Wednesday, March 30, 2005

The Statehood Chronicles Loop

Too bad Bridget Jones didnt make it to the final cut of top personalities in any of the years her book was published [yeah i know, spoof circles and pointless articles vaguely hinted at such an award, but not RECOGNIZABLY so, no?].There would've certainly be one biased vote from self for her--biased as the reason is just one phrase coined by her [remind me to come back to this term 'coined' later] "Smug Marrieds".Unless there is or noteworthy domestic violence brewing, most married folk seem decidedly smug about their state. Something about the marriage certificate maybe? Or the passing of a wedding anniv [i made it! I certainly must be qualified] leads most to believe themselves as thought-leaders about the marriage market. Fact is, marriage is very much like bhelpuri or spicy rasam that gets passed around the table. Customizable to the hilt, [groundnuts, pomogranete seeds might seem ugh to some] and as for the rasam, well, 'nobody comes close to mom' does attitude.

Hmm. Hope self did not sound like a 'biased against my own'kinda person [considering am married n all]. Why, i probably qualify well on the stereotyping front, being a sectionist to boot . While the "business-world" [those who are immediately reminded of Phoebe buffet at this term, contact me pronto kindred soul!] prefers to call those who 'dissect into littler sections to analyze or make assupmtions on'as analysts, sectionists receive no such preferential treatment. Sectionists, well, dissect the general public into easily recognizable stereotypes, thats all.

Aaanyways [said in a long-drawl mode in manner of one bored with self], was trotting along trusted links from ole faithful bloglines when chance upon an article on arranged marriages by an NY lass. Turned out to be a pretty good piece that bordered vaguely on [yeah yeah i know.she a Harvard grad, but wot? harvard grads arent vague?] indian men attitudes. Was rather pleased to find surprisingly good references to how dating and arranged marriages seem like two sides to the same coin. The writer points out how the 30+ unmarrieds are badgered upon incessantly, or worse-still, given up on.

"Interesting article, that" i tell myself. "singlehood and dating disasters, eh?" Find myself soon dissecting own statehood life[Statehood life: Noun. Used to indicate very specifically single or married state of individual] for interesting anecdotes without creating enough fodder for the allegedly henpecked.Minutes pass. Nothing. I reason logically to self "If A is single and can blog nineteen-to-the-dozen [yeah, remind me on this one as well] on singlehood, can B, as a committed individual, blog atleast quarter-to-a-dozen on statehood? Pull out back on envelope and number 2 pencil and ponder furiously on statehood topics:

1) Self's successful guy-hunt that resulted in spendidly shining certificate proclaiming marriage.

2) Self's mildly sipid life with da guy bordering on excesssively sappy domestic bliss mode.

3) Self's complaint register or cliched "Men!!" observations [extend exclamatory points depending on exasperation level]

Sit back, staring intently at short unappealing list. What? I have no hilarious info to share on self's statehood? [wait! what about the time at the...blech! forget it.Even i didnt find it amusing the second time around]

Tchah! AAA YOO MEEYY BLUCK [ancient tamil song in manner of eeny-meeny-miny-mo. Absolutely unnnecessary at this point]. Statehood shtatehood--wot the heck. Just came across a blog on social norms of the middle-east...Wonder if self qualifies to lecture on the today's society? Hey presto, realize i live in one! shred previous list to create new list of topics on social norms of the current generation..1).....

Creating a delightful circle of thinking-of-writing and discarding-writing-thoughts


Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Of Prudes and Prejudices

California judge ruled against the state ban against same-sex marriages. Gays went rah-rah, conservatives went bah-bah and everyone decided to wait for almost a decade for an actual law/rule to come into place. Well, joy for the gays I say [nope.not being redundant there am i?]. To almost counter any kind of progress to the presumed minorities of the world, feminists decide to launch a blogHERcon-a conference for female bloggers. Hmm. Probing further, i see the issues the conference deals with. "Why are females in the minority when it comes to blogging?", "What issues do women face when they blog" and as an emphatic "feminist" statement the conference could possibly have baby-sitters et al so blogging moms bring along their totes. Ooook then.Zipping my lips and canning the hundred comments in head. Brevity being the name of the game and all that jazz.

Oh damn, ok. I give up.I HAVE to rant. I have nothing to say on the gay-marriage issue-hey, it makes perfect sense to me. All those opposing it are not gays--and those for it are gays. If a single gay guy opposed same-sex marriage [of course we arent talking closet gays who marry women and pretend to be righteous in their anti-gay claims] I would maybe reconsider the thought. But conference for female bloggers seems to be this giant step somewhere--not forward for sure. Yeah i know females who have kids have it tough, and not every female is a superhero. I also know enough females who do a splendid job of managing kids and work without feeling a sense of guilt at everything they do or dont. But i somehow could never understand these "female only" conferences unless we talking frustration management technqiues at PMS or labor. Coz, lets see now--female conferences for "female" issues talk of, to put it mildly "issues". We arent talking world hunger issues here, we talking "my office-folk expect me to be available even when there are babycare needs to take care of". To me, it strangely resembles gossiping. If you have issues, and you are there to communicate, dudettes, who you communicating TO? Feminism has suddenly stopped being a movement and moved towards a complaint register. Feminism, to me, is about issues where females arent on equal standing with men. Villages with child-marriage, infanticide when it comes to little baby girls, or simply lack of individualistic rights for females. Making time-management and people-management the main feminist issue for married females with kids, is frankly to me, a slap in the face of women who do a brilliant job managing them all well without the perennial guilt-trips. A recent article in a newsweek magazine talks of how the "soccer mom" is a myth. How moms DONT have to do it all to be termed a great soccer [or cricket] mom. Fair enough, i say. If you want your kid to be in 25 different classes, insist on protectively participating in all PTA, childgroup, girl scout and local parenting meetings as well as manage a job and take care of your home efficiently while planning for birthday parties, well, joy to you. I've seen moms [well, actually one] who doesnt think she has to be a part of all that her kid does, and frankly doesnt think the kid needs to compete in terms of extra-curricular classes he takes. The kid reads books and plays soccer, and she is a part of one parenting group that helps with carpools.period. The fact that the newsweek magazine went into a "you dont have to feel guilty for not being a supermom. Dont blame yourself, blame the government/system" seemed a bit odd, but i guess kidded moms have a better opinion there.

In anycase, so much for blogging conferences for women-to me, its the same as Football fan conferences for women, no?. "Why arent there enough football fans" asks the leader on the podium. "Well, coz there is a lesser percentage of females who watch and follow football?" meekly states a front-seater. "Aha! and whose fault is that?" asks the leader, pointing a unshaking finger at the one who dare asked the question, drawing angry glares from her neighbors.

Speaking of feminism and gay rights, herez some thot for the gray cells [question: are they REALLY gray? coz i would really like them to be called blue cells or smtg. Gray just seems, well, sad for smtg thats supposedly bright and intelligent]. My guess is, 50 years from now, both gay rights and feminism would have progressed [progress being a relative term]. Hell, kids in 2075, if all goes well would ask their mom [or moms, as gay rights progress remember?] "oooh mom-1! tell me, was it really illegal for you to marry mom-2? Did you really participate in the gay parade to demand gay-marriage? And did ALL women marry men then?" while mommy dearest picks little kid onto lap and regales stories of "those good ole days when protesting was a part-time hobby". Or a little girl runs up to dad to ask "ooh dad, Rahul tells me that in the olden days,moms always took care of children and went part-time at work for it. Is that true?" she asks with eyes wide open in wonder. And daddy dearest, having succesfully finished his 50% of tasks at home, pats her affectionately and goes "yes my little one. How odd would that be now right?". So if there is no feminism, racial bias and gay bias in the world of the future? what would prejudice and bias be based on? Color? check.done away with long back. Sex? ditto. Gays? Ditto. hmm, a world without bias would be difficult to imagine as thats probably the only constant trait in social evolution. I guess the "haves" and "have-nots" is a constant one too. Maybe "personality traits" i suppose? like "ooh! dont talk to HER! shez one of those 'Assertive ones". Nyaah, but worth a thought if world were to be biased based on personality traits for lack of anything else.Any thoughts? [this is the point when you simply pass on, writing inane random blogs down to 9:30 am didnt get my cereal today attitudes]

Stoutly Anti-urban feminist,