Shaival Thakkar

“India, on an average is a country which denies people the right to love. But love explodes on the screen.”

- Indian Cinema class notes, SAA, JNU

Ting ting ting ting ting ting
Ting ting ting ting ting ting

Ting ting ting ting ting ting
Ting ting ting ting ting ting

I might have missed out on some ‘ting tings’ but basically, this is the sound of Shahrukh Khan pretending to play a romantic hook on his mandolin and giving cheesy looks to Kajol and the Swiss Cow (video link) in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (DDLG). This is also the sound of the messed up subconscious of many young Indians’ idea of romantic love. Whether s/he is a Bollywood fan or not, the average Indian has watched this movie at least a couple of times. This movie tells you that to fall in love with a beautiful Indian girl; you need to make a trip to Europe! (This is very expensive or simply unaffordable for most of us!).

Swiss Cows after a screening of DDLJ. (source: Mandeep Goyal)

When I was in school, as a pastime in free periods, we would take a pencil and put it very quickly through the empty spaces between our fingers and see who could do that the fastest and most passionately. That’s a trick we picked up from Salman Khan’s movie ‘Love’ (1991) (which had the famous song ‘Sathiya yeh tune kya kiya’) where he does the same with a knife(!) as there are some major problems in his love life.

A typical Bollywood thing is for the hero to dance and sing around trees in order to impress the heroine. The average Indian guy cannot sing and dance as well as a Bollywood’s hero. And in case if he managed to get his girl to the nearest park or garden and tried dancing then he would probably be thrown out of the garden by a watchman with those huge scary wooden dandas!. And I don’t think any girl would be impressed by this non-sense. I don’t think even Mother Nature would approve of such antics. Imagine two trees in the Ramoji Film City having a conversation.

[Tree 1:”Man, I’d much rather have monkeys jumping up and down on my branches than these Bollywood actors dancing around my trunk.”
Tree 2: “True, all this singing and dancing business always gives me high blood pressure. I wish they’d do all that underwater or something. I’d much rather die and be turned into paper than live another day to see all this phony-baloney!”]

The Bollywood dance routine has pervaded foreign sanity. (source)

Thank God most of these song and dance sequences are shot abroad! We already have so much non-sense going on in India in terms of silly symbolic politics and lack of infrastructure, that it is a good idea to outsource these silly whimsical song and dance shoots to Switzerland and other such exotic locations.

In fact, I say that most of the Bollywood actors, actresses and directors should stay abroad as much as possible. It’s the next best thing to disowning them completely!! Imagine if I was the immigration officer at one of the airports where a Bollywood team has freshly arrived from a shoot. I would tell the whole bunch of them, “You guys are Bollywood people. Sorry your passports are not valid anymore. You are no longer citizens of India. We have made arrangements for you all to go to either Timbuktu or Antarctica, whichever place you think is more conducive to singing, dancing and stupidity.”

Sometimes, I imagine that in hell, the hottest cauldrons are reserved for Bollywood directors who exploit their audiences. Imagine Yamdoot saying, “Here Mr.XYZ, you can show me your ‘item song’ in this cauldron. It has been waiting for you since a long time.” Furthermore, Yamdoot says, “In your films you always put more emphasis on the beauty of the Indian woman’s physical and behavioural qualities. And you are always demeaning to the self respect of Indian men by making them dance around scantily clad women. You fool; do you know how your ‘item songs’ badly hamper the self-actualisation process of Indian men and women? My colleagues in heaven send beautiful women and men to earth for making love. And all you do is teach Indian men how to scare away lovely Indian women! You know the formula to needs and wants of Indians and keep pulling at their heartstrings. However, you have no clue about the dark secrets of the Indian soul and the hidden wonders of the Indian heart. You leave me with no choice but to deep fry you, you idiot!!”

(source)

I haven’t seen a Bollywood or Hollywood romantic comedy since a long time and I am happy to say that my well-being has really shot up because of it. If one accepts the hard fact that romantic love more or less doesn’t exist in India(even though the symbol of love the Taj Mahal happens to be located in India) and that it’s only an idea which Bollywood uses in order to flourish commercially then life as a young Indian can become easier. Hollywood movies might be better made than the Bollywood ones but they’re just too far removed from India’s social reality. One never sees a Tom Hanks saying to a Meg Ryan, “Sorry Meg, I am a Brahmin and you are a Kadva Patel. I am afraid things cannot work out for us. You’re very sweet but we have to end this here. I know You’ve Got Mail but I’ve Got Caste.”

Are you sure Tom? Really sure? (source)

When Presidents and Prime Ministers in India or abroad have got healthy personal lives or are married and have families(like Nicolas Sarkozy, Manmohan Singh, Barack Obama) rather than single politicians (like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Narendra Modi) then they inspire a sense of confidence in the public. Similarly, I feel Hindi film artists who have healthy personal lives or are married (like Mani Ratnam) tend to depict Indian life in a balanced way. Film makers and actors like Karan Johar, Aditya Chopra and Salman Khan might have given hits which have a cult following but the public has never heard of them being very happy or stable in their personal lives, no matter what their sexual orientation is. And that’s why I think their movies are overemotional or whacked out when it comes love. If I want to watch a whacked out love story then I would rather go to Ranvir Shorey, Vinay Pathak & Co. or to Jack Black and Ben Stiller. These guys are really out there with their whackiness.  They haven’t been just sitting around Bandra and suburban Mumbai all their lives.

The author’s true love. (source)

If we want the younger generations of Indians to be more clear headed about romantic love then we should stop projecting the idea of romantic love as something exotic but show it as something that is a part of everyday life and easily attainable. This way they can use their energy in doing other interesting things in life too. And women are just women. We give them too much credit by waxing poetic about their bodily features and behavioural qualities .We put them on a pedestal so high that it gets difficult for them to get back on earth. Moreover, the men have to strain their necks just to look at them. (“Hello there, how about a coffee?”. “Yessssss…..”.“Ok let me get a crane first to get you back down on ground”.)

The average Indian male doesn’t have as many romantic choices as his Western counterpart. He cannot or does not usually go to a pub, exchange numbers with a woman and get to know her better. The average Indian male usually goes to the local downmarket bar after a hard day at work and drinks some cheap alcohol. It’s a bar full of men; there is no trace of a woman in that place.

The average Indian man is also the social security for his wife. And not all Indian women are working women. Unless India has a social security system in place like in the West or unless majority of Indian women do jobs he will remain the social security for his women. Since we Indians don’t have a social security system in place, we end up buying a lot of gold or real estate as a compensation to feel socially secure. And that onus is also on the Indian Male. Moreover, until the time he gets married his emotional life is full of emptiness or unrequited loves and fantasies.

In Mary Shelly’s novel Frankenstein, even Frankenstein’s monster is aware of the importance of love in his life. The monster says, “My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor; and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal. I shall feel the affections of a sensitive being, and become linked to the chain of existence and events, from which I am now excluded.”(p.115) He is devastated when Victor Frankenstein stops making and destroys the female companion and says, “Shall each man find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone?”(p.133)

It is my hunch that the Indian guys who find love (and that’s not very common) are a less violent species than their counterparts who never find love (and not to mention keep watching porn all their life!).However, that statement is debateable and not universally true in India (about both violence and porn!).(However, the last statement doesn’t apply to the guy who is married to a female wrestler or to the guy who is a porn star himself unless he is narcissistic!). And ladies if you had always been looking for a guide to understanding the average Indian man, then I have just spelled it out for you. It is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein!!!!

The average Indian man. (source)

65% of the Indian population is below the age of 35. Its young people are important to India. And to understand their imaginative, emotional, and physical needs is also important. It can be argued that it is possible to live without romantic love as a lot of young India is doing currently. However, most of us don’t enjoy that sort of a single life. So, either some of us give up the idea of being loved or some of us continue in the tortuous quest for love. From the point of view of human resources also, if romantic love is a deep seated imaginative, emotional, and physical need which it definitely is then it should be satisfied. That would make for well-loved human beings who will go about their work happily and with a sense of fulfilment.

So, this is my message to the average Indian women:
We are Indian men. We watch a lot of Bollywood movies and our heads get messed up by those ideas of love. Real life is a different ball game altogether. The best we can do is make a living, look after you, drink cheap alcohol and ogle at you every chance we get.

I, for one, would love it if we Indian Men get really bored looking at an attractive Indian woman and think, “Oh, just another good looking, well-dressed Indian woman walking down the street. She’s probably dressed nicely to feel good about herself or to attract the best possible male companion. How boring. (‘Yawn’).”

However, that day is not coming anytime soon. So, till then just tolerate us the way we are. And while you’re at it, maybe try to understand us and love us? Even if we don’t sing or dance as well as your Bollywood heartthrobs? What does the average Indian woman have to say?

No harm in trying I guess.

What? Me? Listen!!? (source)

Kartikey Sehgal

On moods and desires of men. And their idea of romance.

What remains, of days gone by? Remnants of nights – broken in pieces. Of rains that lash on to the nonchalant mind.

There is no fire. No motivation. All of it is just desire. Desire. Called variously as fire, motivation, quest, courage. If desire be the root of all that is creative, then I have seen desire. It burns like fire, and motivates you towards a quest.

Why are places important. They assume their place, thus:
Places are recipients of moments when the heart is aflutter with desire. And desire is that that is symbolic of man – all that flows within him – countless years of evolution.

The heart connects man to his past.

And when desire becomes man – places assume importance. And that is the romance of places.

What remains, of days gone by…

Sitting among walls, modern ruins of emptiness. Only well decorated. Homes.
They have their place, these homes, when filled with a man.
And man has his place, this mortal, when filled with desire.

And he chases desire. Chases that moment, when he was man. A man in spite of the world around him. A man in realisation of his self.

He leaps into the vault of memories. The sounds and lights of the places that hosted the desire. That desire.

The details of colour and people irk him. How does man retrace desire. His moments of glory?
And so he chases – on foot.

A soldier in rain. The umbrella his shield.

And water, that drips from faces and buildings – from places – forms puddles around his feet.
Water that is the culmination of an infinite memories.

He stamps that water, our soldier, conscious of the need for desire, while others’ desires melt around him.

Alas, that place holds no such meaning now. It ignited once, when he felt the creator inside him. It is now a memory. A memory. And that is the romance of places.

The original desires of man – are all memories. And while others dwell in the past, the creator dwells in the memory of desire, that is, the memory of an allegory, of beauty.

And then the night begets a dream.
Man awakens and forgets the dream.
The lure of defeat tempts him.
Another desire. An other desire.

Kartikey Sehgal

Commenter Kay wrote detailed responses on the story ‘What the slut-walk is really about’. 

my dad was an attorney, and had more flexible hours than mom, yet it was mom, every evening who came home from work, cooked, cleaned, helped us with homework, and on the weekends did an entire cleaning of the house, my dad always got the full plate of food ready, before any other member, he on the other hand never handed a glass of water to her…..the fact that in most homes, girls are ‘groomed’ for the domestic life after marriage, whereas the boys aren’t even asked to pick up after themselves.

Kay is referring to what I have called the ‘lesser man’. [link]

Let’s be clear. It is not a man’s duty to do house-work. Man by nature is independent. His upbringing spoils him. Men are feminised into being lazy; scratching their thighs and rubbing their eyes simultaneously while smiling ‘cutely’ and in turn, getting their cheeks pulled apart by older women.

The problem is not that man is not helping woman in house-work. The problem is that he has been brought to this state of dependency. And women are an important part in this complicity of enfeebling him.

Kay further writes that men care about their own families and not their wife’s parents. True.

However, Kay, note that these men don’t really care about the ‘family’. If they understood and cared for ‘the family’, then they would understand and care for the system; instead they ‘care’ just for their family. Naturally, these men don’t really care. They bear. A ritual, a responsibility for life.

And how can they care? They have been overburdened and bored to death. All that time you thought you were helping them by locking them up in rooms in front of books, you were actually preparing them for being living zombies. Heartless creatures who validate themselves through ‘marks’ and promotions.

These men don’t care much for their parents. They won’t care much for yours (if at all). And while women are blaming their husbands for being heartless, they may be preparing their sons for leading the same life.

We are preparing for a society of weak men. The ones who don’t do much while their country is bombarded regularly. Who are content to live amidst social indicators of wealth. Who scorn at men who are smarter but poorer. The ones who look at a man and think, ‘does he have more money than me? Should I talk to him nicely in the case he does?’. These same men then spit on the roads and throw their empty soft-drink cans on the road and reach out for their car, all the time scratching their thighs and heads in unison.

There are variants of such men. The serious ones. Who don’t scratch anything publically and are given to rules and mores. Who are depressed. And sad. And responsible to their family. Sadness and strictness takes up so much of their time, that they care little about their wife or her parents.

Behind all such men is almost always the weak family, characterised by the weak father and the weak (but seemingly strong) mother.

Kay, you must note that women are equal (or higher) contributors to the sufferings of women. I need not tell you that women are not good friends with other women. In society, the good woman is left behind by other women. She doesn’t get much support from most men as they are, well, lesser men, destroyed and unable to identify real worth.

The slut-walk movements do not take this into account. Which is why they come across as moronic. They will not be able to help women. If you really want to investigate the condition of women (and men), then read this very long essay by Thomas Ball. What applies to America can apply here.

You need action* and not needless drama to come out of any problem. Slut-walk is pure drama. Running and playing under the sun with children is action. Toughening them up is action. The second-rate/lesser men can’t do it. Those who know the ‘truth’ can. It is imperative they act.

Make ‘real men’*. They will not curb the wit and talents of any woman.

*action:  this is the ‘voice your dissent’ query of your response
*real men will have ‘real’ daughters. The witty ones and not the ‘bitchy’ ones.

Kartikey Sehgal

So says a poster – “Boy’s Just Eat Grape And Stop Girl Rape”. Here is the slut-walk (s-walk) movement examined and ‘uncovered’ [wink].

Remember: S-walk is not against terrorism or rapes. It is in favour of women bossing over men – or so it seems. If you had to really stop rapes (or generate ‘rape awareness’ as they say) would you do such a thing?

There’s a poem at the end that tells you what the movement is really about.

A defining photo from the ‘movement’. The drums are phallic symbols, appropriately placed; you boys are left to beat your self off.

By being mere followers of women, participating in a lousy copy of a foreign-failed movement, you will not improve your sex-life and get yourself hordes of women. That’s what you are really after. If you cared for whatever you are preaching, you would have come up with a better idea.

Some/Many women are ashamed when they have small breasts.
Women are ashamed when they have big breasts and they are always stared at.

This girl has nothing to be ashamed of – she says.
Replace body parts with short skirt/tank tops – skimpy dresses.
She was ashamed when she wore them – men stared. The opposite of shame is – no shame.
Ask her that when nobody notices her dresses then would she like it?
When nobody notices her wouldn’t she feel ashamed?
Is shame the factor here or safety?
Title: Logic and beauty

Are they in favour of women or are they against the high-testosterone men who like to gape at women?
Are they in favour of women because they are repressed, don’t look at them anyway and are angry at other men?
Are they in favour because this is a chance to be near them and talk to them?

Five pretty ladies in a line.
The yellow poster says: ‘A girl is not your father’s property. Do not act (behave) like you can claim her.’
Later, after marriage…
Boy: You are my girl. You can’t meet other men just because I am busy with work at home.
Girl: Remember the s-walk movement? And that yellow poster? You can’t claim me.

This photo and that poster offer no solution to the reigning crisis of love and marriage.

Start Loving Ur Taboo? Seriously?

How about ‘Someone Loves Ur T**s’?

‘This is not an invitation to rape me’ – the poster says.
No, it is not. It looks more like an invitation to send you crayons and a ‘Beginner’s Guide to Drawing’.

This is awesome. Boy’s and not Boys. ‘Boy’s Just Eat Grape and Stop Girl Rape’.

By eating grapes, you can stop girls from raping. Do you see a vicious girl who is about to rape a hapless boy? Don’t worry. Just eat grape and stop girl rape.

If you write such lines, then all you’ll be eating is grapes. While the mangoes and melons will be taken care of.

Is that a short-skirt she is wearing? No, it’s not.
This means those shorts have something to do with me?

Obviously, the real meaning is that what a girl wears has nothing to do with you men. Whether you are rich or poor. Girls don’t dress for men. Or to please them. They dress because Mr. Tree likes it. Sway sway sway…

A ‘revolutionary movement’.

So bored are lady beings
All they want is lovely weengs
To fly high in the sky
And then say ‘Oh my’!

I am being repressed
Solidly un-dressed
By their menacing eyes

But I am so wise
I will throw in their eyes
Chilly powder and curd

Men are bastards
Men are bastards.

Kartikey Sehgal

When women can’t believe their happiness and success, they demand subservience from men to justify their status. They become ‘queens’.

Women are self-critical; to be right, they must have the backing of the other gender – the gender that is markedly different from their gender. The other gender abounds in logic and self-assurance, which is a pre-requisite to fight wars and maintain civilizations. When the warrior-creative gene backs them, women work happily.

Needless to say, the warriors and poets must be honest to them. Always the importance of the honest man. Honesty ensures that women are not spoiled.

Women are spoiled by excessive praises to their beauty and body. In this culture, they are the given utmost importance by media. The less prettier ones can make up with doles of exuberance and other—in their case—distractive qualities (that distract men from the lack). These women may have more talent that the beauties. But in this culture, talent does not hold a candle to beauty. However, less talent in a woman is glorified to give justification to selection by beauty.

Women who can modulate their voice and speak with some force are called ‘outgoing’, vivacious and forthcoming, when what’s mostly forthcoming is attempts at sexual attraction. I attract you through my body – but if you don’t like it, see to it that I have other personalities.

A woman who can sew very well versus a sexy woman who can sew just about well is a no-contest. Media will hold the spotlight on the sexy woman and train men to look up to this woman as the epitome of something (sewing). The other woman, who sews better, will have to shed clothes to compete.

The era of cloth-wearing-‘Goddesses’ is diminishing. Present day Goddesses don’t wear many clothes and media terms this as oozing confidence/forwardness or some such thing. When these women are spoiled by praises, they speak against the men; their fathers and brothers. They start holding themselves to be true representatives of womanhood and womanliness. It is now the duty of the men, the warriors and poets of society, to speak against such false claims of ‘womanhood’ by distancing themselves from such thoughts and critiquing the illogical stance of the spoiled women. And at the cost of being unfriendly with these women.

Only the meek men would think that any unfriendliness with the spoiled women would result in lack of sexual relations with them. These men turn subservient and support women rights. They turn blind to more talented women who don’t shed their clothes. These women are thereby pressurised to remove clothes. And behave like the spoiled women to get the attraction of men.

Subservience by men harms both men and women.

The spoiled women are still self-critical, no praise can diminish this aspect of their gender. They face the fact that their importance is through sheer beauty, which will fade. They realise that their real worth is lesser than the projected worth. They may hence be humbled and softened. Or they may seek further proof of their worth by taming the warrior-poet class of men. Women that choose the latter style of behaviour demand subservience from men.

Kartikey Sehgal

What if the elixir of life is discovered.

Even then, in such an exalted world situation, human quest for the unknown will not halt. For human preoccupation with creation is not dependent on life and death. Humans create during death and after death and before death. All symbols and rituals, rules and religions are creations.

But, argue now, but is the man not motivated by death. The thought of leaving behind his self through his work. Then how is he not dependent on death!

Death and the life-force motivate him to create, and he is dependent on the motivation. But the act of death does not stop him from work. If it were so, man would never create. Even in misery, hopelessness, the seed to create is germinated. It may fructify during the sunny hours. The sunny hours, then, don’t take credit for the creation.

In the event of someone’s death, man attempts to stay clear of ideas. Is that possible. Perhaps, as an attempt only. For ideas make the man, and are converted to memory, whether conscious or subconscious.

Loss of possible creation gives grief to man. He grieves because with the person’s death, future events with that person cannot be created.

A man’s creation is the elixir of life. For immortality is a chain of creations, each inspiring the next. The world of art and science are, thus, immortal. Man works to ensure the survival of future generations.

It is the creator then, who is the kindest, most passionate and to him should all the qualities be assigned.

Kartikey Sehgal

If you believe in emotions, then life is essentially a tragedy. Which is why women cry a lot; they pass through a jigsaw of emotions. And men, supposedly, don’t cry as much as women. They are the logical side to the woman’s emotional being.

Furthermore, happiness is relative to sadness. Happiness is, despite the tragic nature of life; of deaths and innumerable stresses. Happiness is not absolute. If it is absolute, then only as a state of mind; but that state is not natural–it is brought about through practise and meditations.

It is the logical that understands truths about life, in varying degrees, according to the intellectual capacities. However, it may be said that almost every man recognises, even if subconsciously, the tragic nature of life.

The emotional, too, sees the tragic nature of life, but she is compelled to forgo the truth in favour of romance and illusions of romance and happiness; the various books and movies promoting this fallacy. The logical, too, is affected by the media that sells falsities to make money.

Therefore it becomes essential that man stays man despite the changing society. Fashion and feminism must not come in the way of man and his logical nature. If man loses his potential, then the society would be in disarray, and many of you would point out that it already is in this post-feminist or super-feminist culture.

When man loses or lessens his logical nature, then women may take it upon themselves to be logical. A world made up of emotional men and logical women would succeed only after either gender has absolutely subdued and suppressed their instincts. It would still be a volatile world, with the pressure of instinct leading to misery for either genders.

The person–man or woman–who sees and recognises the tragedy of life can claim happiness. For is happiness not the recognition of truth? A person who is closer to truth is closer to happiness, and there may come a state when neither joy nor sorrow would leave too lasting an impression on this man of truth.

Kartikey Sehgal

How many of you wrote Facebook-slogans when Shahid Afridi (Pakistan cricket-team captain) asked his country to not hate the Indians? How many of you commented on his ‘character’ and welcomed him back to India? You were probably not praising him but seeking self-approval. You were being decision-makers, policy changers. And you knew that you’d find ‘support’ and ‘similarity’ from other commenters.

If somebody had written in the negative about Shahid, you would have had reason to ‘fight back’ in favour of ‘peace and harmony’, with the thought-line “though I am an Indian/though we have had a bloody history, I praise when I see the right thing”. A sure-fire winner. Nobody contests feelings of peace and harmony. No way would you be looked down upon.

Now what? When he says, “…Indians will never have hearts like Muslims and Pakistanis. I do not think they have the large and clean hearts that Allah has given us.”

You must still agree with him since you were the “judge of character”.

In your defence, you may say that he said it out of some grave compulsion. In any case, that ascribes a negative quality to his nature, and doesn’t redeem you from your arm-chair judgement. Is he not brave to stand-by what he first said?

Or,

Is he quick-mouthed, and whimsical? Doesn’t speak well for your case either.

So are you smart, intelligent? Do your ‘status-messages’ smell of leadership qualities. Or would you say, “Afridi let us down” or that “he has revealed his true colours to us” thereby claiming some kind of victimhood?

How wise are you?

A woman does not have a soul that is like a man’s soul. Argue that some (many) of them have to be trained to recognise the man’s soul. Argue that such a woman will have feelings of nationhood and patriotism. Argue that she will identify with and understand (and support) the nature of men. Therefore she will not publically (Facebook=public) express desires for ‘the other man’ who is not on friendly terms with ‘her men’. If not for patriotism then for the simple reason that ‘her men’ will not like it.

Clearly, if men are wrong judge of characters, quick to crown him and show-off their ‘peaceful’ attitudes through Facebook slogans (Facebook=public), then women will not find security, solace or interest in such men. From ‘lack of surroundings’ she will announce her interest for ‘the other man’.

Kartikey Sehgal

1.

Two drunken policemen pointing AK-47′s threatened to march a colleague and me into a shack for “some fun.” We got away untouched, so why bring up the matter? I didn’t want my boss to think that my gender was a liability. (source)

but of course woman, it is. Secularism is your enemy. Righteousness in suggesting, that, all men are essentially good, everywhere, in-all-parts, draws on short-term emotions.
Of morality.
Of goodness.

It draws immediate praise, and certified fan-following; attention—of the kind seen when you are in fashion.
For fashion it is, to talk of glory, or of what brings glory.

Your gender is a liability. And it is human liability that they can stand on the edge but not fly thereafter from the mountain. Liability if you sit and think in pain, otherwise, actuality.

And it is the liability of men, that, a woman should soften them—their world-view of pain and misery and its mingling. For the muse is seldom threatening, but a source.
Of ideas.
Of imaginations.

And hence men must live with this liability—or, actuality.

2.

The roads of Delhi, once romanticized to contain the verses of poets, now contain men without culture; men, caught in the paradox of the old and the new, with trousers and jeans replacing their sense of tradition. The old is unfashionable, worthy of ridicule, unaccepted in the posh Khan markets. Unaccepted by women, even those in smaller homes, who are looking for designer shirts on scented bodies. A city sans culture, that hides behind the visage of pride. And Ghalib.

Alas, it’s a liability. For the men feel small without the triceps and the cuts, without the shirts, the easy money that permeates the senses of society, of women.

And a liability for women to walk on such streets, among such men.

Or,
you can claim righteousness and suggest that men should be castrated, or, women should be kept indoors.

3.

Do not send your daughter to work in prisons where the prisoners stay. The quality of equality is not physical, neither does it surpass reality, except perhaps in the realm of fantasy. And the world, alas, does not run to suit you, woman.

Superior claims of justice and equality do not make for solutions.

34-year-old jailer Jayme Biendl went missing while on the night shift at the Monroe Correctional Complex northeast of Seattle. (source)

Kartikey Sehgal

In the previous story, I had said that men should not get consumed by a woman’s sweet words (not always). Natural manipulation is acceptable to a certain level, beyond which it is poison for man. (The definition of ‘level’ deserves a separate story)

If a woman, while serving food to you, nags you and assumes superiority through the act of serving, then it is acceptable to walk out of the scene without a goodbye. Let her come to the table and see it empty. Let her wonder with the dish in hand if you heard her lamentations at all.

Women have been given to understand that their utility in the kitchen is a favour to man. Men are lousy and lazy, apparently. The way to their hearts is through their stomachs (a cliché); so use the ‘food time’ to complain and nag. If you have a sense of the self, then you will woeful at times when your woman (in any relation) uses food as power tool.

However, if the woman prepares food for you lovingly, without haughtiness, with a smile and an anticipation of your collective pleasure, then you must not leave the table and cause displeasure. She doesn’t see the act of serving food as a cause to establish superiority or a job beneath her dignity, or a job at all. Don’t leave such a woman standing.

If you find such a woman.

Men can prepare food. They can be neat and tidy if they want. They can make friends with other men for good company. And these are matters of great concern for women:
If men are cornered, and they don’t give in to bullying, and take care of their self, make food, iron the bed sheets, clean bathrooms, then, they will look at women as pure objects for sexual gratification.

Feminism may (will) lead to sexual objectification of women

They will not wait for you to nag them. They won’t take food; they will eat at a restaurant with other men. Your best bet then would be to find men who are too weak to get out of this rut; they will take your food and your verbal volleys. So your future and your happiness would depend on the weak men, and you’ll end up hunting such men to father your children.

Feminism may (will) give you weak men, weak relationships

And that is the importance of food; the difference between eating fruits by the roadside and being served with dignity and ‘love’. And that is love, if it is anything. It is at least not promises of wealth and clothes.