writeup and found it really interesting. I am sharing some portions of it here in this blog post. At the end of the writeup, two web links are given, to explore more from the author.

This is just for reflections. I am sure you would find many of these relatable with someone you know, or even with your life experiences.

***

You pay for the sins of every guy that ** her up before you met her. Her father, her ex etc.

Because the trauma from her suffering typically overshadows the wisdom from her experiences.

Women do not improve with use. They deteriorate.

Deep down everybody knows this.

This is why being the first love of a woman of a good father is the best shot you'll ever have.

This is why traditionally women were married off young as virgins.

Because women are fragile, and as they accumulate experience they accumulate trauma that ruins them for romance.

The feminine is not built for stress. It is the masculine that is forged through the traumas of suffering, not the feminine. Women who actively have to work on being feminine aren't ascending to a higher stage, they're trying to get back something they had but lost to suffering.

The feminine is in its natural state, complete. The same cannot be said for the masculine. The masculine undergoes a journey which requires the integration of the shadow and the shedding and loss of innocence to truly self-actualise. Women attempting the same journey will implode.

There is no man you would truly consider a man who hasn't paid a trip to hell. Those are the fees we pay. That's the cost of being man. A woman who went to hell is a shadow of her former self because hell destroys femininity. Which is why it strengthens men and destroys women.

Not every man survives hell. The weak ones suicide, or become sociopathic - highly emotional, unbalanced and destructive men who lash out at everything aggressively in the same way your typical feminist woman does.

But men *CAN* make the trip and be better for it.

Women cannot.

***

Men do "need to get in touch with their softer side" but not until they've been to hell, survived, made peace with it and come out the other end free of resentment and bitterness, but fortified by their experiences into a man.

And its a good woman's love that brings that out.

The reason for this is simple. If you've been to hell, you became a monster to beat a monster, and if you're not careful, that monster will possess you (sociopathy). Connecting with your softer side is thus a counterbalance to the evil that lurks within you and helps centre you.

***

Femininity is fragile and easily snuffed out.

Warm eyes, a coy stare, a gentle smile, a general cheeriness, a shy giggle, modesty, grace and a pure heart - when's the last time you observed the captivating beauty of healthy femininity?

That's what's hard to cultivate & easily snuffed out. Their spiritual beauty is fragile.

And when they lose their spiritual beauty, all that remains is their quasi impersonation of the masculine, and the negative elements of the feminine.

And you know what this looks like, because you've met plenty of feminists.

They are all damaged, failed women.

It's very sad.

***

If you enjoyed this thread, you can find more than 60 others freely available at http://threads.tellyoursonthis.com

If you want to support my work and get something back in return, you can purchase my audiobook at http://audiobook.tellyoursonthis.com

Thanks for reading!

Philosophy: Jorden Peterson Videos

I Just watched some videos from Jorden Peterson and it opened a new world in front of me. He has a fresh perspective on most of the subjects and although I can see there are several controversies around him on the internet, when he explains things, his opinions hardly appears controversial. 

Dr. Jordan B Peterson is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist, a public speaker, and writer of several books including the best seller “12 Rules for Life”. 

Preferred Pronoun Controversy 

I think the biggest controversy about him was related to his disinclination to address a transgender person by the choice of pronoun as per the wish of that person. This was a new law created in Canada. Jorden questions why should government try to make such a law and why should not it leave the matter on the people. When an interviewer asked him why can’t be agree to the person’s demand, e.g. if a person looking like a lady asks him to address her as “he”, what objection did he have. His answer was interesting. He said “it depends” on the situation and he will make a decision about it as he feels right with that person. If that person (e.g. transgender) was genuine then he would readily agree to address using the preferred pronoun but if that person appears to be using the demand for preferred pronoun as a means to manipulate then he would not agree and he would use his own judgement to use either “he” or “she”. Listening to his this explanation, his decision appears fine. Then why so much controversy was created? 

I remember sometime back there was a controversy about which lavatory should a transgender person be allowed to attend. Should it be based on the biology (i.e. what type of organ (male/female) the person has got) or should it be dependent on the physical appearance and attire. The problem with first choice is that no one can verify it. The problem with second option is that some wrong persons may dress like female and go to female lavatory and this may be objectionable to other females using the lavatory at that time. Therefore, we can realize that all such decisions are tricky and hard to make and need a sharp intellect or clarity of thought. And hence many times if government makes such a law, some super intelligent people can just successfully challenge the law, proving it stupid readily. But then at times government is confused if it should make laws which would require lot of time to explain, or just follow the “popular opinion” and appease the masses. For politicians in the government, this later option may sound beneficial (satisfying the masses even through stupid laws may lead to help during election time). 

Gender Pay Gap Explanation 

Again, his opinion on gender pay gap appears to be fine. He argues that while there is a general average pay gap between men and women, it is not “because of gender” but it is because of several other factors. And he is totally right. I know many women who accept less salary or no promotion if they can get more flexibility e.g. less working hours, more work from home etc. This would of course lead to women earning less. But the interviewers or the journalists have hard time understanding this small thing which is a right argument. It is because media and everyone has done such a strong conditioning of our mind that we have become biased believing that women are discriminated against and women should never be blamed no matter what.

Jorden Peterson with Bill Maher

William Maher is an American comedian, political commentator, and television host. He is known for the HBO political talk show Real Time with Bill Maher and here is a video about Jorden Peterson’s appearance on this show. Jorden shares his thoughts and theories while Bill and his audience makes unnecessary ridicule of Donald Trump. 

Jorden Peterson Full Interview

One more good interview video is below: 

You can follow Jorden Peterson’s YouTube Channel: 

https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos

- Rahul Tiwary

Society: On Selling Feminism as a Product

I happened to be watching a portion of a CNN interview of a feminist play writer who was talking about her ideas of feminism and about her play. She was of the opinion that women are often expected to behave in a certain manner and this needs to stop. While speaking, she herself was blushing, laughing, shying, being chatty - all traits someone could put into "feminine" traits. But the question is, is that something which should make her ashamed of? I don't think so. If her natural instinct asks her to be like that, she has freedom to be like that. But if we go deeper, the reason she was behaving like that was perhaps the traits she had picked up from other females including her mother and other members of the community. That is the natural way kids pickup behaviors and some of those behaviors stick with them for life. Is that something wrong? Of course not. If the behaviors picked up by kids were not aligned with their inner self, their natural self, then in due course of time those kids would abandon those traits and go the way they want to go. Therefore, a naturally extrovert kid who lived amongst introverts and hence remained silent most of the time, can go back being extrovert at some stage of her life when she gets the right environment. It is difficult to make someone eat salty food for whole life if the natural instinct of the person dislikes it and the person has a sweet tooth.

At some point, we should also think about why there are so many writers, poets and journalists who are giving us so much free lessons on feminism. But wait, are those lessons really for free? While pushing their agenda, are they not trying to make us buy their newspapers, magazines, books or watch their TV shows or movies? Looking from this angle, this whole feminism business becomes a "marketing exercise". 

I truly believe in the freedom of an individual. Each individual, be it a man or a woman should have right to live his or her life with dignity, making one's own choices. But beyond a level, these champions of a certain line of feminism do not allow men and women to think or act on their own. When these feminists teach us what not to be; they are in a way teaching us what to be - and thereby violating the free spirit. 

At some level, these feminist writers must also be mediocre and insecure. Taking a parallel with politics; is this not true that only weak and insecure politicians try to use people's caste, race or linguistic identity to play a kind of "identity politics"? That is true; if Barack Obama exerts his "black" ethnicity, he is trying to pass on the message to all the black skinned people that they must not use their brains to decide which candidate or party is better; but they should just vote for him due to the singular reason that he is "black". This is how the divisive identity politics works. And this is also the way these feminists try to swing public opinion in their advantage. 

I remember the time when a so called "feminist" Bollywood movie called "Pink" was released in India. Women were hoarded inside cinema theatre, there was a huge marketing campaign, and women were seen going to the movie theatres wearing "pink". The movie's promoters had tried to encourage the idea and pressurize women to believe that they must watch this movie, not because it was a good movie, but just because it was a feminist movie. It is obvious that if movie makers were able to sell this idea, they would need not focus and work hard on the quality of the movie; they just had to do more marketing. Therefore, such a trend to sell mediocre products in the garb of feminism is a kind of dirty little business. 

I truly believe that that people should be using their own conscience to make their own decisions and these feminists are a kind of moral police who try to control people's minds into making them think like they want them to think. There is a saying that if you fight a demon long enough, you would become a demon yourself. Similarly, radical feminists become just another kind of species like male-chauvinists are. And women should be watchful to avoid such radicals getting control of their minds. 

- Rahul Tiwary

From Feminism to Taking a Stand

For quite some time around my college days, I had thought of myself as a 'feminist'. It suited me because I had two sisters. From childhood, we all studied in the same school, were treated with same respect, and saw the same dreams. Why should not my sisters or all girls be able to make their career well and make their own decisions? I was so happy from inside about my thoughts which I found liberating at that time.

After marriage, my feminism evaporated in a phased manner. Having been proud of of my sisters' careers and education, I saw the downside of it as my wife worked and how it constrained personal life. And for the first time I started seeing a new world. Unless by some lucky charm two persons start thinking exactly alike, in the end either of them has to agree with what the other person says. Best would be to do things which both are fine with, but such an option is not always the case. Now feminism gave way to realism. I realized that women also liked things in the manner which suited them. It seemed that our inclination to do "what suits me" was a generic trait.

Looking from the ground of realism, everything appeared different. As they say, things are not always either black or white. Sometimes we are selfish, sometimes the other person is selfish. And a new popular line of thinking said that in the end we all were humans, prone to flaws. No matter how good you are, still you would have some flaws. I still can't say that it is okay to be at peace with one's flaws, but I think we should definitely be aware of them, acknowledge them and avoid them as much as we can. We are not so powerless.

In general I realized that in most of the things, whenever we are taking sides we are actually compromising somewhere and being unfair somewhere. Think of any decision govt takes - if we agree with it, it might be because it suits us and if we disagree it could be because it does not suit us personally. Coming in terms with the real world was like ice bucket challenge done to me. I miss the old days when I could say, "I support this", or "that is bad" and "this is good". Such youthful yet unwise stands which we could take. It made life interesting and purposeful. Having even some amount of wisdom is so boring.

- Rahul

Karva Chauth and Feminists

A conversation between a feminist (Q) and a reformed-feminist (Me):

Q: You told me that yesterday was Karva Chauth and your wife kept a fast for you. Did you too keep a fast for her?

Me: Yes, but for one hour. When I came to know that she had not been able to see the moon and break her fast, though I was too hungry, I waited until she broke her fast. So in a way, I kept a fast for her too.

Q: That may be incidental. Why is it so that only women have to keep such fasts? Why don’t men keep such fasts?

Me: We have to understand how these festivals came into being in our society. Such festivals and customs are basically traditions. Traditionally men used to go to faraway places for their work or to earn money and hence such fasts would be inconvenient for them. Women stayed at home and hence could do the fasting, in order to show their love for their husbands. And hence mainly women keep fast, traditionally. Today, we still follow the same practice but if the lady is working and doesn’t find comfortable to do it, no one can force her. But still many women keep such fast as a token of their conjugal love.

Q: So men don’t need to show their love, and only women need to show?

Me: Men and women show their love in different ways and both make different gestures to show their love for each other. There is no harm in this; as a man doesn’t need to copy a woman and the vice versa, in order to prove they are equal.

Q: Should only women keep practicing such customs forever or a change would come?

Me: I would love to see men reciprocate the symbols of love or customs for their wives too. Personally I don’t like fasting for any reason and hence I may not love to maintain this custom, but there is no harm and only good if husbands keep fast for their wives too. I would be delighted to see that happening.

Q: I find such festivals like Karva Chauth very stupid! These are made only to subjugate and suppress women, and to maintain god like stature for men.

Me: I will tell you my experience. What did I feel when I came to know that my wife had kept Karva Chauth vrat (fast) for me? I felt humble. It was a nice and humbling feeling to know how much your wife loves you and that is why she has kept this fast for you. I supported her to maintain it properly. Such experiences only take mutual love to higher levels. I don’t see anything wrong but only good in such customs and festivals. May be at one time these festivals were maintained for some other reasons. But today, most of Hindu festivals still find relevance because their intent is good. Their inspiration is good. It is very essential to have a healthy and trusting relationship between a husband and his wife and such customs are nothing but gestures to strengthen them. I say that such festivals which give either of them an opportunity to show how much she/he cares for the other, are really nice.

Q: What about the stupid stories behind these festivals? Many of them can’t be real.

Me: Look at the inspirations and intentions behind them. I feel most of the stories and legends in Hinduism are great stories told in symbolism. Their content may belong to a different era or a different world, but their intentions are really benefitting and their messages are still very much relevant for our present generations. Dashahra is celebrated as a victory of good over evil; Diwali is celebrated as destroying darkness of ignorance by light of knowledge; Holika is burnt as a symbol of burning our desires; and then so many festivals symbolically make us respect our nature and mother earth – and I believe all these festivals give us a very relevant message for our generation too. This is why these festivals have survived for centuries. They are connected with the roots of our culture and social fiber. If a festival requires you to worship your parents as bhagwan – I see only good in it. For a festival of Raksha-bandhan, will you see it as a symbol of establishing female weakness (because she is asking her brother to protect her), or will you see it as an expression of bonding between siblings? I will prefer the later.

Q: So you recommend such old customs to continue for future generations too?

Me: Why now? If we understand their true intentions and can see that they are harmless and would only result in a healthier society, there is no harm in maintaining them forever.
Post Script: I called myself a “reformed-feminist” because once I thought I was a feminist and then I feel I grew up. In the spirit of becoming a feminist one doesn’t need to become as biased as male-chauvinists are. And if feminism makes you see violence at places where there is only love, we should better choose be happy without it.

- Rahul