Refusing to bow down

You effing miserable excuses of humanity, it did not work. Boo bloody hoo, you suck. Because you thought you were making a point blowing up things and murdering innocents. But guess what? You failed to. And how sodding pathetic is that? You didn't accomplish anything you miserable failures!!!

Because we refuse to be scared. We refuse to bow down to you.

You see, you only have one trick up your sleeves and it's gotten rather old. Doesn't surprise us anymore. Sure you think we can't stop you, yet, and it looks like life returns to normal the next day, till you deign to grace us with your disgusting presence again. But don't for a moment think you've scared us and we've gotten used to living in terror. We refuse to.

I'm so angry. I could tear those perpetrators limb to limb and set fire to each individual piece after dousing them in oil. Hot oil. After dipping them in salt.

I hate the media too. I have the local rag next to me screaming 'Scores die as terrorists hunt Britons'. What the FUCK? I know I live in Britain, but does it not matter that 'scores of people' have died? Would this incident have not mattered at all if Americans and Brits had not been involved? And I know this is a rag I'm referring to, not a national newspaper, but I saw nearly the exact lines quoted in a national newspaper and it's really bothering me, this angle that foreigners and the wealthy were targeted. Excuse me, but you perhaps did not notice this in your haste, but people have died. And not all of them were wealthy or foreign. They were ordinary people. They don't matter? IS this incident important because it involved the rich and Un-Indian? And that Israeli links are being mentioned. Are the media not jumping ahead of themselves? What kind of actual proof exists for any of this? Could they kindly for once quit bothering about TRPs and circulation numbers and just give us the goddamn plain facts?!

And the police did actually get involved. Some of them died. That is awful. But they were doing something! Given their public image of lazy, corrupt, never-lifting-a-finger types, this is ... comforting? Pardon my callousness.

What I'm really sick of is the muslims getting the blame everytime. No I do not have proof to say they were not actually involved and should not be blamed. But with each incident the numbers against this part of the population go up and that's just raising communal tensions. We do not need that!

A colleague came by and asked me if I had any relatives in Mumbai (And she actually said Mumbai!), I'm touched by that! Thanks J!

I' praying for the city and its people.

And as for the scum — I curse you. Shraap waala curse. Expletives aren't enough for you.

Edited to add: Gordon Brown has condemned the attacks.

Right. Thanks. That helps a whole lot ... Not. I'm sick of politicians making statements like this. We don't want to hear them anymore. They don't mean a thing.

Time can be frozen

in Bubblewrap.

Because...

You can grow up, do multiple degrees, hold a hot-shot hi-flying big ass job, become a parent... all those adult things.

And yet, the minute you see bubblewrap, you're five years old again.

Some day

none of this will matter

Madness Times Infinity

Since Rayshma says she's facing writer's block when blogging about these things, I'm going to try and fill in the blanks about our mad weekend moments. They seem funnier out of context so wait for the explanations.

1. See now THAT is why we don't up and leave like these heroines. We need a porter to carry all our luggage and it's always a problem finding one. (You're hardly going to ask the man you're leaving to please help you with luggage!)
2. HAHAHA!! Yeh Chinese mein Chloe to chhole bulate hain!!

1.] Was after watching a few videos which involved the heroine doing a classic bunk and leaving the hero heartbroken and confused...among other things.

2.] Was while watching 'Samantha Who?' with Chinese subtitles. They were using English to spell names and kept mis-spelling 'Chloe'. Tch tch.

The Sphinx Had A Woman's Head...

... because it makes sense. What else could have made the Sphinx such a complex thing? If wit and cleverness were the order of the day here then the Sphinx would have had Rowena Ravenclaw's head. But anyway.

The reason I thought of this is this article. I like her sign off:

What we want is a man with a full head of hair, a luminous jacket, and a good pair of lungs. We want someone who can shift crowds and move horses for a damsel in distress. We want our very own Superman.

Okay, it sounds nice. Rather, it sounds like a nice and simple solution to that age old question. Trouble is, I can't bring myself to think of it as anything beyond clever answer. It's not really practical you see. Women are to blame for this. According to the media anyway.

I am most certainly a feminist (okay wait, that doesn't seem to have any bearing on anything here) ... I cry foul when I hear a man go 'Women! Never know their own minds... so indecisvie!' To be fair, I agree that women are complex creatures by nature. But what I need to be crying foul about is how women are made to look indecisive, are projected as flighty creatures. Specially regarding men. Beings that can never decide what they want in a man and if a tiny unwanted trait is big enough to call something off.

It strikes me just now that my previous statement doesn't necessarily apply to any of the women I know. Most of them happen to be happily partnered or in no particular hurry to find a man and therefore not finicky or incessantly worrying over whether or not some poor chap is perfect for them and if they should look about some more.

But. There are such women. Plenty of them. I mostly see them on TV, or in movies. But that doesn't make them any less irksome. Sure I can switch the TV off or walk out of a movie. And that would leave me with books. I don't find much respite there either, however. I'm going to have to take up gardening at this rate.

How is it that the paramount life-changing dilemma in the lives of these projected, supposedly-imitating real life females is 'Which guy do I choose to be with?'. I'm not saying it is impossible for any woman to be involved in such drama. But why does it seem mandatory that all these women on screen representing the women of today have the same and only the one problem to define them — their life and their story. Why? It's rather demeaning and shrinks the role and the purpose of it to just one thing. Guy hunting. Surely there's more to the lives of modern women than just that? There definitely is. And I do not mean shoe shopping. Or clothes shopping. Or agonising over thread-counts in the sheets they buy. I mean deeper and more important issues. Like perhaps dealing with parents who have expectations that clash with your own. (And why is it that parents on screen are mere side characters?). Or losing contact with old frineds and battling with your feelings on realising that things might never get back to how they were. Or the age old 'What is my life about?' question. Realising that you're working your ass off and not getting much out of it and trying to get more out of life by doing something differently. taking up a new hobby. Why not any of these?

Women on screen are a bloody cliche. And I'm tired of being projected as a cliche. I am not one. And neither are any of the women I know. We do not spend hundreds on shoes. We do not max out our credit cards. We do not get stuck on one guy and refuse to let him move on. We do like to keep house and do a fairly good job of it. And are proud of those skills just as much as we are of our professional achievements. And we definitely do not define ourselves by our men, as extensions of them. Nor do we see-saw between several men trying to decide which one is nearest to that picture in our heads. Nor, break-up because the chap didn't remember an anniversary, doesn't arrange the cushions in a certain way, does not spout sonnets at the drop a hat, cannot dance, doesn't know what to do when you go out to a formal dining restaurant... endless list which is pointless.

In direct contrast to our projected lives, we love with passion and hold on to that love. Even when the object of our affections is nowhere near the perfect-person we had imagined. We learn to re-configure that image so we see this real-life person as perfect. And no one is forcing us to do that.

I've always had these 'I won't want to live with/marry any man who expects me to cook and wait on him hand and foot' ideas but I recently realised that it doesn't work that way. Marriage is about walking forward to that point and meeting half-way, willingly going out of your way to do things for your partner because they would do the same. And actually, it doesn't even seem like going out of your way. It just becomes second nature to do that... to look out and look after each other. That you will find a way of working around annoying habits if change isn't an option. And then, it won't matter if you don't get flowers every week, or that your partner doesn't seem to brag about you to friends, or that you don't get breakfast in bed. Because there are still moments and instances which speak, gestures that sweep you off your feet, though you hadn't ever thought them to be your idea of being swept off your feet, times when you're thankful you're not getting what you think you want. Because women are complex but can still be understood — just like a Sphinx's questions can be answered.

Flowers schmowers. Hmpfh. Can't compete with encouragement in the form of a violin bow.

Awful Pun Time Again

Brace yourself.

Do Arabs have good o(i)lfactory senses?

:D

The Question of Life, the Universe and Everything

Tamma* 2 and I, in conversation yesterday:

me: you tell me what you've been doing

Tamma: oh nothing.. had a long weekend..would have been good except someone stole my bag.. and it was one of those bags which i always carry..had all those small yet irreplacable things which make up your daily life so now im severly incapacitated

me: uh oh did you lose money?

Tamma: anyway..pulling things back together but thats not really the problem... whats worse is that no one seemed to take me seriously..it was like yea what did you expect will happen its not like i was really careless..in this case

anyway..then i lost my bus pass..

me: oh nooo

Tamma: which costs a grand

me: crap!!!

Tamma: so now im stuck in this existential crisis...

me: definitely looks like it

Tamma: something like...who am i? why am i here?? and where the hell is my bus pass???

me: hahahahha i think the last question is more important, helps you figure out the other two you kow :D

*Tamma = younger brother, in Kannada

The Weird Customer

On most days, I only have myself to shop for. And since I tend to not stock groceries for the week but rather as and when I need them, I noticed that my shopping basket would be a rather fascinating thing to observe on any given day. The explanations that could be imagined for my buying those items in that combination might be even more entertaining. Among other things, a random shopping trip has ended up with me buying:

• Salted peanuts and sticky tape
• One lemon, coriander and kitchen foil
• Potatoes, onions and a reindeer soft-toy
• A croissant and a pen

Oh Brother!

The Bennett sisters might have had it very different if they'd had a brother.

Aside from the fact that there would be no entailment or money issues per se, that is.

Actually, the Bakshis from Bride and Prejudice might be a more relevant case-in-point here than the original Bennets. Either way, George Wickham would have had to face an enraged brother who dealt him a swift punch rather than the classy Mr.Darcy who bought his consent. Or in the Indian case, an enraged brother and a horde of his friends who would leave no stone unturned in hunting the vile Wickham down and serving him his just desserts. But that's still not the point.

The point is, Elizabeth Bennet would have been a very different person had she had a brother. As would her sisters. A brother would have tried the patience of even a saintly creature like Jane for starters and she wouldn't have been quite the same shy thing she was. But when childhood had passed and pulling pig-tails and upsetting buckets of water over each other had faded into memory, and in the place of children would be adults dealing with their own issues... things would have changed way beyond their ken.

A brother would have influenced Lizzy choice of partner more and perhaps even equipped her with the requisite skill to deal with a personality like Mr. Darcy in a more adept manner. Which would be well. Except that, putting aside the brother's opinion of the suitor(s), brother and sister would have been sure to wonder at some point 'Where did it go? When? What did we lose and why does this feel uncomfortable now?'

I've noticed this in my immediate circle at least. Brothers tend to get a bit weird over time. They will praise their female siblings (or close cousins) to the highest skies, especially in front of girlfriends (thereby creating impossible expectations to be met and fostering just the slightest resentment between the parites which, depending on their personality and compatibility, said female parties will then try to bridge, or not)... but when that is done, they forget that they might like something about the same sister. More often, the case is that the brother in question is going to be stuck on some point of disagreement and instead of accepting that the sister is an individual and is therefore allowed her opinions, thoughts, feelings, way of doing things — entitled to these things — choose to fester in resentment over the fact that the sister isn't as they thought or expected her to be.

"She isn't social enough"

"She isn't traditional enough"

And more such complaints. In a sense, they do show concern... concern that the sister might be jeopardising her chances in life somehow by not adhering to these things. But that view still doesn't do justice for wholly ignoring the desires of the female in question. What if she likes being reclusive... maybe she's happier this way. Do you not then, want her to be happy? Would you honestly rather she makes an extra effort to be social or traditional or whatever, all the while grimacing and wincing inside that somehow she had been let down by someone she thought she could trust and be her self around. Someone who is family.

Scout Finch got yelled at by Jem for not acting like a girl enough. And yet, she became a lady — without even him knowing it.

Naam-Karan

Indian names might come across as rather funny (or scary, depending on your POV) as JV, one of my favourite bloggers, once pointed out. Fair enough. They're hard to pronounce, have all these hi-fundoo meanings, a million variations in spelling and well, for someone used to a much simpler nomenclature system, they can be quite daunting.

But... (There has to be a but, of course, but of course!) Who said we Indians ourselves had to have it any easier? Okay perhaps not easier, but... in anyway different. There are a few names out there which leave you absolutely puzzled, when the meaning is taken into consideration. Such as:

Abhinetri: What?! Who would name their child 'actress'??!! And why??!!!

Suvidha: Really? Seriously?! You want to name your child 'facility'?! G's response when I told her about this one was "Imagine someone calls her and she isn't around... they'd get this message: Yah Suvidha is waqt upalabdh nahi hai, kripaya thodi der baad koshish karen.'"

Adhunika (Galadriel's contribution): She tells me it relates to technological development... I cannot think of any suitable retort to it actually.

And let's not even go into whether and how people do live up to their names, or not.

My sanskrit teacher once said that 'Savita' was technically a male name. I'm yet to confirm this, but if it's true... then all thr women we know called 'Savita' are in for a big jolt :P

You got any funny names to contribute?