To write or not to write

This is coming after a lot of deliberation. I tried to get myself to believe that I do not want to write it, that I want to ignore the whole things, but I could not. It was not getting out of my mind. So, it had to be put down somewhere. After all the thinking, I decided to put in my blog instead of putting as comment to any of the original posts for reasons I would not waste time in listing here. And I do not intend to give any references, so I would reproduce the relevant posts and comments from the two blogs from where the ‘inspiration’ for this post of mine comes. Of course, in this connected world of blogs, if you want to trace, it would not be difficult. But since my interest is not with the individuals, I do not give references. And no, not giving references is not related to whether or not people involved will like or dislike it. I have no reasons to believe either way. In fact since it is all in the public domain, there should not be a reason for disliking. Still, it’s just my choice that I do not want to give it. A symbolic exercise more than anything else.

From the past experience I know what kind of risk I am running with respect to comments, but now I have a better way to handle it should something undesirable happen!

While surfing the web I came across this posting in a blog –

Man Vs Woman
Question : What is the differnece between man and woman ?
Answer : A woman wants all her desires to be filled by one man while the man wants all women to fill his one desire.

Before proceeding, let me tell you that I find this stereotyping as much idiotic as certain things succeeding this, which I am going to discuss about.

A comment on this post went like this –

Well, I dont like the language because it indicates poorly in favour of one. But the point is not incorrect.

Men chase beauty and beauty is eternal, it can never exist in one mortal human. Men chase the beauty of eternal character. No woman has it. They only have partial beauty.

But women are fixed. Their desires are worldly and practical. But not eternal. Their desires are materialistic and can be fulfilled by any man.

This is why, its not till the women learn to set the men free, and till the men learn that they need not sit, but to travel and explore more, that this world would become a perfect place to live a lifetime.

But that would never happen. People would keep raising questions and they’ll never get their answers.

A succeeding comment asked if he really was serious about women being more materialistic. To this the reply came in affirmative. And as an explanation a reference was given to a blog-post of his, which I shall reproduce here –

Have you listened to this song? –

Female : Chhod Do Aanchal Zamana Kya Kahega? -2
Male : In Adaon ka Zamana bhi hai Deewana, Deewana Kya Kahega?

These two lines say more than what they sound to be conveying. You need to look beyond the surface. Thats the truth of all our relationships. This song is beautifully repsentative of the male/female tendencies and behaviours in its purest sense. Thats the kind of dual Mr. GOD must have imagined in his vision of the lovely world he was creating.

What I intend to point out about these duals here, is the respective roles a man and a woman are supposed to play in it. We are a part of the play in which, if you forget you role, you are certainly going to make a mess of the drama. Let me admit that, what I am going to say here is not an output of my own thoughts. I have been enriched by literature – mostly indian – to have come to this conclusion. This specific point has been taken by a wonderful book, ‘Baan-Bhatt Ki Atmkatha’.

There are ways of looking at the world. There is only one truth of this universe. That truth is eternal and named as God. But there are primarily two elements of this universe – male and female. This is why we have a challenge on our hands to keep the balance between these elements and still keep ourselves in line with our endless journey towards the eternal truth. Now you can see why Hesse said – “Any life expands and flowers only through division and contradiction. What are reasons and sobriety without the knowledge of intoxication? What is sensuality without death standing behind it? What is love wihtout the eternal mortal enmity of the sexes?”

But male and female elements do not necessarily repsent the male and female human species. So, a better way to categorize the elements is – Beauty & Strength; Shiv & Shakti. Essentially, we keep ourselves in line with the ways of the world only when we do justice to our respective configurations of male/female elements. If we change the configurations, we commit a crime. Role-reversal is a crime and hence, causes corruption in all of us. It takes us away from the truth. It causes a disturbance in the setup of this universe, which was so sweetly visualised by the creator. Keep the song in your mind!

What I am going to say here is about the male and female elements. It can not be easily super-imposed on us as we have undergone a lot of corruption, a lot of role-reversal and a lot of confusion has ruined us. But the essential elements of the universe can not be negated. They stand stronger than us, however stupidly we try to defy them and laught them off!

The truth of men and women is different. They complement each other. They are not equal. They are not meant to be equal. If they try to compete, they corrupt the system – Man is an artist, Woman is practical. Man is free, woman bound. Man is doubtless, woman double-minded. Man is alone, woman intoxicated. Man is material-free, woman materialistic.

Woman is strength-incarnate. Man worships beauty. Strength has a seductive beauty in it. Restraint is beauty. Self-control is pleasure; Boundations are sweet. Else, life is a burden. Naked reality is wicked. Control is the truth.

Man chases this seductive control. He wants to break it. Love mingles the two elements. With love, the complementary elements play in unison and reach another level. At that level, woman makes sacrifices. She tortures herself and spreads pleasure. She quenches man’s thirst for beauty and completes him. She nourishes the artist inside him. But she keeps her strength. She is the soul of Nature.

This is why both the elements have a crucial role to play in this drama. If you try to defy this rule and handle it methodically, its even worse. Methodical is never eternal. It will never have the virtue of longevity. Methodical is unstable. Whichever organisation is hungry, methodical and lacking in female-element, can never bring pleasure.

And finally, let me say this – Woman is an aberration. She is an obstruction. But she is also strength. Without her strength, any venture is futile, weak and meaningless. So all such ventures deviate or collapse when a lady wants otherwise. All such ventures are meant to create turbulence. They can never bring pleasure, the serene and calm pleasure our souls need.

I am ending this post right here to leave some scope for soul-searching and questions and answers. But I am going to continue on this again. The theme will be different the next time. A hint at that wouldn’t be too bad I guess – ‘Woman is Strength. Her success is in trapping a man in her beauty. But her substantiation is in setting him free.’

I could not resist writing the following comment, which didn’t get posted there. For reasons, as I said, shall not be recounted. What I wrote in the comment is what I am reproducing here. The language is, of course, as if the it is being written as a response to the above post in that blog:

—

Had to come to this post because of the reference you left somewhere else for substantiating your comment on the nature of men vs. that of women.

And what surprises me is how have you started with the role of two elements called “male” and “female” and in another moment, without any scruples whatsoever, have imposed it on the biological sex and sociological gender!!

“Men chase beauty and beauty is eternal, it can never exist in one mortal human. Men chase the beauty of eternal character. No woman has it. They only have partial beauty.

But women are fixed. Their desires are worldly and practical. But not eternal. Their desires are materialistic and can be fulfilled by any man.

This is why, its not till the women learn to set the men free, and till the men learn that they need not sit, but to travel and explore more, that this world would become a perfect place to live a lifetime.”

is what you wrote at the blog mentioned above.

This is absolutely disgusting. What do you know of women really? You have framed a world around you which suits your convenience and pronounce that to be the way the world is supposed to be! What is it that you have described in the above comment? The utterly chauvinistic, derogatory view of women, which further celebrates that thoughtlessness of men. No sir! My desires can not be fulfilled by *any* men. My desires are no more materialistic than yours are. And I have as much a need and urge towards freedom as you have. All of these might even be more than you in my case because of my personality! And if these are less is some of my or your sex, it is again because of individual personalities, and not because of their sex!

Talk of history and literature. Yes, yes. They will favour your world-view. Because all those historians and writers (yeah, even the exceptional women amongst them) are the children of the same society, which has held this convenient, distorted world-view for millions of years now.

And if you talk of evidence in the difference of nature of women and men, in general, and pronounce any deviations as ‘exceptions’ then this is what I have to say. It is the effect of nurturance and not of nature. And it is the effect of those millions of years of nurturance. Give me half as many years with a different nurturance pattern and I will give you the evidence contrary to the world-view you hold!

A physical inequality is the reason this particular nurturance pattern has come into the world, because before civilization, physical strength was what mattered. With civilization, mind started mattering, but the nurturance pattern continued and so did the respective ‘roles’.

You will say I am committing a crime of ‘role-reversal’. I say you are committing the crime of using fantastic principles and manipulative power of language and words to support a distorted, derogatory and exploitative world-view.

And if it’s a question of framing theories, I can frame one too. Men need many women not because their desires are eternal, but precisely because their desires are excessively materialistic. One who has some eternal objective will be patient, will wait and will test! He would not take and taste and use anything and everything that comes his way. Vivekananda asked several people “Have you seen God?” before choosing his Guru.

Yes, I can frame theories too, even if doing that means a role reversal!

But I would refrain from endorsing such theories. Because I do not want to commit the same crime of stereotyping by stereotyping men, as you have done with women. I do hope there are better men in the world than the kind you have described so beautifully, otherwise the world is soon up for some real revenge from those exploited and dictated and manipulated. Women are not by nature what you have described. What you have described is what you would want women to be for the kind of men you have described. And I do believe that not all men would like to be described in the way you have done them. If they do, may God help them!

Do not justify by saying that you were talking of ‘male’ and ‘female’ elements. Because you were not. You only took an initial shelter under that principle.