Politically Incorrect

Despite the replacement of certain words and expressions in literature by politically correct ones in recent times, one aspect stands out. That is, not all euphemisms are politically correct as they may seem. It wouldn’t be entirely incorrect if someone alleged that the so called experts who coined these euphemisms did it by taking liberties on what they felt right or wrong. In a non sectarian point of view, ‘American’ is the term one would generally use to refer to a citizen of the United States of America. However, in a separatist mindset, an American citizen who is black in color is quite euphemistically referred to as 'African-American'. This is in sharp contrast to the reference to a white citizen as simply 'Caucasian', which logically should have been 'European-American'.

What those wordsmiths forgot, for their own convenience, was that all the so called heroic conquests on the American continents by European settlers during the past centuries notwithstanding, the fact remains unchanged. The original inhabitants of these continents are the ones whom the settlers had comfortably termed the Red Indians. But generally the term 'American' suggests a descendant of the settlers and not that of the natives. Like many other nations which are direct remnants of colonialism, the United States of America is an amalgam of settlers, natives, slaves and immigrants. If it’s logical to connotate the newer generations of all those except that of the settlers with their ancestry then it must hold true for them as well. Otherwise, this supposedly euphemistic nomenclature succeeds not in unifying the various factions of the country, but in segregating the rest from those with European descent.

Contradiction

It seems like a few more jargons have been forcefully introduced into the Indian journalistic mumbo-jumbo in recent times. Phrases or expressions such as gender bender or demolition of male bastion steal as much of the valuable print space as the time and patience of followers of print media. It doesn’t take much insight to deduce the propaganda behind columns that go on in great lengths about the "new age independent Indian urban upwardly mobile" woman, whatever in the hell that means.

The insinuations of all those supposedly journalistic works remain the same, that women are not only at par with men but also are better than them in every field. While I don’t intend to debate whether that presumption is right or wrong, it’s next to impossible not to notice the irony that prevails in the same newspapers and periodicals which publish these next to nothing scrambling up of words.

In a worst case scenario of unabashed irony, a story flattering the deeds of the so called new age Indian women is juxtaposed with another whose content is nothing less than a plea towards men to be more generous towards them. The nuances of the requested generosity are advice to men to be more sensitive (whatever it may mean) towards women, to be supportive and caring towards them, especially during pregnancy and post-childbirth, to refrain from verbal abuse, rape and domestic violence among a number of other things. If the so called new age woman is so self-reliant then why these surprisingly contrasting write ups run side by side? This is a question that the same women that double up as new age journalists need to answer.

As if it was a revelation of sorts, The Times of India recently carried a front page story and several items thereafter on the disparity that exists in the pay packets of actors and actresses of Bollywood. Not surprisingly, these stories were cooked up by none other than a few new age Indian journalist bimbos. In absolute contradiction to their findings these very same women went on to write another piece about the low faring of women centric films (read,Laga Chunari Mein Daag, Aaja Nachle and scores of others). Would anyone in her right senses venture for such a comparison of salaries without taking the market values of superstars and heroines into consideration? Would anyone even hit such a height of insanity to suggest that the women cricketers of India be paid the same as their masculine counterparts?

The same national daily whose reporters relentlessly praise women for rubbing their shoulders (and maybe some other parts too) with men in every field, carries reports of increased assaults on helpless women and goes on lengths about the plights of its victims as if to evoke empathy among the readers. The very same edition with descriptive stories on tragedies related to dowry has a page for trends which is in turn dedicated to results of researches, all of which claim women to be better than men in everything people do.

True, that these bimbos among journalists enjoy the support of certain media moguls, but shouldn’t these bosses care a thing or two about journalistic ethics before letting absolute trash to be published? It may be that the barons (mostly male) have their own reasons for being lenient towards them. In any case, it is much better if both of them understand that war of the sexes is something to be left at school and follow a single track when it comes to journalism – either make a legend out of every achievement of women or keep asking for more privilege.

PS: Q: “How many lesbians are required for changing a light bulb?”
A: “Three. One to hold a stool, one to climb on it and change the bulb and one to write a song on women’s empowerment!”

.

Generalisation

Citing a few examples as a major trend seems to be the order of the day on the part of newspapers and periodicals. A national daily of ours regularly comes up with pathetically titled front page articles describing how things are changing. They even run a page dedicated to trends. And the number of examples to substantiate any suggested theory of theirs? Not more than an astonishing three! In a nation with a population of over one billion it takes more than three people or three instances to start or popularise a trend.

And if you thought it was all about quoting a few so-called experiences of anonymous individuals,names changed or otherwise,to fill up empty spaces in any daily,well,it doesn't end there. Some newspapers come up with the results of so-called recent studies conducted by hitherto unknown experts,which according to them reveal some things that we may not know about. Any insight into the number of people that they might have conducted the test,if there was one ever,may make us wonder at the lack of logic in generalising things. If a selected bunch of people respond to something in a similar way,does it necessarily imply that it should be the same with the entire population on this planet?

I will be surprised if something more than a smirk is elicited from the subscribers upon reading such trash. Now,I don't intend to follow the footsteps of those in the print media by quoting a few examples to back up my finding. Neither am i going to suggest that the fact i'm talking about is in itself a trend.

Trends,according to me,will fade in and fade out albeit what any media may try to portray. It's hardly four years since we saw something which was touted as the next best trend getting boomeranged resulting in its own sudden demise.

Stripped

It's been ages since being clothed in public has been a norm among human beings in any civilized society.While various stages of undressing is welcome at appropriate places, say, beaches,strip clubs or carnivals it still remains a custom to stay clothed inside a myriad of human population.As a way of protestation, getting naked in public is something that has gained momentum in the recent years.Even then,what takes some of the celebrities of our generation to shed their cottons and chiffons in public on the pretext of certain obscure causes is something that obfuscates me.

Some celebrities make it a point to go nude in public as part of campaigns against the slaughtering of polar bears for fur.While a personal rejection of clothes made of fur on part of those who oppose the killing of ursine animals may arguably seem to justify their going in the buff, striptease by activists belonging to certain organisations ostensibly triggered by the use of chicken in burgers or sandwiches made and sold by some multinational food joints baffles me.How people could make a statement on unethical treatment of chicken by posing in the nude is something that is beyond my conviction.

Public nudity is an easy way for grabbing the attention of the media and may be they are trying to reach out to more people by doing that.But whether the message that they are supposedly spreading gets the same popularity as their nudity is another question.Supporting some causes has been in vogue since the past few years but the number of people who actually practice the same in their personal lives is questionable.At the end of the day we are left to believe that it's all part of a stunt to remain in the news for celebrities with fading mass appeal and a platform to gain fame for those lesser known activists.

Finally, for the aesthetically inclined it's a treat for the eye when they see any of their favourite celebrity women naked as a jaybird.It wouldn't take any persuasion from anyone for me to join that club.But a centrefold of a skin magazine is something that i would prefer than a nude pic with a slogan against the extinction of reindeers printed underneath it.

Going Canine

Love,like any other sentiment has multiple dimensions.Sometimes the love for something or things overrun some of the things that deserve true and uninhibited affection.The love for fellow beings is something that all species possess of which humans need not be an exception,I believe.But the kind of fondness expressed by a selected few of mankind towards certain species other than theirs leaves me flabbergasted.

It's not only that I'm cynophobic,in fact there's only a minuscule of a personal thing in it,but I don't want to picture the plight of young children who have fallen prey to the brutal antics of stray dogs.Such an assault is something that even an adult would find difficult,if not impossible,to defend,especially if it occurs while one is asleep and that too if the predators come in a pack.

In the aftermath of a series of incidents involving the most gruesome slaying of children by stray dogs, a state government in India ordered their culling, only to be met with harsh castigation from lovers of animals in the state and around.Now,I'm not too sure if a vain search for love had once forced these so-called animal-lovers of today to fall in love with carnivorous beasts,including these stray dogs.Whatever the case is,it doesn't take much to observe that almost all of them lead grandiosely luxurious lifestyles in plush bungalows and villas totally oblivious to the plight of innumerable people who live in various dimensions of absolute penury.While philanthropy takes a back seat in the minds of these loggerheads,they are preoccupied with the love for their pets.In their minds, all animals resemble their quiet,tranquil,non-violent pets.But stray dogs are far from that and it is the children of the poor that always end up at the receiving end, children who are deprived of the luxury of air conditioned cars or high walled homes that the offspring of these animal-lovers possess.I find it quite ridiculous that those who keep on shedding gallons of tears in favour of street dogs doesn't spare even a minute to think about the children who were bitten to death by them.

A successful planting of an image of love for animals, which scores in verisimilitude, in the mind of the general public always makes things easier for these non-anthrophiles.As a consequence they have, at least for the time being,succeeded in suspending the government's order to annihilate street dogs.If these people don't want street dogs to be killed then I think it's the turn of the government to ask them to take these dogs to their respective abodes after necessary vaccination.That would ease the burden on the authority to get rid of dogs and the animal-lovers can be close to their loved ones and take care of them easily.Till then both the young and the old belonging to the lower stratum of the society, whose love for human beings surpasses the one towards beasts, will continue to live in a state of morbid fear of stray dogs.

World 'Nothing' Day

Of the three sixty five days and the quarter of a day that a year is composed of,hardly a day passes by without it being one out of the ordinary.From anti-tobacco activists to forest conservation enthusiasts to animal fanatics to infatuated teenagers,all are having a field-day with each day on the calendar.So much so that each day is a World 'Something' Day for everyone.

Womens' Day is something that has been doing rounds for quite some time now.More likely is that a Mens' day should follow suit.Wonder whether it would be on the lines of the celebrations that the female of the human species indulge in on their chosen day.Booze,dance,hired strippers and unlimited sex,all to embark their empowerment.Poor are the millions of women living in impoverished circumstances ignorant about even the mere existence of such a day.They go on with their daily chores as if it's just like any of the other three hundred and sixty four days.

Why should people restrain themselves to commemorate something just for a single day? If some are so focused on women's empowerment,AIDS awareness,global warming etc, then shouldn't they concern themselves with these matters every day? World Mothers' Day made it to the headlines in the recent past and now everyone is supposed to gear up for World Fathers' Day too.Both electronic and print media go on lengths emphasizing the so-called importance of the day with ample dosage of homage paid by celebrities to their respective mothers/fathers,depending on the day.It seems that the world has shut its place for those who have always viewed their parents as a single entity.Why anyone needs a day or separate ones to remember each of one's parents is beyond my humble knowledge.Maybe it's one conspiracy theory that the sons and daughters who have comfortably tucked their parents into old-age homes devised.Maybe it has more to do with the business tycoons who are keen to sell each and every thing.Ever since Christmas and birthdays made exchange of cards and gifts a norm,the urge to cash in on seemingly trivial days on the part of these commercial barons has prompted us to believe that we need separate days to remember everything and everyone.

360'

Three sixty degrees is same as zero degrees,or so I've learned.What about three hundred and fifty nine degrees? How close is it to,say,one degree? If human emotions were analogous to geometry,then where would love and hate be featured? Where would one place zero or three sixty or where would one end and the other begin? I hear,that if we hate something vehemently,we may end up falling in love with the same thing and conversely when we are obsessed with something or someone,we may end up hating the very same thing or person.
Taking a look around I see examples galore justifying this theory.Why else would two people from the opposite sex with a history of a series of quarrels between them end up falling in love with each other? Why else would a couple who couldn't have been more affectionate to each other at the time of their nuptial,file for a divorce after a few years,or in some worse cases,a few months into their marriage? More often on screen than in real life I have seen an obsessed lover turn fiercely hostile against the very object of his or her desire.
The fact is,the more we hate something or someone,the more we find ourselves immersed in thoughts about the very same thing or person.The culmination of which may leave us shocked since it is not everyday that we take a U-turn in our approach,attitude and emotional inclination.And love is no different.The more we love something,the greater the chance to feel bored with the monotony of the very same thing.An overdose of love between two people may leave them prone to feel offended at the slightest of provocations from the other's side.That's where the analogy comes in.Some things should be restricted to within or around one hundred and eighty degrees.The existence of love and hate in that list of things is a pivotal one.