To middle class morality and other asinine things we believe in, I hope this makes you uncomfortable as you read it even if it doesn't get you to re-evaluate your belief system. That is all.
Here's my problem with people who don't support the liberal arts. You complain about the quality of entertainment that comes your way but you won't encourage your kids to do something about it by taking to the arts and creating good content. And the reason you give yourselves and them is "Nobody will respect you." God forbid you being a woman with an urge to do something creative as a career, because obviously "you won't be able to manage a family and do this work when you get married and have a husband." So, you tell us to take to careers that give us a "safe", "regular" job. We can firmly confirm that "safe" and "regular" are more than just words meant for the packaging copy on a condom. They are also used to propagate what makes us middle class folk who we are. Hypocrites with a penchant for passing the buck on to "society" and "what society thinks".
You don't mind shelling out solid amounts of money to host an elaborate wedding with the bride decked in gold that you took a loan for, because "log kya kehenge" rules your cognition. If you're on the bride's side and you happen to be her parents, I empathize with her. She probably wanted to get a loan for higher education, but you decided that getting her married would be a better investment. Even if she did earn, she'd end up saving that money for her "new" family, right? So, what's the point in educating her? If she doesn't earn, her husband will provide for her and you. Financial security is just a fancy term that "moneyed people" use to cover up their "immoral" ways of getting to the top. Pat yourself on the back for that train of thought, go ahead, since you just got away with free health insurance, medical insurance and life insurance all at the cost of taking your kid's self worth away. Good. Job.
But, having said that, you're just looking out for her. You're just trying to get her to see that it's a "man's world". That she has "no chance" of making it big. That she will always be "second rate". What you're doing isn't cruel. What you're doing is "protecting" her. If only she'd understand. "Feminism" is silly to you. Men and women can't be equal. Psshht. What a perfectly crass thought. It's a man's "duty" to provide for his family. It's a man's "right" to have his family do everything he needs to have "peace of mind at home", even if it does mean keeping the woman "in her place" by knocking her around a little. It's not like she's doing anything worthwhile anyway. It's not like she's contributing to the world. It's not like she's earning... Oops. But wait a minute. If she did "work" at a "regular" job, she's obviously doing her boss "personal favours" to get to the top. How else can she be successful? It's not like she's capable of intelligence, creativity, hardwork or talent. You ensured she was brought up with the self-belief of how capable she was, but when the time comes to encourage her where it matters, letting her "run free" is a huge no-no. "What will people think?", you say. Yes. What indeed are people like you thinking?
Yet, it's not just about a woman's place in the world/society/community/family. It's also about the man. How could you possibly encourage your darling son to do what he loves? Haven't you ingrained it in him that he needs to be "strong"? That he needs to be "the man of the house". That he needs to keep emotions at bay, because getting emotional is "being a girl", and what a shameful thing that is. How can he be encouraged to enjoy his life when he has responsibilities towards you? Anger is the only emotion he is allowed to expose. Anger makes him manly. Fearing his wrath is what will make him earn respect from his future family. He should be ambitious, he should be ruthless and he should never, ever show weakness. After all, he will be the sole provider of his family. Letting his wife work will be blasphemous! Doesn't it show on his capabilities as a "man", if he lets his wife earn? So, you train him well through childhood with words like "boys don't cry", "don't throw like a girl", "don't punch like a girl", "getting bullied will toughen you up" and my personal favourite, "boys will be boys", which implies that boys are not capable of evolving into cultured and dignified human beings and that they will always remain immature, impulsive and impassive. If this shocks you, misandry must be a new addition to your vocabulary.
Oh, and god forbid a man from reporting a domestic violence case against his wife. How can he be a man if he lets a woman hurt him? And, of course, let's not forget to applaud this "brave" woman for "standing up" against her husband. Her act of "defiance" is to be commended because she is "making a bold statement". She is "changing the tide". She is "surging ahead". She's making her family proud by "manning up"... Oops.
Here's my problem with people who don't support the liberal arts. You complain about the quality of entertainment that comes your way but you won't encourage your kids to do something about it by taking to the arts and creating good content. And the reason you give yourselves and them is "Nobody will respect you." God forbid you being a woman with an urge to do something creative as a career, because obviously "you won't be able to manage a family and do this work when you get married and have a husband." So, you tell us to take to careers that give us a "safe", "regular" job. We can firmly confirm that "safe" and "regular" are more than just words meant for the packaging copy on a condom. They are also used to propagate what makes us middle class folk who we are. Hypocrites with a penchant for passing the buck on to "society" and "what society thinks".
You don't mind shelling out solid amounts of money to host an elaborate wedding with the bride decked in gold that you took a loan for, because "log kya kehenge" rules your cognition. If you're on the bride's side and you happen to be her parents, I empathize with her. She probably wanted to get a loan for higher education, but you decided that getting her married would be a better investment. Even if she did earn, she'd end up saving that money for her "new" family, right? So, what's the point in educating her? If she doesn't earn, her husband will provide for her and you. Financial security is just a fancy term that "moneyed people" use to cover up their "immoral" ways of getting to the top. Pat yourself on the back for that train of thought, go ahead, since you just got away with free health insurance, medical insurance and life insurance all at the cost of taking your kid's self worth away. Good. Job.
But, having said that, you're just looking out for her. You're just trying to get her to see that it's a "man's world". That she has "no chance" of making it big. That she will always be "second rate". What you're doing isn't cruel. What you're doing is "protecting" her. If only she'd understand. "Feminism" is silly to you. Men and women can't be equal. Psshht. What a perfectly crass thought. It's a man's "duty" to provide for his family. It's a man's "right" to have his family do everything he needs to have "peace of mind at home", even if it does mean keeping the woman "in her place" by knocking her around a little. It's not like she's doing anything worthwhile anyway. It's not like she's contributing to the world. It's not like she's earning... Oops. But wait a minute. If she did "work" at a "regular" job, she's obviously doing her boss "personal favours" to get to the top. How else can she be successful? It's not like she's capable of intelligence, creativity, hardwork or talent. You ensured she was brought up with the self-belief of how capable she was, but when the time comes to encourage her where it matters, letting her "run free" is a huge no-no. "What will people think?", you say. Yes. What indeed are people like you thinking?
Yet, it's not just about a woman's place in the world/society/community/family. It's also about the man. How could you possibly encourage your darling son to do what he loves? Haven't you ingrained it in him that he needs to be "strong"? That he needs to be "the man of the house". That he needs to keep emotions at bay, because getting emotional is "being a girl", and what a shameful thing that is. How can he be encouraged to enjoy his life when he has responsibilities towards you? Anger is the only emotion he is allowed to expose. Anger makes him manly. Fearing his wrath is what will make him earn respect from his future family. He should be ambitious, he should be ruthless and he should never, ever show weakness. After all, he will be the sole provider of his family. Letting his wife work will be blasphemous! Doesn't it show on his capabilities as a "man", if he lets his wife earn? So, you train him well through childhood with words like "boys don't cry", "don't throw like a girl", "don't punch like a girl", "getting bullied will toughen you up" and my personal favourite, "boys will be boys", which implies that boys are not capable of evolving into cultured and dignified human beings and that they will always remain immature, impulsive and impassive. If this shocks you, misandry must be a new addition to your vocabulary.
Oh, and god forbid a man from reporting a domestic violence case against his wife. How can he be a man if he lets a woman hurt him? And, of course, let's not forget to applaud this "brave" woman for "standing up" against her husband. Her act of "defiance" is to be commended because she is "making a bold statement". She is "changing the tide". She is "surging ahead". She's making her family proud by "manning up"... Oops.
No comments:
Post a Comment