Tuesday, November 3, 2009

LOVE : whom can I love?

I have been always telling myself since the last 12 years : love is care and understanding. In a decade, I have added another adjective. ADMIRATION.
I have realized my love for someone comes from admiration. So there has to be something admirable in in that man whom I can love.

Sadly, of all those men (read boys) I have dated in 2002-2005, I did not find anything admirable in any of them. I was left wondering later, as to what I saw in them to have spent (wasted) so much time in knowing them, only to later realize that they are neither caring (he did not care that I hated his smoking), nor understanding (he did not understand I did not support patriarchy) nor admirable (he stuck to traditions).

Since then, I have never dated anyone.
------------------------------------
I have realized I scare off men more often than not. One of my dates had once said, "You don't need a boyfriend. You can do everything yourself. You do not give your boyfriend the opportunity to be chivalrous and chauvinistic."

That summed up the matter : I do not look good with a boyfriend. I look better as an individual. I look better standing straight, rather that my head resting on my boyfriend's shoulder.

Also, I seem to give the appearance of a serious, no-nonsense person, too busy with her ambitions; who has no time for love and relationships, who has big dreams and would not settle for the normal love-marriage-sex-family routine.

I noticed Indian guys think several times before falling in love. They are too scared of the society : traditions and 'norms'. A lot many of them back out because they know their parents won't agree to the relationship, due to several reasons like race, religion, caste, age, language, education.

Also, in 2006, I began my PhD and moved to a different university, place and country; with different people, different environment and different culture. My experiences of relationship-failures made me eschew relationships : if found them very difficult, complicated and saddening processes/experiences. So I focused on my PhD and my career.

I have learnt to love myself much later in life. This is true for a average Indian woman. I also learnt to have a relationship with myself first. An Indian woman plays the usual gendered roles for her whole life, without usually having a self-relationship. I learnt a woman's life is not about 'sacrifices' and 'adjustments' as always said. It is about leading your own life, in your own terms, happily, with someone whom you love.

It is wonderful if a man loves me, but it is more important to understand whether I love him or not.

The person I will love will be a MAN : brave, courageous, responsible, risk-taking, accepting challenges, standing up for his convictions, believing in himself, strong back-boned and daring to take the initiative. He will not require the crutches called patriarchy to prove himself to be a man.

The person I love will not be BOY : testosterone-driven, impulsive, egoistic, callous about relationships, insensitive, thoughtless, irresponsible and an escapist.

I have also begun to believe in self-arranged marriages : neither the rosy-cosy love marriage between two dreamers, nor the traditional arranged marriage between two strangers. I would rather like a comfortable marriage between two friends, who have known each other for a few years, and feel they have a lot in common, know each others' pluses and minuses, yet are acceptable of each other, and find they can share a 24/7 life together with at least 70%-80% success.
-----------------------------------
I have understood I cannot force myself to fall in love. Love happens by itself. Until it does, I wouldn't care less.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Atomic model of patriarchy

Women are massless electrons, who revolve around the father-nucleus, then are transferred from the father's field to the husband's field (Kanyadaan), to form a union (electrovalent bond) between the families (atoms), and then they revolve around the husband-nucleus. Our destinies are decided by the nuclei (males), right?
------------------

Have a careful look at the atomic model of matter, and draw the analogy with patriarchy.

1) Nucleus  =  Male. The nucleus is large, heavy, substantial and important in defining the atom (family).

2) Electron  =  Female. The electrons are extremely light, almost mass-less compared to the nucleus, and are hardly visible compared to the nucleus.

3) Atom  =  Patriarchal family. The father is the head-of-the-house. Our society is male-centered.

4) Several electrons around one nucleus  =  Polygamy.  A nucleus can have several electrons revolving around it, but a single electron cannot revolve around more than one proton. If it does, it is a 'loose electron', just like a 'loose woman'.

5) Electrons revolve around the nucleus  =  a wife's life revolves around the husband.

6) The electron is bound to the nucleus by the latter's electric field  =  the wife is bound to her husband's home/family by matrimony, surname and the traditional society.

7) The nucleus is positively charged  =  Man is resourceful, he can support wife.

8) The electron is negatively charged  =  Women are needy, they need to be supported by males.

9) Number of protons decide the atom's name, irrespective of the number of electrons present  =  males decide the family's identity, irrespective of the number of women present.

10) The proton(s) cannot survive without electron(s) around it = men cannot survive without women as waiters, cooks, housekeepers, cleaners, caregivers, attendants, assistants, bearers, etc.
--------------
Now let us look at an electrovalent bond (Marriage)

Left Nucleus  =  Father
Left Atom = Father's family.

Right Nucleus  =  Husband.
Right Atom = Husband's family.

"Electron is given away"  =  Daughter is given away (Kanyadaan).

 Electrovalent bond  =  Union between the two families.
--------------
Bottomline
The woman is the ultimate/absolute/worst loser in this model.