Why feel possessive when you don't want to possess?

"Based on a thousand true stories"

Disclaimer : For the sake of narration, characters are assigned specific genders but the analysis equally holds good even if the genders are reversed.

A (Husband) and B (Wife) are in a married relation for quite some time. With time, pressures of running a family and changes in priorities have put the relationship aspect of the marriage to back seat. Though there are no pressing problems, the excitement of leading a life with a partner has also diminished and it has reached some sort of status quo, a socially, financially secured relationship. But emotionally?

C (Male) befriends B but soon the lost (or diminished) emotions in the marriage starts to resurface for B. C also starts feeling similar emotions but before it turns into an extra marital affair, the obvious question of feasibility starts to bother B and C. They discuss and dismiss any possibility of pursuing because B is obviously not having a troubled marriage and C is also not wanting/comfortable to be a part of breaking up a “functional” marriage. So they just decide to remain friends and B strongly wishes (also partly to be free from guilt) that C should find a new partner. C also agrees and carries on with life hoping all is well. But whenever B sees C talking to any woman, a strong surge of possessiveness and a uncomfortable feeling starts to affect her. C understands it is natural thing to happen but also hopes it will subside with time. Unfortunately it shows no signs of diminishing and this starts to affect C. Any amount of talking between B and C did not help much. When C shares this story to me, the logical me points out that if at all anyone is justified in having the feeling of possessiveness, it has to be C and not B for obvious reasons that B is living with a man day in and day out but C is alone most of the time. When C talks this out with B, she dismisses it by saying since she is already married, C has no reason to feel possessive but she can since C is looking out for a new person. It did not make any sense to me and stopped thinking about it by concluding that when emotions are high, reason takes a back seat.

Now, what actually happens in the story later is irrelevant to this blog post but however one question lingered in me - " Why was she feeling possessive when she actually doesn't want to possess C?" After many days a thought struck which probably might throw some light on the above situation.

First let us get the facts cleared
1) B is actually very sure that she doesn't want to leave A for C
2) B is actually feeling very possessive whenever C is with another woman

So I think my question, " Why feel possessive when you don't want to possess? " is quite valid. So here goes my thoughts.

Both the facts (1 and 2) are true at the same time and there is no paradox though it might appear as if there is. The crux here is both 1 and 2 are standing on 2 separate sets of parameters. 1 is true because marriage gives social and financial security and it is a comfort which many doesn't want to give up. I don't think there is any wrong in such a decision(**). It's just that one should be aware of the reasons why he/she is in marriage. Now 2 is also true because B is emotionally attached to C and it's natural to have the feelings of possessiveness. So the reason why that question remained in me for long is that I thought both the facts 1 and 2 are emotional in nature but I now realize it is  clearly not. In a nutshell, this is a conflict between reason and emotions. Unfortunately for many decisions we take, reasons and emotions do not support each other.. So one should carefully segregate what decisions should be taken based on emotions and what decisions should be based on reasons.. It's easy to say that a career choice should be purely based on reason but choosing a life partner should be emotional in nature. But is it really that easy? Are people really segregating what decisions should be logic based and what is emotion based? When people claim why they have taken a particular decision, are they aware why they have actually taken or just take because the majority society expects that? It's not a rule that ppl should segregate but are they happy and contended with whatever the choices they have made? In fact it seems like marriage itself is segregated between reason and emotions called arranged and love marriage respectively. Anyways I am no one to answer these questions in a generalized sense and it's best when ppl answer for themselves.

** I would like to highlight one point in this context. When I make my arguments in this fashion to people in general, I am repeatedly accused of taking a condescending tone. So it got me thinking - "Do I feel whether one type of a stance is more superior than the other?" , "Do I feel people who base relationships on pure emotions than reasons or conveniences are superior?", "Do I really mean that there is no wrong when a marriage is based on social comforts?"... The answer is Yes and NO.  I actually feel it's NO wrong or there is NO superiority - inferiority feeling when people are aware of their reasons and stick to it. The problem comes when there is hypocrisy. Many base their decisions on one set of parameters and claim that it is because of some other set of parameters (Probably because of romantic movies and books' influence) That is only when I feel there is dignity in acknowledging the exact reasons behind a particular decision and no dignity otherwise. Finally, when I re looked at my arguments, never I noticed taking an explicit condescending tone. Then why was I accused? Was it because the accusers themselves feel a superiority - inferiority dichotomy? Looks like a possibility but I can never be sure.

Whose prediction will come true in this T20 game called “Human life on earth”?

Prediction A- 

In the light of recent Chennai floods, the Newspapers were flooded with articles titled “Chennai floods are an ecological wake up call ”, “ಚೆನ್ನೈ ಜಲ ಪ್ರಳಯ ಮಾನವ ನಿರ್ಮಿತ ” etc etc. So there is a large set of people who claims that we are on a decline and current state state of affairs is unsustainable -  be it burning of fossils leading to global warming, excessive urbanization , materialism, unhealthy dietary habits and so on and so forth. Therefore if the current trends are not stopped or reversed, humanity will cease to survive on this planet. And the solution they propose is to have more and more sustainable practices. Replace urban life with rural life, farming with industries, natural remedies(Eg:Ayurveda) with Allopathy. In a nutshell, go back in time and live a life that existed 300yrs go (before industrial revolution) and with that humanity will live for a long long time.
My own take here is that I don't refute any of the above claims or even the proposed solution. But I highly doubt the feasibility of the proposed solution. I feel we have crossed the point of no return and it's quite impossible to recreate the life humanity lived 300 yrs ago even though a handful of people are choosing sustainable ways of living and hoping it creates a worldwide change.

Prediction B-

On the other hand, there is a large set of people who are very optimists about the chances of humanity surviving on this planet. They highlight things like – Exponential technological growth (Moore's law), raising standards of living due to economic growth, increase in average life span, increased access to education and health, technological solution to health care and replacement of fossil fuels by clean energy, artificial intelligence etc etc etc. So the solution they propose to the man made problems like global warming and other things mentioned above is to further accelerate the technological growth so that we can fix the problems (created by us). Again, I don't refute any of the above claims but I highly doubt the feasibility of the solution. Whether the accelerated technological growth keep creating problems at a pace, which the pace at which solutions are created fail to catch up?

To evaluate which of the predictions might actually come true, is a hard enough job and it might not yield any conclusive result. Only time can tell whether we will actually go back and live a life similar to that existed 300 yrs back or technological growth solves the looming problems or we all reach “The End”.

Why call a T20 game?

"Human life on Earth" has been a test match till now. A slow and steady game and thereby establishing a pattern. But I feel the nature of the game has changed to a T20 format(a very short format) because a few major serendipitous technological discovery might greatly influence future in a way that the current problems might cease to challenge our existence and similarly if the climatic changes becomes so acute in short span, we might lose control which can lead to total annihilation. So in such a format, luck and random factors play a very important role that predictions cannot be done with great accuracy. It's almost impossible for Zimbabwe to defeat Australia in a test match whereas it's possibility increases when it comes to a T20 match. So whether we end up surviving or not, we will never come to know whose arguments were closer to reality as far as the present is concerned.

Q and A on Feminism

Q) Why am I Feminist?

A)  I have been a feminist for some time now and have not been hesitant to speak about the same. However, I never asked myself the question “Why am I a Feminist?”. When that question was asked by a lady to herself in the documentary “Unlimited Girls”, I thought it's high time I ask the same to myself, more so because being a man and a feminist is a rare combination though I feel nothing odd about it.
            To be born as a male has it's own perils. Keeping those things aside, I have to admit that I have enjoyed certain types of freedom that have come from being born a male. Though I have many times wondered what it means to be born a female, I suppose I would not want to chance it in this patriarchal society at least. I have always felt a certain sense of difficulty when I imagined myself in the shoes of a woman. Though many people highlight the difficulty a woman undergoes during periods and pregnancy, that has affected me the least. It's all the pressures that society puts on a female for being born as a female that disturbs me. And my feminism is a consequence of being able to feel that. In short, the answer to "Why am I a feminist?" is empathy.

Q) If being a man and a feminist is a rare combination, what about the other way around? (A female who endorses patriarchy)

A) Unlike the former, the latter is not a rarity in my opinion. Many men try to justify the male superiority in our society. Though there is some truth to some of the points put forth by such men, it is NO way a justification for any patriarchy. If at all, they are just some unfortunate truths. The points being

- If women are viewed as objects of pleasure then men are viewed as money earning machines, providers and care takers. The institution of arranged marriage is the best example for this.

- A woman's hardships in giving birth and raising children is equated to a man's hardships in trying to make ends meet, and working in hostile environments.

There are many more points but there is no need to expand as they all fall into similar categories as mentioned above

Here comes the most important aspect. It's not always men who subscribe to patriarchy, unfortunately many women do too. The above mentioned points are not only endorsed by men but by women too as they rationalize their submissiveness and their need for a male protector or provider. Many women fear that they would intimidate a man if they are professionally very successful and some even choose to limit their education and career. I can't help but recollect an incident where a well to do IIM-B graduate woman who was searching for a groom on matrimonial website had a strict filter criteria. The groom had to be IIM-A graduate and nothing less. 

In fact, all the families who get their daughters married by spending huge sums of money all by themselves since they consider it is their duty to spend (which does not apply for the groom's family) is indirectly responsible for female foeticide and female infanticide because new couples think twice before having a girl child imagining the cost involved in marriage. In my opinion, if only the bride's family bears the cost of an expensive marriage, it is indirect Dowry.

The culture of patriarchy which both men and women endorses and the varied comforts they derive because of it are blissfully ignorant about the consequences it leads to.

Q) What are the consequences of female foeticide and infanticide? 

A) Read literature and watch the movie "Mathrubhumi" . The truth is, it affects both Men, Women and even the larger society. 

Q) Why does a male feminist seems odd? Similarly why does it seem odd when a Brahmin opposes caste system?

A) If you look at history, women, dalits, minorities, poor etc etc have fought for their rights. So we are conditioned to look at Women Vs Men, Dalits Vs Upper Caste, Minorities Vs Majority, Poor Vs Rich etc etc. In short, we look at these issues as the disadvantaged people Vs advantaged people. Therefore the oddity comes when a advantaged male oppose patriarchy and a advantaged Brahmin fights caste system. But at the heart of the issue, the debate or fight is of a different nature. It's actually one ideology Vs a opposite ideology. The ideology of patriarchy Vs ideology of equality. The ideology of caste based discrimination Vs idea of universal humanity. Now, all it matters is what ideology one identifies himself/herself with and it has nothing to do with being a male, brahmin, rich, poor or any such labels. Eg : Oscar Schindler, a German who secretly kept many Jews alive. When we change our perspective, the oddity ceases to exist. If the debate was actually about Women Vs Men, then one should ideally expect a nearly 50-50 break up (Not exactly 50-50, thanks to female foeticide and infanticide) in terms of who is on which side. But the reality is different since the debate is "ideology of patriarchy Vs ideology of equality" and I do feel that I am a minority in this context.

P S: 
1)Women who make a conscious and deliberate choice to be an "Ideal wife" and be under the umbrella of a man when other choices actually exist cannot be accused of endorsing patriarchy but it's just one's preference is such.
2)Many women who choose to be a part of patriarchal system (For eg: Bearing the cost of an expensive marriage or be a home-maker because adequate education was not given since she is a "girl") cannot be accused of endorsing patriarchy because they did not really "choose" instead they had "No choice"

Good Bye.....

A desperate attempt to preserve the goodness

Strangely, ending it is the only way.

A diamond lost, is still a diamond lost

Reduce it to ashes, it is killed forever.

Bright, Sharp and Special

Was kindled, poked and touched.

I would rather lose it

Than just to remain with the remains.

Abruptness etches strong impressions

Impressions of beauty, desire and love.

To never let it fade away

Say Good bye, the inevitable end.

Cynic or Romantic?

An excerpt from Khalil Gibran's 'Reason and passion'

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.
If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;
And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgement and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.
Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.
Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows – then let your heart say in silence, “God rests in reason.”
And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky, – then let your heart say in awe, “God moves in passion.”
And since you are a breath in God’s sphere, and a leaf in God’s forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

(Please stress on the lines in Italics and Bold)

So Cynic or Romantic??

Cynicism is a consequence of reason and Romanticism is a consequence of passion. Reason calms you and Passion motivates you.

So the answer to the question in context - "Cynic and Romantic"

Transaged

Blood gushing up and down... Hot-blood

Heart pumping and pounding

vigour, rigour and colour.

Communion of mind and body...cold blood

All engrossed in the chaotic

Tuned,damped and stilled.

Learning and loving to live

Vulnerability is the key

Explore, expose and experience

Teaching and preaching to recede

Mindfulness is the key

Conditioned, comforted and closed

Life is sacred

Connections in solitude

measure, treasure and persevere

Death is engraved

Loneliness in connections

Embraced, encompassed and the inevitable end

(PS: I am 29.. But I wonder whether I am 18 or 60. After all, age is just a number)

One world... Many worlds

I enter a small world to face many worlds
And many faces face the black board
Or.... Just facing black
Where are the worlds?

Floating...... Floundering
Cosmetic... Cosmostic
Exciting.....Excruciating
What are the worlds?

An effort to bridge the world
With chalk, talk, questions and equations?
A bridge too fragile
Why are there many worlds?

Floundering in floating
Floundering to floating
Cosmetics to beautify
And cosmostics to enhance the beauty
Excitement and Excruciation
Are never a lonely world

Many worlds make one world
Let my one world become
One of their.... Many worlds

Chivalrous - What does it mean?

I can infer only two things here

1) The man is chivalrous - Being courteous, especially towards women (weaker sex???). My point here is, the girl in the picture is not incapable of sitting on chair.. So why gender stereotyping?? It does not make sense. However the following picture does makes sense

But no body reads the above picture as being chivalrous... It is plain humanity to help people in need....

2) Expression of love

I googled a lot to find the picture of a beautiful young girl making a handsome fit boy sit on a chair.. Could not get...(In fact I found the same set of pictures of a man helping a woman to sit on a chair. Try it yourself). If it is expression of love and gender independent, I should have got the picture as easily as I got the first one... However, I got a lot of pictures like the one below. In fact roughly 50:50 ratio

Having said the above, I find the below picture interesting

But I would not call it "Being chivalrous"... Why?

Let us assume for the couple in picture and at that point in time, it is easier for the man to carry heavier load than the woman. So it makes perfect sense for him to carry the load. But I need to be careful about this picture. Am I stereotyping the difference in physical between a man and a woman?

No..... I don't think so

Though it is statistically true, I am not stereotyping. That is why I mentioned 'for the couple in picture' and "at that point in time". It would equally make sense for the woman to carry a heavier load if she was stronger.. In future, the woman (in picture) might get stronger and carry the heavier one.. Who knows what is in store for future?

Have a look at this picture

Again we would not call her chivalrous for sparing the man the trouble of child birth. It is just that 'at this point in time', it is not possible (mostly) for a man to give birth.. So it makes sense for a woman to give birth.. Who knows what is in store for future?....

So.... What is being chivalrous???

What next?

Joint family--Nuclear family--Single child family--DINK Couples--Living together..... What next?

I am not going to detail on the joint family to living together evolution.... It is well studied and all over.. I am curious on the "what next" question.

So, What next?.. Here is my prediction.. "Living not together relationship"

I think we will be so individualistic (Not saying in a negative or a positive tone), that we would want to exist in a relationship yet not live together.... And so,

"Living not together relationship".. I know there exists LAT Couples.. But I liked my terminology better :-)... And I see it coming in India...

What after that?.. I am quite sure that I am not capable of even remotely imagining that...