Tuesday, May 05, 2015

The Ist and the Ine

Ist and Ine were sisters.  Ine was beautiful, charming and self-effacing.  Ist was different.  She was more of a rebel against norms and rules.  While both Ist and Ine were their father's darlings, their mom was worried about Ist's future.

When Ist and Ine were of marrying age, there was no dearth of suitors.  But all the suitors preferred Ine over Ist.  Instead of respecting their choice, Ist became bitter and even more strident in her opinions.  She started hating mankind as being only interested in superficiality.

Ine was soon married and in a few years, had two beautiful children.  Whenever she visited her parental home, she was beaming with contentment and joy.

Ist hadn't found her calling yet.  She had been drifting in and out of employment, and regarded the world as a cruel place.  She had joined many a organization working for the downtrodden.  She felt a strange kinship with the oppressed.

But her experiences and associations didn't offer her security or a good man.  She cursed the unfairness of it all, and wondered if she and her persona was to blame.  But one can curse only for so long.  She started thinking of men as pigs, and that they were unworthy of her.  That it was a blessing in disguise that she hadn't gotten married to a "chauvinist".

Everybody who came across her praised her on her face.  They admired her independence, and given her sad lot in life, tried not to criticize her.  A few well-meaning ladies tried to hint that she would do well to pay some attention to her appearance, but in adulthood, such hints have to be subtle lest they be considered intrusive. 

Through the years, Ist had gradually stopped caring to look good.  If good men did not want to come to her, she would convince herself that the reason was her refusal to wear make-up and colorful dresses, and that she could always get them if she wanted.

But of course, she never got down to becoming more attractive to men, and neither did any man express a desire to marry her.  It was a vicious cycle.  The more men rejected her, the more anti-men she became, and the more walls she put up against anyone trying to court her.

She started a movement exhorting young ladies to not "need" men in their lives.  She wrote pamphlets and books extolling the virtues of financial and social self-sufficiency.  She railed against industry, medicine, science, sports, ... She even wrote against video games which she felt had made men into commitment-phobic adolescents.  She wrote bitterly against women like her sister Ine, calling them sellouts and house-slaves.  She - and more bitter women soon joined her - would rather that a woman worked for a boss instead of taking care of her home.

To have a husband and children was not to be a woman's goal in life.  According to Ist and her cohorts, the only worthy goal was to realize one's full potential in the job market or by living life to the fullest.  Living life to the fullest meant to them a no-holds-barred, no-strings-attached series of affairs and hookups.  To not have to be slender, charming or have domestic skills, but to have tattoos, piercings and short hair.

It is said that Ist and her group were the single largest factor in the growth of the pet stores nationwide.


Anonymous said...


Harmanjit Singh said...



Anonymous said...

They are both as hostile as each other. Give me gender equality without the anti nonsense anyday.

Harmanjit Singh said...

It is merely taxonomy.

Anti-pro-woman = anti-feminist = equalist.

Anonymous said...

I'm often surprised by your adherence to patriarchal conditioning given your background in the teachings of that great egalitarian Guru Nanak.

Anonymous said...

Love your this Anonymous fan ..Muahh!

Why must being pro-women equate to being anti-men? Laws in a democracy are meant to be fair, balanced and gender sensitive but neutral.

Extreme feminist should be criticized. But no women would like to be treated as doormat either. Defining a role for women or judging them based on professional success or unsuccessful marriage is indeed anti-woman. Do check if you are seeing only one side of coin.
We (common women) don't support anti-men or extreme feminism, but we do support progressive women and men.
Too an extend I am also feminist ( for all good reasons – and I have my fair share of bad experience with men) but still I don’t support any biased law which can be used as weapon against men .
For example –
The new proposed marriage bill reeks of unfairness, stupidity and gender bias. It states that in the eventuality of a divorce, a woman gets 50% of what a man has, including his inherited and inheritable wealth. Think about it logically. If demanding dowry from a woman’s parents during marriage is illegal and unlawful, then how is demanding the wealth of the husband’s family at time of divorce considered okay? Visualise this scenario… I as a mother work my butt off for 25 years to buy my son a home and secure his future, and a woman he marries for just 3 days is entitled to half of it, if she separates for a period of three years from him. And best part is, what she came into the marriage with is protected as “streedhan”, but what he came into the marriage with is half hers. No concept of “purush dhan”???? Today women are earning their own money and if we are promoting an era of equality our laws must reflect that. In a dual income marriage, why should men be stripped of half their earnings while women get to keep what they have earned? Don’t men work just as hard as women do to earn money? What about those men who sit at home and take care of kids while the wife fulfils her ambitions? I agree Indian women have had the short end of the stick for centuries, but a law wronging men and their families is nothing short of revenge. Laws need to promote equality, not bias. Two wrongs do not make a right!

So its fine to be against of any biased law but its stupidity to read such nonsense comparison from a thinker, philosopher and educated person.
Put reasonable thought in you writing Mr.Singh !!

Harmanjit Singh said...


"Why must being pro-women equate to being anti-men?"

You must know of a notion called equality before law?

If one group gets special treatment, except in very rare cases it is at the cost of the non-special group.

For example, if rape cases are to be fast-tracked, the court will be busy in these and other cases will necessarily linger on longer than before.

1331 said...

I think both Ine and Ist are equally oblivious to the grand scheme of evolution and primal instincts. While Ine had traits that are favorable, Ist had traits that were not favorable. It was not favorable for a reason. Why would a male be interested in a female who does not show her health and fertility as best as she can ? The male's role is to spread his seeds. Being disaggreable is not convincing for rather obvious reasons to trust her with his seeds.Primal human instincts and evolution I think are beyond mere labels such as "pro-woman", "feminist",etc

Where does feminism and misogyny fit in this?

Anonymous said...

"Different but not Less" highly recommend the 'Temple Grandin' movie starring Claire Danes. Amazing human being, coping with gender inequality and autism at the same time.

In my country equal pay (for the same work) still hasn't been achieved but we are closer every year. Still very few men care enough to share domestic chores equally with their partner if she works. Our legal system allows prenuptuals even for defacto relations. Income and chattles prior to and after dissovling the partnership is not up for grabs. Both incomes are taken into account and whoever has child custody recieves more or maintance. Less and less couples these days are willing to give lawyers their life savings. Most now sit with the same lawyer to finalise the legalities without ever seeing a courtroom.

To anyone with half a brain it's no surprise it's taking this long to wrest our last vestiges of inequality away from the dominant gender as it over represent itself in governments, legal systems and industry.

Freedom and peace for both genders is hindered by the lack of judgment of the reigning gender which btw perpetrates the majority of women bashings (often in sight or earshot of their own children) pedophilia, incest, rape, wars and crimes, etc. The lack of judgment of such a dominant animal also reflects in their denials of the toxic effects of patriarchy and their yells of "feminist!" and "man hater!". It also shows in their reluctance (or sheer intellectual deficiency) to pass sensible egalitarian social and family laws.

There are fears not being faced and they hinder the growth of human intelligence. There is the animal fear of the oppressor becoming the oppressed and the oppression of the male sex drive itself. Female intelligence is growing and soon it will no longer find force of any kind necessary or attractive. Males must now either use their intelligence to handle their sex drive or learn to display their intelligence like a peacock in order to attract her. There is no other way to bring these continuing gender violations to an end.
Holding onto them is a great disservice to humankind

Anonymous said...

what Ine and Ist are also oblivious to are the self reflective neurons now developing in the intelligent brain that can observe our habitual behavior the way no other animal can. We can now consciously choose to free ourselves from the dictates of the primal mating instincts, which have mindlessly overpopulated this planet, and GET A LIFE!

Anonymous said...

"primal mating instincts" are a careful choice of words and are rightfully called so for a reason.

Anonymous said...

And what would be the mindful way of populating our bountiful planet I wonder.

Do you mean to say that those people making choices of wanting to be with healthy and agreeable women are not mindful?

Isn't intelligence a bias as cruel as health and agreeable-ness?

Respecting the fellow human's choice is of importance if one wants their own choice to be respected.