Manila Bay, The Philippines

These pictures were taken within a span of 5 minutes from each other. It was almost magical how the sky changed hues so fast. I just stood there as a speck beneath the enchanted skies, awed and enamored, gazing at the celestial canvas.

#1


#2


#3

Ice-cold photo. Brrr...

Another ice-cold photo.

New crazy ideas for 2008: Blog identity and (re)views

This blog has been silent for a while. I haven't written anything in a long time. One of the reasons was sheer laziness. Writing blog posts is hard work. It's harder than it sounds. Another reason was that I have written much in the past few months… just not on my blog. And that has taken a toll on my writing for this blog. After all, how much can one write? How much can one rant? How much can one spout? How much can one pout?

But the biggest reason why I think I haven't posted in a long time is that I haven't yet figured out my relationship and engagement with blogging. I don't see myself as much of a blogger. In fact I don't see myself as a blogger. I don't know how and why I got into it. Of course I like it. I have had some very interesting experiences on blogosphere, and met some interesting people here. But I don't feel like an "insider". Probably because I have never been able to figure out exactly what to write on this blog. I oscillate between thinking of this blog as a personal territory and an impersonal domain. I don't want this blog to be of my very personal life… I'm sure of that. I've written about feminist issues on this blog… thrown in a poem now and then… uploaded a picture once in a blue moon… and posted gibberish very frequently. I haven't figured out its genre… its niche… neither have I figured out if I want it to have a genre or a niche. Too much confusion, eh?

I have thought about shutting it down entirely, and contemplated a place in the cold storage too. I don't want to do that. No. I want to write. And of late, I've been feeling this renewed urge to scribble on this screen again. And I want to change the nature of this blog. Or rather I should say that I want this blog to have a more concrete and firm nature. And so I have decided to post reviews on it… reviews of books, articles, movies, art...

Wait a second, did I really just say that? Who am I? Some sophisticated art critic? Homo Sapiens Librarius? Photography connoisseur? None of them. Renaissance art goes over my head, and terms such as surrealism, cubism, impressionism and realism barely manage to clumsily stumble out of mouth, thwarting all my dreams of romancing with art effortlessly. I don't understand the theories and criticism of literature much either. I often read intelligent poetry that certifies my low poetry I.Q. beyond any reasonable doubt when I don't get it even in the fifteenth fiftieth attempt. I have often caught myself not being able to celebrate the craft of celebrated authors, poets, painters, musicians, movie directors, and other species of art creators. So no, I make no claims of being an expert and intellectual reviewer. In fact I make no claims of being a reviewer. I am just a viewer. And as I view, I feel, I interact, I respond, I emote, I struggle, I empathize, I lash out, I walk out, I cry, I laugh, I giggle, I sulk, I cheer, I boo… I interpret.

And that's what I want this blog to me now… my (naïve) interpretations of what I view. Of course I won't post regularly (as if anyone cares!). And frankly, these posts are more for myself than for anyone else you might read them. When I see some things, I want to get them out of my system. Hmm… but I cannot ever get them out of my system, now can I? Let me rephrase that sentence. When I come across some things, I want to talk about them. I want to say a few things out loud. I want to not just boo or cheer in the isolation of my living room (or kitchen, or stairs, or bathtub), but I want to let it hang out. Why? I don't know. I will not think about this question, because – (i) nobody has asked me this question, and (ii) I don't have an answer.

Post script:

Last year I attended a talk by Cherrie Moraga, a Chicana lesbian woman, poet, teacher, playwright and essayist, who told her story of becoming a mother in words similar to these:

In (insert a year from the early 90's here), I wrote about how I was never going to be a biological mother to anyone. A year later, I was pregnant! When I was asked about it, I said, "I changed my mind."

Human mind is a very elusive thing. It somersaults often. Who knows I just might change my mind about anything and everything I have written in this blog, and never get to writing (re)views. But then again, how does that matter?

Why do I (sometimes) write; why do I (sometimes) not write?

I don't know.
Wish I knew.
Do I write because I know news?
Do I not write because there's no news?

It's fun to write gibberish :)

Random pic

It's (not) all bull!

Reluctant furniture

Kill 'em! Castrate 'em!

What would be the appropriate punishment for someone who sexually abuses children? When asked this question, typically people respond with the following answers:

1. Kill them!
2. Castrate them!
3. Rape them/their kids.

While these responses arise out of the shock and horror stories of child sexual abuse often bring, they are neither appropriate nor practical. And here’s why:

1. Kill them!

Besides the arguments along the lines of human rights and capital punishment, it is a fact that killing them won’t help protect more children from being abused. First of all, killing an abuser will eliminate the possibility of that abuser abusing more children. What about thousands of other kids who get abused everyday? Second, it will not serve as a deterrent for other abusers. There are many countries across the world that have excellent rape and child abuse laws. However, these crimes are still extremely prevalent in those countries. In India, where laws and their implementation has always been an issue, this method will just not work. Third, being identified as a child abusers carries tremendous stigma in any society, including India. Social stigma is always a greater deterrent than legal instruments. If the social stigma does not deter the abusers, it is highly unlikely that death penalty will (this is not to state that laws don’t matter… of course they do… just that they alone are not sufficient). Fourth, death penalty is allowed only in the “rarest of the rare circumstances”. Take a look at the prevalence figures for child sexual abuse across the world, and you will realize that child sexual abuse is not rare, leave aside being rarest of the rare (World Health Organization estimates that 1 in 10 children is sexually abused!). Finally, this method will kill only who get caught. Abusers are so smart in their modus operandi, that for every abuser who gets caught, there are hundreds who walk away free. How will death penalty catch them?

2. Castrate them!

This is probably the most common response. However, sexual abuse doesn’t require genital gymnastics. In fact, it does not even require for a child to be touched physically. Rape is only one form of abuse. What about child pornography on the internet? What about voyeurism (where the abuser gets sexual pleasure out of looking at children when they are in the bathroom, changing clothes etc.)? What about forcing a child to engage in sexual activity with another child? All these acts do not require the abuser to touch the child? But are they abusive? Of course! Castrating someone does not take away their ability or intentions to be abusive.

3. Rape them/their kids.

Violence is not the answer to violence. If we do this, we will send out the message that rape is justified as long as the motive behind it is justifiable. Motives can always be interpreted, misinterpreted, manipulated and twisted. Rape is unacceptable. Period.

So what needs to be done?

We need to stop looking only at legal and punitive measures to stop abusers from abusing. They have their place, but they don’t change society. We need to stand up and be counted, instead of passing the buck to the courtrooms and expecting prisons to do the trick. We need to accept that:

1. Abusers exist.
2. They exist among us, and not just on Jupiter, developed countries, English-speaking countries, poor illiterate families, rich urban families and blah blah blah.
3. They can be people we know, like or love… like our family members, relatives, friends, neighbors…
4. They are not devils or demons, but people like us who live routine lives.
5. Primary responsibility to stop them lies with us.
6. They can be stopped by breaking the taboos and the silence about child sexual abuse.
7. They can be stopped by talking to children about sexuality and sexual violence (in an age-appropriate way, of course).
8. They can be stopped when we stop covering up for them when find out instances of abuse… but place the responsibility of child sexual abuse where it belongs – on their shoulders.

From the pages of a dusty diary

It's tough
very tough
and painful too,
to stare
into the accusing
and hostile eyes
of blank paper,
and just doodle
big-small circles,
when you really have
lots to say.

May 2004

Taking back the web

I switched to Firefox. Here and here is why. And here is where you can get it too. It's free, it's cool, it's safe and it challenges the monopolisation of the cyberspace.

Nothing somethings

Nothing something - I

Nothing Something - II

Nothing Something - III

Nothing Something - IV

humming...

Have been humming this one all week... it's such a fun song :)

I can laugh
When things ain't funny
Ha ha, happy-go-lucky me

Yeah, I can smile
When I ain't got no money
Ha, ha, happy-go-lucky me

It may sound silly but I don't care
I got the moonlight, I got the sun
I got the stars above

Me and my filly, we both share
Slappy-go-happy
Happy-go-lucky love

Well, life is sweet
Sweet as honey
Ha ha, happy-go-lucky me

- Paul Evans

PS: The song's from Pecker

Eureka!

I have yapped a lot on this blog about feminism not necessarily being anti-men, and about men being potential and real allies of feminism. I recently stumbled upon this article that makes the point, which I've been trying to make, so very succintly and crisply.

New Year... Cheers!

To laugh is to love.

I cannot but love the people with whom I laugh.

Sharon Terry

Trees, tears and snow

I came back from the dead

and believed

this gave me the right

to speak to others

but when I found myself face to face with them

I had nothing to say

because

I learned

over there

that you cannot speak to others.

- Charlotte Delbo (in Useless Knowledge)

I love this one...

Just came across this poem... its such a warm feeling when you suddenly come across a poem that you've known and liked in the past... its like meeting an old friend on the sidewalk on a warm winter day...

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

- William Blake
"Auguries of Innocence"

Real men don't rape

Picture this:

The damsel is coy and shy and keeps shrinking within her skin, as the bloke is trying to paw her from different angles and directions. She keeps running away, and he keeps running after. She says no, he says yes. The charming act continues till the last stanza of the song being played in the background, when he finally approaches her with resolve and determination, and she reluctantly (but gladly) agrees… and the duo turn into a silhouette of their firm embrace against the melting sun as the melodious voice of the playback singers approaches the final words of the song “pyaar mein naa ka matlab to haan hota hai” (“in love, no means yes”).

Isn’t this the common ingredient of most Indian movies we see (or don’t see)? But no, it’s a not a phenomenon contained to India alone. Doesn’t this reflect the larger belief system, that:

1. When she says NO, she actually means YES.
2. The louder the spoken NO, the louder the unspoken YES.
3. When she says no, she’s just acting pricey.
4. She says no because she’s shy.

So here’s another thing that patriarchy has developed over millennia to benefit the hegemonic masculinity. Either she can say yes to a man’s sexual advances, or she can say no. If she says yes, she’s a "slut"… a “use and throw” woman. After all, which cultured and moral woman says yes to anything remotely sexual!!! So go ahead and do whatever. And if she says no, see 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. So go ahead and do whatever.

This impinges upon women’s sexual rights in two ways:

1. Her right to say No. This social belief teaches women that saying no holds no meaning. After all, a no is a no only if the other person sees it as a no. Also, it belittles women and treats them as lesser humans who do not have the mental ability to decide for themselves. It also takes away her right to her body, and to decide when, how, where and by whom would she like and not like to be touched. And this becomes especially important within a sexual relationship, as men feel they have a right to demand sex whenever they want, and women feel obliged to agree, or powerless to refuse.

2. Her right to say Yes. This belief teaches women that saying yes would mean they are held firmly within the claws of moral turpitude, and therefore – (i) can be enjoyed at will; and (ii) need to be tamed. Both deductions take away her right over her body, as well as respect for her choice(s).

So where does this leave women? With no right over their own body and sexuality? With little power to say no or yes?

Any sexual act by one person with two or more persons ,without the other person(s)’s consent is rape. Well, rape is more than just this, but let’s just say this for now.

So why is that almost all rape prevention programs are directed at women? Why is it that women have a long list of cautions and precautions, while men… well, men will be men!!! Why is it that policies and programs rarely talk to men what these stereotypes and gender constructs mean? Why is it that there are so few efforts to engage men on how to be responsible partners, friends, strangers… how to express themselves sexually, yet responsibly.

Most rape perpetrators are men. Doesn’t this mean that they need to change in order to end rape. Why do we see rape as "unfortunately inevitable"? Why do we not object to movies, soaps and commercials that tolerate and support rape? Why do we see those messages as harmless and apolitical?

If there’s a community that can stop rape, its men! And that’s the idea behind this brilliant campaign to engage male partners of women to be sexual within those relationships more positively and sensitively. The message is simple: when she says No, she means No. Respect that.

Check out their website. And they have a great newsletter too.

PS: The title of the post comes from another organization that aims to (besides many other things) promote positive masculinities.

Feminist. Man. Feminist man.

I have been thinking about this for a long time and perhaps its time I pen my thoughts down. Besides allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts with others, it helps me structure my own thoughts and takes my own thought process forward. These may sound a little random and haphazard, though.

M’s recent post on bloggers and gender politics got me thinking once again on this. She writes:

"i also hate explaining obvious things like "feminism isn't about male bashing" ad nauseam; something i find i have to do all too often if i start these discussions with people in real life."

I have done this for a long time… defending feminism… in society… at workplace… among friends… on my blog… on listservs and discussion groups. And as much as it is agonizingly frustrating, I guess I will continue to do that for the rest of my life. But it does get very irritating to explain the obvious… especially to people who claim to know what “feminism is all about”. There is no cure for informed ignorance!

But I won’t go into the emotional rhetoric of how people don’t care and don’t listen. What I have been contemplating and what I want to talk about here is how I perceive myself as a feminist man and how I think others perceive me as a feminist man.

First things first. I am a feminist man. In many ways, that’s my declaration of independence, and shapes my identity, my choices and my work.

I, the feminist:

I never liked –isms… still don’t like them. I feel they pigeon-hole people into a single blinkered stream of thought and clouded lens of vision. They restrict free thought, and demand loyalty which is oppressive to human mind and as a consequence, human development (no, I’m not referring to industrial development here). I am too “tilted” as a person to be straight jacketed into –isms.

So when I came across “feminism” not merely as a term but as an ideology, my first reaction was “I believe in it, but I’m not a feminist. I am not an –ist. Period.”

But as my understanding of the subject grew, I realized feminism was not like other –isms. In fact it wasn’t like any other –ism. It was not about blinkered vision, but it opened my vision up. It did not demand loyalty, but simply helped me to view the “personal as political”, and therefore make sense of my own lived experience. It did not monopolize my mind, but helped me understand it better. It provided a validation for my own thoughts and beliefs. I had never lived inside a box… and had gone through my own share of ecstasy and horror for making that choice. Feminism didn’t put me inside a box. Instead, it told me it was okay to not be in one. That was therapeutic.

And so, being a feminist is not the same thing as being a constructivist, post-modernist, Marxist, leftist, this-ist, that-ist. Being a feminist is to believe that patriarchy oppresses, gender justice liberates. And I believe in that, so I’m a feminist.

I, the man:

When I referred to myself as a feminist man a few paragraphs ago, I made a political choice. I could have called myself a “male feminist” instead of becoming controversial by defining myself as a “feminist man”.

So what’s the difference between male and man? Basic Gender Studies 101: Sex refers to the biologically defined attributes of a person… male, female etc. Gender refers to the social construction… in terms of what sexes do… boy, girl… man, woman etc. Mummy is female, Papa is male. Mummy cooks and cleans, Papa drives and earns. Rajiv is male, Ranjeeta is female. Rajiv studies rocket science, Ranjeeta studies home science. Binu is baba, Binitha is baby. Binu plays with GI Joe, Binitha plays with Barbie. Sex, Gender.

So when I refer to myself as a man, do I accept the social constructs of gender? After all, isn’t “being a man” a loaded concept coming with its own set of contents and discontents instead of being a mere statement of fact? Should I be embarrassed to call myself a man, especially when I claim to support feminism and oppose the centuries old oppression that “men” seem to have perpetrated? I have asked myself these questions often. Of course I refuse to accept the social construction of the term “man”. Of course I feel terrible… even apologetic… for what people of my sex have done to women and to themselves all these years. And that’s precisely why I feel I need to define myself as a man. But no, I don’t feel embarrassed at calling myself a man, because in doing so, I believe I am taking power away from the social construction of the term “man”. And I certainly don’t intend to present myself as the harbinger of gender justice. I am just another person who’s trying to understand, analyze and detoxify myself of the patriarchal socialization I have been, and still am, a part of. And I’m a man too. And when I proclaim myself as a man too, I believe I’m helping pluralize the term “man”. I believe I’m doing my bit in shifting the terminology from “man” to “men”… “masculinity” to “masculinities”… and communicate there are many ways to be… some more liberating than the others. Its time we drew clear boundaries between being a man, and “being a man”… and in effect differentiate between man and MCP (yes I know I’m being politically incorrect… but I’d rather be politically incorrect here than be apolitical).

I, the feminist man:

It is often debated if men can be feminists. No, it is not a cynical question (by some “male-basher bra-burning radical women who can’t get married and are jealous of those who have happily married lives”), but a valid one. And this question gets debated even within feminist groups, among women, and among men who support feminism. One popular point of view is that men cannot claim to be feminists as feminism arises out of a personal and shared history of gender-based oppression, which can be experienced only by women. Proponents of this thought, however, do not say that men cannot be supporters and believers of feminism. So the term they have coined for such men is pro-feminist men. And so, the question for me is, am I a feminist or a pro-feminist? And I choose to call myself a feminist.

There are no absolutes to victimization and oppression. We all exchange roles in being victims and oppressors. So we essentially lie somewhere on the continuum of being a victim and oppressor, and therefore end up being a victim-oppressor or oppressor-victim. A victim-oppressor is in the primary role of being a victim, but is also an oppressor in some ways, such as in terms of perpetuating and tolerating oppression. In terms of gender oppression, I believe women would generally fall in this category, since they are the primary targets of gender oppression, but can be oppressors in their secondary role as perpetuators of patriarchy. For example, a woman who demands dowry for the marriage of her son, or abets harassment of daughter-in-law for bringing less dowry, or prays for a male child when she gets pregnant. One can argue that she does so because of the socialization she has been through, but there is no excuse for violence or injustice, and there’s a limit to which ignorance can be accepted as an excuse. But primarily she is the victim of patriarchy for being a woman and therefore has lesser status within the structures of the State and the society. Therefore she is the victim-oppressor. Then there are oppressor-victims. They are oppressors in their primary roles and victims in secondary roles. In terms of gender oppression, men would essentially be in this category, for reasons of creating, developing and perpetuating institutions within patriarchy that put them on higher rung than woman in the society, and for enjoying the benefits of such privileged position. However, they are victims too of the same patriarchal system, as it is as stifling for men as it is for women, just in different ways. For example, a man who beats up his wife because he thinks it is important to establish his status as the “man in the family” and the “head of the household”, and in effect robs himself of the emotional security and happiness a mutually supportive intimate relationship with his partner could possibly bring.

This makes both men and women victims, in one way or the other, of this system of gender relations called patriarchy, while certainly according more privileges to men as compared to women. Therefore, if woman can be oppressors and men can be victims, then does patriarchy remain exclusive domain on any one gender group? Should the focus then not shift from actors who do gender, to factors that are at the root of it? And what is feminism? Working against gender oppression… working for gender justice. And when I call myself a feminist, I am not working for women… I’m working for myself… because I don’t to be either a victim or an oppressor… because I have a discomfort with people being victims and oppressors. And therefore I am a feminist.

Also, even if we go by what I feel is a narrower definition of feminism, which talks of women’s freedom from male-perpetrated gender oppression, it is time we broadened its boundaries. Its time for a men’s movement. Its time men talk of their personal histories and lived experiences of gender victimization and oppression and realize that personal, after all, is political. And for a such a movement to start from a feminist thought will not only be a fitting tribute to what all feminism has stood for and endured, but will also do feminism proud, and not compromise its integrity.

And that’s why I choose to call myself a feminist, instead of pro-feminist.

The I Within Eyes:

I often wonder how I get perceived by others when I speak of myself as a feminist man, or through my work, action, expression. And this is not just about my speculation, but comes out of experiences. And such perception depends so much on the group/individual/population I’m interacting with… and no, stereotypes don’t work here either.

Perceptions of how people see me as a feminist man. Perceptions of how I see people seeing me as a feminist man. Perceptions of how I see myself as a feminist man. Perceptions are numerous.

Am I a sissy? Not “man enough”? Don’t I have better things to do than do this? I must be a sissy. Am I brave? Bold and courageous enough to challenge gender constructs and walk the road less traveled? I must be brave. Am I the good man? “Straight”, yet sensitive? I must be the good man. Am I a hypocrite? Spitting venom against patriarchy, and yet accepting the privileges it allows? I must be a hypocrite. Am I an armchair philosopher? Talks too much and does little? I must be an armchair philosopher.

Perceptions hurt. Perceptions heal. Perceptions vary.

No, I am not a perception. I am not a captive of my eyes… or of other’s eyes. I am a feminist. I am a man. I am I, me, myself and much more.

I am.

Hope

Afghanistan ahoy!

I am all set to go to Afghanistan... the assignment seems exciting... helping contribute to work against child sexual abuse... and of course, the promise of new sights, smells, sounds, tastes...

Will post stuff if I live to tell the tale ;)

Cheers!