Left (Brain) Zero, Right 100

I was talking to a friend about men, women, their behavior, sex etc. I suggested to her that it would be so nice if all women were locked up so they could never see any men while men remained free.

She was aghast. She used some choice language and said I was a chauvinist and how I could be so unfair to women.

Now, I wondered why she couldn't or didn't realize that if all women were locked up with no possible contact with men then no man could have any contact with women either.

I realized that she was proceeding what I said through her emotions and completely forgot about logic.

This is a classic feminine behavior. This is the same reason that women think that men indulge in extra marital affairs more than women do. They think about how difficult it's for women to indulge in it (emotionally, practically) than for men without realizing that an affair needs a man AND A WOMAN.

The focus on emotions and lack of facility with logic makes them so cute and utterly impossible.

Reservation

https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/india-inc-women-get-only-37-out-of-every-100-new-jobs-created-in-fy19-119111300361_1.html

Apparently for 100 jobs created, women get only 37 jobs. That more jobs should be reserved for women so it's 50-50.

This is the age old question about reservation. Earlier it was about caste, minorities. Now it's about women.

If men started to insist on reservation in fields largely manned by women such as in nursing, gynecology, women's innerwear shops, preprimary teaching in schools, I wonder what they reaction of women would be.

Would there be hostility, warm acceptance, deep discomfort?

Affirmative action is one thing. Insistence on a quota (minimum or maximum) is quite something else. A small minimum quota of some disadvantaged group is acceptable. A quota in proportion to their numbers in their population is ugly.

Imagine tomorrow if all people with diabetes wanted a quota. Or men who short, dark and ugly wanted a quota. The list is endless.

Buniyaadi Zimmedaari Of A Woman

A friend of mine recently related an incident mentioned to her by an author acquaintance (male) of hers. 

When the gentleman was a young student, in one class period the teacher was showing some stuff to the students using a projector with the lights off. There was complete silence in the room until the lights were switched on after the presentation. It was then that everyone noticed a cloud of smoke at the rear end of the room that was apparently caused by the backbenchers smoking cigarettes while the rest of the class was engrossed in the presentation.

The author told my friend that such behavior of the students was not the fault of the students who were smoking during class. That it was the fault of the teacher who had been unable to kindle interest in these students sufficiently. 

My friend, having recounted this story to me, asked me for my opinion. Did I concur or disagree with the author? She said she herself had mixed feelings.

I said I understood where the gentleman was coming from. The primary responsibility of a teacher is to create interest towards the subject in her students. Without this interest no student can learn much. 

I told her I had two things to say about the opinion expressed  by the author.

1st thing:

It's generally held in conservative cultures that it's the wife who holds the primary responsibility of maintaining the family order and maintaining the marriage - she having better patience, understanding, maturity than the husband. (And the husband has the primary responsibility of winning the bread and bringing home the bacon.). Now in this scenario, where a marriage has failed irretrievably, should we hold the woman solely or even primarily responsible for the breakdown of the marriage?

Circling back to what I said of the responsibility of a teacher towards her students, that is, to create interest in her students: Not all students have interest or aptitude in a subject. Even MF Hussein wouldn't be able to create any interest in painting in me. Even Sachin Tendulkar wouldn't be able make me bat well were he to coach me. Is it then appropriate to condemn Hussein and Tendulkar as being inadequate in their jobs as teachers? Whose fault would it be that I never could paint nor bat well?

The 2nd example I would present to refute the author's idea is to take one of his own books. Let's assume 10,000 people purchased his book and that 8,000 liked it a lot. And the balance 2,000 didn't. Shall we then say it was the author's fault that he couldn't get those 2,000 readers interested and fully involved with his book? 

Any unidirectional communication (a presentation, a book etc) depends a LOT on the author to get the audience involved. Yes, of course. But then there will be some, or even many, in the audience, who have no skill / aptitude for the subject, whom the author cannot reach out to. Which Engineering teacher would be able to reach out to Raju Rastogi and Furhan Quereshi in 3 Idiots?

That there are such students in the audience is no reflection on the author or presenter.

I would consider a good teacher to be one who infuses great interest in part (hopefully large) of her students who benefit from her classes and who identifies and excuses the other part of her students from her class. 

In the same vein, a good woman is one who identifies that the man she is with is not worthy of her attention, love and care and leaves with grace before she messes up her own and his life. This, I feel, is there fundamental responsibility of a woman.
Perhaps this is what Ludhyanvi meant when he said so beautifully "wo afsaana jise anjaam tak laana na ho na mumkin use ek khubsoorat mod pe chhodna accha".

Pak's Stand On Kashmir

From https://www.dawn.com/news/1516825/the-kartarpur-factor 

This article above is written by a person who had served as ambassador of Pakistan to India, USA etc. 

The following two excerpts were very interesting to me. That Pakistan has its eyes on ALL of Kashmir and that people from POK create a lot of disturbance in India and Kashmir with the connivance or urging of Pak come out very clearly.

I had earlier (a few years back) read that Pakistan's Constitution will recognize or accept nothing less than the whole of Kashmir. The author of the link above seems to confirm that desire. 

Once the two points are accepted as the deep driving desire of the Pak establishment, how does one negotiate with them? What does one feel about Pak?

Quotes from the article:

• "In a worst-outcome situation, neither Imran Khan nor the Pakistan Army will be able to restrain the people of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan from responding."
• "He Modi sees himself as the embodiment of a triumphant ideology that has given India great power status while putting an end to Pakistan’s dreams of Kashmir.""

Additional reading

https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/08/love-thy-neighbors-wife.html

NT About Narcissistic Trump (NT)

No Charitable Thought for Donald Trump

After reading this article I reflected. A callous, narcissistic person such as Trump is so hard to deal with. There is not an ounce of values of any kind. A pathological liar and devoid of any character, everything is about himself and furthering his own interests. Just like Capone had his income tax, Trump seems to have (hopefully) found his Waterloo in Ukraine.

• The more reflective thought concerns the hundreds and thousands of other similar male Trumps and female Trumps that exist against whom there is no mechanism of Democrats, whistleblowers and anonymous guys to expose. 

Who bells those cats?

Additional reading

• ‘A Warning’ by ‘Anonymous’: 5 Takeaways
• https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2018/12/07/trump-narcissistic-sociopath/

Belar Sheshe - The Growth Of A Plant

A friend of mine, passionate about art, told me a story of a man she came to know some time back.

The man had been born of a wealthy family, successful academically and professionally. Then his life took a turn. He lost many things including his job, his family, his status and wealth. He turned into a shell of his prior self and locked everyone and everything out of his life. 

The man then found that he possessed one thing that was priceless - that was his ability to see and understand life with brilliant clarity. 

When my friend first met the man it s during the course of her work. She had gone through some hard years in her life and was just recovering from her own personal trauma. 

She happened to mention this the man. She was surprised to find that the man, who lived in a world of darkness himself, was able to understand her experience. Not only that, he was able to provide a meaningful expression to her experience and helped her understand herself better as a person. 

The man was able to cut and dissect her experiences, and explain to her that the aversion she was feeling towards herself was not called for. That the trauma, traumas actually, were accidents in her life which she went through for no fault of hers. Sure, she could have and ought to have made better decisions for herself. 

How does it feel when the worst things we feel towards ourselves are removed when we get to see the past in a different light?

And that's what the man did.

While living in his own darkness, he still retained the ability to see light, if not provide light to someone else. 

My friend said of the man, I quote verbatim - "he had weaved a tapestry of beautiful bright colors over his soul while parts of it were still dark as hell". 

And after having spent a few days in his company she realized she wanted to paint again. Painting was her passion. She was a professional artist in her earlier life.

And that is the change the man brought to her life. She wanted to live again and grow, just because she understood his tapestry.