The new breed of Atheism, Atheism 2.0 ?

It has been a while since I watched Alain de Botton talk on TED.com talk about Atheism 2.0 and most importantly his idea of Institutionalizing  atheism. He is curious like many as to how the world over religions work. The various components they employ which are so similar in pattern.

How the religions are so efficient in getting the jobs done or more importantly get ideas across ?

Thing which fascinated me more was when he said that organizational capabilities of various religions could be studied and employed on the corporate scenario.

One wonders the amount of efficiency one could achieve and it also gives deep insight into how many spiritual gurus use organizational building skills to build and strength their religions. It made me think that religion as whole is an amalgamation of music therapy, counseling therapy, group counseling, color therapy, meditation, building exercise strategies, loss coping exercises and confidence building exercises.

His comment which stood out and set the course for the 20 minute speech was very interesting (something of a view which I kind of subscribe to)

I think there is an alternative. I think there are ways — and I’m being both very respectful and completely impious — of stealing from religions. If you don’t believe in a religion, there’s nothing wrong with picking and mixing, with taking out the best sides of religion. And for me, atheism 2.0 is about both, as I say, a respectful and an impious way of going through religions and saying, “What here could we use?”

what strikes most in his conversation is a different view point that he brings into Atheism and how many people appreciate little things in many religions and are not harsh and dismissive about them out right. They however choose to dwell over them, choose to think about them and see how it is impacting many people’s lives and how psychologist (more so behavior psychologist ) could learn from such studies of human society.

The points being that people enjoy many holidays like Christmas carols, Diwali light, the colors of Holi, the mysticism of sufi saints (their poetry and songs to be precise), the hard-work oriented martial and spiritual nature of the Sikhs and constant evolutionary, inquisitive and peaceful learning of the Buddhists. The most important point being that CULTURE of any nation leads to the guidance and morality which is build in the people (children to be precise) and sustained through their life via ritualistic norms.

Finally, while having a conversation with the host , Alain de Botton talks how we can agree to disagree, which is a trait which could certainly handy in Democracies of the world and in handling sensitive issues.

Though a contrary view point that I got on another blog said that religion isn’t a salad bar, where you can nibble on the parts you like and elide the nasty bits; the pieces fit together to form a larger whole. ” this is utter horseshit, because exactly this thing happens in religion all the time. ever hear of syncretism?

Well that may be but what needs to be seen in the context is that many new religions were formed on those very doctrines, nibbling on the salads and reforming the old views and loop holes, eg : Christianity from Judaism, Islam from both Christianity and Judaism plus other local religions, Buddhism and Jainism from Hinduism and Sikhism from Islam and Hinduism. So may be he  (Alain de Botton ) is about to form a new religion as the  host suggested  or  he has given us good reason to think about religions and how they are build and sustained.  One can say that then it amounts to very fascinating piece for sociology lecture though not sermon (as I doubt sermons are up for debates)  🙂

.

Native American Music and culture

If you look in to web in order to understand about native americans, the closest of definition that you might get will be on Wikipedia (though some self appointed “educated” people will have issue with that too). The definition states and I quote :

Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as intact political communities. The terms used to refer to Native Americans are controversial; according to a 1995 US Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as American Indians or Indians

My introduction to native american culture began via Hollywood movies (irony as Hollywood was accused of stereotyping native americans, the winning speech given on Oscars when Marlon Brando won Oscar for Godfather was a proof of that).1990s was different however,I guess there was a whole range of  Native American movies which came in the 1990s. There were some traditional folk background music too which came along. I would however point to brad Pitt starer, The legends of the Fall. It was my first tryst with the native American culture.With the rise of internet and YouTube in particular one could see  much more amount of information flowing about their culture, this time it is the native americans who are telling about themselves. The whole propaganda of “civilized” people against them, seems to have given way to the truth.

Their folk songs specially are very beautiful and it is a shame how they were exploited by the “civilized” and “educated” world. Hollywood specially seems to have changed the phenomena of associating native Americans with a barbarian with no culture. The last samurai showed, Tom Cruise’s character of  Captain Nathan Algren living a life of guilt for killing innocent native Americans. The king of Japan also questions the captain about the fierce fighting nature of the native Americans, so does the commander of samurais (who was fighting against “modern” ideology of warfare)

I guess however , Twilight brought the culture to more notice in the present day generations ( though detractors might remain there too). Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) played the role of  a native American. The commercial success of the movie will certainly generate more interest in the international community about native Americans and their beautiful music.

The fine director of legends of the fall and the Last samurai, Edward Zwick has a sympathetic take on native history, thereby he reflects that it in his films too. (I for one love his movies). I guess the movie spirit on a stallion was also huge drawing point for me towards native American culture. Young children in particular were made aware of 19 century scenario. I think in reality, it comes down to is ridiculing the culture of people who might not match the dominating culture or civilization in terms of fire power or economic might. This reminds me of the magisterial approach of the British about India too, which was narrated in amartya sen’s The argumentative Indian.

However in the movie stallion, I enjoyed a couple of things very much,the wide fields and the spirit of stallion to never give up and in particular the song “here I am” by Brian Adams. (spelled it right I guess, mostly I end up writing brain than brian).The background in the anime film was I think of the fields of Oklahoma (It is just a guess, but it is a  possibility that background was of California) .

I think that Disney and other studios must take up projects like this and make more movies with the native american culture and music in the background. With so many TV shows ranking in high popularity, a TV show on native american culture may not be a bad idea too.

Apart from the music on YouTube, the Facebook pages of the native American community is also a good source of information and knowledge.

Though the irony is that not a single president of United States has being from native american ethnicity till date. May be in time to come there might come a day when a native american is president of United states.

Anyway, I have been searching about the native American music over the net with some success. I have found loads of good music and one hopes that the young people who are updating it never stop,since an INDIAN on the east side of the world will watching and waiting   !

The argumentative Indian

For starters let me be honest that it took me 8 months to complete this book, partly because of other engagements and partly that I found some portions boring as I would narrate. Dr Sen certainly has done a good job in trying to make west understand about India but unfortunately from an Indian perspective his observations were more focused on the eastern India from Bihar to Jharkhand and mostly his beloved Bengal where he traces his ancestry from.Though I would like to add that he did give accounts of medieval and ancient India in complete fairness. It was the modern history that he talked about and specifically about Tagore that made me think on those lines.

The book has been very meticulously divide into four parts,  I can say with conviction that I consider all the parts thoroughly engaging barring some chapters which I found not interesting(  a fact that I could not relate to them in any way).

His books as 4 parts , namely

1. Voice and heterodoxy
2. Culture and Communication
3. Politics and Protest
4. Reason And Identity

For starters the first chapter is the most engaging of all, providing a detailed insight of the way India society works in terms of the opinions of people on religion and science. The chapter of the argumentative Indian he talks about  “good amount of debates” that use to take place in the Indian society at large in past, such as the debates within various religions . Akbar‘s tolerance and the secular nature of India formed. His approach is again more in making the world understand that how debates and arguments have been institutionalized in the history of India and that it is this behavior which led to the formation of a democratic India. Even though many in west claimed otherwise that it was because of “western” ideas and colonialism.

He is also particularly harsh on the NDA government , a fact that the book was written when NDA was in power. The book also address the angle where Hindu militants(Hindu aggression and parties with those ideology) has been talked by Dr Sen and how BJP cannot win more than the seats that it won at the time(184  precisely). His analysis of BJP and its ideology was  to offer an insight into an organizational structure which has worked secretly (pretty much till its RSS link came out in the open). Though he gives them credit for the meteoric rise. I found all this information very fascinating and none the less somewhat like a lecture from grandfather type figure telling as though “how the world runs”.

In the chapter of Diaspora of the world he very rightly touches the topic which has concerned me for very long time, the Identity debate.

The second section of the book it is the most boring which I found (which caused the delay in finishing). He talks at length about Rabindranath Tagore, it may be his fondness of the man or that he studied in the school which was laid by Tagore but the talk about Tagore made me lose interest. If I may add in some points I was furious about why he was talking about him so much, whereas overshadowing other people at that time in modern India. Later I did calm my self by realizing that the man was basically giving respects to the culture he was coming from ( a fact which my friends might acknowledge when I speak so more often about Jats, his action kind of gave validation to my attempts as to speak about your own too) .

The chapter that stood out here however was that of “our culture and their culture” in which much to my dissatisfaction he talks how Satyajit Ray tries to portray his understanding(again proving that it is not wrong to talk about your people, as Ray is a Bengali). The best of the lines for me in this part were on page 133 last paragraph, on word “modernism” which I for all means consider a raped word. I thoughtfully enjoyed his questioning as it was again something which has made me think a lot and made somewhat uncomfortable. It was reassuring that a Nobel laureate also thought this way.

Here he also mentioned about three ways west usually looks at India

1. exoticist
2. magisterial
3. curatorial

Exoticist approach where everything is fascinating about India. The magisterial approach where the British governors tore apart Indian culture and intelligence by calling it barbaric and archaic(which many of their Indian admirers retransmit). The curatorial approach, the most balanced of all.

In the context of China and India he talks at length about how china and India have interacted since ancient time.(Nalanda university time). He talked about the fear of Chinese people when Buddhism came to their footsteps and about what both “nations” have learned from each other.

The third part was the quickest for me as most were related to the recent events and the fact that I read it in my Delhi to gurgaon metro journeys(where I don’t have much apart from either getting bored to death or sleeping or  finishing my pending books in the bookshelf). The chapters involves the freedom to the class distinction in India. It varies from the gender issues to the nuclear bomb thing, which he consider another BJP brouhaha as it was already done in 1974 by Indira Gandhi government secretly.On the gender issue he takes the usual line of women as victims and all the stuff that you read and watch on TV set.( it seemed to me that most of the media people must have read his book)

The fourth part Reasons and Identity he talks from various calendars to the topic of enlightenment.The importance of “new human psychology” as propagated by Jonathan Glover met with cynicism by him( I hope the pseudo-intellectuals are listening). He at one point brings rightly into the different ways in which west and east approach the same issue. He also rebuts the claim that most westerns feel that Asian societies lack liberty or tolerance(which baffles me too). It would be interesting to see that how many of the “western intellectuals” who shape the opinions of the mass public actually know about people like Akbar and Asoka who championed both of the causes. His well constructed argument in understanding the various calendars and pointing towards Gregorian calendar. ( the only way world running). Giving credibility to the fact that power does influence cultures , as he points out about various time median have had such influence. Greenwich time median is another example. It was made official at the time when Britain was a force to reckon with, I doubt now US would agree to such things if it unfolds.(hope western ideology worshipers in India are listening).

All in all I found couple of points in Dr Sen’s book to be used very much often Tagore, BJP and reasoning. The first one got to my nerve, though I must say that he quotes that many Bengali’s are baffled that Indian people not appreciate Tagore  for his intelligentsia. It is but true as most are interested in singing their region’s choirs plus Tagore was never that a universal leader as Gandhi who came from Gujarat(a state on the west of India). Similarly many of the rest of the Indian are baffled that Bengalis do-not appreciate other parts of the country that much and neither their leaders. It was a through grandfather speech affair, which I could say had moments of amazement to disliking to great knowledge. It is a book must read for those who wish to brush their history skill(something which I fancy a lot).

Feminist : A Good mother for a male child ?

The word feminist in dictionary means the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Like most of the causes it also started out as a noble cause to make sure a large amount of work force doesnot goes untapped and could be payed equally.

The question how ever remains is with the multiple waves of feminism and the militant form of feminism emerging (which consider “all men as pigs of worst kind”). How will a boy be raised by women with such ideology in comparison for a girl ?

Will he be subjected to same “atrocities” as a chauvinist does to a female child or like “true feminist” say they will become “real balancers” for gender equality ?

A Quote which must be seen carefully, stating the feminist ideology :

We need to politicize motherhood and to recognize the work that mothers do – we need to claim that work for feminism, to learn its strategies, so that we might convince mothers that as much as feminism needs motherhood, mothers also need feminism. (Quoted from Hirsh 367 on page 254)

Can a feminist do justice to being a mother of a boy child by not making him a feminist by not influencing him(or not allowing her husband to make him a chauvinist) but rather letting him become a true chivalrous gentleman with traditional ideologies ?

In most of the debates that I have seen online and in live audiences either the woman stops being a feminist (out of protectiveness for the male child) or makes the life of the male child worse, by being extra strict.

I can’t help but notice a very similar type of behavior pattern for feminist of today and chauvinist who they are trying to “uproot”. If you would listen to their lectures and watch them talking you can get a sense of how they want the world to be: A matriarchy (as though that will set everything right). No wonder there are faults being “discovered” where men are “running the show“. It is but all “fair” if they fight the “so called oppressors”. The problem arises when they target the future generations and their desire to cripple the other gender and particularly target young boys, so that they can “balance” the world.

The case where the apparent feminist might have a son and a daughter, the question is how much she would “cut the boy to right size” and “upgrade the girl enough” so that she feels it equality has prevailed ?

Additionally can a mother of “daughters only” give an expert opinion on how boys should be raised and treated by her girls ?

Shouldn’t that be a bastion best left to people who actually have a male child or those with no real experience of raising a male child be experts in pointing to the way a male child must be raised(since she believes that she is  an expert after receiving a bad relationship from her male relatives) ?

The whole idea of feminism revolves around the fact of woman rights only ( as many scholars have time and again said that woman rights and child rights are two separate topics completely as women are abusive towards kids, in this case the weaker of the two lot ), so for a mother obsessed with woman rights, will the rights of a boy be considered equally and given paramount importance ?

The big question however is that feminism always say men are exploiters but will they become exploiters themselves so that they could “nullify male superiority” for the future female generations ?

A girl child might be allowed to do things which a boy child might be refused (citing the behavioral pattern that the feminist mother might feel about boy and thereby “training the animal right”). A boy might be disallowed to talk to girls or be friends with them, go out at nights or even go for adventurous trips (if they don’t follow the code of conduct prescribed by their feminist mother) but certainly a girl might be allowed to interact with the opposite sex and allowed to “find herself“. The girl might be allowed to do all the “wild” things men are suppose to do/have done and boy child would be made to sit at home getting lecture at how bad men are.

How can a feminist mother keep “true” to her feminist ideology and at the same time be “true” to her son as a mother,since he will be at the receiving end or a combination of innovative approach with a mix feminist-Traditionalist ideology (which many people also term as humanity) be a new outcome of raising a boy child by her. In this process the father’s role is being subverted throughout . By keeping in dark or just using  a male’s sperm to get impregnated not becoming an act of “use and throw” approach which the earlier feminist use to abhor deeply ?

In order to address such situations feminist have been having their intense debate within and some women with the good hearts have undoubtedly said that feminist have made young men confused at to what they should do( and in reality bit overdone this victim-hood non-sense), as most of them wanted to convert their society into feminist one( with everything coochi coochi). In this process extincting the “male masculinity” and “machoness”. Eventually then getting bored and disliking the “tamed and well groomed metrosexual man(beast)” that they have created.

The point being the boys feeling subverted/manipulated to “groom” him right and girls feeling “enraged” to empower her. Can these simple act not be classified as abuse of    the right of boy in the process of being a man ?

Feminism in developing world usually take a leaf out of the “developed” world (as they can teach the “right” thing and not visa versa) , but do these developing world feminist are willing to understand what boys feel or is it too out of the world for them( and additionally accept their flaws too). It has been widely understood that woman become feminist out of oppression of themselves in the hands of their male peers of elder males in the families since they cannot understand their “feeling”. It may be so that in process of being a man in order to not get affected by emotions in decision making ,they needed to subvert their feelings. A phenomena which has been successful to men for thousands of years.(but how can a man expect a feminist to understand this feeling, after all it is always other way round)

After reading the question many feminist would say that they can be good mothers and provide their male child with the right education, but who decides what the right education for being a man is, someone who is not even a man ?

These question though insignificant to some but are relativity important in terms of parenting and specially parenting a male child by a hard core feminist or at least feminist sympathizer . The pink male population might give it a pass by not getting involved in order to get married to “set” of women who “looks beautifully right” but has a underlining agenda for a matriarchy dominated society is just ridiculous. Using young boys as guinea pigs to “realize” their dreams by such “beautiful women” is equally ridiculous.

I watched a lecture once where a “ex-feminist” was saying that rather being a feminist and chauvinist first movement, it should human rights movement at whole as the whole idea is so misplaced. Since if you propagate human values then “everything” should come under rights and if someone wishes to be complacent in this approach then, morality in asking or telling what is “right” is certainly lost.

In this war against boys concept where a feminist is picking on a young boy rather than fight a man(to settle their scores), so that she may protect a better future for a girl is completely despicable.

The same-sex vs Co-ed education !

This question has plagued me for quite some years as what is difference in the behavioral aspect of a female who is educated from same sex to the girls who has been educated in a co-ed school. Convent school education is generally gender specific that is boys only or girls only. The focus is to keep them at bay which is not cases in public schools. Now likely so when such guys and girls meet opposite sex they have variety of thoughts and usually these thoughts vary in extreme and so do their behavior.

In a recent study in India it was found that most parents want their children to get a coed education this is driven by the fact that guys should not feel depleted from the presence of girls and girls for one could learn to handle guys better.

It is also seen that those in coed education have better in handling opposite sex issues such as in work place and in relationships too they are better.

“Upon meeting girls from all-girls school and they suggested me to Co-ed school only” says one of the parent. “The reason they cited was that in a all-girl or all-boy schools the kids become “excessive attracted towards opposite sex”. Later they may also develop cold feet talking, mixing with opp. sex .Moreover, recently, I read an article where it stated that each boy and girl should be nurtured in a normal way in other word co-ed should be the right environment for proper mental growth”,he adds further

Though another one counters it by saying “I say this from my personal experience as well: I had always been in convents and was a good student. 9th to 12th I moved to a mainstream top school that was co-ed. I noticed the girls were very self conscious. The boys dominated the class discussions. In  the convents, we girls were really boisterous, had tons of loud fun and of course we did the silly giggling and talking about boys but that was it. I feel the girls in the new school lacked confidence and were very conscious of how they appeared to the boys. They had already started playing second fiddle to the guys at this young age! ”

Undoubtedly the institution is priority before getting into co-ed and all-boys or all-girls schools debate but lets assume that we are comparing schools which are same in terms of education but issue is more for same gender or co-ed education. Some parents especially in the case of girls might want out of protectiveness or conservatism that the girl need to be in all girls school. Since they might feel uncomfortable of their girl mixing with boys.

In Britain all-boys schools are booming in Britain as more and more parents are now shunning the idea of co-ed institutions as those apparently led boys to act “tough” or “play the fool”.

Though in term of personality if we talk then the child’s personality depends quite a lot on parents for example if a mother is strong dominating woman then it is more likely that her daughter ought to be if not same but confident. Same goes for the son , it is the confidence instilled by the parents in the child which would matter the most.

The question which seem to bugs me more is that some parents choose to keep their girls or boys in same sex schools so that they could avoid them to be “sexual” and when the right time comes they will pack their wards off to a marriage with their suitable choice. Though the outcome of such union is always a dicey one as if either of the bride or groom have been in same sex school then certain things can really get difficult at home.

In one of the forms I read a comment which I found quite correct by  Kashish Mahajan “hey according to my opinion go for co-ed school it not only gives a child confidence but also teaches him/her how to behave while sitting among or with different types of people. it also gives us experience with different kind of people and moreover it is the best way to build a person’s social understanding so without any hesitation go for it get your daughter in a co-ed. I m also a girl and knows that truly.”

There are some interesting findings over the years about same sex schools :

1. The popular belief about same-sex education was that it upheld general stereotypes about gender, such as women should study nursing and men should study engineering. Experts at that time believed that coeducation dispelled those gender myths. That ideology turned out to be relatively inaccurate.
2. Boys in coed schools are less likely to take up the arts in fear of being labeled a homosexual.
3. Boys are also less likely to take advanced courses in fear of being labeled a geek.
4. Girls, on the other hand have experienced some of the same problems on the reverse side.
5. Girls avoid math and science in order to not seem masculine.
6. Socially, same-sex schools are emotionally easier on students. Stereotypes based on gender are not a huge issue in these settings.
7. Girls are more outspoken and competitive when boys are not around to tease them.
8. Girls feel more comfortable participating in sports and traditionally male dominated fields when boys are not watching.
9. Boys become less competitive and collaborate more because they don’t have to worry about girls’ opinions of them.
10. Boys feel free to participate in the arts with a class full of other boys.
11. Studies have also suggested that the benefits are more evident in girls, lower income families and minorities.
12. Author Rosemary Salomone, argues that there is a place for same-sex schools. In her book, Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Education (Yale University Press 2005), she examines the benefits of single-sex education in the public realm.

But like all there is a flip side too:

1. Some opponents also suspect that same-sex schooling will either push students into exploring homosexual relationships,
2. It could lead high level of curiosity and desire for opposite sex in both male and female which may spill problem in later stages of life when in marriage or work places full of opposite sex.
3. It could increase gender stereotypes and homophobia.

In my research on the topic things which i have found is that parents of girls are more inclined to get them into same sex school rather than the parents of boys. They have said that it is got to do more with the gender-bias that the girls might have to endure in a co-ed education along with harassment from boys which might deplete the girls confidence.I couldn’t agree with them because in my own experience I have seen enough girls raising their view point which are sensible also being appreciated and applauded by boys .By not allowing girls to face the realities of life these parents are doing a great injustice to their girls because sooner or later they will get a taste of real world conflicts why not start strengthening them from childhood.

As for boys well if I may say so, without girls around I don’t think they might behave properly and more so feel a desire to prove themselves.Additionally a harmless chats with females will help understand woman folk better and become part of their education process.

Though the theories and debates that same sex school might be good for your wards grade might hold true but it doesn’t necessarily guarantees that your ward will have good relationships : either friendship or marriage.

Elopement : Fundamental right or the Ultimate Betrayal

There has been raging debate over the whole topic of honour killing which is usually associated with the female choosing the partner they want to marry and the law it seems is siding with the “elopers” or should I say “lovers“. It is their fundamental right to do what ever they want, a quote used bit too much , though one guesses that they never heard FREEDOM IS NOT FREE (Engraved in Washington, US)

The pseudo-intellectuals of the country have classified this phenomenon as barbaric with some even going to the extent to say that these caste people are dumb.Nalini Singh on Times Now said that these “uneducated traditional people associate family honour with women’s body” . Undoubtedly the little speech she gave would fit with the self appointed “modern ” groups, but can it really or will it really be acceptable in any traditionalist (read backward) society.

For the last few months our news channels seem to be buzz with the couples eloping and then asking for the police protection. Some news channels in this “post-modern era” wish to be “modern” and want to help them out without understanding the complete story behind them, but who gives a shit when TRPSare soaring man( good money for vacations abroad).

In a way it is seen as that these very couples are the REAL Indians and the offsprings out of such a union will be the REAL face of MODERN India as they would eradicate old customs which reportedly some consider to be ANCIENT or MEDIEVAL (read Not India rather a barbaric land after all doggies wanna be like their British masters).

Therefore wishing to establish MODERN customs in this post-modern era.  ( Read power hold and vote banks of future politicians, maybe journalists with a difference, may be me)

For starters these modern thinks are outdated themselves. One have also read regarding some lines in the news papers stating that “She Trusted and he betrayed”  citing references to the brother who betrayed his sister. One would not like to go into the whole murder angle as murder is unlawful and religious text too denounce it but certainly in this quote “She Trusted and he betrayed”.

 

What is trust to begin with ? Is it the liability only of the male to keep (in this case brother). Is elopement not breach of trust from girl’s side (though the pseudos have answer to that too)?

A brother, father , mother and even other sisters when feel that things are going smooth and if one of the siblings goes out on a daily routine to get with daily chores in which she/he  might have to go out of the vicinity of her/his family members. The family happily awaits her/his arrival that she/he would come at so and so time , usually mothers have this TRUST on daughters more. If the girl never turns up, the family does takes a hit and a manhunt is launched  for her safety but the soon realize that she has infact married and wants them to accept her along with her “new husband”. Will this action not amount to the statement that “THEY TRUSTED  AND SHE BETRAYED” or “He TRUSTED and she BETRAYED ” ?

Whereas if the boy never turned up, well for that we have line ready “She TRUSTED and he BETRAYED” (in this case mother is betrayed one guesses ? )

Is the media not selective of what they are portraying , some maybe trying live their “dream to be Heros” ? Undoubtably people might say it is love and people have it is different ? Really , I thought it is more about sex(the mating game, probably DISCOVERY andNATGEO did get it wrong bullocks).

The fundamental rights are none the less prevalent after all every body has got the right to get laid (barring some, i guess Khap should be that) but shouldn’t there be a conversation between the respective parties or the dialogue is considered futile and mind you doesn’t the young generation gets inspired by such acts and follow suit( ie DDLJ syndrome, thought louvveeed the movie, I hope not sounding gay ?).

Some would debate it is good if they do and would be elated with such a thought but the big question is what sect do these people belong too and what ideology are they trying to propagate ( are they Pakistani funded sect trying to destroy Indian culture or better US funded social workers pouring in Dollar culture like they do in Iraq or Afghanistan and plz don’t throw Indian constitutional value, because many who speak such tone are actually the biggest perpetrators.)

In all one really doubts the whole view presented regarding the whole betrayal thing and believes it is more of personal views full of judgments being aired by the  media and especially some channels who believe in Populous than Popular News where in fact the are airing their own views just to get better TRPS.

Lastly folks who shout over the roof top about love, first look into the definition of love then look in to love for opposite sex and third  it is not love but rather SEX that both are after and using different vocabulary for same feeling would not fool many. The fall out of this MODERN view is that lower middle class parents are feeling threatened and they are asking for reduction of marriage age.

I guess the best way for the law makers should be is to take the girls away from the families or communities they feel potentially “threatening” and keep them in foster homes till they are 18 year or have blossomed so that they can marry their sexual-mate (sic .. sorry love), because otherwise these “daughter-owners” will “destroy constitution of India”  and usually these potential destroyers consist of these bloody warrior races named jat, rajput, gujjar or Ahir.

WONDER WHAT THE FUSS is all about ? What the f*** is this selective targeting of girl by muslim report shit( some guys are doped all the time).

After all isn’t the job for these lowly educated to just  die for the nation whereas rest “educated” lot can teach love to the younger more “understanding” lot (did i say females ).

Anyway , why the hell am I writing maybe I want to be the jurno-politician and want to have my article written which the editor threw to dustbin or simply because i am a loser or may be someone NEVER in love, picK your thought and who cares till the girl getting laid is not your daughter or sister.   JAI HIND and JAI MAHARASHTRA (thought of wooing shiv sena too 🙂 ) !

http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Honour-killings-a-hidden-truth—2/videoshow/4348041.cms#ooid=JlZ3RoMTrESKQhIBuKv1n2HryJH2LIXz

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/In-Jatland-child-marriages-to-prevent-girls-eloping/articleshow/6093087.cms

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/07/03/lower-marriagebale-age-to-stop-honour-killing.html

Black and white

For centuries there has been a perception that it is best to have mating of tall, dark and handsome man and young, beautiful and white girl. The fixation of White female and black male doesn’t seem to stop at some particular continent , country or culture.

It is usually the case that every mother wants a “white daughter in law” for herself, that is purely in skin color terms since everyone desires better looking offsprings of the union.This thinking gives way to perception that “white” is superior color or a color of peace. In India for ages the royals have white skinned and good looking and over the years the two century old rule of british have cemented it.

In the west however the debate was more racially charged one, though now there are many white woman marrying black men, visa versa might not be true. It is also debated that white woman is the ultimate trophy for the black man who has not forgotten his enslavement days and bad behaviour by the white man. As in all culture men desire the forbidden and having sex with “master’s wife, daughter or color relative “ is absolutely no no. Once you have them the black male does feels accomplished. Something which could not be said in the case of general majority of white male and black female relationship.

Similarly in India the debate is of lower caste or races which have been subdued by stronger or superior races. No matter what “social workers” might say but getting on with the female of stronger race is the ultimate aphrodisiac for male, It does gives them a kick to bed them or even think about it. As men for always have a craving for power and best way since the ages of Adam and eve in order to nullify other men’s power is mating with female of the powerful race or class.It gives a feeling of equality to those who have been oppressed, as always in every society it is the female which is the most valuable for men.Some say it is power, some say they view females as commodities but one would differ and simply say it is desire to have an off spring with same value system. (probably the reason that majority in Countries marry within the country) This can be the case of language, race, color, religion, school and even locality.

Though those wanting to create a “new” identity probably because they feel left out might ‘fight’ this ‘INJUSTICE’(Honestly it is more of a perception).The problem comes when these “new” and ‘self appointed propagators of modern thought’ start to selectively target families of females and try to pull them in their own ‘new community’, a backlash takes place, irrespective of the regions whether United States, Europe or Asia.

There was a theory that once rotated that if all the ‘beautiful’ married each other barring blond, brunette, black or red haired look ,adding to the skin color our society will be divided into two species those beautiful brown skinned(as blonds and whites would be extinct) and those who are ugly (those who were not so beautiful but mated on the basis of human body’s lust).

Even going by those standards the ‘new modern ideology’ is a failure as they are propagating discrimination something which they accuse others of. None the less this would not stop a dark or black male to pitch for mating with the “white fairy princes’ as everybody wants to be  ’EQUAL’ (not to mention satisfy lust and equalise power).