Selective unveiling

A couple of weeks ago British Cabinet Minister Jack Straw made a few comments on Muslim women wearing veils in Britain. The comment rekindled the usual debate over Britain’s multiculturalism, tolerance, freedom of expression etc. The issue, at least with respect to Straw’s involvement, is quite dated and I should have probably posted it earlier to retain its news-worthiness. Nevertheless, one of the points, often mentioned in all debates related to this issue, is never too barren. It’s the argument that the Muslim women “choose” to wear veils.

On Oct 8’s ‘Dateline London,’ it brought this topic for discussion. In order to have a “balanced” discussion, they had invited two Muslims (a man and woman) and two Christians (again, a man and woman)¹. They were all from different countries, stationed in London as foreign correspondents. One of the panelists, Editor of the Daily Jang--Shahed Sadullah, argued that Straw’s comments were in bad taste (because Britain is a democratic state and all that). And the Christian woman from America backed his argument on the same basis – that people, as long as they don’t infringe on others’ rights, need to be given the freedom to practice what they want.

The Muslim woman (presumably from Pakistan or India) rebuffed that it’s a symbol of slavishness that the British troops were fighting against, in Afghanistan. In this page you can find a debate that is quite close the one the panelists had. I’ll now get to the point where she said “sure, they ‘choose’ to wear their veils. After all, they have been brainwashed since they were six.” She made the “brainwashing” assertion several times before the program ended. Luckily for her, the argument sounded very convincing then.

What’s ironic is that she, in other discussions, has accused the Western media (the BBC included) for alienating the Muslim community by portraying some of their practices in the wrong light. She has also spoken about religious and other kinds of freedom that might be trampled by the new “anti-terror” laws proposed in Britain. I am with her in most of what she says about the Western media and about the veil issue. But I sense a sense of dishonesty from her side. Or perhaps her views are not thoroughly analyzed.

Here’s a woman who speaks like a liberal but is not too liberal because it gives way to subliminal patriarchy. She uses the “brainwashing” argument wherever and whenever she deems it fit. That is, while Muslim women who choose to wear veils are “brainwashed” to do so, she doesn’t have a problem with children being brainwashed to become Muslims (or Hindus, Jews etc.). She does not mind if they are “brainwashed” to acquire a particular kind of education. She does not mind if they are “brainwashed” to be “free, to choose” other things because of their adults in charge (usually parents). She does not mind if their environments are contrived to nurture a certain personality out of them. She does, however, when it’s about women and veils.

As I said earlier, I do agree with her about veils². But her premiss’ underpinnings also support arguments against so called free will and freedom of expression. It negates her claims in other discussions. Surprisingly, the other two panelists did not deconstruct her argument (instead went on repeating whatever they started with).

Though the topic of ‘propaganda and media-influence on people’ is increasingly discussed in pseudo-mainstream mediums such as documentaries, it does not seem to offer an alternative. They themselves form a new layer of presumed reality. Thanks to scholarly sophistry, all debates seem like an infinite deconstruction.

________________________

¹Because I saw the program in TV and could not find the transcript or even a reference of that particular episode I am not able to recall any of their names (I’m not even sure about Shahed Sadullah. I just know that the panelist was a correspondent for Daily Jang in London). The fourth Panelist is a Jamaican. I’ve mentioned their religion and countries of origin to provide an identity that we often relate to when people are involved in a debate. If you are not the judgmental reader that I have assumed you to be, I’m sorry. For others: you’re welcome.

²I go all the way as discussed earlier here, here and here.

I miss the odour

Today is Deepavali. One thing that I miss most and have not been to able to replace with is crackers (no, not the white folk). For me, that's what Deepavali was mostly about -- the odour of gun-powder, the noisy environment and feeling the blast waves on the face. I miss them all. Just them.
I have too many thoughts and memories that I can put down in a blog-post. I instead chose to record it all in a podcast.

Timeline (in minutes) of what's in it.
1-13 : types of crackers and how we use them
13-23 : "Cultural events" in Dindigul; Nostalgia
23-30 : Deepavali in the past and present
30-end : Diwali or Deepavali? End.

Download: 96Kbps; 48Kbps.

PS. Crackers mentioned in the podcast include hydrogen bombs in the page.

Toon teaser-1: Why do you need ‘em?

This clip from 'Home Movies' pretty much sums up the futility behind most of what we do; especially when Brendon asks why the Coach needs “them”. It's also one of the funniest exchanges ever.

Cartoons

Disclaimer: This post is a boring precursor for 'less boring' posts, hopefully, that are to follow in future.
Watching cartoons has been a favourite pass-time of mine since the ‘He-Man’ days in Doordarshan. Most of the cartoon characters of those days had exaggerated expressions vocally or facially or both. And for someone like me, who could hear what they were saying but couldn’t understand a single word, it helped a lot. I enjoyed the mere tonal reverberations in my ear. But things changed when Murdock’s channels entered India^[1]. For the first time I started paying attention to the dialogues. That’s also when I started wondering how I enjoyed Tom and Jerry so much till then.

The Simpsons (then telecast in Star Plus every Saturday at 4.30^[2]) was the first show that had little that was visually funny; you had to 'understand' what's being spoken. I mean, just make out the words, and then of course you need to know their meanings, the context, the innuendos, the sarcasms, the stereotypes and all that. In spite of all these problems, I found it funny. When I compare myself with what I see now and what I saw back then, I realize that I had gotten less than 10% of the jokes. But amazingly, it motivated me to try more stuff. That’s when I started watching Dexter’s Lab, Dog House (changed to 2 Stupid Dogs), Johnny Bravo and the occasional ‘What a Cartoon Show’. These shows had an exceptional blend of comedic routines going with characters’ quirkiness.

As years passed, Cartoon Network came up with more cartoons that were just as funny (they were all categorized together as ‘Cartoon Cartoons’). ‘I AM Weasel’, ‘Samurai Jack’, ‘Courage the Cowardly Dog’ and ‘Sheep in the Big City’ were some of my favourite shows. By this time -- thanks to the hours I spent watching Star World, Zee English, HBO etc., – I had gained considerable knowledge about the American pop-culture; an essential requirement to understanding their jokes.

When I left India, I was introduced to a whole new genre of cartoons here. For the first time I saw some truly 'adult oriented' cartoon shows. Family Guy and South Park were instant attractions. Then I found there’s a slot called ‘Adult Swim’ in Cartoon Network. It features some of my current favourites – ‘Home Movies’, ‘Aqua Teen Hunger Force’, Futurama and ‘The Boondocks’. ‘Home Movies’ is exceptional in that it has practically nothing that is out of the ordinary. It hardly relies on animation or stereotypes to be funny. It thrives on characters that mock one another subtly in regular everyday situations. It's loaded with witticisms. The children in Home Movies go through the occasional sombre periods that is steeped in irony.

I thought I’ll link some of my favourite episodes from these ‘not-so-popular-among-many-Indians’ shows and share what I enjoyed. Because, very often more than being funny they’ve had some profound philosophical references (well, at least I personally related to).
____________________________

¹ When Cable TV was introduced in the early 90s Star Plus and Prime Sports (and MTV?) were the only 'Star' channels.
² This was in 1995 when I was 13 years old.

The Butterfly Effect

I saw this movie last week and a few days later saw another movie, ‘Groundhog Day’—one of my favourites—on TV. It was a "coincidence" for me, because there’s definitely a connection between the two movies. Without revealing the plot too much, I shall say, ‘The Butterfly Effect’ in its essence is about a person who can travel back in time and change his past so that he can have different future (his present that is). ‘Groundhog Day’ on the other hand is about man who wakes up on the same day everyday. Nothing changes except his own memories – so he literally relives his past everyday¹.

The fundamental difference between the two premises is the kind of control the protagonists have on their past and future. And the basic similarity between the two is that both of them are given (voluntarily in one and involuntarily in the other) more than a few chances to replay (relive) their past till they get it “right”. While both movies end with rather optimistic notes, I felt closer to TBE. It carries with it what I call the pessimism ingrained in the flow our life cycles – changing the past is either inconsequential or consequential to an undesirable effect. Yes, either way, you’re screwed.

That’s one of the reasons why I don’t worry myself too much about all the wars and the tsunamis. Sure, I discuss the “ethics” and “morals” of whatever happens. Thanks to my mundane socialization I even manage to act like my hard-drive crashed. Still, I honestly don’t believe that a difference will actually make any difference. But apparently, what needs to be done needs to be done to maintain the illusion of progress and change; regardless of the illusion's essentiality.
It’s like my “sacred tonsure” in Palani, a year ago. For my mother it was meant to bring Murugan’s blessings, for me I like traveling and I had not seen myself “mottai” ever. I did it. We both had a sense of having done something “meaningful”. The hair’s back; my mother is still worried; I still live.
_______________________
¹ If you skimmed through the wiki entries about the movies, you’ll understand me better. If you get a chance try watching them, it's worth the time (available for download in torrent).

Old thing, new word - condescension

That's right, it's one of the most common words we come across; just as common as the feeling. It's something that nobody likes to face but is more than happy to deliver. But the word condescension doesn't usually enter our vocabularies till we go to college (when you prepare for GRE that is). Of course, some of you 'Ooty kaanbent'/DAV/Don Bosco educated kids might have started using the word even before. But either way, the word cannot be as old as what it implies, in many of our lives. So, I did a podcast on it. I started off with something and as usual rambled my way through the caste system, schools, children and what have you. There's no guarantee that it's not going to suck. Listen to it at your own risk.

A time line (in minutes) of what's in it, skip and save the pain if you please.
1-5 : Random nonsense
5-9 : Caste based condescension
9-16 : Random nonsense
16-end : School life; children; more school life; end.

Download: 48kps; 96Kbps; Edited version

Disclaimer (brief history): I've been doing podcasts since Feb '05. Not all of them fall in to a particular genre or even into a specific topic. One may not be as interesting or as funny as the other, so place your expectations at the bottom and raise it gradually (if you feel like). Here you can find some of my other podcasts.

Aren’t you supposed to be funny?

I remember watching ‘The most shocking moments of TV’ (or something like that) in VH1. That’s when I first saw this video in which Jon Stewart rips the hosts of the show. Apart from the whole conversation itself, there’s an interesting part in it. One of the hosts, Tucker Carlson, not being able to handle Stewart’s rather “serious allegations”, says, “I thought you were going to be funny.” It’s a cheeky escapist strategy that completely backfired, at least for Carlson¹. But very often it does work however cheeky it is. Though Stewart is very funny, he is quite political. He has strong opinions and way smarter than many mainstream media pundits. But because he’s funny; because he parodies others, he is taken less seriously in mainstream media/politics (or so they pretend).

Obviously, I’m not in anyway comparing myself with JS or what he does; like Cartman would say, “he is thyaan and I’m hyaan, may be a little down hyaan”². The flash video was a very effective retort and it worked just as I had thought. But it’s also a rather easy way to get back at people (provided you have the resources to pull it off). My ‘weapons of choice’, sarcasm and mockery, can easily be turned against me. No, I’m not talking about someone else doing a flash video or some kind of parody on what I did (or going to do in future) – that would actually be great.
I’m talking about a sarcastic and snobbish reply, something like – “I don’t want to mess with you man. You’re so talented that you’ll make a crappy animation and do voice-overs to make fun of me. Jeez I’m so scared”. If someone says that amidst a “serious” discussion, for whatever reason, he/she would practically shut me up. There’s no way ahead. I can not only not-continue the discussion, I cannot make “crappy animation” either.

Given that this blog is now known (at least for the first time visitors) for the notorious video in the previous post, I wanted to do my part to avoid being identified with that and just that -- hence this useless post. Yes, this post is to say, “hey I know you would say this”, in future. I know; the lengths that I go to (to save my ego).

sariyana elavu da sami!
____________________________

¹ Here’s the part of the exchange.

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.
STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.
² It's one of the best episodes of Southpark. Watch the video at around 1.35 for the dialogue that I've quoted.

Worst flash movie ever

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Necessary but not sufficient

In my methods course, the first lecture was on causality. It's also one of my favourite topics of discussion. As with many epistemological concepts, causality can be exploited to weaken any argument merely because of its observational constraints. That is, the unobservability of certain measures because of the non-universality of the values associated with them. Academically speaking, psychology, among other social sciences, was one of the worst affected because of this "exploitation". Of course psychology, by the sheer number of experiments and empirical data, evolved into a strong and independent area that it no longer had to wait for others' "approval". Contrarily though, measures such as IQ, though disputed by some scholars, have now been established as "objective" and "universal". This article provides a good critique of intellectual bias behind of some of these "scientific constructs".

All said, I'm no saint when it comes to exploiting the limitations of the scientific method or citing the same to invalidate overly assumptive nonsense. Crudely put, I switch sides to sound smart. I have had to do it quite often with a topic that we cannot avoid ourselves from getting into, post 9/11. It's about religion and terrorism; more specifically, suicide bombing. But this article provides a very coherent deconstruction that cannot be escaped. I’ll just quote the most relevant parts,

Dawkins is suggesting that the motivation for certain ‘evil’ acts (not a word I like, but I think it’s clear that Dawkins means act that most of his readers would consider morally unacceptable) is sometimes religious belief, but that atheism does not have similar effects. Of course, this doesn’t mean that atheists don’t act immorally – presumably, according to Dawkins, when they do act in such a way it is not motivated by their atheistic commitments, nor is carried out in the name, or to advance the cause, of atheism. Brown responds with the line about Stalin killing the priests and the clergy. But what does this fact alone demonstrate? That an atheist committed mass murder – which tells us what? I’m no expert on Stalin’s reign, and so I don’t know what motivated his actions, but is Brown suggesting that his atheism per se was a decisive or contributing factor? It would seem so, when he writes “The claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his actions may be the most disingenuous in the book”. But what does Brown base the conclusion about the role of atheism in Stalin’s stunning inhumanity on apart from a correlation? If there is evidence that it atheism was a driving force, where is the evidence?

And there seems to be a bit of a double standard here. Brown seems irritated at Dawkins’s suggestion that religion can lead to terrible behaviour, but then tries to counter it with by showing that atheism can lead to bad behaviour. If it’s too simple to blame religion for bad behaviour, as Dawkins supposedly does, it should also be too simple to blame atheism, as Brown implies.

Brown also takes issue with the suggestion that religious fundamentalism is a causal factor in producing terrorist bombers:

[T]he definitive scientific study of suicide bombers, Dying to Win, has just been published by Robert Pape, a Chicago professor who has a database containing every known suicide attack since 1980. This shows, as clearly as evidence can, that religious zealotry is not on its own sufficient to produce suicide bombers; in fact, it's not even necessary: the practice was widely used by Marxist guerrillas in Sri Lanka.

Whenever people want to illustrate the lack of efficacy of religion in producing suicide bombers, they always cite the Tamil Tigers, who are inspired by a Marxism rather than an explicit religious agenda (indeed, may Tamils might be atheists). Again, we have to ask what this shows. Imagine that someone wrote a book on the dangers of smoking, and reviewers pointed out that not all smokers get cancer, and that non-smokers also get cancer. Would we say “See, smoking isn’t dangerous after all”. Of course not. The fact that smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient for getting cancer isn’t the point. Smoking can still be an important cause of cancer – even the most important cause of cancer (I’m not saying it is) – even if people get cancer for other reasons. And so when people tried to get smoking banned in public places, or taxes increased to put people off smoking, we wouldn’t be entitled to say “But look, there are some other know causes of cancer, so leave smoking alone!”. It would still be appropriate to single smoking out, critically discuss it, and definitely withdraw government support for it (if there were, say, smoking academies).
(truncated)

As we see in the excerpt above, exemplary refutations suffer the same fate they inflict. It's like swords slicing one another. Then again, some swords are sharper than the others.

I hate you, but you’re right

This is a feeling that I very often have. It’s the feeling when your egos have already started engaging in a ‘cold war’ but your rational side is still controlling your conscious mind.

Karan Johar and Shahrukh Khan are some of the many celebrities who I almost despise. I’ve hated them for the shoddy products they make, mostly. Then of course, the fact that they have become popular despite the shoddiness. But, in a few interviews, I’ve seen them make some really good points (especially about culture, marriage etc.). Points that I often make to corroborate my arguments. Not only that, their articulation of their ideas was nothing short of a critical thinker’s. Especially, Shahrukh -- he has become really clever in handling some of the most clichéd questions that he has had to face in his career. I don’t think his answers were as clever before. Only Sushmita Sen has managed to sound so intelligent right from the beginning. Ash was always the “look at me I’m a politically correct bimbo” type. Shahrukh was in the same band too, but lately he seems to be fed up with that. Or he’s just chosen this new “technique” to handle a more “intelligent and international” crowd. Whatever the reason is, his interviews are more watchable now.

But it’s still uncomfortable to hear sensible stuff from the people who you don’t like so much. Celebrities have multiple dimensions to like or hate. Their persona on screen, the products they give, then the people they are, the things they say (do) etc. I don’t know the ‘mode shifts’ that my mind goes through when I watch them perform and then giving interviews.
My ‘roast of VV’, at least some of my points, was instigated by what Gautam Menon had said in some interviews (about Oscar etc). It’s a bad movie, but what made my ranting really “harsh” was what he and Kamal had said off-screen, about the movie (it wasn’t a movie review, why should I distance myself from all that?). It’s sometimes too hard to dissociate the two. You hate the guy (girl/woman) in the movie for what he said in TV and you hate the guy in TV for what he did in a movie. Of course, sometimes they are the same.

I think it’s the same with blog readers. You might “hate” someone for things that he/she said in some posts, but can’t disapprove of what he/she says in other posts. That’s when you either downplay the post’s significance or pretend like you never read it. It doesn’t matter I suppose. It’s a favour we keep returning one another; a self sustaining ecological cycle that maintains a balance. A balance that is required to make sure there are no ‘superstar’ egomaniacs who get in to “masala blogging” before they end it for good (Lazygeek is probably a good example).

By the way, this post is not in response to anything that’s happening in this blog but to Shahrukh’s rather sensible interview in IBN. Well, it wasn’t totally sensible; he did get in to the “Islam is a secular religion” bullshit mode. But come on. It’s enough that he’s trying to be sensible, it’s too much to ask of him to be a radical.

"selflesness" and "freewill"

Recently, my discussions have increasingly come to center the idea of free will. The existence of a concrete ‘self’, the notion of a “personal identity” and so forth. Of course my stance, borrowed from a few scholars and “personalized” to fit my contexts, is that they are all meaningless structures that we have come to accept as “objective truths”.

Once the arguments that support the idea of a “self made consciousness” and “inborn conscience” are weakened, “free will” just hangs there. Like a cartoon character that has just crossed the edge of the cliff but is still standing.

In an exchange that I and one of my friends were having, I was trying to point to the situatedness of each decision we make. Thus, arguing that “free will” is more or less, a farce. This may not be the most interesting thing you’ve ever read, but the video below makes a very interesting relation indeed.

I was watching ‘BBC world’ yesterday and this news report which lasted for around 3 minutes summed up most of arguments impressively. The news item in itself is about a very interesting (controversial, if you please) issue that is well worth being discussed in a different post. For the fear of dissecting a news item that is actually a metaphor for what I want to say, I'll shut up now.

If you were wondering how I found the video in youtube, I did not. I recorded and uploaded it myself.

Love, Sex and Marriage

I did a podcast on this topic. It started as a response to this podcast (download), then I digressed and started talking about other things. Out of all my podcasts I enjoyed this one the most.

Download it from here. Other podcasts

What follows is an email exchange that I and one my listeners had. It was long exchange. I'll just quote parts of it. I've modified the sentences in few places to provide anonymity and frame the discussion within a context that is generally comprehensible.

In response to my podcast:

You mentioned that sex is the basic reason why people marry. And luckily you later clarified your reasoning, otherwise others and including me would have jumped at that. But what I don't understand is this: Why is sex always associated with marriage? Let's forget about love & marriage for now. The two have nothing to do with each other at all in my opinion. But why sex? I agree that there should be a certain kind of sexual intimacy between the married couple. This intimacy will enhance their already established understanding of each other and their friendship. But I think that divorcing just because your sex life isn't active is stupidity. Because it is obvious that as the marriage proceeds, sexual activity would decrease. And finally the husband and wife would end up having no sex at all. This occurs because both of them are more focused on their career or they have to take care of another responsibility; that comes with the arrival of a child. Pls correct me if I’m wrong. So don't tell me that before marrying these people, who divorce their partner for the reason of a lack of sexual life, didn't contemplate on such a possibility.

You quoted the figures of those who get a divorce because their sex life sucks. Yes true. But how many more couples do you think there are, who lead the same mundane lives, in which sex is absent? There should be many. They are either the type who, as you said, adjusts and give in. Or they are the type who are 'mature' couples who have come to know that sex is not the only thing that gives them the joy of intimacy and who have come to value their long-lasting friendship above all.

I have seen more and more of my friends getting their boyfriends and going out with them. And for most of the time, I have thought that they were happy. But after a few years, they are filled with bitterness and anger because their relationship obviously didn't last for long. And soon, one of my friends had found another boyfriend. So are/were they in love? Or was it just infatuation?

But I’m clear in my stand that I don't believe in this bf/gf stuff. I find more benefits in forming meaningful friendships with the opposite sex, rather than a 'meaningless' relationship. As far as it concerns me, such bf/gf relationships are meaningless

My Reply:

{{You mentioned that sex is the basic reason why people marry. And luckily you later clarified your reasoning, otherwise others and including me would have jumped at that.}} – Actually I need not have clarified it; I could have easily defended what I said. That defense is also the answer to your question “Why is sex always associated with marriage?”. It’s not always true, however, associating sex with a relationship is. Since in India, relationship is pretty much synonymous with marriage, sex is associated with marriage. Anyway, I’ll answer the question from the "Indian perspective".

If sex does not define marriage, what does? Let me take some pointers from what you’ve said and dissect it.

{{they are the type who are 'mature' couples who have come to know that sex is not the only thing that gives them the joy of intimacy and who have come to value their long-lasting friendship above all.}} – If this is what defines marriage, I think it makes me a homosexual already. Yeah, I have a relationship with my best friends which can only be characterized by what you’re saying. We are intimate as in we share our inner most feelings, problems and tribulations. We care about each other a lot, and needless to say we know we are best friends. And I think it’s going to be ever lasting.In fact going by the definition, each friend of mine is married to 3, 4 guys and some, to a few women.

I’ll quote a part of what I had said in my post on identity, arranged marriages and all that (the one you had read).“The only difference between your friends/room-mates and your spouse is that you have an emotional attachment with your spouse that is partly sexual (and of "committed" economic dependence or interdependence).”

If mutual care and friendship is all you need in a relationship, why even marry? Can’t you be “just friends” and do that? Oh, married people live together, right? Then make it people who are “just friends and room-mates”. Interestingly though, a lot of married couples lead the lives of two room-mates who don’t see each other often. They sleep in separate rooms, they cook their own food, make their own money, spend it the way they want and they are not interested having kids. If it’s not for the occasional sex they have, they are nothing more than “good friends who are room-mates”.

I can also explain it from a different angle. What makes a marriage is pretty much the same thing that breaks a marriage – fidelity/infidelity (or adultery). What do we mean when we say “he was unfaithful to her?” I know a lot of guys who, don’t even touch, but have “intimate and a long-lasting friendship” with other women even after they’re married. Is he married to them as well? Is he being unfaithful to the one he’s living with? The one he tied a yellow thread around the neck?

We say “he cheated on her” (or vice versa) when he has sex with another woman, don’t we? It means, "you’re married to this woman, so you no longer have an ethical right to have sex with other women but to her and just her”. The whole “faithfulness”, “trust” and other expressions are all facades for the crude sexual blockade they lay on people to monopolize gene transmission (which is not a bad idea I guess). So, sex does define marriage (or a “relationship”). Sex is the basis for all the social relationships. Father, mother, sister, uncle, aunty, friend, friend who’s a guy, friend who’s a girl, girlfriend, wife – all these relationships boil down to your sexual “freedom” with them (from completely blocked to complete freedom). That’s the basis for human cultural evolution. So it’s not inappropriate that sex is associated with marriage.

If I get married for whatever reason, I’ll accept that I got married so that I can have sex with a person that I love without the society bitching about it. Yes, if I ever get married that would be just to avoid all the non-sense that comes from the society if I did not (say, I was “living together” with her). Of course, there are also legal reasons (like, if I die, my wife shall have the insurance money and inherit whatever I have and vice versa).

{{ But I think that divorcing just because your sex life isn't active is stupidity. Because it is obvious that as the marriage proceeds, sexual activity would decrease.}} – You’re being judgmental here, I had just said in the podcast – we are in no place to judge what others’ priorities should be (in their personal lives that is). Who are we to pass judgments on what one should expect out of a marriage? And it’s not “obvious” that sexual activity decreases as marriage proceeds. It’s not a scientific fact. Contrarily, women’s sexual energy peaks in their early 40s and for men they peak in the late 20s and it continues at a relatively same rate till they reach mid 40s. While it may be true that what you’re saying applies to lot of couples, it need not be true that it’s “the best way to live”.

I’ll state a perspective that is not my own, by very convincing nonetheless: We don’t know why we are here. We don’t know if our lives have any purpose. What we do know for real (as real as reality can be perceived by humans) is our momentary existence. As long as we are alive in this earth, we might as well indulge in earthly pleasures (if we are ready to face the consequences too). As opposed to “both of them being more focused on their career or taking care of another responsibility; that comes with the arrival of a child.” What are they chasing by running behind a career and bringing up a child? Happiness? So they are depriving themselves from a happiness to achieve a happiness of a different kind? At least sexual pleasure is reflected by the fact that you have orgasms. There’s no delusion (like the "pleasure" you get from watching your progeny grow up, get in to deepshit and put your ass on the line every other day).

Don’t agree with me? Why? You think the happiness of the ‘other’ kind is better than the satisfaction you get out of sex? Well, may be it is for you and me, why should it be for others? If a person is born with an immense libido, would you call him (or her) stupid if he leaves his marriage because he cannot satisfy his urges? Is it his fault that he’s born that way? Is it even a fault?

Of course, there’s an age old argument about the permanency of ‘that’ happiness -- as if the happiness you get from family life (career, children and all that nonsense) is going to last forever. In my opinion, they are both as fickle and shallow.

So I repeat - sex is the basic reason why people get married. This time however, I’m giving no clarifications, deliberately. Let me see if anyone can “jump on it” and prove me wrong. The people who get married may not realize this, but the institution itself is structured like that. They are 'weekend customers' who order shark-fin soup. They are not killing sharks, but they are part of the business that does.

{{So don't tell me that before marrying these people, who divorce their partner for the reason of a lack of sexual life, didn't contemplate on such a possibility.}} – There’s a basic difference between knowing it’s going be painful and experiencing it. It’s like those who climb the Mt. Everest. They know it’s going to be cold, really cold. But when they get there, they go “man it’s cold! I didn’t realize it’s going to be this cold. To hell with this expedition, I’m leaving”. So people who knew that their sexual life is going to diminish might still not know how bad it can get. How bad can it get? I don’t know. But if people leave their marriage because of that, it should be pretty bad.

It’s all in how we look at things. People often praise Indian couples for staying together in spite of all the problems (lack of sex life being the least of them). These people put their society’s whims before their own, but it doesn’t mean they are any better. If they contributed to betterment of the society by not caring about their personal lives, as many would argue, I fail to see their contribution. It’s a society soaked in inequality, injustice, poverty, sexism, bias, racism, political imbalance and what have you. I’m not saying that things would have been better had we followed a different family model. I’m just pointing to the fact the existing one is not the best. All societies function within their limits of sustainability. So, the western societies need not be mocked or looked down up on because they have shrinks and strip clubs.

Getting back to my podcast, my only point of argument was that marriage is a mixture of several things (sex, attraction, love, compassion, friendship, trust, reliance etc.). Regardless of how it begins (arranged or love) all marriages go through this mixture, probably in varying proportions. And if you take love as the source of it, that source’s inception can again be triggered by sexual attraction or whatever. As I had said, I know a few guys who “fell in love” looking at the girls' breasts and neckline. They’re now “happily married” with a kid. I think they embody the “happily married every after” couple. Sure, their start, as I know personally, wasn’t all that “divine”, but now it’s just as good as others’ who started with “complete maturity and understanding”. In my opinion it’s all bullshit. No body needs to justify which way of bullshitting is the best. My discussions however, are only about establishing that; it’s all bullshit.

In all of this, the question of morality is moot. I don’t think anyone has the moral high ground to claim that a particular way living is moral and others are immoral. I think that line of thinking is nothing short of intellectual bigotry and prejudice. There are things in this society that I hate, despise, scoff at, pity and disrespect, but I would never (at least when I’m “completely in control” of what I’m saying) have the temerity to say something is immoral.

About your friends having boyfriends; I don’t know exactly why they do it but I can understand. You would have seen me use the word memes quite often. What your friends are doing could be that. I think we all do it. Fashion, movie, music - none of these is independent. We like what we like because there’s a status associated with that likeability itself. Just tell me if you’ve done anything on your own, just for yourself. I shall deconstruct and demonstrate that it wasn’t. In the same light, what your friends are doing need not be measured or judged. But you may throw your ideas on what they are doing. It will probably help you shape your worldview.

We all venture in to things that don’t always go as we planned, but it doesn’t mean we were stupid. But failing to see the possibility of it going wrong is stupid indeed. So in a sense if your friends cannot handle breakups I don’t think they should be dating. Then again, as I had explained with the Mt. Everest example, they might know it’s going to be painful if and when they breakup; but cannot quietly take the pain. So they get “filled with bitterness and anger”. But it passes and after it does they would have gained a valuable experience.

We are all big blocks of stone, we carve ourselves an image by blowing with a hammer called experiences (sometimes other blow it, sometimes it’s feeble blow, sometimes it’s a strong blow – each blow has its corresponding effect). Creation and destruction happen simultaneously. As the stone block loses itself, an image, a sculpture gets created.

{{So are/were they in love? Or was it just infatuation?}} -- I had mentioned about this specifically in the podcast. Is it love only if it lasts? Or if they get married? I don’t agree with the idea that love should be ever lasting. I don’t think it’s possible (if we are to follow a strict definition of love). All relationships share an intensity that does not remain constant, because we as people, change constantly. If you remember my earlier discussion about the ‘self’, you should be able to correlate. You fall in love with someone when you are 25. By 30 he is a different person and you’re a different person. Now, how is it possible to maintain the same love with the same intensity? It may increae but it's still not the same. It’s almost like finger prints. They look the same but they are the not same, are they?

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the term 'risk society'. It’s also a book's title. That book, in general, is about risk and reward behaviour of people in late modernity. It’s mostly sociological than psychological. There’s a section in the book that talks about how people in the 60s, 70s and 80s spent their whole lives working for the same company. That is, their career started and ended in a building. They were from the non-risk-taking generation. They were scared to leave their jobs for the fear of ending up in a worse job. But today it’s not the case, you see people jumping companies every month. Each person has 4, 5 jobs in his career. Some people have 4, 5 careers in their life. Now, whose life was better? Nobody can tell.

Apply the same logic for love and partners. All these people who are supposedly in love may just stick to their partners because they don’t know where they might land if they leave the one they have. In all of this, I don’t see where the distinction between love and infatuation creeps in. I don’t even know if there needs to be a distinction.

{{As far as it concerns me, such bf/gf relationships are meaningless.}} – As a nihilist, I think everything is meaningless (just give it a wider perspective). It’s like looking at something in ‘Google Earth’. When you are 80,000 ft above the ground, everything looks green or blue or yellow – somewhat meaningless. Then you go down further and further, you see a country, then a city, then a street and then a green circle. The whole blurry green thing seen from 80,000ft on a closer look is beautiful cricket ground. So be flexible in looking at things, not only from different angles, but also from different altitudes.

***end of exchange***

If you are going to leave any comment, please don't say anything about the post's length. I probably could have summarized the whole thing to less than 800 words, but why should I? People summarize books too. But I would rather read the book than the summary. This post is a narrative, it's not meant to be "appealing" or interesting. But I think it still is. Nevertheless, just know that if it's not, it never tried to be. It's not prose that follows a certain structure. It's a conversation.

Be yourself = It may or may not rain

Temporally speaking, I should have posted this comment before the one below. This blogger is not an idiot, she’s ok. But her writing, at times, easily peeves me. Anyway, I’m not going to assess her writing skills or anything, I’ll just get to the comment that I made in response to this post of hers. The post is all “you go girl” toned, the kind Twisty lambastes in her blog.

She starts off well (all bolds and italics are as in the original post),

One of my friends always say 'I'm an Indian girl, very traditonal, I have a culture to preserve...etc' and I used to ask her this. Shelby are you really all Indian? Cos we are in this imaginary world sometimes forgetting the fact that though we are Indian/Sri Lankan/Chinese/English/Aussie/Canadian etc by origin, that we are really many more than just that.

From what seems to be a deeply thought out question, she makes a nosedive to say,

… I'm a family-loving Greek woman when I watch TV with my mother and aunt instead of going out with the boys…,…I'm a hardworking Asian woman when I'm at work earning my dough,…

It gets worse

I have every trait and I'm every woman. What matters is being who you are, not labeling/branding yourself to be one thing just cos of brand-loyalty. That doesn't mean you should be someone else, but it means don't be forced to hide what you are based on a passed label. Be proud of your origins but never let that loyalty cost you your originality.

She has deconstructed, though partially, the myth of having a single cultural identity and otherwise. But in the process she has constructed new identity(ies). The most problematic, at least for me, is “your originality”. So I left a short comment for which, as someone whose ego is picked, she gave pseudo-wise reply. I’ll now paste parts of the exchange. It’s going to be too long and probably too boring. Well, I’m not in to the whole brevity thing, so who cares?

Comment 1:

@Viva
{{What matters is being who you are}} - Well, who you are is the question that is moot.
"be yourself" is an age old clichéd cousin of what you've said above. You've listed a whole bunch of constructions which themselves are nothing short of prejudiced generalizations.
Why? An American is devoid of family love? Or is an Indian not supposed to enjoy sports? You are perpetuating the very element that you're criticising.

Reply 1:

what I mean is be what ur istincts r telling u to be. I guess u didnt get that.

**Why? An American is devoid of family love?

did I say that? U interpreted my example in that manner and I cant help that. What I have used in those examples r in fact MAJOR traits of women in this world. Surely u dun see MOST Indian women in bars d u? It's the MAIN cultural characteristics I have laid out in the examples. Not prejudices at all!

Comment 2:

Ok back to basic deconstruction

{{yes and? what I mean is be what ur istincts r telling u to be. I guess u didnt get that.}} - What does instinct mean? Or what is an instinct in general? Can a person who has never driven before "instinctively" hit the breaks when an animal (or whatever) runs in to your car? Oh, how can a person drive if he/she doesn't know how to drive, let alone stopping the car in time? - is that your question?
That's exactly the point. What you call instincts are nothing but social constructions that you internalized over a period of time that it, from the conscious then to the subconscious, has entered a part of your mind that's called an instinct. So, we are not just born with instincts, we develop them according to our environment (or to put it a little theoretically, habitus).

So if you're a "victim" of American pop-culture, your "instinctive" reaction to pizza would probably be "whoa, that's a lot of calories". The reaction is not you; even your instinct is not you, for 'you' do not exist. You are a personification of your circumstances and surroundings and to an extent, genes (and genes know nothing about calories or good/bad sports). So when you say "be yourself", all it means is, "continue to personify whatever you personified before that moment" - which need always be right or wrong (the nature of the embodiment and how you judge 'right' or 'wrong' are debatable). So your statement, in its essence, is pointless. It's like a weatherman's prediction that goes "it may or may not rain today!”

{{What I have used in those examples r in fact MAJOR traits of women in this world.}} - What you used in your examples are stereotypes that are euphemistically referred to as culture. Of course, you can always hide under the mask "that's the way you see it" - a universal text book example of rhetorical escapism. You say what you want to say. What you say, regardless of what you mean, means something independently (a naked man is a naked man).

{{t's the MAIN cultural characteristics I have laid out in the examples.}} - What you call "cultural characteristics" are nothing but transitory behavioural traits (which are influenced by several elements including, but not limited to, media, family, memes, financial set up etc.).

{{Surely u dun see MOST Indian women in bars do u?}} - I don't see women in India driving SUVs either. I can tell you tonnes of other things that you cannot see a lot of women in India doing. There are several reasons for that; economic status being one of those, very significant one at that. And talking about women in bars: women from the socially wealthy or "upper class" can be seen in all page 3 parties and other social get-togethers on par with men. If culture is the factor that stops Indian women from going to bars, I wouldn't see any "Page 3" personality that is a woman. Or we should probably take it as rich Indian women have no culture (or that theirs is more "westernised").
…..
Another example: all poor people have certain food habits, if food habits is an indicator of culture, then poverty defines culture (at least for a lot of people in India). So, maintaining their culture would probably mean they should continue to be poor. In that sense "be yourself" would mean "be poor, always!"
What is my point?
Culture is not as tangible as it may seem, if it was tangible it is not as observable, if it was observable it is still not generalizable (regardless of how many people ape it), if it is generalized let it not be done loosely (like it’s done in your post).

It might be worthwhile to quote what I said, in a moment of absolute genius, about one's self, in this post,

The idea of one's self is very murky and sometimes void. Self is nothing but a construction of an individual's perceptions built on reflecting his/her notions and ideas on various people and places under different circumstances...This construction goes on in a continuum, for you cannot say "Now that I'm 20, I have a self and I won't let anything change it no matter what".

In the same sense, "originality" is mostly a fleeting conception. Twisty had made this interesting post on culture, I wouldn't necessarily use the same expletives, but she's sure right.

Disclaimer: Some of the ideas that I've expressed are highly qualified(2) and probably need some footnotes. I'll provide them later. I've quoted only parts my comment, the whole unedited version of comment can be found here, just scroll all the way down. The longest is mine!

Depressed: Steve Irwin is dead

I came to know about his death yesterday and was so shocked and disturbed by the news. No public figure’s death, other than Steve’s, has made me cry before. The reason is that Steve has inspired me in so many levels, directly and indirectly. It’s not like I’ve become a renown biologist or an environmentalist, but the person he was in TV has taught me so many things.

He was passionate about crocs and wildlife in general; he pushed himself to the edge to learn and tell us what he learnt. If it weren’t for him I would have never touched a snake in my life. I touching/catching snakes is not that big a deal, it’s how he deconstructed my “instinctive feeling” that all reptiles are disgusting. It shook one of my fundamental beliefs that all humans are born with certain instincts and loathing reptiles is one of them. You only have to weaken one of the structures that hold your belief system, before you know, the whole thing is collapsing. It’s not as bad as it sounds because you start constructing another one, this time however, more critically. Of course, I didn’t exactly have the maturity to extrapolate it so coherently back then, but I believe it had deep and subconscious impact.

The way he “risked” his life also pointed to another lesson: if we have concrete information about something, we can push the limits rationally and the risk is a lot more calculated. A lot of feelings, awe, fear, respect, admiration etc., all come from what we know about someone/something. Recently I was in Niagara, and I couldn’t appreciate its height or volume or whatever it’s popular for. I think knowing the probability of surviving a fall, the currents’ pace and the fact that I can swim pretty well, all ruined it for me. Yeah, it’s supposed to be “beautiful”, it is beautiful indeed, but the people and the big casinos around it take away the “nature” part of the beauty. Put simply, it changes your perspective on things. That’s what Steve did, he changed my perspective on a few things that eventually changed my perspective on more things (sort of like a fission reaction).

Steve is dead now, but I’m sure he enjoyed each minute of his life that always close to death. I wish I have his life, at least for a few years, before I have his death.

PS. I did a podcast on his death too, I didn't want my expressions left cold in text.

My podcasts

I had mentioned in my previous about my podcasts, I’ll just include the flash players here, so that you can listen to them from here. All the podcasts here are in Tamil Tamil Podcast.

Thotti jaya pola kevalamana padam paakradhu, pathuttu vandhu comment adikradhu, idhellam ellarum panradhu dhan. Adhaye dhan naanum panni irukken. By the way, the boy in the picture is the comic character Suppandi. Well it's not all that explicity really, the word that I have used (ma**ru)is actually used in a lot of movies (and i've used it only once). But I'll give the warning anyway!


Autograph and Thavamai Thavamirundhu have been regarded as some of the best movies in recent times. Are those movies really worth all those praises? I think they are two movies that are a bit over-rated by our generation (people in their 20s and 30s). I enjoyed this rant, it was quite relieving for me, but I think it'll give you the opposite feeling :p.



This may not be interesting to those who are in their teens or 30s. I recorded this podcast when I felt exteremely nostalgic, not about home, but about my past, my childhood; my childhood which started and got over in the 80s. It was then we had Doordarshan, just Doordarshan, TV ads that keep sreaming the product's name end to end, 'mile sur mera tumhara', goldspot, sprint and a bunch of things that were unique to the 80s.
Of course I would be romanticizing if I say everything was pure and innocent back then, for it seems special simply because it is associated with my past. In any case you might enjoy it.

Disclaimer: The main segement of this podcast was recorded long back, when I hadn't acquired any "recording skills". So please excuse the annoying "blows" and "puffs".

The podcast could be boring, so if you decide to skip, try minutes: 1-3, 15-25




The following podcast was a reaction to a small incident in my university. My angry reaction to that incident brought back some old memories of my life; it threw light on the hidden sexism behind some of the setups I had to live through, try it.



Listen to the rest of the episodes (if you’re interested) from: http://www.podbazaar.com/show/alumbu

And then there are my podcasts based on Cho’s Mahabaratham pesukiradhu (not my favourite but more popular than my other podcasts). I’ll just give the link for the episodes and the player for the first episode.



Listen to the rest of the episodes (if you’re interested) from: www.podbazaar.com/show/mahab


It's sad that there aren't many Tamil podcasts that deal with subjects other than "interview with a celebrity" or "how to make paruppu rasam".

All about a dog

This being my first post in a blog 1(well that’s a good ‘dot’ to start with, in a sketch that is supposed to show my face, because by saying “This being my first post in a blog” I indirectly mean that I’ve been posting articles/reviews/rants/plain blandish comments/emails asking members to behave themselves 2(well yeah I own a yahoo group 3(hmm I don’t know if I can say that I own a group just because I have the membership status as ‘Owner’ in the group’s page; after all it’s a Yahoo group and according to Yahoo’s terms and conditions 4(which most of us don’t read before clicking on the “I Accept” button)4, they have all the rights to ‘confiscate’ it whenever they want to)3, that has no less than 850 real members 5(real members? Yes, excluding those who might have more than one ID in the group for whatever reasons)5)2, and none of this is new to me except that this time it’s officially meant to display my conceit and eccentricities)1, I would use it to tell you a bit about myself or narrate incidents and stories that would give you an idea about what kind of a guy I am. If you are here (meaning, you didn’t close the window saying “what the heck man?”, and have read till this line), am sure you would have realized that I tend to digress from the topic that I actually try to talk about. (I've colour coded them to help you out, and numbered them to help myself out to colour code them)

There are 2 main reasons for this:
(1) Nothing is singular and untied and hence cannot be understood without relating it to some other thing, which sometimes might only be understood by relating it to something else, like this very statement.
(2) Whenever I argue or posit something, I make sure that I let everyone(or just one) know that I gave all ‘those’ perspectives, perspectives that one might want to use to counter my argument, assuming that I did not take those in to account.

Blogs in my opinion is where you post your real experiences (yeah your feelings/opinions can be called as “experience(s)”). The problem I have with that is, blogs unlike - popular websites hosting forums - are hardly read by people you don’t know. You don’t just mail “someguy” and ask him to read your blog, but your friends, people who know you. That being the case you’re forced to be honest (at least to a certain level), you cannot just make up some story and use your new found language skill (oh yes, that’s something that irritates me. And should I say “new found” because it’d mean it existed in that person for a long time and he just happened to tap in to it? Or should I say “newly invented”, because such a skill never existed in him) to narrate it, because those who read would know it never happened. On the other hand experiences are engrossing or at least not boring only when they are different, different in a peculiar way. And unfortunately not all of us have such experiences to write about. Nevertheless most of the people in blogs do it anyway and that’s when it gets totally irritating.
“Today is Saturday. My car has been making this hip-hop beat lately, well the pioneer guy tries his best to rock the chamber but the engine’s pistons are too mechanical to beat” I go “ok so your engine is messed up and your car stereo is Pioneer, what a low life!”. Then again one’s experience however commonplace, is the most amazing thing for him, so the crime is pardonable I suppose.

But don’t worry, my experiences aren’t commonplace by any measure, they are extremely unique, some times they are so unique that you can’t relate to it and hence boring. I’ve been lazy and tardy all my life and those qualities have forced me to be brave and daring. I don’t know if you see the relation between the former and the latter. When you’re lazy you lose out on regular opportunities and now you’re left with ‘above-regular’ opportunities which cannot be utilized without a certain amount of fearlessness. I’ve never really reached an extraordinary (extraordinary by ‘normal’ standards) life so far, but the irony is that I’ve had to display extraordinary skills to get myself to an average position.
Example: When I was in my 6th and 7th grades, I studied in a school that was 4kms away from my house. An average 11 year old on an average mono-geared bicycle on an average Indian road (8 potholes/100 m) on an average south Indian terrain(4 cows + 12 dogs + 2 drunken autos/Km that get in your way, halting you to 0Km/h) would take 30 minutes to travel that distance. So if the school starts at 8.30 (and it did), one would have to leave home at least by 8.05 to reach on time, which would mean that he’ll have to wake up at least by 7.30 (assuming that you take bath, brush and do ‘all that’?). But I usually wake up at 7.50, by the time am dressed up and ready to leave it’s 8.20. So now I pedal at no less than 45Km/h, show amazing maneuverability to avoid all those potholes, 'steer' my way through those dogs and cows, and land at the school gate right on time. But this isn’t always successful. When it isn’t I take the fence, climb the tree that leads to my class’s window, drop my bag, then get in to the class through the entrance (the window was too small for me to enter), and tell the teacher “sorry sir went to toilet”. Of course there have been times when all these have failed and had to take it on my butt (by ‘it’ I mean a long bamboo stick, hey am not being figurative here!) or at times my palm (oh stop it you pervert, I’m saying that I got lashed).

*** end of example ***

This quality of mine never changed, it continues to exist in me. It’s not only physical extremities that I’ve pushed myself to, but mental too. Like I said, if you’re reading this you were probably my classmate in college and you know what I’m talking about, don’t you? If there’s any theory that I always follow before I do something, it’s the “worst consequence theory”, I don’t know if it’s coined by someone else before. What it means is that, before I do something I think about the worst that could happen (if everything screws up the worst possible way) and prepare myself for that. The best part is that I don’t just say it, I honestly get prepared for it and nothing could shock me then.

Most of my postings are simple hate speech about something (well not really, but saying so saves me from getting tagged by you!). People say I’m a pessimist, probably because bad things are all I talk about (in their view that is). The reason or the justification rather, that I give for that is “there are too many to talk good about it” ‘it’ being the subject of the matter. Yes I have a serious problem with the concept of ‘agreeing with the majority’. Some times I take my stance to a exact opposite viewpoint just because the people who I hate agree with me. Because of the ‘fact’ that anything that is cogent, logical, valid could be contested - if not refuted thoroughly - by an equally cogent, logical, valid argument, for all those attributes are relative.

Not all my posts are like this one, with each parenthesis having sub-parenthesis and so forth, no wonder I like movies like Memento and Pulp fiction. I could probably add more to this post but then again I could probably alter it by reducing its length or removing unwanted explanations, so before I think about anything else, I’ll just stop here.

I don’t know what kind of comments that I am going to get for this post, but I’ll say this anyway “I don’t care!” (Though am actually dying to read the comments and would visit my blog as often as 5 times an hour). Whether it’s true about me or not, it sure is true about a lot of other ‘cool dude’ wannabes that say “I don’t care”. It only reminds of that Lifebuoy ad “adhigama thinna gundaaiduva – I don’t care”

And one more thing, “Brevity need not be the soul of wit”. May be for one liners it is!


Suresh