Women should support women

​I was having a discussion today with a junior at work, a girl who I had started interacting with recently. We discuss a lot of work-related stuff, and she often comes to me for advice. Today she told me, “Ma’am, I love talking to you as you always encourage me and give me practical advice. Otherwise, my experience with female bosses and peers have never been good and sometimes I feel that many women are vicious with other women even when they support men at their workplace.”

Image source: Google search

 That got me thinking. Even my experience with female bosses and colleagues has been mixed, much like my experience with male bosses and colleagues; but I guess this hurts more because one would assume that being someone in the same shoes, the other woman would be more supportive. After all, a woman should know another woman’s struggle, right? And yet, it doesn’t happen like that. Even I had a female boss who would shout or even insult me for every small thing while she wouldn’t be as spiteful with my male colleagues; not even when one of my colleagues made a blunder costing the company huge losses. I used to think, is the patriarchy so ingrained in her that she finds it so difficult to raise a voice against the men while she finds it so very convenient to do so against women?

Even outside workplace, this is a common scenario. I have seen Family courts are full of female judges who favour husbands in domestic violence cases. And I am not talking about exceptions here, because every woman who has gone to a family court to seek redressal has felt the same. Right from husband’s availability being given more importance than wife’s for the next date to the wife being told “thoda bardasht karna seekho (learn to endure a little)”, I have seen it all. I remember once I had seen a warring couple step out of court after being given the next date, when the man started beating his wife in public right outside the court. The lady ran back inside and told the judge what happened. All the judge said was, “Toh tujhe kisne kaha tha uske saamne jaane ke liye? Jab yahan khadi hoke use bura bhala bolegi toh usse gussa nahin aayega kya? (Who told you to go in front of him? If you stand here and say petty things about him, won’t he feel angry?)” I was left aghast.

They say, “Behind every successful woman is a tribe of other successful women, who have her back.” So why would you not back other women and have other women backing you.

And I have seen enough examples also of the reverse case where women have stood up for women. I do that proudly as often as I can. A colleague once was sharing a ‘juicy gossip’ with me about a female colleague going around with a male colleague and her having been seen entering the man’s house one evening. I asked him how it is any of his business to comment on it because as far as I see, they are two consenting adults, and the company policy nowhere prohibits any romantic relationships. The said company had a few married couples as employees already.

The best example I have seen of women solidarity is an incident I came across in the Crime against Women’s Cell. The usual scene at the CAWC is women complainants (most of whom belong to economically weaker sections and are not much educated), waiting for hours for their husbands (respondents) to show up for counselling, with no better time pass than watching other couples being counselled. I was doing the same that day. A woman complainant had been driven out of her marital home with her 6-month-old daughter as her husband was allegedly having an extra-marital affair. The couple had eloped and gotten married and neither her paternal family and nor her matrimonial family was supporting her, and she had taken refuge in a local Gurudwara since 2-months as she had nowhere to go. The lady was beautiful, even by the conventional societal norms – very fair, sharp feature and gorgeous hazel eyes – and her daughter was her splitting image. I could hear gossips about how a woman like her could be abandoned. I felt pity for the lady as she begged in front of the mediator/counsellor to ask her husband to take her back. The counsellor, a male, tried to convince her husband to do so as well, and went on to say that he should also think about his daughter. The husband, rude and nonchalant that he was, just shrugged and said, “Mujhe kya pata meri beti hai? Jaise mere saath bhaagi thi, kisi aur ke saath bhi to muh kala kiya ho sakta hai? (How do I know this is my daughter? The way she eloped with me; she could have been physically involved with someone else?)” The lady was furious that she pushed her husband with one hand (she was holding her daughter in the other) even as tears flowed down her eyes. The man, barely even falling a step back but taking a blow to his ego, immediately raised his hand to slap her but had to back off when at least 7-8 ladies around me screamed,came forward and stood by the wife’s side. In a flash of a second, she was surrounded and even all the counsellors were flabbergasted and stood up in attention. One of the ladies shouted, “Haath laga ke dikha! (Touch her and see!)” I could literally see fear on the face of the man who was acting like a daredevil or a badboy a minute ago. He had no choice but to back out even as the counsellors tried to take the situation back under control. I don’t know what happened in her case; and I often think about her wondering how and where she and her daughter would be. But that day I realized one thing – that even if a woman is herself in a tight spot (like all those ladies were), they can always be a force to reckon with if they support each other.

There’s a saying that “when women support each other, incredible things happen.” It’s actually true… Strong women stand together when things are rough, hold each other up when they need support, and laugh together when there’s no reason. They look out for each other. They stand with each other and not against each other. One woman can make a difference but together they can rock the world.

Flexible Working Hours are hardly a blessing

I have never been a fan of “flexible working hours” even though it has become a favourite “work-life balance” tool with the corporations in India off late. I believe that the argument that it encourages more women to take up a career holds good, but it comes at a cost. So, when I again found myself discussing this with someone today, I decided to pen my views for a larger audience and invite opinions in favour or against.

Two of my previous organisations had introduced the concept of “flexi-working hours” during my stints with them. And I had seen significant behavioural shifts in the male and female workforces there. When the policy is introduced, everyone is happy about it. The companies hail it as employee friendly policy and pitch it as one of the most important employee retention initiatives. It may retain the employees in some cases but my personal observation is that, in the larger picture, it has a negative effect on the society at large. After an year or so of introducing this policy, I had noticed that the women employees would come early to office, say around 8 am or so, and would leave early around 5 pm. Whereas it was the reverse case with male employees. They would come to office at around 11 am and would leave post 8 pm or even later. Not only does one struggle to squeeze all meetings within the 11 to 5 window but sometimes ladies are forced to stay back or join online after their office hours, especially if they are even slightly submissive in nature.

But that’s not even the most negative impact of the “flexi-working hours”. I would often talk to ladies who would move to an early shift and in almost all cases, I would realize that in the evening hours they are taking care of the kids and their homes single-handedly; running around for coaching and extra-curricular classes of their children, cooking meals, coordinating with maids and cooks, entertaining relatives etc. The husbands would stop contributing and participating in responsibilities because now the ladies “have time”. On the other hand, you talk to the men who moved to late shifts and ask them about their kids and family and you would realize that thanks to them reaching home late in the evening, they are now spared of all expectations to participate in the responsibilities of the kids and home. These men barely know what is going on in their children’s academics, rarely take them to various classes and almost never help with the chores at home. And God forbid if they are living with the parents, then the parents expect their wives to pamper them because their poor sons work till so late and slog themselves off for the family’s sake.

It may seem to be generalizing, but of course there are exceptions to the above. There were a few ladies who would go to the gym, salon, etc. or catch up with friends, but their number was fairly small and most of them had no kids or had grown-up kids and they didn’t live in joint families. Similarly, there were men who would prefer to go home and spend time with family and again the number was lesser than the other extreme and that was usually because of their personal choice and not because of any expectation from the family.

So, when I am asked about my views on “flexible working hours”, I would always point out that it may be the one of the worst contributions by a company to the society at large because even if it allows more women to take up jobs; it also tilts the balance in gender contribution at home unfavourably towards women. Therefore, in my opinion, the companies should think of other ways to encourage womenfolk to take up careers and not just bank on this policy

I am happy to listen to other people’s viewpoint on this and am open to sharing experiences, discussion and perspectives.

Stay Strong Ukraine!!

Vladimir Putin claims, "The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime.” 

As an Indian who can barely keep up with politics in India, I had never even heard of Volodymyr Zelenskyy until the war broke out. I knew Putin's reputation of being a hard task master. I had also seen how the Russians patronise him when I travelled to Russia in 2019. Yet, I can barely believe this statement. Ask me why? 

I do not believe this statement because I see on TV, civilians fighting, mounting Russian tanks and standing defiantly unarmed in front of trained and armed forces. I see people leaving behind their homes and families, children, not to take shelter but to pick up arms. I see pictures of a 79-year old lady learning to fire a gun. I see pictures of a very young girl with perfectly manicured nails in 5 different shades of neon holding the gun, ready to fight. That's not a sign of suppressed and tortured citizens. That's a sign of proud patriotic citizens, who had dreams and lives, which they have put on hold to defend their country from a maniac.

The trolls may tout Zelenskyy as a comedian or a TV President, but his one call has made these citizens pick up arms and fight to defend their country in a war where they are severely outnumbered and heading towards a certain defeat. They did that because he refused to quit on them and stood with them in the middle of the war. They did that because he declined the offer of evacuation for him and his family with his now famous words, "I need ammunition, not a ride." He is letting people send their loved ones across borders in camps, but chose to stay back with his family and children. If that's not the sign of a leader, I don't know what is. 

Take a bow Volodymyr Zelenskyy! Take a bow Ukraine! Take a bow all the braveheart citizens of this proud country! You have managed to keep the Russians at bay so long and you continue to persevere. Stay strong! Stay proud!! Stay invincible!!!

#respect

#staystrongukrain

#8daysandstillholdingon

Images source: Google search

To Bindi or not to Bindi

Off late there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of Bindi. Although I have not commented on any social media post expressing any side of the views, be it pro-bindi or against-bindi, I have my own views about the same which I finally feel like spilling out. 

Image source: Google Search

When I got married at the age of 22 years, I was just stepping into the real world. Until then, my home and my family had been my sanctuary and my opinions about anything, if at all, were only driven by what I had seen growing up. The ladies in my family had usually worn bindis, may or may not have worn Mangalsutra (it was usually treated like a jewellery item), applied sindoor usually only on Karvachauth, never worn payal-bichhue (anklets or toe-rings) or ghunghat (not even 'sir dhakna' types) and did not touch in-laws' feet every morning or husband's feet even on festivals like Karvachauth. Most of these so called 'riwaaz' or traditions that were followed were not taken too seriously, and definitely not linked to being religious or even linked to respect in any way. They were just traditions and nothing more.

When I got married, I was expected to follow some of these traditions as a rule. I was expected to always wear a bindi, sindoor, bichhue, payal and mangalsutra too (most of the time). I was told that I should never leave my wrists or my neck empty. I should never wear western clothes in front of my in-laws and had to touch their feet every morning. I was expected to treat my husband with utmost reverence (the standard line coming from my mother-in-law being "Pati toh bhagwaan barabar hota hai") and touch his feet on Karvachauth. At 22, I didn't know better and I abided by all these so much so that all these became instruments to humiliate me. "Jab tum office jaati ho toh western kapde pehenti ho, naa bindi lagati ho, naa payal-bichhue pehenti ho." I was a damn Chartered Accountant working in a Big4 corporation auditing high-networth MNCs and I was damn-well expected to dress professionally. But these so called traditions were supposed to be linked to the religion and to how much I respected my husband and by not following them I was told that I was disrespecting my husband and his family.

Soon, I started hating all these "accessories" even though as a newly married I loved wearing them as they made me feel dressed up a bit. Sub-consciously, my mind started equating them with signs of Patriarchy. When I separated from my husband, these were the first things I gave up if I had not given them up already. As much as it might be hard to believe me now, I had given up sarees too for the same reason.

Years later, I re-embraced sarees but not all these accessories (maybe some like anklets but only on a single foot and not on both feet). I still associate them somewhat with Patriarchy but I do not judge people who wear them, whether out of their love for them to dress up or even as a sign of tradition. Everyone has a different thought process and just like my mom was comfortable with some of these like bindi, I understand that many other ladies would be too. And that is okay.

What is not okay is forcing these on others in the name of religion or tradition. What is not okay is shaming and humiliating others who do not abide by your diktats. What is not okay is bullying others and telling them that they do not get to challenge your beliefs even when you are challenging theirs. What is not okay is being intolerant towards your fellow humans. I wholeheartedly condemn anyone who does that.

What happens behind closed doors is not always known: Criminal Justice Season 2 Review

I will start the review with my verdict first. This is one of the best Hindi series I have seen off late. 

The plot is simple – a housewife, Kriti Kulhari, stabs her publicly well-known, widely admired, and socially acknowledged as perfect husband, Jishu Sengupta, with her 12-year-old daughter as the only witness. She confesses to the crime immediately and sticks to it. But other than that, she maintains a stoic silence as to why she did it. What seems like an open and shut case otherwise, owing to the confession by the wife, lacks the basic element in a murder case: motive. It is only when state lawyers, Pankaj Tripathi and Anupriya Goenka reprising their roles from Season 1, start chipping away at the motive of murder that hidden facets start emerging. Despite their uncooperative client, the two keep on trying to understand why she did it.

The motive is basically the premise of the story, though there are a few twists and turns such as the primary protagonist’s pregnancy. The motive is not exactly suspenseful unlike many thrillers where the audience already knows the facts of the crime. But, it is a moot discussion point, that is slowly highlighted to impress upon the social relevance of the issue in today’s date and time.

The series talks about abuse. Domestic abuse which is not always visible outside the bedroom; one that thrives on manipulation and narcissism; one that is made to appear like care and love but is actually a disguise for control over the other person; and one which plays with your mind filling you with guilt, self-doubt and depression. The climax highlights that abuse is often invisible to the eye and abusers are usually normal people who may be good friends, good sons and good fathers but may not be good spouses. Moreover, the show highlights how marital rape is made insignificant by the society so much so that the victim feels ashamed talking about it. It’s a glaring reality of the society where even professional and powerful women fall prey to misogyny within the confines of their homes.

Image: Google Search

I have not yet seen the Season 1 of the series and since this is an altogether new case, it doesn’t matter. I do plan to see it now. The characters of Pankaj Tripathi and Anupriya Goenka are flowing over from the Season 1. Pankaj Tripathi is as expected a delight to watch. His timing, dialogue delivery and simplicity brings alive every scene he features in. His character, who is a newly-wed person in this season with an outspoken wife, turns out to be a perfect example of how even the most socially enlightened men stand up for feminism but forget to apply the same concepts in their own lives. He eventually learns to respect the feelings of his partner. Anupriya Goenka fits her role well. I had first noticed her in War and despite a few appearances after that, I feel she gets to showcase her nuanced performance in this series. All other actors are also well cast and adequate, Deepti Naval, Mita Vashishta, Ashish Vidyarthi, et al. But this season definitely belongs to Kriti Kulhari. She plays the murder accused with utmost restraint; a woman who is more concerned about hiding her personal ‘shame’ rather than the repercussions of her crime. Bare minimum dialogues, she speaks with her eyes and bravely holds the series on her seemingly frail, drooping shoulders.

The Morning Show - The human side of #metoo

I wrapped up the incredibly sleek and high-end series The Morning Show. It's certainly high quality sophisticated (read had considerably high budget) and has a stellar cast. The show is about the #metoo movement in the backdrop of an extremely popular long running morning news show.

The series starts with allegations of sexual misconduct against one of the show's veteran anchors which basically brings the news show down to its knees. Knee-jerk reactions ensure that Mitch Kessler (played by the brave Steve Carell) is kicked out overnight, statements are made by the network dissociating from his actions, and his co-workers are left to pick up the pieces. The series continues from there exploring the reactions and upheavals in the life of the people associated with The Morning Show, primarily, Kessler's co-star of 15 years, Alex Levy, played by Jennifer Aniston and Kessler's suddenly pulled out from the dumps replacement, Bradley Jackson, played by Reese Witherspoon.

Now, usually the case with any movie or soaps based on exploitation of women is centered around the women who have been exploited, highlighting the turmoil and emotional struggle the victims go through, whereas the perpetrator is generally shown as the evil, heartless villain. This series is different in that sense. The victims are missing well into the 7th episode out of 10 and even then is at best a supporting character. The primary characters are the people around the perpetrator who are now trying to disassociate themselves with him, and then the perpetrator whose life comes down to the ground. So much so that at one point you even feel sympathy for him. The show also highlights how media houses go light on any wrong doing done by their "stars" because they get them big bucks. It also offers a behind-the-smiles look at how a news show is produced, and how the scandal opens the floor up for cutthroat office politics.

I think a lot of credit goes to the makers to attempt to humanise the perpetrator and the people around him. So basically The Morning Show isn’t a straightforward examination of the #MeToo movement, but in fact a more complicated depiction of the movement that has refused to die down over years now. For instance, in her statement to the American public announcing Mitch’s departure, Alex chooses her words carefully in denouncing his actions, but expresses warmth for the man she thought she knew. There's Mia, who everyone assumes that would be the one who went to The Times and reported Mitch because she had a "known to all" affair with Mitch which she had called off and had since been feeling as being shunned. Then there's show’s executive producer, Chip, who goes on a rant about how unfortunate he feels it was that the movement was tried in the court of public opinion.

But nothing will leave you more torn than Mitch’s explanation for his actions. 'So what if he had a few affairs', he asks in one scene. 'He never raped anyone, and some of the women in fact came onto him.' He is, he believes, just like any middle-aged man in America. Humanising a person accused of sexual misconduct, especially in the current climate, is a near impossible task which this series has managed to achieve. He is much like an alcoholic who refuses to accept his addiction. He can easily recognize the predatory behavior in the others who have been accused, and yet when it comes to himself, he feels like a victim, unable to see himself being projected with the likes of Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys of the world.

The lead stars of the series are, of course, Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Anniston, both of whom were famously paid USD 2 million per episode by Apple. I have seen a few movies of Reese Witherspoon earlier and have always loved her work (my favorite still being Legally Blonde) and she is absolutely in her elements here as the crackling outspoken Bradley Jackson. I have not actually seen much of Jennifer Aniston's work (actually I have only seen her in the star studded He's Just Not That Into You and no, I have not seen Friends). I know that she has garnered much praise for this performance of hers but I personally found it average. Her constant expression through the 10 episodes was of someone frustrated and under tremendous stress (her lips perpetually in an inverted U), which beyond a point started irritating me. Steve Carell is fantastic in the role, bringing the perfect balance of entitlement and dignity to Mitch. The supporting cast is fantastic; Billy Crudup as the smarmy head of the news division, Mark Duplass as the insomniac Chip who has to perform the balancing act, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Hannah Schoenfeld, and basically just about everybody is cut out for their role.

End note, amazing show!

Submission in women is indoctrinated, does not come naturally!

Two days ago, I was watching a video of a talk by a psuedo scholar who was talking about so-called "importance of gender roles in the social construct". Although he was trying to sound very liberal and was trying to sound pro-gender equality, but deep hidden in the lines I could read hints of a well-ingrained patriarchy. One of the things he mentioned was that the female gender has "evolved" over time on the basis of changes in the society and that they are now venturing over and above their "natural roles" in the traditional construct of the society. He also said that women were "naturally submissive" and thereby were never able to carve their place in the society. And although he went on to comment on how over time women are breaking their shackles etc., my own mind was totally put-off with this comment and I didn't even listen through till the end. 

If women were naturally submissive i.e. submission came naturally to women, there wouldn't be thousands of sermons reminding women to submit (name a religion / culture / section of society and you will find such sermons). There wouldn't be sermons and literature glorifying women who are submissive and sacrificing. It would not have been required if it would come naturally to women. These are reminders which exist because indoctrination depends on constant reinforcement to keep harmful ideologies alive. Nothing which is natural needs reminders and reinforcement to run its course.

Thoughts in the times of Corona

I see the messages saying "A year ago this was our last normal week". It's so true and we had no idea whatsoever back then what we were heading into. 14th March last year was our last outing before the lockdown. I and my family had gone out for dinner and once we were there, seated, and seeing masks worn by the staff, we suddenly regretted our decision. We decided to avoid eating out for "a while" not knowing then that "a while" would stretch into one full year.

I and my family abided by the lockdown to the 'T' and even continued to do so after the lockdown was lifted. Only recently when we came to know that my daughter's school is about to open physically and my office (though already open) is expected to become more regular expecting physical presence, did we decided to step out a bit so as to ensure that my daughter gets acclimatised to wearing masks and following social distancing norms. So, when a friend, who happens to be my daughter's closest friend's mother suggested that we take a small weekend outing to a fancy location just to enjoy some calm and relax, I gradually warmed up to the idea. 

Thus, I basically stepped out properly after one full year; this time with the new normal - masks and sanitizers. We still avoided the crowds i.e. despite being in Jaipur we didn't visit any forts or did any touristy things. We just went around the city in a car and saw everything from inside our safe haven.

Now that I think about it, it is kind of strange that the most important life event for our generations, spanning one full year, and I did not write a single blog about it. And now that I think about it, it seems unfair too. My blogs document my views on many topics; and while I shared countless memes and jokes on COVID-19 on Facebook (humour is the best way to counter gloom!?), and I expressed wonder on the Tablighi-Jamaat incidents and Pravasi Mazdoor situations also on Facebook, none of that actually made it to my personal blog. 

I guess if I were to write on COVID-19 for this blog, I would end up writing how so many people acted insensitive and openly flouted social distancing requirements even at the peak of the pandemic. The frustration and anger that I poured out on Facebook would have found way on my blog. And yet nothing that I post anywhere would have had any impact on any person.

Sometime in July (in the peak of Covid), I had to go to some government office for some work, where I met an acquaintance who was also there. He stood there without a mask and when he saw me, he came near me to talk. I instinctively stepped back to maintain some distance and he came yet closer. With no further space to back-off, I politely requested the person to maintain some distance. It was clear from his facial expression that he didn’t appreciate being told to stand at a distance. “Nishtha ji, yeh corona-vorona sab bakwaas hai. Main toh ise bilkul maanta hi nahi.” I again politely replied, “Sir, who toh aapki marzi hai but main maanti hoon isliye thoda dur khadi hoon. Vaise bhi kisi ke maanane ya naa maanane se Corona chala toh jayega nahi.” “Arre, aap bekaar mein itna darr rahi hain. Yeh sab sarkar ki saazish hai hamein dara ke control karne ki.” “Achchha? Aapko nahi pata ki economy all time low par chal rahi hai? Sarkar ko kya fayeda hoga economy ko dubo ke? Vaise bhi jo itne log duniya bhar mein marr rahe hain, unka kya?” “Un sabko koi naa koi bimaari hai. Bas sabko darane ke liye death certificate par Corona likh rahe hain. Yeh sirf duniya bhar ki sarkaron ki mili bhagat hai.” “Sir, maine pehli conspiracy theory suni hai jismein duniya bhar ki sarkarein saath mein kaam kar rahi hain. India – Pakistan ki bhi, India – China ki bhi, US – China ki bhi, US – Russia ki bhi… Aur maze ki baat yeh hai ki duniya bhar ki sarkarein, desh toh desh, apne aap tak ko dubone ka kaam kar rahi hain… Unhe agla election nahi jeetna kya?” With mindsets like this, isn’t it natural for people who are taking to feel irate and annoyed? 

And yet by now, we have accepted that general public is not concerned about their own, leave alone others’, welfare and each person is on their own. So, we stepped out finally while taking all precautions and trying to teach our kids to hold their own and survive this madness where people call it the new normal and yet are trying to behave like pre-covid days. Whether anyone else takes the precautions or not – in schools, offices, public places – we will fend for ourselves and our dear ones.

The Women's Day gimmick again

I have time and again said this, written about this and repeated about this. I am not a big fan of the Women's Day, at least not in the shape and form it is celebrated at present.

This day, the International Women's Day, was marked to honour the struggle of the ladies who have fought for and are still fighting for the rights of the women... The right to equality, the right to basic human rights and the right to respect. It is a big blow to the movement that such an important day has been relegated to a marketing gimmick.

We don't need free gifts, discounts and special treatments on this one day. We need right to be able to earn our livings without being dependent on others (no free things), equal treatment in all aspects of life (no discounts) and equal respect all the year round, every day. Unless that happens, please spare me the celebrations.

#BasItniSiBaat – Thappad Movie Review and Why You Need To See This Movie

Last evening, I and my family saw the movie Thappad. Although, there has been a consistent flow of good movies off late, but I would say that Thappad is one of the finest ones which have come out recently. 

Image courtesy: Google Search / Pinterest

Let’s first get the cliched movie review out of the way so that I can come to what I actually want to say about the movie here. The movie was very relatable as the characters were very normal, flawed and much like people we come across everyday of our lives. The situations and set-ups were all common middle-class people related in any metro city. Tapsee Pannu was brilliant as an educated modern day “housewife-by-choice” and debutant Pavail Gulati as her career-obsessed professional husband was a total natural. Neither of these characters were easy to play and could have easily become stereotypes (positive and negative) but hats off to the director who reins in their brilliant performances without letting the drama become over the top. All supporting characters are acknowledged good actors and they all played their parts perfectly. I especially loved Kumud Mishra’s character as a very supportive father. There are no uncomfortable fights or nasty court battles depicted between the lead couple so even young couples can see the movie together without feeling awkward. Overall the movie holds your attention throughout the two and a half hours runtime despite not being very fast paced. Tears and choking are not ruled out especially when you can relate to the characters at a personal level, which I am sure many people would be able to do, especially women and I hope many men. 

The movie is a must watch but for more reasons than the brilliant performances that I have mentioned above. This actually brings me to what I really want to say about the movie and why I feel everyone – both women and men and even couples together preferably – should see the movie. As per me, the movie subtly and brilliantly highlights the following issues in the society nowadays (in case you don’t want spoilers ahead, please restrict yourself to the titles and feel free to come back and read the list below again after you have watched the movie): 

1. Even one thoughtless act of aggression is Domestic Violence – This needs no explanation as this is what the whole movie is about. Even if you have just watched the trailer, you would know that this is what the movie talks about. Vikram hits his wife Ammu only once, in a fit of rage directed towards someone else and not Ammu. This makes her question her own self-worth and the respect that she is given in the relationship. This is exactly why all the people who had watched Kabir Singh should watch Thappad now to understand why Kabir Singh as a movie was problematic. There is even a direct scathing attack in this movie about Kabir Singh. Vikram’s side-kick says in the movie that if you really love someone “toh thodi bahut maar-peet toh hoti hai, uske bina pyar ka kya matlab hai?” which is exactly what the director of Kabir Singh, Sandeep Reddy Vanga, had said in order to justify the male protagonist’s violent behaviour towards the female protagonist. Even legally, even one single act of aggression whatever the cause and rather even mental torture is counted as Domestic Violence. This aspect is beautifully explained in this movie. It’s just one slap but “nahin maar sakta”.
2. Gaslighting women is just so common in families – There are many instances of gaslighting women depicted in this movie. They are as real as it gets because almost all women have experienced these taunts, every once in a while, in their relationship. While Nethra’s relationship with her husband Rohit is all about gaslighting, there are many other instances shown. The one that stands out is when Tapsee asks Pavail whether she should learn driving, he retorts, “Pehle Paranthe toh theek se banana seekh lo, fir driving ki baat karna.” Ouch! That hurts, isn’t it? 
3. Professional successful women are always looked at suspiciously – One small piece in the movie irked me. It was a scene where Tapsee and Pavail always meet and greet their next-door neighbour Dia Mirza who leaves for work the same time as Pavail. Dia is shown to be a professional (details not known) who is also a single parent after her husband, whom she loved a lot, expired. In this particular scene, Pavail is getting into his car, a grand Audi SUV, while Tapsee is handing over his stuff (wallet, thermos, lunch pack, etc.) to him and at the same time Dia comes out, wishes them good morning and gets into her car, also a similarly grand Audi, and leaves. At that moment, Pavail remarks, “Isne fir nayi car le li? Yeh aisa kya karti hai?” (Oh yeah, I too felt like banging his head to the car bonnet.) That’s when Tapsee replies, “HARD WORK!” But this scenario is just too common isn’t it? If a woman, especially when she is single (but it’s not like married women are spared), is successful, the success is always attributed to factors other than hard work, intelligence, skill, capability, leadership qualities, etc. It’s like men just cannot fathom that a woman can be equally capable and deserving of success like them. 
4. Divorces in India get really messy – This is a known fact even without the movie highlighting it. That is also the reason many women continue to be in unhappy and/or abusive marriages. Even when they try to play fair, the men just try to get into nasty stuff to try to intimidate them and put them down. I have seen enough divorce cases to mention that it would be the case in almost all cases (To be fair, even women use these tactics sometimes on their own and at other times on the assumption that the other side will anyway be stooping down to these levels.) Here too there are allegations of jealousy, money-mindedness, greed, etc. and how to forget the husband tries to gain full custody of his unborn child by offering monetary perks (much like his idea of pacifying his wife’s anger). 
5. Housewives rarely get appreciation for their hard work – Tapsee is shown to be a very efficient housewife whose whole life revolves around her home. Her day starts at 6 am and ends much later than Pavail’s. However, the only thing that Pavail highlights is that she cannot cook well, or as well as his mom. If there is anything not working at home, then it’s his wife’s problem and his wife’s fault. Even when she leaves and his house is turned upside down largely because of his own incompetence to manage and maintain it, he is not ready to appreciate what Tapsee brought to the table as a homemaker. His mom suffers a medical emergency because he cannot keep track of her BP the way Tapsee did and in his petition he blamed Tapsee for the medical situation alleging that it was because of the stress caused by her irrational behaviour that his mom suffered. 
6. Men and apology often don’t go hand-in-hand because their upbringing makes them egoistical – Throughout the movie until the very last scene, Vikram doesn’t apologise to Amrita even once for hitting her. Not a sorry… NOT EVEN ONCE. He is providing all kinds of justification about how he suffered a setback in his career, how his boss played unfair to him, he had received a phone call that had upset him, he was angry, he was drunk, whatever. He is cuddling and saying “I love You” to a visibly upset and unresponsive Amrita, and he is buying a diamond bracelet but never offered an apology. And this is so often the case in many couple relationships that men find it difficult to say sorry for their mistakes. They feel insecure about losing their dominating position by admitting that they made a mistake and a large part of it is because they have grown up to larger than life male figures in their families and previous generation where the impression created is whatever men do is acceptable and correct. 
7. Narcissists always make things about themselves and shift the onus of guilt on the other person – Vikram is clearly a narcissist. Throughout the movie, the whole relationship is about him. How his career is important, how dare his bosses play unfair, how his targets are achieved so it’s a good year. Every single time, Amrita tried to put her point forth, Vikram and his “I, me and myself ramblings” start. And everything wrong happening in his life is because of Amrita. Amrita is responsible for escalating this issue and taking it outside the four walls. Amrita has made his life hell because she is not anymore doing everything, she used to do for him, and he must fend for himself. Amrita is the reason for his mom’s sickness. The list goes on. 
8. When your family has your back, you can fight any battles – I have already mentioned that my favourite character in the movie is Amrita’s father played by Kumud Mishra. It so reminds me how my Mom and Dad stood by me. He doesn’t leave Amrita’s side even for a second. Even if Amrita’s mom may sway under societal pressures for once, he always has her back. Even if every person in the world was telling Amrita to compromise and go back (including her own mom initially, her brother, and her hot-shot lawyer who was also a woman’s rights activist); her father told her that what she is doing is right if her heart says it’s right. The truth is that your in-laws no matter how much they love you; they never will stand up for you. That takes me to Amrita’s monologue of how no one ever told Vikram that he was wrong and that no one ever asked her whether she was okay. It was only her parents who stood behind her like a rock and because of whom she could confidently take a decision to opt for divorce even though she didn’t have a financial independence and foothold at the moment. This trust is the most important thing in the world and believe you me, you can fight any battle with that support. I would know because I have been in the same position as Amrita.

Make-up for kids... Like, really?

It’s wedding season and there’s a thought that has been going on in my head. My sister got married just over a year ago. It was one of the biggest occasions we had in our family in the recent past and the biggest that my daughter, now thirteen years old, has had in her living memory as she was too young to remember my other sister’s wedding. Our preparations as far as she was concerned went only to the extent of deciding dresses and footwear (flats and although she bought her first kitten heels for the D-day, she couldn’t wear it for over half an hour and shifted to flats). There was nothing else that we had to discuss or arrange for her. Our own preparations were more elaborate. It additionally included arranging a make-up artist (MUA) for us. 

Now, that was because it was my own sister’s wedding. Otherwise, I am the kind of woman who never opts for professional make-up or hairstyling on any other occasion – be it any close wedding or any random party. Money factor is not even a consideration because I simply do not have the time, energy and inclination to go to a professional to get ready. Similarly, the only time my daughter had her hair done by a professional was during my sister’s wedding and that too only braids (due to the fact that I myself am totally pathetic with those) sans any spray or serum. I just wouldn’t let the MUA use any chemicals on her hair. That is all the exposure my daughter has had to professional make-up till date. 

But when I go to weddings nowadays, I am surprised to note that my daughter is usually the odd one out in kids. Kids as young as 2 or 3 year olds there are running around with hairstyles made by professional MUAs and often with make-ups like eye-shadows and lip-colours. My niece got married about 10 days back and I couldn’t see a single child on her own feet, no matter how old, not made-up. And I kind of find it sad because all said and done, these cosmetics not only harm their gentle skins but otherwise as well we are tuning the minds of our girls to fake standards of beauty as well as vanity. This in my eyes is a bigger sin than even ruining their complexions. 

This had been on my mind for a few days until yesterday when I was just whiling away my time by surfing through flash news from Entertainment Industry. I came across Vogue Magazine articles sharing pics of all celebrities who attended Armaan Jain - Anissa Malhotra wedding – the “who wore what” kind of news articles. I was mindlessly just skimming through without even focussing on any celebrity or least of all on the names of all the famous designers whose clothes they wore. That was until I came across pics of Karisma Kapoor with her daughter. What caught my eye was Samiera Kapoor, aged 14, a young girl belonging to one of the most fashion-conscious families in India was totally sans any make-up and hadn’t even got her hair done. A teenager belonging to a family of actors, who herself is most likely to become an actor someday, was wearing designer dresses but no cosmetics. I was like “Wow! This is so unexpected.” Indeed, this was a surprisingly unanticipated but still a refreshing change for me. The same was the case with Aaradhya Bachchan, the daughter of Abhishek and Aishwarya Bachchan, but then the argument in her favour is that she is only 8 years old. But even in her case, she is an example to be emulated by the parents of the 2 year olds with fancy buns and red lips running around wearing diapers under their lehengas at sundry weddings. 

I hope parents of little girls make note and follow suit. We are in an age where we want to teach our girls (and even boys) that their physical attributes should not determine their worth and that they are beautiful just as they are. But then we cannot preach what we don’t practice.

Image courtesy: Google search

Kabir Singh is no hero!

I find it appalling that in today's times and era, movies like Kabir Singh / Arjun Reddy are being made and appreciated. After all the signs of progress the movie industry shows with movies like Pink, Piku, Queen, etc., movies like Kabir Singh push the carousel eons backwards.

Image source: Google search

To be honest, I haven't seen the movie. The trailer itself was repulsive. Let's be clear, Kabir Singh is no hero and shouldn't exist in real life. He is sexist, patriarchal and misogynistic. The movie glorifies eve-teasing, stalking, abusing women, and let me add, it promotes toxic masculinity and the portrayal of psychopathic manliness. This is so not acceptable!

They say that the movie is about a "flawed character" and Shahid Kapoor has played it to perfection. Now, Shahid has played flawed characters before - Kaminey, Haider, Udta Punjab - but they were essentially that, flawed characters. Unlike Kabir Singh, their flaws were not glorified in the name of "intense love". Do we realize how many teenagers and youngsters are fooled by the idea of "intense love" as depicted in the movies? Do we realize how many "flawed characters" with "intense love" are in the making right now inspired by the movie knowing that it is a big hit with youngsters? Shouldn't it worry us about the safety and sanity of the girls and other people in general who might be around such people right now?

It's time these movies suffer failure so that lessons are taught to people who promote hazardous patriarchy in the name of cinematic liberty. The movie reviews are raving about Shahid and his performance and women are drooling over him just as the movie is inching towards various box office milestones. And I am irritated with the reactions, especially those of women. How can they go all ga-ga over something that degrades their very existence?

Re-invention is all about intention!

Just few days back I was in a training where we were discussing about reinventing yourself. The speaker was the CEO of a Russian Bank and he was discussing how thrice over the company had seen political and financial crisis in their country and how every time they had re-invented themselves according to the situation and emerged stronger.

One of the questions he was asked was "What if it is not possible to re-invent yourself?" He smiled and said, "It is always possible if you want to. It's not a question about possibility but about intention. If you have the intention, you will find a way." And then he gave a perfect example of re-invention where very few people would think possible - Cirque du Soliel. The example of Cirque du Soliel really caught me and it has since been spinning in my head.

After all, how much can a circus hope to re-invent itself? What's the scope? And yet they did it... Not a single animal is there any more in any of their shows. But, it's still a beautiful display of skills... And it's grand and bigger then ever before; almost equivalent to a Broadway show. With the ticket prices touching the sky, they barely do a show that's not sold out. Now that is re-invention. It really is a question of intent.

Image source: Google search

Women's Day

Simple Joys of Life

Simple things bring joy to our everyday life. A piece of chocolate shared with you by your child is the sweetest. The smell of petrichor in the morning after a rain soaked night is the most uplifting. A combo of a book and a blanket is unbeatable in winters. A cup of coffee and meaningless chatter with your colleague during fifteen minutes stolen from your working hours are the highlight of your day. Finding a Rs. 500 banknote in your jeans pocket which had been completely forgotten since the last time you wore it makes you suddenly feel rich. Making a brief eye contact with someone of the opposite sex, even a stranger, in a way that seems to communicate a subtle curiosity at the other end makes you feel the most attractive person on the earth. Blazing through the yellow light you glance in your rear-view to see all the cars behind you stopping at the red light suddenly makes you feel victorious. Seeing a friend trip and stumble around momentarily before regaining his/her footing, then swiftly attempting to play it off like nothing happened can be the most hilarious sight if the moment is right. Finding a parking lot right in front of the store you want to visit makes you believe that it’s your lucky day. Spreading out on fresh clean bed-sheets makes you feel relaxed all of a sudden. Reminiscing about old times with your closest friends makes you feel like a child all over again. Receiving an unexpected compliment can suddenly make your day a whole lot better. Finishing up something that had kept you busy for days feels like a sense of accomplishment. And then nothing ever beats hearing the right song at the right moment. It simply lifts your spirits immediately.

Simple joys of life… Sometimes we need to take time out and appreciate them too.

And the men we SHOULDN'T love!

In continuation with the list of romantic literary heroes that I shared the day before, I also want to list down a few which feature time and again in the articles about most loved male protagonists in literature but which for some reason are NOT my favourites. But to maintain parity with the previous article, I would stick to the most loved characters written by female authors: 

1. Howard Roark – The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

Without any reference to the debate surrounding hypocrisy in Ayn Rand’s writing, Howard Roark from The Fountainhead, her most famous and most loved character, is an amalgamation of contrasts. To call him polarizing is the understatement of the century. Most people credit him with having a boatload of artistic talent, but he could be as much of a sinister dirtbag as he could be an enigmatic charmer. Roark is fiercely independent. He believes in the merit of his revolutionary designs and has the courage to stand for them in the face of an antagonistic society. He is presented as the author's version of an ideal man. Roark is the antithesis of contemporary belief that an individual is molded by social forces. He is not the product of his upbringing, his economic class, his family, his religious training, or his social background. He is a product of the choices he has made. Roark is an example of free will — the theory that an individual has the power, by virtue of the choices he makes, to control the outcome of his own life. A man's thinking and values are not controlled by God or the fates or society or any external factor — but solely by his own choice. Others (like Keating) may choose to submit, but Roark will not. He is his own man. And all this sounds so foolishly attractive when he is portrayed as the perfect man – strong, bold, and confident and someone with a very high sense of integrity. But one cannot deny that Roark is a selfish man. He is true to his values, to his convictions, to his thinking, to his mind, to his self – and only to himself. He is an individualist and someone essentially born into the role of explosives-wielding freethinker. But even if all this is acceptable, there is one big flaw in his character that will never allow me to succumb to his charms. He forcibly enters Dominique’s room and rapes her. Whatever way it was projected in the book, at the end of the day, he is a RAPIST. Period. 

2. Mr. Rochester – Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë 

Image source: Google search

Mr. Rochester in “Jane Eyre” is a stern-featured, heavy-browed, craggy-faced, rude, abrupt, horny man always on the edge of violence who likes to order people around and keeps his wife locked in the attic. In fact, he is a character closest to the Beast in “Beauty and the Beast” and yet he is far worse than the Beast. Unlike Beast, who had a soft heart inside, Mr. Rochester is a typical Byronic hero, moody, arrogant, cynical and jaded, and like all Byronic heros he is attracted by Jane's innocence, her chastity. But he is also clinically mad, a manic depressive, living in an unreal world, understandably perhaps, he cannot deal with the reality of his own situation. It is undeniable that he seduces and seeks to deceive Jane by effectively making Jane his mistress. He is the opposite of Jane. She is easily deceived because she is incredibly naïve and innocent, and alone, she has no one to turn to for advice, Mrs Fairfax herself admits to finding Rochester an enigma and so would offer little help. He is the first of the opposite sex, unmarried (as Jane believes) to look on Jane kindly, to smile, to talk to her as an equal (when in fact Rochester knows full well that he is taking advantage of her position and character, abusing his position as her employee). In fact in today’s terms he is grooming Jane for sexual conquest. Byronic heroes are sexual predators, 'mad, bad and dangerous to know'. Particularly, chaste, married, or otherwise 'unavailable', women are regarded as a challenge, as legitimate targets to be seduced and then left. 

3. Henry DeTamble – The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger

In various passages in “The Times Traveler's Wife”, Henry explains that the inevitable cause of his time travels is stress. He has zero tolerance for stress. And, boy, Henry is stressed out by a lot: by watching TV, by loud noises, by blinding lights, by drinking too much, by getting married, by having kids, by conflict… He only relaxes during sex. So the big question here is, are Henry’s disappearing acts actually a male conspiracy to have an excuse to leave marital responsibilities behind and just go out womanizing, drinking, getting high, causing trouble – living the bachelor life. Because that's pretty much what Henry does with his time away from Clare. Also interesting is that right after he meets Clare in the present – unmarried, no children, and no responsibilities – Clare remarks to Henry that he hasn't been traveling much which is kind of suspicious. And then there's the whole "I need more sex to stay in the present" thing. So maybe “The Times” is right. Maybe Henry is just a big flake. A coward who can't handle life and so keeps slipping through its cracks. What an unreliable jerk! 

4. Heathcliff – Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë

Forget most of the romantic nonsense you have heard about Heathcliff from “Wuthering Heights”. Sure he's in love with Catherine, and you can't question his loyalty, but he has a serious mean streak. To put it bluntly: he acts like a sociopath. Traditionally, romance novel heroes appear dangerous, brooding, and cold at first, only later to emerge as fiercely devoted and loving. One hundred years before Emily Brontë wrote Wuthering Heights, the notion that “a reformed rake makes the best husband” was already a cliché of romantic literature, and romance novels center around the same cliché to this day. However, Heathcliff does not reform, and his malevolence proves so great and long-lasting that it cannot be adequately explained even as a desire for revenge against Hindley, Catherine, Edgar, etc. As he himself points out, his abuse of Isabella is purely sadistic, as he amuses himself by seeing how much abuse she can take and still come cringing back for more. Heathcliff can be a real beast, which comes across through his numerous threats, violent acts, and symbolic association with that unruly pack of dogs. A powerful, fierce, and often cruel man, Heathcliff often falls back on violence as a means of expression, both of love and hate. Having been abused by Hindley for most of his childhood, Heathcliff is the classic victim-turned-perpetrator. His rage is tied to the revenge he so passionately seeks, but he also undertakes small "extracurricular" acts of violence, like hanging Isabella Linton's dog. These lines in the book pretty much sum up his attitude: "I have no pity! I have no pity! The more the worms writhe, the more I yearn to crush out their entrails! It is a moral teething; and I grind with greater energy in proportion to the increase of pain."

And to think of it, these disdainful characters were also written by women and despite their serious flaws are also unequivocally loved by women across the world even to this day. If only women knew their own worth better!

The Men We Love!

I was recently reading an article online where the writer had shared how some of the literary male protagonists had ruined her romantic life because they are “Oh, so perfect!” The article was fun and so I googled more on the topic where favourite male characters from novels were shared. There were some names that were appearing more commonly as against others. A prime example was Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy from the Pride and Prejudice who was not only part of every single list but was almost always occupying the No. 1 spot. And then there were others who appeared more than often. Here when I listed them down, there was a very interesting observation that cropped up. But, first let me share the ones that I am talking about:

1. Mr. Darcy – Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

Image source: Google Search

The quintessential and undoubtedly most loved male character ever from a novel is Mr. Darcy from the “Pride and Prejudice”. Mr. Darcy exhibits all the good and bad qualities of the ideal English aristocrat — snobbish and arrogant, he is also completely honest and sure of himself. Initially described as someone vain and too proud for our dear Elizabeth Bennet, he backs off when she rejects him and yet is mature and good-natured enough to help her out where he can without any expectations in return. When Elizabeth flatly turns down his marriage proposal and tells him that it was ungentlemanly, Darcy is startled into realizing just how arrogant and assuming he had been. He accepts his folly and goes all out to correct what he had done wrong. Darcy's humbling makes him more sensitive to what other people feel. If he wins our dear Lizzy’s heart in the process, it’s all too obvious. The fact that he is extremely handsome and rich is just icing on the cake.

2. Captain Wentworth – Persuasion by Jane Austen

Much on the lines of Mr. Darcy, Jane Austen also wrote the character of the good-looking Captain Wentworth in “Persuasion”. Although he could never reach the desirability quotient of Mr. Darcy, he wasn’t much behind either, heralding very similar qualities as Mr. Darcy. Again, choosing to walk away when rejected by Anne and yet holding an undying love for her in his heart for years; he doesn’t impose himself or his feelings on her unless he himself is sure of her own feelings. In fact, he felt responsible for Louisa's condition, having pursued her to make Anne jealous and would have taken her as his wife. However, when Louisa turned her affections to James Benwick, he let her go without making it an ego issue. Eventually, getting similar undying love from Anne could only have been the best reward possible.

3. Atticus Finch – To kill a mockingbird by Harper Lee 

Bold, heroic, noble, honourable, confident and optimistic, Atticus Finch from “To kill a mockingbird” is a vision of idealised masculinity. He is a true role model in every sense of the word. A man holding forth a fight for justice against all odds; and yet a very even-keeled type of guy who does not get too worked up about stressful situations. He is not affected by what other people say or think. He is consistent and rooted in his beliefs. A man of great wisdom and character; he is a good single parent too trying to fill his kids with a sense of righteousness.

4. Gilbert Blythe – Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maud Montgomery

Gilbert Blythe from “Anne of Green Gables” is literally literature’s most beloved boy-next-door. He lets Anne be Anne, a wonderful mess of imagination, goof-ups, temper, drive, and dreams – and Gilbert loves all of that about her. He never tries to make her something she isn’t. Also, he doesn’t let obstacles throw him and he pursues excellence. He works hard for what he has and isn’t showy about his successes. And boy! Is he patient? He fell in love with Anne long before the thought ever occurred to her that he could. And he waited. And waited. He waited until Anne herself was ready and all this while without even being imposing. Like all romantic male protagonists, he loved Anne and they both supported each other throughout the series. All the while, Gilbert was never threatened when Anne succeeded. He was secure in who he was and happily rejoiced in Anne’s success even if he was the one who had lost out to her.

5. Rhett Butler – Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

On the surface, Rhett Butler from “Gone with the Wind” is a textbook example of the charming rogue. His dark, good looks and supposedly wild behavior are the source of considerable gossip among the ladies. However, he is loved not for his Casanova image but for his undaunting love for Scarlett. Rhett has no dearth of physical courage which can be seen in the fact that he starts off the war as a blockade runner (which takes some courage, even if he insists it doesn't), but at the siege of Atlanta he decides to go off and join the army. Moreover, he helps Scarlett escape from Atlanta during the siege and after he murders a black man, he faces his sentence of death by hanging with seeming equanimity. And yet some call Rhett a coward because he's afraid to tell his own wife that he loves her. Rhett's afraid of Scarlett; deathly afraid, shamefully afraid. Even though he declares his love for her when he is about to leave Scarlett to go into the army and perhaps die, she misunderstands him because he had never really expressed his sentiments till then. He just lets her be herself and gave her all the space she needed while remaining by her side as the anchor she may hook herself on. He is also an excellent father to Bonnie; never once entangled by the gender roles in the said period and taking upon himself the parental duties as he must. The one flaw that holds out as a sore eye is Rhett Butler putting the blame of every flaw in him (his act of indifference or his sleeping with Belle) on Scarlett and he eventually comes across as someone willing to cheat on her and lie to her and treat her as a punching bag for his own insecurities. A bit of put downer there. 

Having listed down the most loved male characters across the world in the English novels, there is one thing noteworthy about the list… One common factor that runs across all these characters is the trait that they are utterly and unwittingly feminist in their conduct. They do not impose on the women they love; give them space to be themselves; and support them in their pursuits. Is it a surprise? Well, not if you see the reason why. 

ALL THESE CHARACTERS WERE CREATED AND WRITTEN BY WOMEN.

I don't have an attitude problem... I have an attitude and you have a problem!

I was once told that I have an attitude problem. I did not retaliate because by giving back to that person, I would have proved him right. The thing is that I do not have an attitude problem. I have an attitude and that person has a problem with my attitude. And honestly, that is not my problem.

I have a (maybe bad) habit of voicing my opinion and calling a spade a spade. I do this every single time without fail and without caring about the reactions of other people. The approach I follow is simple and democratic. I say what I think and what I feel is right but then I do not fight back to uphold my opinion. I let others speak and express whatever they think is right. "To each his own" is my philosophy. Many times people have expressed 'different' or 'contradicting' views. Often I have been rudely condemned and have faced people's ire for that too (thankfully restricted to social media). But I have never retaliated. People can think about it whatever they want. They can assume that I am not fighting back because I am scared of them or that I am weak. They can happily regale in their assumption that they put me down and that I failed to overpower them. Again... To each his own. I just do not feel the need of getting everyone to agree with me.

Just last week something similar happened. I spoke up about something I felt strongly about (and I always try to maintain a polite language and try not to put anyone down). Still, a person whom I considered a good friend (and about whom I had recognized long back that she has a very different way of thinking than me), got a bit worked up because she did not agree with me. Within minutes I had lost a friend for voicing an opinion different to hers. I was surprised a bit that people are not mature enough to accept others feeling differently about the same issue and they find it difficult to co-exist peacefully with - leave alone respect - others having a different point of view. But then, I still do not regret saying what I felt.

Then today, a colleague chatting with another colleague of mine suddenly fell silent as I approached his table in the cafeteria. When I asked what happened and he could not suddenly make up something for me, he admitted that he had been talking about men's rights activism and how he felt about women using the laws in their favour to harass men. I smiled and told him that I agree to what he has said and that there have been cases, a couple about whom I know personally too, where this has been a case. Yet, those are still few in number and the most number of cases are genuinely where women have faced harassment. He started arguing that those are the thing of the past and that the laws are archaic and need to be changed. I did not then challenge back or justify my views. He was all into debate mood by then and kept on repeating his argument again and again. I just sat there, smiled and drank my tea. He tried hard to instigate a reaction. When he couldn't get one, he very stoutly said, "See, even you are convinced that I am right." I smiled and said, "Not yet but unlike you, I am not trying to convince you that I am right." He was taken aback a bit. I then very calmly told him that irrespective of what I think, he still has a right to have a different opinion and speak it up in front of me and I would do the same in front of him. I will not belittle him or judge him for having an opinion different than mine and I hope he would not judge me either. To be honest, even if he does judge me for having views different than his own, I will make sure that it will not impact me at all or for long. Thankfully, we parted the tea party in a joyful mood happily bidding each other a nice day. 

Image source: Google search

I was not always like that. There was a time when people's opinion about me mattered to me. I just wanted to be in everybody's good books. I would not speak out my views clear cut lest I might offend someone. And it all would bottle up inside me and mess with my head. I was - and still am - a person who had an opinion of her own, sometimes different than the opinion of people around me. I also realized the need of speaking out my opinion clear and loud but I wouldn't because of the fear of condemnation. It has taken me years of struggle, self-analysis and self-discovery to develop the nonchalant attitude towards what people may think of me for speaking out. I am now more confident than ever in the knowledge that I do not need other people's acceptance to be a nice person and what people think about me is irrelevant to my existence. This 'devil-may-care-attitude' which may not go down well with some people is actually a well thought out decision. And now, giving up this attitude for the fear of losing out on 'friends' is actually too big a price for me to keep people around me. I will not stifle my voice just to be with others who cannot respect me for having an opinion, even if it is different than theirs. And one thing is sure... I do not intend to change for anybody's acceptance.