1 Sep 2008, 12:21pm
I don't consider myself to be a person with a particularly non-defeatist attitude. Heck if I were in a fight, I would run away today to be alive to run away some other day. It is not without my reasons, most of which are those of self-preservation, that I consider the pen to be mightier than the sword. At the same time, I do genuinely believe that violence is never the solution. We resort to it because we want to spare ourselves the effort to thoughtfully resolve a dispute.
That said, I have not come across a more resigned proverb than 'When in Rome do as Romans do'. Succumbing to the lure of being a sheep among the herd is even too much of a thing for my plastic spine, and my spine is pretty plastic. I could bend over backwards to get a woman to sleep with me, though for the life of me I could never fathom why it is this very bending over that seems to put most women off me.
Seriously. Why would anyone with a semblance of self-esteem ever want be a part of the crowd? Had Galileo believed in the Church's doctrine we would still believe that if we travelled to the horizon then we would drop off into the abyss. Had Martin Luther King not believed in civil rights the African Americans would have no right to vote. Had the Mahatma not believed in the then alien concept of non-violence we would not have a movie like Lage Raho Munna Bhai.
Yes, it is not easy to live with the consequences of your choices if they are not in conformation with the beliefs of the time. You will be ridiculed. However, to state "A girl with a Look Or You Miss tee won't get much crowd sympathy in Hyderabad if she gets into trouble." is like saying "It is not the rapist but the victim who is the perpetrator of the crime. The rapist was just the harmless participant."
I have never been one for saving the world through blogs, nor do I believe anyone can ever do that. The world cannot be saved, really. But that is besides the point. The point is when people who are a part of the so-called thinking strata of the society we live in make blanket statements like the one above, it is saddening to put it euphemistically. I suppose that is what being a Roman in Rome does to you.
Current Mood: Gloomy
Current Music: Buffalo Souljah - Too Hot Too Shii
That said, I have not come across a more resigned proverb than 'When in Rome do as Romans do'. Succumbing to the lure of being a sheep among the herd is even too much of a thing for my plastic spine, and my spine is pretty plastic. I could bend over backwards to get a woman to sleep with me, though for the life of me I could never fathom why it is this very bending over that seems to put most women off me.
Seriously. Why would anyone with a semblance of self-esteem ever want be a part of the crowd? Had Galileo believed in the Church's doctrine we would still believe that if we travelled to the horizon then we would drop off into the abyss. Had Martin Luther King not believed in civil rights the African Americans would have no right to vote. Had the Mahatma not believed in the then alien concept of non-violence we would not have a movie like Lage Raho Munna Bhai.
Yes, it is not easy to live with the consequences of your choices if they are not in conformation with the beliefs of the time. You will be ridiculed. However, to state "A girl with a Look Or You Miss tee won't get much crowd sympathy in Hyderabad if she gets into trouble." is like saying "It is not the rapist but the victim who is the perpetrator of the crime. The rapist was just the harmless participant."
I have never been one for saving the world through blogs, nor do I believe anyone can ever do that. The world cannot be saved, really. But that is besides the point. The point is when people who are a part of the so-called thinking strata of the society we live in make blanket statements like the one above, it is saddening to put it euphemistically. I suppose that is what being a Roman in Rome does to you.
Current Mood: Gloomy
Current Music: Buffalo Souljah - Too Hot Too Shii
2 Sep 2008, 10:21am
I assume this one refers to my post on Oblivion's blog.
Many times when we make a general statement in a certain context, we do not incorporate all the exceptions to that, take care of all the possible counter-arguments, and put elaborate disclaimers, because that would make a 50-word comment a 500-word comment that no one will anyway read. We make statements assuming the reader understands that context - the context of my comment in that blog being the original post talking of women with provocative messages on their T-shirts.
I think anyone would agree that the person who made that comment would hardly have meant that to mean that people should not think radically differently on superstition or science or religion or business.
Also, the specific line was: "You should conform to the culture of the part of the world that you live in if you want least problems - else, as Oblivion wrote, you should be prepared for problems."
The "if you want least problems" and "you should be prepared for problems" being the actual point there, which seems to have been completely missed in your post.
You can do whatever you want if you don't care for potential consequences and problems that others will create, the others including people in your family and people in the outside world. For example, would a girl want her neighbours making raunchy comments about her in earshot of her parents and brothers? How many fights will they pick up? That is what will happen in most of the Indian social mileau.
As for your rapist analogy, we are not talking of rights, we are talking being practical. Sure, the rapist is at fault. But does it matter after a rape has happened? If you want to run the least chance of getting raped, it's best to dress a certain way, especially if you live in a sexually repressed society with plenty of people on the fringe.
I can think of many counter-points that will come up, and pre-empt them by answering them here itself, but I am assuming these 500 words are enough for you to understand the context.
And who decided I am part of the "so-called thinking strata of society"? We should restrict ourselves to commenting on others' points of view, not on them.
2 Sep 2008, 2:27pm
PMoW, I definitely understood your context when you made the original comment. And, yes, it was harsh of me to make that thinking strata of society comment. For that, I do apologise.
We do live in a sexually repressed society. But rape has never been a crime of sex, even though intercourse is primarily involved. Rape is a crime of power. There are certain demographics where rape is much more rampant than in others - regions where income groups of large disparity live, matriarchal societies, skewed sex ratios in favour of the male, etc.
I, for one, would never concede to the notion that a woman dressing provocatively is inviting trouble. She does not have to dress in a certain way to do that. She just has to be a woman. Sadly, that is the society we live in. Men are the dogs here. My only issue with your point of view (which is definitely neither wrong nor right simply because it differs from mine) is that this reasoning is what helps most rapists get away with the act. That is sickening, isn't it?
2 Sep 2008, 7:02pm
I was here and silent. But now I can be silent no more. I have to agree with Scripto when he says, "Men are the dogs here." Let me just say I agree.
2 Sep 2008, 7:08pm
That one doesn't appreciate the choice of dressing of the girl doesn't imply he is justifying the act of the rapist. Far from it. As PMoW suggested, it's a simple case of being practicable. If Mr X is the only chap living on the planet, he can do anything as he pleases. But because we live in a group, the equation of individual freedom and social cohesion comes up. And sensibility is in understanding the group's mechanism for the simple reason that it's mutually beneficial. Even if one finds the situation funny, one doesn't choose to crack jokes at a funeral. Favoring appropriate behavior for the occasion doesn't make one a ready conformist. If one does a Paris in Hyderabad and attracts the attention of cops, how many would sympathise with the chap? And does that mean they support the cops? All those who hate Gandhi do not necessarily justify Godse's decision. Things are not so linear. Which is quite what PMoW had, to my mind, meant. I am sure you see this yourself, but I am just attempting to clear the misinterpretation.
Besides, doing something different for the sake of it isn't any sign of courage. It could just be an act of vanity. And I don't see how they can be termed rebels. On the contrary. They are the products of imitation, psychological clones of one another. Isn't that why fashion industry has it easy to thrive? I find the comparison of attention-hungry, vain (no, I am not using it in the sense of virtue/vice reference) young things with Galileo, Luther King and Gandhi incongruous. They were men of guts, real mavericks (although Galileo yielded to tendering a public apology and dismissing his theory).
One may play Russian roulette and survive a few shots, but eventually a shot will not be blank. If the risk excites me and I choose to play it nonetheless, I'm also expected to know the implications of my decision. How many would sympathise with me if the shot goes wrong? And if a mathematician friend advises me to stop after the seventh and rebukes me if I don't, is he acting out of a superiority complex? Or merely out of a better comprehension of the implications? I may be as mature a chap as he is, but at this moment I'm overconfident and assess the risk improperly, intoxicated by the success. But he has a more clear perspective. As to who is right and who is not, it can be known only in retrospect. So, just because a chap points out the insensibility of a choice, it doesn't mean he is being intrusive or superior. Ironically, for all the virtue one has attached to it, tolerance, instead, is an act of superiority. If a chap is into drugs, is it wrong to point out what he is into? And is it right to let him so by rationalising that it'd be an intrusion of his freedom? It's all very subtle, but simple.
As regards the choice of role models, yes, one has absolute right to go by his liking. A step further, and it brings up the question of which choice is better. More Hitlers or more Gandhis? Rather peace or war? Rather harmony or chaos? Rather live till next morning or give it all up? None of this yields to empirical analysis, so no choice can be refuted. If one is fine with more rehab and concentration camps, so be it. Just that it's unfortunate if one opts for a bad one when one could have chosen a better one. This, too, can be found only in retrospect but we have history as reference.
I quite agree with your statement about changing the world. It is indeed a delusion and a myth. The world, as you said, can never be changed.
Have a wonderful day!
2 Sep 2008, 7:19pm
Oblivion, for a second there I thought you were going to rip me to shreds :).
You have put your point across brilliantly. This argument could just go on and on, since there is no such thing as right or wrong in this world. As Darth Sidious said, "Good is a point of view." It is quite impressive how movies express something which we are not able to express properly for ourselves.
And I do agree with you on the issue of the fashion industry, with a slight modification to your theory. Fashion industry survives not because of people who are vain. It survives because of people who pretend being vain. True vanity is what produces greatness. Imitation produces anorexics.
2 Sep 2008, 7:20pm
Oblivion, that was a rather interesting comment. Just as an experiment, do you think you could convey the essence in about a fourth of the words you used? Will you?
2 Sep 2008, 7:25pm
Ours is a sexually repressed, hypocritical society, yes.
Men are dogs, yes.
Rapists get away with their exploits, yes.
It is sickening, yes.
These are reflections of various sociological, and even political, equations, but none of these can justify a certain Mr X's choices if they inflict trouble. The world isn't partial to anyone. It's ruthless to everyone alike, women or men. There are times when we cannot make a choice. Millions of unfortunate people go through that. "Fateless", as they say. But let's not get into that. If we confine ourselves to the situation that offers me a choice, it strictly reduces to this - "either play the russian roulette and risk it or step back and play safe". Either ways, I am responsible, regardless of the external reasons.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
2 Sep 2008, 7:28pm
@Script Writer: "Imitation produces anorexics".
I quite liked that :-)) Brilliant!
2 Sep 2008, 7:32pm
Thank you! That was a very fast response. And I needed to read it twice. :)
2 Sep 2008, 7:36pm
Thank you, Oblivion.
Aran, how many men have done this for you? Respond as fast?
2 Sep 2008, 7:37pm
Please, don't talk about my men and their responding on public forums.
2 Sep 2008, 7:41pm
Okay. Why don't you then? :-p
2 Sep 2008, 7:46pm
Why don't I what then? Talk or respond?
2 Sep 2008, 7:51pm
Aran, kindly re-read your comment. Since I am not a connoisseur of the intricacies of grammar fundamentals, I would not be able to technically explain to you why your comment 'Why don't I what then? Talk or respond?' is misleading.
A response of 'Okay. Why don't you then? :-p' to 'Please, don't talk about my men and their responding on public forums.' would only warrant you to talk about your men.
2 Sep 2008, 8:11pm
I will. Not on public forums though.
2 Sep 2008, 8:12pm
Talk of making a mountain out of a molehill! And here I was thinking you were going to bare all.
2 Sep 2008, 8:14pm
What's the point of a molehill if a mountain cannot be made out of it?
Again, I will bare all, but this is not the right place for it, is it? :)