Holy cow!!!

Rosy Lipped Batfish

, ,

Discrimination...

1

2

What is discrimination? Does it always have to be overt or can it couched in terms that do not sound discriminative but are in fact?

A woman who solves a hard math problem getting accused of cheating because she could not have solved it when none of the men in the class were able to is discrimination. Attributing the differences in the ratio of women to men in science degrees to innate abilities when no such theory has so far been proved is discriminative. Having to exert yourselves more to be taken seriously is discriminative. Being discounted as being *insert stereotypical behaviour* is discriminative.

Many a times you just feel the discrimination in your bones. You know that if you were someone else, had slightly different physical features, etc, you would have gotten a different reaction/behaviour from that other person. When such feelings become chronic, you know that there is something seriously wrong with this society that makes certain set of people feel like that they are inferior to another set of people.

It’s when people don’t know that I was a woman that I can really see the difference. Even in just stupid things. You go into a department store and people are more likely to wait on you.

Stupid things, yes... But a sum total of such stupid things are what makes someone feel that they are inferior to others. It is just an aquired knowledge that just because they are so and so means that they are sub-human because they are treated less favourably than others without such "handicaps". The killer really is when it comes from the most unexpected people.

Discrimination as such is hard to quantise and even more hard to put it in words. Most often we just swallow it without pointing out to the other person what his/her means and what implications they carry. If you do point it out to them, they are most likely to say that they do not really mean it and they are just jesting; "not to be taken seriously" attitude. If you still persist in pointing out that they are reaffirming certain stereotypes which are essentially not true, they are likely to be become indignant and take it more or less personally, as if we were accusing them of some henious crime (which is true in certain ways). If you still persist, they would try to prove the truthfullness of the stereotypes by pointing to statistics that are inherently a manifestation of discrmination - what I mean is that if a certain group of people are left of consideration for certain jobs, then you cannot point out the number of these people employed in these jobs as proof of their capability, ie, you are assuming no discrimination to prove that there is no discrimination!!

Why dont we fight against such discrimination? Why dont we go about pointing out to people that they are being discriminative? Why do not people see that discrimination mainly exists because people think that there is no discrimination? Too many whys... One of the reasons we do not fight it is because we buy into it a little bit ourselves. If one is treated in a way that is detrimental to his/her self-esteem, s/he begins to think detrimentally of oneself. I think it takes a while to understand that the problem is not with them but with the others who treat them so. But even then, a lifetime of low self-esteem does not suddenly go away. Another reason why one would not fight it is because they do not want to antagonise the people around them. After all, (wo)man is a social animal! Acceptance is craved and is something that people do not want to jeopardise by pointing out how shallow the others are being.

For all of us who want to work towards to removing discrimination, there exists a vital question that needs to be answered - who determines that discrimination exists?
The logical answer to that question is that we take the word of the people who say that they are being discriminated against.
The answer is obviously not as simple as that. There certainly are questions of honesty, integrity and scholarship to determine whether this is indeed true and what is the best way to work against such discrimination. But the important thing is to understand is that it is not for the discriminator to say that s/he does not discriminate. It is for the people who are discriminated to say so.

When most people say that they consider men and women to be equal and that they treat both of them equally, I would ask them to consider whether that is completely or even partially true. Most of the time, it wont be true. That goes even for me.

There are a lot of things that we belive is true about ourselves. One of those is that we believe that we are fair and objective when it comes to analysing the world around us. I think our perceptions is a function of our prejudices and opinions and knowledge about the world. Once we realise that, we realise that it is so easy to discriminate without realising it. And it is not solely for us to say that we are not being discriminative. If a lot of people feel that you are being discriminative, maybe you are.

Lucky are the privileged few who do not face any discrimination. But they really are unlucky because they would never understand the true nature of discrimination. They never realise that it is more complex than denying the rights to a well or being relegated to the back of the bus, that it works in subtle ways, ways that words cannot describe and are experienced by people who face the pointy end of it everyday. It is hard to understand for them. I understand that. But the problem comes up when they take up cudgels and fight against any move that seeks to bring to light these little disparities in treatment. It pains me when they call the others as liars, opportunists, dishonest blokes who are just after free lunches and are not willing to work and succeed on their own _merit_. That is when they become the enemy, that is when they show their dirty underbelly. The fact that they are able to influence and exert so much power on public opinion escapes their comprehension.

Whether the discrimination is against women or lower caste people or radicals or homosexuals, it is almost always the same and follow the same patterns. It is fascinating to look at these patterns and I wonder why so few people see it. In fact, there would be some who would fight against discrimination against women but would rant against leftists saying that it is habitual for them to lie.

Amazing. Truly. Amazing.

The world turns worser everyday in certain ways. But it also gets better in certain other ways. I just hope that the world is getting better more than it is getting worse. But somehow the evidence shows otherwise. Pessimistic? I know...

, , , , , ,

Thoughts on censorship

Has the government of India completely gone nuts? Blocking millions of blogs is just plain stupid.

So what do we do?

Some people have suggested the use of the RTI act. But I do not think that is going to work. I am pretty sure that there would be provisions to deny information on the basis of defence/National Interest. So, all your replies are going to like, "Sorry, we cannot provide the information you have requested because it is classified." And that would be the end of it.

The more that I think of this, the more I feel that the ISPs have goofed up big time. I am pretty sure that the government gave them a list of blogspot sites to ban, like -
abc.blogspot.com
...
xyz.blogspot.com

What the ISPs seem to have done is translated these addresses to IP and blocked the IPs. The thing is all these addresses map to the same IP! So, if they tried to block one address, every blog got blocked! And I think this is a pretty common mistake to make...

Even if the ISPs correct their errors, the issue of censorship remains. The government trying to block websites is not new. They did it with geocities some years ago, if I remember correctly and the controversy related to 'Final Solution' is well known! Can we really accept censorship is a different and quite debatable issue.

Update: Maybe I am right...

Tags: Censorship, India, Government, ISPs, Blogspot

An episode of 'Strangers with candy'

No comments from me. Ok, just this - this is one satirical genius of a show. Too bad I never heard of it before.

Tags: Stephen Colbert, Strangers with candy, TV, satire, episode, prejudice, humour, youtube, Amy Sedaris

A descriptive cartoon...

Read more.

, , , , ,

Blocked?

There is a big controversy going around in the Indian blogosphere. Apprently, some Indian ISPs are blocking blogspot sites. And this has been going on for some days now and I had no idea about it.

Shivam tries getting details about why and as usual, he gets stonewalled by the bureaucracy.

And I see that some people are accessing this blog through proxies...

It is not surprising that the Indian Government would seek to do this. India ranks really low in the world press freedom index and bloggers becoming a major force as an alternative media, it is natural for the government to seek to control it.

This does not mean that I support these censorship but just that I am not so shocked as some people seem to be.

We do have the RTI act to help us get the reasons as to why the government issued such a blanket ban on _all_ blogspot sites, which is illegal.

Update: Now I cannot access blogspot sites from home. And I use Airtel BB. :(

, , , , ,

This week..

It has been a busy week. I had to sleep 14 hrs today to shake off the weariness. What with it being the last week of development for our release and all. Plus, to top it all, saturday was not free either. I was in hyderabad and I did my usual walking thingie and ended up walking from Hyderabad Central to the airport. Sheesh! What was I thinking...

But what has happened with this is that I have lost a lot of post... I had a post topic everyday and never got around to writing it. So, I reckon that there are some 4-5 missing posts on this blog, including a satirical piece.

I will try to revisit those this week but I am sure I will have other topics to write on.

Bunch of cowards

7

172

6.30

Mumbai

How can they bomb civilian population and claim to be fighting a just war? They just cannot do that. The weight of their sins and the guilt of their actions would weigh them down to hell on the day of qiyaamat.

Update: A sticky post on desipundit.

, , , ,

A good sign?

The YFE fellows are trying to get facts from the government.

A good sign or a bad sign?

Well, it is good that they are going after some facts at last! But what bothers me is their attitude towards this.

Claiming that they wanted to "expose" the central government's inability to uplift the backward classes since Independence, the members sought to know if students of reserved category were ever given any scholarships or financial help.

Seems to me like a very negative attitude. The thing is that they have already decided the result of their enquiry and are just trying to get some facts that would support their claims, ie, they are trying to get the data to fit their theory and not the other way around.

The thing is that whatever be the statistics, they will find a way to twist it and play it to their tune. The sad part would be that they might actually do it unconsciously because their effort would be to look at the stats with the aim to argue against reservations.

I hope that they do get the stats. I hope that they would look at the stats with an open mind and not with pre-conceived notion based on rumours and anectodal evidence.

The thing is that I am not sure that they would. But I would say that this is a good effort.

, , ,

The right kind of development

What are our great minds of our country doing?

Are they trying to develop innovative technologies that really help the country? Well, at least one person is. And he has also won an international award for it!

As of today, around 700 rural homes and 100 urban homes in Maharashtra are using this new biogas plant. Karve says that he has given presentations to institutions and entrepreneurs in Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia, after which many have shown interest.

The conventional biogas plant works on human or animal excreta and to produce 250 gms of Methane gas, you require 40 kg of excreta which requires a period of 40 days to decompose. In sharp contrast, Dr Karve's innovative 'New compact biogas technology' method requires one kilo of starch or sugar (in the form of vegetable waste, flour collected from the floor of a flour mill) and just 24 hours to produce 250 gms of Methane gas.

I have been reading about biogas for so long that I always felt why it wasn't being used more extensively. Making the production of biogas sustainable is probably one of the major accomplishment of Dr Karve. But why don't we hear more about this in the national newspapers? This is the kind of news that gives meaning to the 'India Shining' slogan, doesn't it?

This is the kind of activity that the Government of India should be promoting, which apparently it is not. Dr Karve has won the Ashden Award for renewable energy twice, which is amazing!

I suppose there are lot of things that would need to be improved like efficiency in production of the biogas, more fuel efficient burners, etc, etc and I do hope that Dr Karve would keep improving on his technology. Another positive thing is that it looks like his daughter is also following in his footsteps.

The article seems to suggest that biogas is pure methane, which it is not. It is more like 60% methane.

, , , , ,

India Superstar!!

These days we read about how India is on the verge of becoming an economic superpower and how Manmohanics has turned around this country!

Along with numerous reports that India would become one of the top four economies in the world by 2035, these ideas are further strengthened by the booming IT industry in cities such as Bangalore.

Are we really to become a global power? Is this century going to be an India-China dominated one?

This article in the NY Times answers some of the questions. Though there is nothing new in this report, I loved this particular paragraph in it...

INDIA is a roaring capitalist success story." So says the latest issue of Foreign Affairs; and last week many leading business executives and politicians in India celebrated as Lakshmi Mittal, the fifth richest man in the world, finally succeeded in his hostile takeover of the Luxembourgian steel company Arcelor. India's leading business newspaper, The Economic Times, summed up the general euphoria over the event in its regular feature, "The Global Indian Takeover": "For India, it is a harbinger of things to come — economic superstardom."

This sounds persuasive as long as you don't know that Mr. Mittal, who lives in Britain, announced his first investment in India only last year. He is as much an Indian success story as Sergey Brin, the Russian-born co-founder of Google, is proof of Russia's imminent economic superstardom.

I wondered why such huge hue and cry was made about Mittal-Arcelor deal and why the Indian government was persuaded to influence the Luxemburg government on the merits of this deal.

Anyway, there are also some facts mentioned in this article (again, nothing new) that I would mention here.

Recent accounts of the alleged rise of India barely mention the fact that the country's $728 per capita gross domestic product is just slightly higher than that of sub-Saharan Africa and that, as the 2005 United Nations Human Development Report puts it, even if it sustains its current high growth rates, India will not catch up with high-income countries until 2106.

Nor is India rising very fast on the report's Human Development index, where it ranks 127, just two rungs above Myanmar and more than 70 below Cuba and Mexico. Despite a recent reduction in poverty levels, nearly 380 million Indians still live on less than a dollar a day.

Malnutrition affects half of all children in India, and there is little sign that they are being helped by the country's market reforms, which have focused on creating private wealth rather than expanding access to health care and education. Despite the country's growing economy, 2.5 million Indian children die annually, accounting for one out of every five child deaths worldwide; and facilities for primary education have collapsed in large parts of the country (the official literacy rate of 61 percent includes many who can barely write their names). In the countryside, where 70 percent of India's population lives, the government has reported that about 100,000 farmers committed suicide between 1993 and 2003.

Emphasis mine.

Manmohanamics has _not_ helped the nation as a whole. It has just helped the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.

, , ,

The environment and you!

Take a look at this site.

Do look at the 'What can you do?' section. Though it is US specific, it is still enlightening...

For example,

Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them
Even when turned off, things like hairdryers, cell phone chargers and televisions use energy. In fact, the energy used to keep display clocks lit and memory chips working accounts for 5 percent of total domestic energy consumption and spews 18 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year!

, , ,

Better late than never...

I forgot to link this excellent, well researched post by obc voice. For that I apologise.

Well, I suggest you read it. And go to the NCBC website verify what he says.

It is definitely enlightening. A limited version of this was posted as a comment on his own blog some time ago. Now, he comes up with much more detailed post that answers a lot of questions. Have a look, read with an open mind and try to engage him in a meaningful discussion. I am sure he would welcome that.

, ,

The horror!

I just cannot believe this.

Hat-tip: Dilip

, , ,

"So why do you write these strong women characters?"

I finished watching Josh Whedon's Firefly series this week. I have become a fan of this man. It is a brilliant, brilliant show. Feminist? Yes. Witty? Yes. Great sci-fi? Yes.
Sad that the series was discontinued because of stupid FOX's scheduling.
They did create the movie Serenity and I hope they will create a sequel to it. More on Firefly later.

Just hear his speech.

, , , ,

Of people and perceptions...

I will begin with an experiment.

Let us say you overheard a person say, "all north indians are arrogant"

What would your reactions be?

The reasonable answer to that question is, "it depends..."

right?

My reaction to this would depend on different factors, namely -

1. whether that person is a north indian or a south indian
2. whether I am north indian
3. whether the person making the statement is a stranger to you or not
4. if s/he is not a stranger, whether you have heard his/her previous statements on north indians
5. if s/he is not a stranger and if you never heard that person talk about north indians; whether that person is given to making such bigoted statement.
6. what your own views on north indians are
7. whether you are short tempered, reactive, etc.

Of course, we do not do all these analysis and we directly jump to a reaction. But we cannot deny the influence of these factors in our minds.

For example, if you know that the person who makes this statement is not a bigoted fathead, you would be confused and would try to find out what made that person make such a statement. But if you did not know that person at all, and if you are a north indian, you might just get defensive/annoyed/angry, which would be perfectly legitimate.

So, the reaction to such a statement would be quite contextual. What I am trying to say is that just because you are north indian does not mean that you would not become angry on hearing this statement. right?

There could be several reasons why that person made that statement. It may be because someone said some north indian said something disparaging about his/her ethnic group. Maybe s/he geniunely thinks so. Maybe by saying something as insensitive like that, that person is trying to hold a mirror the insensitivity of someone's statements (by holding up a mirror to that other person, s/he might be trying to show their fallacy in making statements based on stereotypes).

There has been a furore over this post by Annie. She makes certain statements that are pretty ridiculous. People have taken this opportunity to bash her and her statements. On the surface, when taken separately, these statements sound pretty insane and it would be reasonable for one who reads it to assume that whoever said that is a nutjob.

But is Annie really a nutjob?

If one has read Annie's blog regularly, these statements would seem pretty uncharacteristic of her.* She is a feminist, no doubt but not a separatist. Knowledge of her previous posts should ensure that your reaction to such statements to not be indignant. The only reason that you can think of with this pre-knowledge of Annie's writings is that she is attempting to satire someone else's statements. Considering that this post is written as a response to a sexist post by another person, it seems to me that this hypothesis is quite likely.

For a person for whom this is the first post of Annie being encountered, it is quite plausible for that person to think ill of the post and of Annie. But for a regular reader of her blog, is it a reasonable reaction? I do not think so. Which is why I am disappointed with Dilip and others who, though think the post was a good one, denounce these controversial statements.

* Of course, if one reads the whole post properly, one would see that she writes a lot of very sensible and thought provoking that are very characteristic of her.

, , ,

He is back....

I mentioned earlier today that I am an atheist.

Well, I do believe in one God. And His name is Roger Federer!

I love the way he plays his tennis. He plays exceptional tennis and what is truly masterful about Him is that He makes it look so easy. He wins wish such an ease that I never thought He could lose ever.

Along came the challenger, Nadal. All that Nadal has been able to do is win against him on clay. And he made Federer look human in the Roland Garros final. I thought Federer was losing his touch and I feared that this was the end of his reign.

But today He showed that he is still the old perfect One. The way he demolished Henman today was poetry in motion. He just played flawless tennis today and I do not think there is any challenge to this year's title too.

What a difference between the game he played today and the one in Roland Garros a couple of weeks ago. He made 8 unforced errors in the entire match, whereas he made more than 15 errors in every set that he lost in the only grand slam final he has ever lost.

, , ,

In the libertarian world, everyone would be equal and the temples would sport the sign, "Right to admission reserved".

--- Me

Inspiration -- this post

, ,

Bresson's Diary of a country priest

DISCLAIMER: This is not a review. What I write here are thoughts provoked by this wonderful filmmaker's film.

Bresson is known to make films that make you think. I saw three of his movies this weekend and I thought that his films do make you think. I found all the three to be extremely engaging and interesting but it was one that really made me think a lot.

Diary of a country priest is exactly what the title suggests it to be. The fim chronicles the thoughts and actions of a country priest who writes it down in his journal every day. It is an exploration of faith, the loss of it and the importance of it in human existence. The film makes you think about religion's role in helping human beings tide survive.

A young priest is handed the control over a local parish who is suffering, as we come to know later in the movie, from stomach cancer. He is new to the job and is extremely apprehensive about his duties. His suffering also make him question his faith and his position as the priest makes him a lonely man. As a priest, he is expected to instill faith in his flock. Since he is the man whose job is to make other people guilty, he is universally hated. As the priest of Torcy says, a priest's job is about power and control, and not about love. This makes it harder for the young suffering priest because he has a childish innocence about him which further alienates him from the others. Why? because as explained in the movie, his innocence makes people aware of their sins. He suffocates them and they respond to it with malicious whispers about him being an alcoholic and having handled the Count's wife in an undesired manner.

Alienation of a person from the society s/he lives in usually drives the person to seek solace in something. Usually, that solace is found in faith and the belief that God is out there looking down on you. Another reason that drives one to God is a long standing suffering of some sort. The priest has got both reasons to turn to God besides being obligated to be a Godman. But his unabated suffering makes him question the almighty which he later regrets and at one point, deletes the blasphemous entries from his journal. But what he said has been said and he cannot take it back.

One of the reasons why atheism is hard is because of the fact that since you believe that there is no God, there is really no one to turn to and there is no way to get rid of the depression you are in. By having blind faith, it gives you the courage to tide over the rough waves of life by simply believing in the notion that God is out there looking at you and when He wil do justice. That He would abate your suffering and make you well after some time. Or He would make sure you got a place in paradise. Religion is the best coping mechanism out there (PSY 101). Religion invents a purpose for life and I think humankind would have long gone crazy wihout such a purpose, invented or otherwise. In fact, I would say that the invention of religion was essential for survival of the species because we think too much. We refuse to just eat, reproduce, defecate and die as a matter of fact. The questioning attitude of the human race is unique to it.

When the hard times hit the atheist, who does s/he turn to? Knowing that there is no God, that the world is just a random sequence of events and is inherently unjust makes it extra hard. It is a luxury to just forget the worries, "put the trust in God", and go about working towards your 'purpose' in life.

What an atheist needs is a different coping mechanism that is as good as religion. Is there really one out there? I do not think so. This is the reason the fear of God is inculcated right from childhood. Children are taught not to question God and the scriptures that define God. This way they are best equipped for the future. Most atheist lose their 'faith' when they are faced with hardships. They resist it but soon are consumed by the need for a faith to survive. Agnostics are too easy to bend towards the 'light of God'.

In the film, the priest has doubts about his faith but after having been able to instill faith in another person and having determined that she died having submitted to God's mercy completely, his doubts are dispelled. Because it is his purpose in life to instill the fear of God in other people.

We also see that the priest does not turn away from a young girl whose heart is full of hatred and malice. This I believe is another purpose of religion. According to words ascribed to Jesus Christ, God forgives a person any number of time. He always forgives when you repent. A priest's job is not to banish the sinners but to make them repent their sins. People come close to losing their faiths a lot of times in their lives. It is the job of the priest to get them back into the fold and make sure that they dont completely lose their faiths.

Why does religion ever become problematic? Because human beings are just so imperfect creatures. Blind faith is incredibly dangerous. Mainly because it means that people would accept anything said by the religious in charge, the priest, the bishop, the archbishop, and finally, the pope. Power corrupts human beings. And people in such religious position have the capability to create dogmas that could have severe repurcussions to the working of the society. The religious heads, no matter whom they claim to serve, are actually trying to extend their influence on more people. Sometimes, they don't even realise that.

Human beings destroy everything. Because that is just what we do. Sad, but true. The trick is to accept this fact without getting consumed by it. To be consumed by it is to become corrupt yourselves and losing your idealism.

Bresson's film captures the loneliness of the priest and the mental tussles he undergoes in a superb fashion. You get emotionally attached to the priest. You suffer as he suffers and you get a rare peek into the cold, alien, distant world of the priests who have to be just that because of the very nature of their jobs.

It is a simple film with extremely complicated ideas behind it. It could probably be contrued to be a catholic film but it would be stupid to do that. And it is a fiml that does make you think about spirituality and religion.

PS. I do _not_ think that God exists
PPS. I am yet to find another coping mechanism but by God's grace, I am also yet to suffer. I have been privileged.

, , , ,

Patriarchy and men

A common misconception about feminism is that it is against men. This is not true. Feminism is against patriarchy, which is the hierarchical system that differentiates people into rigid classes and dictates their behaviour according to stereotypes.

Women are affected largely because they are never in the position of power and are always the subservient. Feminism did start as a movement to liberate women from the shackles that patriarchy puts them in. But it was soon realised that women are not the only ones who are put down by patriarchy. Men are too.

One of the stereotypes regarding men is that they are supposed to be inarticulate who never cry and keep their feelings bottled up because to do so would be to be a "sissy" and a "pussy" (misogynist terms). Of course, these restrictions stem from the notion that having feminine qualities (which are attributed to women) is degrading to being a man.

This incredible piece articulates how such a rigid restriction on the concept of being a man can be detrimental to men.

My favourite part of the article was this -

A pivotal moment came about six years ago when, at the end of a long cross-country phone conversation with an old friend, he said, "Karl, I love you." I was knocked off balance. Saying "I love you" to another man? Unthinkable. I could only reply, "That cuts both ways."

Sony Pony explores another, related, way in which men can be affected by patriarchy.

Feminism is still a majorly women's movement because patriarchy affects women in much more insidious, dangerous, fatal manner than men. Statistics suggest that there is an urgent need for a Domestic Violence Bill.

Hat tip - Feministe

,