Michelle Obama's speech: By a woman for a woman

I have followed the past few US Presidential elections the same way a person mildly interested in sports follows the Football World Cup – enough interest to keep tab of the status of the prominent teams involved and scores, even watch a couple of important matches but not that much interest to invest emotionally in it.

But that leaked tape of Donald Trump making lewd comments about women for some inexplicable reason had a really jarring and mortifying effect on me. This despite the fact that:

1) There is so much fodder available regarding many Indian politician’s statements on women that I’d assume that all ability to be shocked is lost into space
2) Like a lot of women, I am pretty much resigned to the feeling that objectification of women is too widespread culturally to wish away
3) That some really shady elements especially in positions of power have this sense of entitlement where they can violate who they think are beneath them and get away with it is no secret

But to hear what you sense in verbalized form so vulgar and brazen that too from a person running for arguably the most influential position in the world was really a punch in the stomach.
I tried to think coherently and logically about this shit storm by gathering different points of view emerging from global coverage and writing about it. But all that managed to come out of me was a barrage of expletives that could cut down a forest.

I finally got an answer to why this had an overwhelming effect on me in the form of Michelle Obama’s speech yesterday. Minus the endorsement/political part of it, hers was a remarkable speech which I do hope will be remembered for a very long time to come. In the first 10-15 minutes of her speech, not only did every single word of hers resonate with me (and I am sure a lot of people especially women), but she took a powerful stand against something that is so obviously wrong…something that spineless worms like the section of people who after having condemned the words (whether religious group or even women for that matter) have failed to do by still continuing to defend and offer support to someone who is clearly morally bankrupt.

As I have grown up, I have tried to, over the years convince myself that there is no black and white in life and that what is right and wrong, a lot of times, is just a matter of perception. Guess in a way, it’s a defense mechanism to navigate through this world as an adult. But some things in life like viewing women in the way Donald Trump does are just clear cut wrong...some things are as Michelle puts it – about basic human decency.

Thanks Michelle Obama for rationalizing my anger in a way that I just couldn’t.

PS - I wish there was some way where qualities like basic human decency be made measurable, quantifiable items that could be used as automatic disqualifying criteria for people running for high ranking public offices. Then democratic elections would be about selecting who you think is right for the job and not who is least of the evil options which is what is appearing to happen increasingly

Captain America 3: Civil War: Action, Humour, Substance

Post #4

Have always like mindless superhero movies/cartoons as a kid and even now for that matter. Grew up following the Spiderman, Avengers, X-Men, Iron Man series etc.

It's easy to just escape to a world where good and bad is just so clearly defined. A righteous hero kicking the ass of some maniacal, flamboyant villain who most of the times wants to demolish the entire planet earth.

That way, Captain America 3: Civil War was quite different from the films of this genre. It dealt with a whole host of super-heroes maneuvering their way in the real world where collateral damage is a reality. In super-hero movies, when escaping into a brilliant spectacle where buildings get destroyed by the droves, cars get smashed up, who really thinks about those unfortunate souls who somehow are in the wrong place in the wrong time bang in the middle of the mega fights between  the heroes and villains and lose their lives in the process.

There are 2 points in this film which kinda actually made me wrestle with conflicting feelings about how I felt about the situation:

Conflict #1: Pretty much right at the start of the film, the superheroes get divided into 2 camps. The first camp led by Tony Stark (Iron Man) feels that as the Avengers have gone out of control and are despised by the world as 'US based vigilantes' who have no regard for collateral damage, they need to kept reigned in by an accord signed by the 100+ nations of the UN. Under this accord, they no longer can operate independently and have to operate under controlled conditions according to the mandate of the UN accords signed.

The second camp led by Steve Rogers (Captain America) believes that the Avengers being controlled by an external body like UN is an awful idea because an external body consists of people with agendas and agendas can always change. In short they will be puppets and will always be at the biding of their political masters which won't always ensure that they do the right things that needs to be done. They regret the collateral damage which happens due to their activities but are of the opinion that it's better to save most people possible than to save none at all.

To be honest, I think both are extremely compelling arguments. On one hand there has to be accountability when there is collateral damage. On the other hand about the point of people with agendas and agendas changing, I do believe it to be true given the experience I have had till now in a public set up

It's confusing really - weirdly enough my head sides with stand taken by Iron man and my heart with that of Captain America!

This conflict sort of has a political undertone. Have realized that its just SO much easier when you strongly believe in a certain type ideology like those rabid left or right wingers who go on barking covering their ears refusing to even listen to a diverse point of view. You get screwed if you are a moderate who is willing to be open to both sides of the argument.

Conflict #2: So the 'villain' in this film is probably the most sympathy inducing villain in any superhero film/cartoon I have seen.  He lost his entire family including children, wife and dad who were civilians who got caught in the middle of a battle between the Avengers and Ultron. He is hellbent on revenge and thinks that the best way of getting rid of the Avengers is stoking infighting between them. Again this is such a grey area. It's a classic case of of the Joker quote "Why should I apologize for the monster I have become? No one ever apologized for making me this way?" Even in real life, it seems to me that at the heart of most of the conflicts in the world are such 'monsters' who at some point have been wronged. Again, most people aided by an unethical media choose to take the convenient option of viewing such conflicts through the narrow lens of nationalism, religion, regionism etc and pontificate on what's right and wrong

When you are a kid, you sincerely believe that everything is black and white and if you are a decent person, your hope is that you'll always strive to do what's right. And when you do finally grow up, you realize that so many times, what is right and wrong is just a matter of perspective.

Think that the best part of the film was despite its serious themes, the light hearted humour was quite a delight not to mention the breathtaking action sequences. In my opinion that's why this film scores over the Dark Knight films which was of course are very thought provoking and brilliant but too darkly intense and draining

I guess at the end of the day, adopting a humorous approach towards life certainly is the best weapon to avoid being overwhelmed by the seriousness of it.

Empathy too is a very powerful tool when 2 opinions are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Even if it does not dissolve barriers, atleast it manages to dissolve the bitterness surrounding it which still leaves the possibility of resolution of the conflict open.

This is summed up perfectly in the last few lines of a letter by Steve to Tony at the end of the movie which reads

"I wish we agreed on the Accords, I really do. I know you're doing what you believe in, and that's all any of us can do. That's all any of us should...so no matter what, I promise you, if you need us - if you need me - I'll be there.

Pic courtesy RDJ FB pg

Children's books - Really for kids?

Post #3

I randomly came across a FB post which had the quote from "Wizard of Oz"

"I know I have a heart because it is breaking."

I very very vaguely remember this being a line from Tinman who doesn't have a heart and has approached the Wizard of Oz to magically give him one because he wants to experience human feelings.

I was quite bowled over at the depth of this quote. Today I look at this quote and it means so much more than what it appears on the surface. Point is that coming from a book probably everyone read as a kid, who would think a children's book would contain such profound lines!

When I discussed this with a very good friend, as wise and brilliant as she is, she gave a fabulous insight on this. She said that she had come across a theory that some of these 'children's' books (like the ones from Dr. Seuss) weren't written for children. They were in fact written for the adults who were reading these stories out to their kids!

I find this to be very interesting indeed. I'll definitely look out for such hidden gems in such childhood tales when I get the opportunity to read out stories to the future generation. 

Bhai's misogynist comment - too pervasive for comfort

Post #2

Actor Salman Khan or 'Bhai' as he is referred made a shocking comment which created a furore across the country. Talking about playing a wrestler in his film, he idiotically remarked:

"When I used to walk out of the ring, after the shoot, I used to feel like a raped woman. I couldn't walk straight,"

This resulted in him being slapped with notices by National Commission for Women and Delhi Commission for Women asking him to tender an apology. I for obvious reasons am not a fan of Bhai. But the fact is that immediately after passing this distasteful comment, he apologized for it.
But let's get to the more disturbing fact. Using rape analogy is very pervasive in common language even among educated. I can't even begin to explain how many times I have heard phrases like "I got raped in the interview", "My <insert favourite sports team> got raped yesterday." etc etc etc. Not to mention the overgenerous use of the despicable MF/SF/MC/BC words (I for the life of me have never understood why to insult people, you need to drag in their mothers and sisters in between) as nouns, verbs, adjectives you name it. No one apologizes for that.Hell no one even thinks its a big deal. Its accepted as a part of normal language and culture with no one batting an eyelid let alone notices from NCW/DCW being slapped on people who use such language (to think of it, if every person who used such violent language were issued such notices, the number of notices to be issued would probably require the amount of paper that would deforest our entire nation)

Which is why I am surprised at the MASSIVE coverage that Bhai's comment got. I suppose its because he is a celebrity. I think the best thing that happen out of this episode is if ordinary citizens can reflect on the violence of the language that they use on a daily basis without thinking and be more conscious of not tacitly encouraging violence against women by using such language. 

Sania - Rajdeep episode: An eye-opener

An over-thinker faces a peculiar problem of the head becoming heavy with the weight of thoughts. Have been started to feel that lately. So its high time to de-clog some of it...atleast the ones that I can afford to put on a public domain.

Post #1 

In a very recent WhatsApp  conversation with my Dad, somehow the topic of a person marrying 'off' his daughter came up. Being touchy about these issues, somehow hot irritation bubbled up inside me.

I messaged my dad - "Why the hell do people use the phrase marrying 'off' their daughters? It sounds like they are 'off' loading garbage elsewhere" <inserted all the angry smilies I could possibly find in my version of WhatsApp>

My dad defensively wrote back - "It's just an expression, Aditi. No need to take it literally."

I got more furious and angrily wrote back - "If its just an 'expression', why isn't it used for sons. I have never heard someone using the phrase 'marrying OFF my son" <inserted double the number of angry smilies of my previous message.>

My dad clearly got fed up and didn't engage further in this conversation.

Truth is for people like me who believe very strongly in gender equality in other words a feminist, even subtle sexist undertones in a conversation can REALLY touch a nerve. 

Which is why the Sania Mirza - Rajdeep Sardesai incident was a real eye-opener from me. Not in terms of the content (which is what feminists cry themselves hoarse shouting day in and day out) but in the way a feminist message was put across. 

The conversation went like this: 

Sardesai: Amidst all the celebrityhood, when is Sania going to settle down? Is it going to be in Dubai? Is it going to be in any other country? What about motherhood… building a family… I don’t see all that in the book, it seems like you don’t want to retire just yet to settle down.

Mirza: You don’t think I’m settled?

Sardesai: You don’t talk about retirement, about raising a family, about motherhood, what’s life beyond tennis is going to be…

Mirza: You sound disappointed that I’m not choosing motherhood over being number one in the world at this point of time. But I’ll answer your question anyway, that’s the question I face all the time as a woman, that all women have to face — the first is marriage and then it’s motherhood. Unfortunately, that’s when we’re settled, and no matter how many Wimbledons we win or number ones in the world we become, we don’t become settled. But eventually it will happen, not right now. And when it does happen I’ll be the first one to tell everybody when I plan to do that.

Sardesai: I must apologise, I framed that question very badly. I promise you, you’re right, I would never ask this question to a male athlete…

Mirza: I’m so glad, you’re the first journalist to apologise to me on national television

Basically I REALLY APPRECIATE the way Sania handled this very prickly question. She did not throw a tantrum like a hot-head like me would have. 

This is the thing. She shot back with wit and good grace while (and this is important) PUTTING HER POINT VERY EFFECTIVELY ACROSS. 

The lesson to learn is that even if you do possess a moral high ground on an issue, it is very important to try and put across your argument in such a manner that people who have opposite views are ready to engage with you (at least the sensible ones) and even at the end, if they aren't ready to accept your views they at least they respect your views. Acting arrogantly self-righteous, hoity toity, over-hyper, grouchy and foul tempered repels people from even listening to you even if you have a lot of sense to speak on the issue. I suppose that is why in general there appears to be an aversion to feminism espoused by 'raging' feminists.

Comparing my response to my dad in the incident quoted over a subtly sexist phrase and Sania's response to Rajdeep over an overtly sexist question, there is definitely a lesson for me to learn. I mean of course, it is way easier said than done especially when dealing with obnoxious gits. But I think its important to try at least with reasonable, empathetic individuals.

 If I had been a little cool headed in my above quoted conversation, I think maybe just maybe my Dad would have actually agreed with me instead of leaving the conversation very possibly lamenting the fact that his daughter has grown to become some paranoid, over-hyper, easily offended feminazi.

About Rajdeep, Being a part of the minority of India currently who actually respects him as  journalist (not to mention the added soft corner of him belonging to the same college that I studied in), I was extremely disappointed that out of all the unscrupulous elements present in Indian media, he is the one who came up with such an intrusive, lousy question which smacked of patriarchy. However, just as Sania has the grace of answering the question elegantly, Rajdeep had the grace of apologizing profusely immediately on national television (how many veterans who have accumulated that kind of experience not to mention an ego which comes as a natural side product have the humility to do this?). What I find extremely respect worthy was that he didn't apologize for the heck of it... just to appease the guest he offended but he knew exactly why he was apologizing - for the fact he would have never posed this question to a male athlete. 

I take it as an encouraging sign if people are willing to accept the fact the inherent patriarchy does exist in our society. Recognition is the first step to major overhaul in society attitudes towards women/other genders...and I do hope that one day - even if its one very far long distant day, we will get to becoming an egalitarian society.