What pathetic creatures! Women live the most depressive of lives any living being could ever lead. But before getting to elaborate the depressive part of their lives let me enlighten you about a few events I had recently witnessed; it didn’t live up to the opinion I had developed of women from childhood.
1. Quite a modern couple, of the jeans and t-shirt culture, were spending time at a park, for how long I do not know. When I just happened to cross the park in a moving auto I witnessed them kissing upon the lips-right at the centre of both the park as well as the lips. They didn’t care! Actually that was so great to look at, in no perversely sexual way, as that amount of true expression is so rare to find at any time-period in this country.
2. A same kind of couple walking side-by-side holding hands together, but they weren’t conversing with each other. They just kept walking and they both were almost looking outwardly at two different directions. When I observed what the girl was looking at, as I was a boy I had no intention of looking at another boy, she was so closely observing the boy with whom she was walking; at what point he was looking; what kind of objects his eyes cover; the kind of people he sees and the corresponding emotions he exhibits. Just at that time came a beauty dressed in all tights attracting the eyes of all the people around, including a few women. Inevitably, you know what might’ve happened. Yes that’s what happened! The woman lost her temper and started to shout right on the middle of the road itself. What had caused the surprise in me is that the boy didn’t speak anything in return, but kept receiving all the rebukes without even a slight exhibition of unrest. After shouting she kept walking ahead of the boy and he ran behind begging for forgiveness: forgiveness for his ability to see?
3. This time a moderately aged couple, in one of the areas which accommodate the low-earning groups of the city, was shouting at each other with all the filthy words invented till now. The man at one point lost his temper and slapped the wife; this too was happening in the middle of the road. That didn’t solve the problem. The woman felt even more enraged, as if a specific wire that kept her informed of the limit she mustn’t cross is cut off, and was running here and there as if hysterical in the middle of the road with the entire people looking at them. No one individual came forward to separate them and solve the problem; who would? They were of the low-earning group of the city speaking a language which the normal petty bourgeois gets scared even listening to it.
I wanted to share these three incidents from the many numerous things owing to its entirety that all these three events happen in the lives of all women irrespective of the financial background they come from. Financial status just hides the happenings of personal life from social exhibition; the more money one has the more his personal life gets hidden.
Let’s consider the activities of women at their 20s, as that’s the stage they happen to do all kinds of nonsense, which would later be regretted by them until death. Women go crazy more often, than men, looking at men. Being forced under the compulsion to not get so easily yielded to the men they like, they try to put up an appearance making sure that they are perceived in the way they wish. Most often the adapted attitude would be so far-related to their self. At one point this adapted attitude, self-forced on them, would be both wanted as well as hated by them; thereby they become hypocrites. This helpless situation gets them melancholic and depressed which they show so much in their intimate relationships frequently enraged for no reason.
80 out of 100 times the women who show themselves as if they’re the only people in the world doing things as they wish actually do not possess such individuality. They just exhibit things the boys glare at with surprise, appearing just as analogous to what the boys wish when it comes to women. The tinge of surprise which the males around them show out is misinterpreted by them as uniqueness and individuality. They expose their individuality only in what kind of ice-cream they prefer to eat, whether to get wet in rain, what kind of dog to buy, etc. All such individuality disappears at the first place in deciding something that influences their substantiation-in marriage and in love. Why can’t we find any individuality in women when it comes in following an ideology?
The women in 20s, irrespective of their class, want to be impressed. Impressed for what purpose? There can be a psychological as well as a materialistic explanation to this.
They either to fall in love or give themselves only to the man at who they feel worth in the least when compared to the majority of men in their surroundings. For example: In a farming environment, women are impressed by a man who is physically strong. The criterion keeps expanding for the women of the cities. Even if a man doesn’t have any such physique, the display of uniqueness of the mind is enough for them. They just wait to be defeated. Whatever shape it might take! Even a ruthless murderer can find a woman to love! If this attitude of yielding themselves to the act of getting impressed is so widely encouraged among them, why don’t they agree to its later incarnation into a physically forced submission? Both are interrelated! Both these activities, which women at one time want and at the other time repel, require almost the same state of mind.
The materialistic explanation could be given to the women of the middle as well as the upper classes noting with a hawk-eye what kind of material gains could they get from the respective man. The former seems better than this commercialization of themselves, which already a specific group of women carry out in the darkest corners of the city in the name of prostitution, though a little outward in principle. Doing this they think they are intelligent than the others.
We are a generation witnessing the most ruthless violence upon women and all the reform steps taken are in no way near. My personal experience clearly shows that those women are more walking in the abyss of conventional love and its consequences, than doing things unlikely of women attempting to walk ahead of society.
Dressing is their wish; let them wear whatever they want. But their possessive ideology that to be taken care of by their favorite man instead of looking after themselves is the point where the suppression of women brandishes itself. If you see their love relationships they prefer to be spoon fed by their boyfriends and find happiness through it. Without their knowledge they’re trying to recreate in him their fathers but without his imperfections. Such a man is an ‘ideal’ man. A vain hope whether they’ll be the only girl to find an ideal man through love is nothing but a pathetic entanglement! In the course of changing their normal man into an ideal man they fall inside his hatred, and by the time they knew this they would be too much inside it making it hard for them to wither it off.
The responsibility of today’s women lie in breaking the shackles of history and let all the free independence of love reach the people after our generation. If we and our precious women of today are too much willing to exploit the goodness in love, they would only be on a royal path to their self-exploitation. Love-Indian Love-the conventional Love-is the greatest enemy to the women of this country.
The paradox of television media
The term ‘development of media’ has in itself an intricate puzzle. In spite of the obscurity in the literal meaning of the word ‘development’, would the word mean the same in the abstract? Does ‘development’ mean the increase in the number of people it had reached? If so, with what one would measure it if not with the minds of the viewers?
There was a wonderful philosophy taught in this southern state, during the 60s and 70s, that politics alone amongst the infinite professions doesn’t require any middlemen to reach the people. And no other profession gets degraded as do politics if such middlemen are led to dance. Journalism, today, had announced itself in the place of the middlemen and hence acting as a separator of the people from the politics, and eventually it more frequently than ever started proclaiming that the respective news company had always tried to do the opposite.
What has happened with the implementations of the TRP systems, let us say it be for the purpose of business and hence it deals with businesses like advertisements and cinema, is that it had led us question with what strong philosophy Media lends a hand towards politics, and whether it is trying to prove that politics is a business too?
Let me explain why a separation is now required between a television media and politics in spite of its impossibility. I wouldn’t be the first to say that politics is in everything. The political philosophy which a nation claims as its identity must have seeped inside every civilian of that country. It must be simple to understand and at the same time must be vigorous to encompass people who know about it with a typical confidence.
Whether ‘Ahimsa’, a philosophy that meets the conditions mentioned above, is such a phenomenon being still alive at every state, city and every corner of a slum, remains obscure. ‘Ahimsa’ was an ideology that even Gandhi suffered so much to keep intact, let alone normal survivors who are expected in perfecting it. In every corner people, without any inhibition, exhibit only violent aggression. As this aggression now appears as a collective quality of the Indian population, there arises a doubt whether we are in need of a new political philosophy that includes the aggression of the lower-classes, that whether ‘Ahimsa’ is beginning to be outdated in the recent times.
As already these confusions prevail within political philosophies, the usual method of dealing by the politicians directly with the people, even if daily like clock-work, it is a humungous task in itself for unifying like-minded people.
The television media, owing to its competition, is forced to balance reality and money-making components, such that on screen it appears as an illusory collection of facts which people, though they believe it is true, after sometime, divide the things shown on television from what happen to them personally into two different entities. The minds of the people push them to differentiate the happenings on ground and on screen, though the event is the same. Naturally, the news onscreen in its rawness gets least recorded in the people’s minds; only a blunt useless gist and the flavor of the incident is what they get familiar with.
News always thrills only the first time. The same news when repeated loses its purpose, for then it also loses its thrill and transforms into a corpse. If all importance of a news item is lost, people use it for no other purpose than for their sarcasm. Even the truest news is risked to be misled through the business structure of media; think what would happen of the first case-the communication between the politician and the people.
The first case discrepancy is destined to remain as long as there are people and a ruler. But the illusions of the media could be broken down. This could be achieved by moving one step backward by attending public meetings and discussions organized by the respective political parties people like. This leads to risking the basic substantiation for any television-finding no need to watch it when everyone goes to watch it live. To achieve any kind of morality and bring something back to order, a slight chaos is always admissible. If the meeting you take part is an activist propaganda, it is even more better. Nothing teaches you more about the government than these, which sharply criticize the government as well as geo-politics.
Attachment with the politics of the nation is impossible without on-ground participation with the politicians, and it will only be either fallible or misdirected whilst watching television politics with a coke and pop-corn.
No sooner would the media understands that it is degrading itself, as searching for ideas to increase the TRP is itself a symptom for its lack of orthodox political philosophy. With the current familiarity of television media the number of people watching them is surely at a rise. But if asked what each and every individual think about it, the honest notions and opinions about a certain political move or a certain political leader, no person is qualified to give a standard statement of what they feel. This keeps on increasing as much as the television moves on its current path. As a result of it there develops a sense of insecurity for the citizens of their nations because of this lack of raw truth. Well then! Is today’s path of the television media directed towards development?
Beauty
Often people would’ve heard fellow people talking fervently, both in groups as well as in person, attempting to express beauty through sentences decorated with as many adjectives as possible. But, if one is to ask the same group in return to elaborate the reason why they had called that thing beautiful and under what criteria could they be able to explain such beauty, their replies would be just weird face expressions at the person who questioned. They cannot answer why they’d done so and that even wouldn’t stop them from celebrating beauty and its branches-cute, sweet, lovely, bubbly and all such (beauty had captivated them that they don’t wish to use a same word for expressing their most recent surprise which they might’ve used it for another situation or occasion: a marked sense of exaggeration).
All kinds of beauty have with it a tinge of surprise. A surprise that one wouldn’t have seen it either for a long time or had never seen before at all! This makes the comprehension of beauty at first sight, or of captivating beauty, purely relative. For a man who hadn’t seen any woman for a long time, the first sight of any woman seems to him to be the most beautiful. For he to shift his interest towards another woman requires him to confront many other women, that after his comparison of the woman whom he had known and the women who he confronts anew, his gradation of beauty would typically differ. On both occasions he had been right to his self.
This not only applies for women but also for each and every profession including art-forms. The first and foremost writer or a sculptor is celebrated without any comparison for he had created something new amongst the lives of the people living around. If at all there needs to be a beauty in the work of a sculptor there sure must be a comparison with another sculptor.
There are two typical questions in this that needs observation. Assume that civilization had grown considerably and specific art-forms had developed in proportion. Now, whose gradation of beauty i.e., whose opinion regarding the grace and beauty of anything would be profound and valuable? Whether that of the general people (audience)? Or, that of the people who carry out the same thing as their profession, whose opinions are that of his fellow professionals? Though, needless to say, each and every specific profession or an art-form is carried out only for the sake of the people in general-the audience. The latter said could be understood in more than one perspective, thereby we leave this here to avoid too much confusion.
Let us take a specific profession and what the people, its professionals, call as beauty in that specific profession (we take it for granted that beauty applies not only vis-a-vis women, but also for each and every object that human eyes rest upon; and also this is just a logical interpretation of beauty and not its origin).
Every man is capable of an opinion. The outcomes of the same profession, the workers (contributors or laborers) of which would proclaim it to be an epoch of beauty, could probably not end in the same reception among the general population, perhaps even by the contributors of another profession. What might be the reason for this contradiction in the perceptions of the same thing?
The audience is the group of people whose sphere of influence upon things other than their profession remains the least. Their lack of diversity in actions makes them immune to new creations, not as serious as their profession, unless those new creations might influence their personal sphere. Owing to the lack of predictability in this attitude and also being a passive approach for people, as they wait to be influenced by those things, their opinions of it must hence be the most farthest from being able to influence that profession. The audience, then, being unable to make a clear and effective exposition of beauty in that profession, henceforth makes professionals contributing for the sake of the audience, in terms of beauty, indirectly being useless; an end in nothing.
But, the opinion of the people who’d spent quite a considerable time in that same profession, would have a strong base and an exalted stability in their proclamation of ‘beauty’ either of their own thing or that of another man of the same profession. As people spend considerable time in doing a specific job, the average skill of the worker has a higher probability to grow to a certain extent, for they later inevitably belittle and depreciate things of trivial quality springing from their own profession: objects created by minimal skill. These same people laud the object of their field when it encloses more skill than the average worker usually objectifies. They are surprised because the skill objectified in that thing is more than their estimated comprehension of the usual thing. People celebrate this surprise and call it ‘beauty’.
This suits to each and every thing irrespective of any specific field. The Freudian interpretation of beauty as a libidinal implication on a thing that favors specific people is just the opinion of a normal man upon all the things that are outside his sphere of profession. But, already having cited the stability factor of beauty, this normal man’s opinions vanish at the brink of a critical argument.
Let’s take a profession where ‘beauty’ (beauty as such) could play a greater role, for the sake of its easy comprehension. The fashion industry of today has grown to great bounds. Very numerous designs and styles are produced every day throughout the world. If a girl is graded beautiful among her family members with specific conventional make-up techniques, she need not obtain the same opinion from a professional make-up artist; in so far as the girl’s family circle is devoid of any make-up technicians.
Actress’ Radha’s (a very famous South-Indian Actress) elder girl as well as Actor Arjun’s (Action-king of Tamil Cinema) girl, both have a set of very thick eyebrows, thicker than the usual, that the audience, the normal people, had felt quite uncomfortable while looking at their performances; but, at the same time, fashion critics and make-up professionals had lauded them for their eyebrows owing to its rareness-the difficulty in its frequency. Hence the contradiction!
The same applies when it comes to the interpretation of an ordinary low-earning man towards the fashion work of a celebrated fashion designer, that the immediate opinion of the former would be that the fashionable thing isn’t ‘beautiful’. Only the professional could see the intricacies and skill with which the thing is made. To expect the same from an ordinary man who does another profession is quite out of the question, for he prefers to not walk in the path the confusion of beauty and comprehensibility might take him.
The only way, then, to explain the beauty of the thing, would hence mean, in the abstract, to see the skill enclosed in the process of creation of that thing; in simple words the most beautiful things are all the most difficultly produced things; the amount of difficulty the thing has in itself. Whatever forms it might take! If a man is able to see the amount of difficulty the object encloses within itself then he proclaims the object as beautiful, for the proclamation becomes very stable as he’s able to see a level deeper, at the same time he could be able to give a broader explanation why he calls that thing ‘beautiful’. All the incomprehensibility of beauty vanishes!
Hence, only after we know a specific amount of information about a specific field could we be able to give a clear and broad opinion of it, if at all we opine lest we attempt to give a positive contribution. Opinions with no insightful rigor are nothing but useless. If money is objectified labor time, beauty is objectified labor; in simpler terms ‘beauty’ is just skill and difficulty. Usual definitions which clearly indicate its indefinable quality would mean to talk in circles.
BolteRaho 