Happy Holidays

I am still getting used to first-world etiquette, or more specifically British etiquette. For instance, I wished an administrator in my PhD programme a Happy Easter without giving it too much thought. She is white and British and it didn't even occur to me to find out if she is a practicing Christian. After all, everyone in India wishes everyone else on Diwali, irrespective of their religion or lack thereof. Just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you can't celebrate Diwali. If nothing else, it is the annual family reunion. But my the  woman in my PhD office responded wishing me a good break too. Her response struck me as being quite tepid, but I didn't give it further thought until I got an email from a faculty member which ended with him wishing me a good break. It is only then that I realized that it is improper to wish anyone on a religious festival if you are not sure of their religious views. This culture gives so much importance to not stepping on other people's toes that navigating it feels like dancing on a hot pan. You can't keep your feet down for too long for fear that you are crushing someone's feet. Is this one reason why English people are so reserved? I mean, of course, whiteness and the othering of coloured folk play a part but that is a topic for another day. When you are constantly afraid of offending the opposite person how can you interact freely with them?

Time

My relationship with time seems to have changed. Over the past few years, time has often hung heavy and I have found myself bored out of my wits on a number of occasions. Now, at least during the week, I feel like I am always in a rush. I'm doing a PhD and don't have any urgent deadlines hanging over my head at the moment but I still feel the urge to squeeze as much work as I can out of every day. And not just work--I religiously do yoga and blog. If I miss a day of either I feel like my day has been incomplete. Maybe that is not very healthy but so it is. Better to be short of time than to have too much time, I guess. After meandering along for a few years, my stream finally seems to be flowing freely and swiftly.

Research

I thought I would be quite bored this semester as I am not teaching. Without teaching, all I would  have to keep me occupied would be my PhD. I had struggled with boredom during the many months I spent in India last year, so I was prepared for time to hang heavy again. Nothing of that sort happened. I am neck-deep in my PhD and loving it. I love the freedom to go anywhere that your mind takes you. There are deadlines and milestones but they are not very punishing. I am not jaded by academia yet. I have medium-term tasks to do, but every day comes with the prospect of new discoveries and new directions. Although my PhD is in economics, I am reading in economic geography, philosophy, psychology, political economy and even a bit of anthropology. All this might sound like a very haphazard way of working but I have faith that there is a method to the madness. I know there are numerous tropes about how difficult and despair-inducing a PhD is. Most of them are coded in humour but the subtle message is if you are not having a dreadful time in your PhD you are not doing a worthwhile PhD. I have decided to take these tropes with a pinch of salt. I am sure there will be challenging times but I am really enjoying myself at the moment. I feel like I am finally doing what I am meant to do. 

Young Blood

A young Chinese man is currently staying in my househare. He is all of 17 and spending 10 days here because his school is out for Easter. Why here? Because China is too far and he wanted to see a new city. He cooks, goes sight-seeing, is cheerful and generally acts like a pretty sorted adult. I used to think of myself as a pretty independent teenager, but the adolescent me couldn't hold a candle to him. After meeting him, I felt a little embarrassed about the amount of time I spend thinking about loneliness and how to make friends. And here is this young man already living life on his own terms. It has taken me years to get to a place where I am comfortable with myself and I still don't think I'm there yet. Sometimes you can find inspiration in the strangest places and from the strangest people! Yes, there are problems in life, there will always be problems in life, but the show must go on. 

Cults and Faiths

I met a friend yesterday who used to be part of a spiritual movement which he had introduced me to last year when it felt like my world was unraveling. I went for a couple of meetings and also visited the house block where some of them lived together. At the time, I was desperate for a way out of the pits and their message--which was that we all have an eternal awareness or  intelligence that remains intact irrespective of what's happening or not happening in our lives (the data)--was somewhat appealing. If only I could look past all my data. Going to the meetings gave me some succor and company during those dark dreary times, although I couldn't look past the fact that I was the only non-white, and apart from my friend, the only non-Brit in the group.
My friend told me he had left the group because the level of devotion and blind faith that the founding leader had started demanding had become unacceptable for him. He had also discovered some unethical, if not outright illegal, financial practices. In short, it had become like a cult. He was worried about some of his friends still in the group,who were so devoted to it and the leader that if for some reason they had to leave, they would go to pieces. That got me thinking. At what point, do strong beliefs become unhealthy?
All cults and many causes demand boundless faith and unflinching devotion. When does strong faith become too much faith? This could be religious faith but also faith in a political cause, such as communism. I guess one marker could be when it starts to affect your relationships with  people who don't share your faith. Of course, newfound faith or awareness might lead you to shed some relationships that you realize are not serving you, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I am talking about relationships that you have decided to maintain. If you find yourself cramming your beliefs down other people's throats and they react with displeasure, that is a sure sign that you are taking it too far. Your insights and beliefs might seem infallibly rational and logical, but they are just that--beliefs. You have to accept that you cannot really step into someone else's shoes to see how they perceive your beliefs. So the least you can do is show some understanding and empathy towards those that don't think like you.
As for the question of how would deep believers react if they lost faith for some reason, I think its a moot point. I am not sure it is possible to dial down your emotions to do with something you feel strong about. When it comes to some causes and beliefs, you are either all in or all out. It falls to each person to introspect whether their faith is serving them or not and to let it go if its not. And let go without judging the faith, those who still have the faith, and yourself for having been swayed by the faith once upon a time. Life is difficult and we all bank on an edifice of beliefs--implicit or explicit--to tide us through. Many things in life could make the roof come crashing down on our heads and loss of faith is just one of them. That doesn't mean we can or should do something about it.
That said, I see the wisdom of not giving oneself completely to someone or something. But this realization came to me after I had let go of some beliefs that were holding me back. That journey was a deeply personal one and the outcome was not the result of logical reasoning. Here is something I wrote on the topic. Don't give yourself fully to anything or anyone. Keep an inch for yourself. So when people leave or projects end or beliefs collapse, you have something to come back to. Even if your lover stays or you discover your life's mission. Don't submerge yourself in either. Allow the possibility that there is more to you than your faith.

Stupid People

As #deletefacebook gathers wind following the Cambridge Analytica allegations, here is a balanced take on the subject. Far too many people anti-Brexiters and anti-Trumps believe their opponents lied liberally and sold their ideas better. People who are on the left believe our world is in the state it is in because the capitalists and neo-liberals are good at deceiving people and marketing their ideas. The war for political power is reduced to a battle of marketing techniques, and they spend a lot of mental fuel in thinking of ways to win it. Yes, fake news is a problem, a big problem. But, for all those liberals crying about propaganda, news has always been about propaganda. It is just that the traditional liberal elite have lost control full control of  the narrative, and have been upstaged by a rogue elite. Yes, it is in the interests of capitalists and states to lie to people and deceive them but surely the lies chime with something in the people's lived experiences. You can target tailor-made ads at people who are "susceptible" to tilting to your point of view, but shouldn't your opponents question why the people are susceptible in the first place. Here again, left-liberals deride the Trump and Brexit supporters as irrational whereas it would be more useful to see them as emotional. Just as emotional as left-liberals. 

One Year Ago

One year ago today, I went rushing back to India. I didn't know it back then but that was me pressing the refresh button, going back to square one. Returning home to start a new journey. From the above lines, it might seem like I was bursting with positivity and hope, but it was the opposite. Going back home was an act of desperation. I knew that going home wouldn't make magically make things right, but I didn't know what else to do. In fact, my health worsened after I got home as I was finally free to unwind and go to pieces.
My recovery (or should I call it a realignment?) started about a month after I got home and is still in progress. Family, friends, a doctor, a counsellor, yoga, an author I hadn't read in years helped me along. Everyone I confided in about my condition, without exception, responded with love and understanding. People I wasn't very close to confided that they had suffered something similar and reassured me that things would get better. To realize my strength, I had to learn to be vulnerable and seek help. I had to put all pride aside.
Looking back, I can say that the last year was a watershed year. I have learned so much, about myself, about life, about people. Despite the fact that I am friendless here and often feel lonely, I feel more at peace with myself than I have felt in years. I don't feel like a different person, but I feel like I am truer to myself now and am gaining the courage to be myself. I have also learned that life is never beyond redemption, that life always give you a second chance if you are so willing.

HRH

Prince Andrew, the second son of the Queen came to our university to inaugurate a building that has been in use for a year. I don't think I have seen so many well-dressed white people in one place. Maybe only white Brits get excited about royalty. The people in his entourage and in the guest party as well as the uni staff scurrying around were almost all white. The fuss seemed a bit ridiculous, given that the Prince is sixth in line to the throne. But, what he lacks in importance he makes up for in scandal. Some of his nicknames are the Playboy Prince and Randy Andy.

We had a bird's eye view as our room is just above the back entrance to the building. My views on the royal family are ambivalent to negative. Yes, Britain colonized half the world in their name, but only in their name. My guess is notions of white supremacy rather than service to the Crown drove the empire-builders. Fans of the royal family tend to be old, white and conservative. So, would Britain become less racist and more progressive if they did away with the Royal family? I doubt it. Liberal racism is a real thing. But, I'm too tired too write about it today.

No Expectations

I think I am reaching a point where I have no expectations of people who are not family or friends. I don't expect people to be friendly, I don't expect to be treated in a certain way, I don't even expect to be treated the way I would treat someone else. And it is a comforting feeling. Interactions which are not weighed down by expectations are freer. For instance, you can have hearty conversations with strangers, knowing that you will never see that person again. Earlier, I used to socialize with an agenda--to meet new people and make friends. I wouldn't bother with people who were just passing through. Now, I socialize on my own terms. I participate in activities that I find interesting. If I make friends in the process--great!--but if I don't its alright because that wasn't my  intention anyway. My expectations are zero when it comes to people of a certain race but I'm not comfortable elaborating, Maybe another day. 

Variable Rewards

I am off online dating apps at the moment. I read an article yesterday which reminded me why It is about how app developers (not just dating apps developers) use the insights of behavioral psychology to make their apps addictive. The chief tool is variable rewards--read the user and tease the user with the prospect of massive rewards to him keep coming back for more. When you sense his interest flagging, throw him some crumbs to keep him hooked. For instance, if your dating app user thinks the perfect hook-up or soulmate, as their preference may be, is just a swipe or two away he or she will keep coming back to your app.

One of the reasons I was annoyed with dating apps is the power of the matching algorithm, which controls who you see and who sees you. So the way it works is if you swipe right (like) on a profile, and another person does the same on your profile you match and can begin a conversation. If you match immediately after swiping right, it means that person has already liked you. If you get a match when you are not swiping, it means that person has just liked you. Or so it is meant to seem. One day, it occurred to me that that might not always be the case. The dating can choose not to match two users who have already liked each other or match them at what feels like an optimal time. For instance, match you at the time of the day when you are most likely to initiate a conversation. Why would the dating app do that? Because its goal is to hook you and turn you into a paying subscriber, which is the only way to cut out the subterfuge of the dating app. For eg, Tinder has a limit on the number of times you can swipe right. If you reach the limit you have a 12-hour timeout during which you can't swipe right. But the app will send you messages saying someone has swiped right on you and you should take a subscription to see who it is and also get an unlimited number of swipes. If you don't, my experience is you keep swiping, and keep hitting your limit without matching with anyone. I also know that you are most likely to match when your profile is new, possibly because it is shown to more people while older ones tend to get buried. You can take all the crushing suspense away by taking a subscription. Or at least that is what they claim, although I would take anything they say with a bagful of salt. To use a economics term, there is a complete asymmetry of information. The dating app has your profile, your swiping history as well as your swiping performance, and powerful algorithms to model you. It can then tailor your experience to maximize the chances that you will become a paying customer. 

These games are not so innocuous when it comes to dating apps, because however casual you are about online dating, games in matters of the heart hurt. They chisel at your self-esteem. This is not to say that everyone, or even I, would get a ton of matches if the dating apps played fair. All I am saying is that the dating apps don't have your best interests at heart. Their only interest is to turn you into a paying subscriber, so entrust your self esteem to them at your own peril. I haven't even got into the debate about whether a few photographs and a short bio (which most people don't fill out) can be a barometer of desirability. People are so much more than how they look in photographs and what they think others would like to read in their bios. 

Communication Etiquette

Today, I read an interesting article on texting, which referenced another interesting article. I was planning to write about differences in communication etiquette between countries based on my experiences in England, and the articles inspired me to write about it today. People here take really long to respond to text messages. Not just romantic interests but even friends or acquaintances. This can, of course, cause anxiety and confusion. In India, my experience has been that people respond to messages at least within a few hours unless they are pissed with you. Especially, if your last message is a question, in which case they say something along the lines of "will get back to you"if they can't reply. In England, I have had two instances where text proposals to meet went unanswered beyond the proposed meeting date. The first time it was a girl I had met on a dating app but who didn't really want to date, which I was fine with. We had met once before, and got along quite well. I thought maybe she had disappeared because she thought I was asking her out on a date. The second time it was a friend who didn't respond for 10 days. When she did, she apologized for not replying, saying she was indecisive about her weekend plans. To be honest, I would have preferred she had lied instead of being told that she didn't respond because she was waiting to see if something more fun came up that weekend.
Both the articles I referenced talk about how digital technology allows instant responses but doesn't oblige one to respond immediately, unlike face-to-face conversations. In fact, people enjoy having control over when to respond to whom. Which is fine. I am the kind of person who responds to texts pretty fast and doesn't have a single unread email in his inboxes. Many people are not like that. But, the line between carelessness and inconsideration is a thin one. When you don't respond to, for instance, a proposed plan to meet up for days, it just shows that you don't care much about that person.
I believe that life is difficult and people have complex inner lives. When someone ignores us, it is our tendency to assume that it was a deliberate act. There is a beautiful line in the first article I referenced: "There is a special, lonely kind of craziness in experiencing tensions with people who most certainly aren't experiencing them back". But, my point is can we, at least, try to be kinder to each other? And, I believe you are at least partly responsible for the tone of any relationship you are in. If you are, for instance, not okay with your texts being ignored repeatedly, you should either tell the other person that or break off that relationship if its not worth having that conversation. I feel we put some much  effort in not coming across as needy that we let behaviour that we are not okay with slide, instead choosing to fume inwardly. I learned this lesson from a friend, but I must confess that I haven't followed it very faithfully. Hopefully, this blog will be a reminder.

The Politics of Desire

Is desire personal and primordial or political? Does it stem from the depths of your being or is it shaped by the power structures around you? I read an interesting article on the politics of desire today. It's main point was that one must be prepared to examine desire without judging it. The author charts feminism's engagement with desire, from the second-wave view that sex in a patriarchal society was inherently violent to sex-positive third- and fourth-wave perspectives who were stridently against women apologizing for their desires. But, even if one shouldn't have to apologize for one's desires, one should still be prepared to interrogate them. "Why do we choose what or who we choose?" Desire is not a given. Social structures present certain facial features, body types and skin tones as being more more desirable than others and these influence our desires.
The essay resonated with me and my experience of online dating in England. But, this is not a whinge about how South Asian men with thick accents are at the bottom of the heap and how unfair that is. I shall save that for another post (or, hopefully, never). The essay got  me thinking about the Harvey Weinstein case. I was watching a documentary about him and two things stuck with me. One, an actress was describing how Weinstein set upon her naked, and how horrible the sight of Weinstein naked is. And then she said another sentence to the same effect. Second, when one woman rejected Weinstein's advances, he started sobbing, saying that she didn't fancy him because he was fat. So, it seems like desire is a part of the picture. Weinstein's undesirability. His view of himself as undesirable, a view which was echoed by many of the women he preyed upon. Does that play a part in the mechanism of the sexual exploitation of women by powerful men? I have a controversial theory. Power and a sense of oneself as undesirable are a toxic combination and leads to a sense of entitlement that is blind to the wishes and desires of others. Powerful attractive men might have the same sense of entitlement but it is not blind. To put it crudely, they don't have to try too hard to get lucky. They might frequently overestimate their desirability, and there have been a number of cases of so-called hot actors being accused of harassment. But, on the whole, I think they  are better at taking rejection then men who see themselves as undesirable. I know I am recklessly generalizing here, but I do think the politics of desire has to be a part of the conversation. Of course, I am ignoring the question of whether a man, hot or not, should make a sexual (as opposed to a romantic) advance on a woman in a professional setting, thereby diminishing her to the status of a sex object. That is obviously wrong. And, a world in which unfettered access to women's bodies is seen as one of the perks of male success. I am afraid I might have tied myself up in knots with this one. But, since this is a barely read blog, I can afford to. 

The Nones

I attended a talk on the rise of "Nones"--people who identify as not having a religion--in the UK. Some interesting takeaways:-
--For the first time in British history, more people identify as Nones than as religious
--Non-religious people abhor organized religion but a surprising proportion of them believe in God, have a spiritual practice, believe in the soul and the afterlife
--Only 13% of Brits think of the UK as a Christian country
--Churches are surprisingly popular in Sweden and Denmark (for funerals, etc.) where more than 60% of people identify as Nones.
--95% of children raised as non-religious remain so.

From the survey, Britain seems like a remarkable place, tolerant, even welcoming of foreigners and becoming more so. It feels anything like that but that is a topic for another day (or days).
I belong to the category of people who were raised as non-religious and remain so. However, I am not against religious faith, only against faith that manifests itself as intolerance towards others, which it often does. I believe anyone who has a concept of right or wrong, good or bad has a faith. Faith, to me, is belief in something that is absolute. That could be anything, god, a person, the soul, a moral code. It is based on conviction, not logical reasoning, although, of course, a belief can always be rationalized. Our actions might not always be true to our beliefs, but that is only because we are human. People with strong political beliefs can be as dogmatic as very religious people. Some atheists feel morally superior because they feel they don't need the crutch of a supernatural power to get through life. Well, believing you don't need the crutch of God is a faith too. I have little patience for militant atheists, most of whom tend to be privileged white men who often stray into Islamophobic and racist territory. Life is difficult and, at the risk of sounding biblical, there are many  paths to salvation, some through religion. No path is better or worse than the other. This is not a defense of faith, but just an acknowledgement that faith is one of the things that makes us human.

The 'L' Word

Doing a PhD is 'isolating' not 'lonely'. I have described it as 'isolating' and have heard a number of others do so too. 'Isolating', somehow, sounds more palatable than 'lonely' because you become the object rather the subject. You are lonely, while, on the other hand, you are isolated, not isolating. Isolation is something that happens to you, while lonely is something you are, or so it seems. Loneliness has a tinge of value judgement attached to it--you are lonely because of some character or personality flaws. Is there a stigma around loneliness and will calling it by its name change things for the better? I think much of the stigma is internal rather than external. Refusing to accept that you are lonely because you don't want to be THAT person who everyone pities but no one wants to befriend. No one likes to be pitied as pity robs the object of pity of all agency. Pitying someone is a way of asserting your superiority over them, which is why pity is very different from sympathy. You don't try to relate to that person because she and her situation are so alien to you that you can't even imagine it.

Accepting you loneliness helps  you move on from it rather than trying to dance around it. You stop trying to deny it or fight it and free up a lot of emotional space in the process. It becomes just another one of those not very pleasant emotions that life throws up.

I realize I have been writing a lot about loneliness, so I won't for a while :-)

New Experiences

The thing about being new to a place and not having a natural socialization pool of workmates or classmates is it pushes you to try out new things. Things that you wouldn't earlier have tried for lack of company, because now you lack company for most things. I suppose that sounds rather sad but the point I'm trying to make is when the question of company is out of the picture, you can focus on what you want to do. You can't blame a lack of nerve on a lack of company because its not like you have company to do less intimidating things. In the past year or so, I have gone to salsa classes, yoga classes, a social justice group meeting which turned out to be a group of old white church-goers. Things I would never have thought off doing earlier. This morning I went to a book club focused on female authors. To be sure, I was in two minds whether to go. Book clubs are a quintessentially female activity and book clubs focused on female writers doubly so. To add to the awkwardness, I figured that I would be the only foreigner, and possibly the only non-white person there. Would the women think I am there to hit on them?

But, I reasoned to myself, if they thought so, it was their problem. If they didn't want men, they could have restricted the group to just females. I wasn't there to win feminist brownie points or to ingratiate myself with women. I was there because most of my favourite authors happen to be women anyway and I am eager to get back into the habit of leisure reading. If my mere presence, and not my behaviour, was causing discomfort, it wasn't my problem. As it turned out, I had a great time. The conversation was scintillating, nuanced and refreshingly non-academic. I wasn't made to feel unwelcome at all. 

I suppose being lonely makes you brave. It is easier to follow your interests and discover new ones because the only other alternative is to sit at home and sink into a morass of self-pity and disillusion. Of course, not every new activity you try is a hit. Regrets are plentiful. But, you can never ascertain the depth of the water unless you get your toes wet. Over time, you get better at judging which activities might interest you. Initially, I would try out new activities to meet new people and hopefully making friends. Now, I try out new stuff because I find it interesting. Being alone and often lonely forces you to live life on your own terms, because the alternative is just too dismal. And, if you flout popular notions about gender roles and preferences in the process, so be it.

Perch

I think I might have found my perch in Bristol. A perch is a special perspective on the world, a vantage point from which the hugeness of the world becomes apparent. It is difficult to look at the open sky and not feel small yet at home in the world. You never feel alone on a perch because you have the whole world for company, but keeping a respectful distance so you don't feel hedged in.The best perches are tall roofs or hilltops because they give you a chance to admire the city and also to gaze up at the open sky. For me, a perch is place of relaxation and mellow reflection. Being above the world physically gives you, not just a splendid view, but a different perspective. Being above the bustle allows you to look at the bustle with a different outlook.
My second-favourite perch is a giant rock I discovered last autumn in the mountains surrounding a tiny village called Chithkul in the Kinnaur district of Himachal Pradesh. The view from there felt like a collage of breath-taking postcards. A pine forest against a backdrop of grey rock mountains, flanked by snow-covered mountains on one side. The river streaming down from the snowy mountains and the azure blue sky were the icing on the cake. I sat on that rock for about three hours, singing my favourite songs, talking to myself or just being silent, and felt a peace that I hadn't in a long time.
But my favourite perch is a plateau overlooking the Kedarnath temple in Uttaranchal. That was a magical scene. Snow-covered mountains on one side providing white relief to the majestic ancient stone temple, from which long queues of devotees snaked out. The town laid out untidily immediately below the perch. The sound of bells and hymns floating in the air along with the odd cloud of mountain mist. Blissful.
At home in Thane, my perch is in the Yeoor hills and overlooks the taller Parsik hills in the east, with Thane city laid out below. The sight of the sun popping up from behind the Parsik hills at sunrise cannot be forgotten easily. From there, the chaos of my maddening claustrophobic hometown feels bearable, almost benign.
During my time in Holland, I didn't have a perch since the country is as flat as a pancake, but I had the sea. I have spent many a pleasurable evening walking on the beach in the dark, occasionally startling the odd couple or group who thought they had the beach to themselves.
After describing my past perches, my present perch in Bristol doesn't seem so spectacular. But, it will do just fine until or unless I find a better one.

Male and female friends

A few days ago, I read an opinion piece advising women not to date a man who doesn't have any female friends. Who sees women as either mothers or sexual partners. Since most of my close friends are women, I am eminently dateable. But, I feel that is an incomplete aspiration. As I have written before, I have male friends who have female friends that they are very close to. Our interactions with our respective female friends are imbued with a closeness and affection that our interactions with each other aren't. That isn't to say male friends haven't helped me in hard times. But, when shit hits the fan, it is my  female friends that I seek out. Feminism isn't just about changing how men interact with and treat women. It is also about changing how men interact with each other. Not just blokey alpha males but also sensitive "woke"ones. Neither can happen without the other. Yes, sensitive, progressive men will have female friends. But, that is not enough. 

Diversity Hires

Happy International Women's Day! That's a relief because I don't have to wrack my brain for a blog idea. Last weekend, I was chatting with a guy on a walk with the International's Meetup group. We were talking about women in politics, and he said that Italy had reserved quotas for women because of which many dumb women were in positions of political power. Which got me thinking.

The idea that men are smarter than women is quite popular, even among supposedly woke men who would only venture this opinion in male company. But, in my experience incompetence is gender-blind. I have had incompetent male bosses as well as incompetent female bosses. The only difference is male incompetence is viewed as a personal shortcoming while female incompetence is seen as a shortcoming of the entire sex. 

A few months ago, I watched a TV contest of female stand-up comedians in India and found most of them quite bad. I am not a fan of male Indian stand-up comics either, but they are at least marginally funny. I was disappointed because I felt viewers would go away with the impression that women are not funny, which is unfair. Just as it is unfair to let two racers start from different points, it is unfair to compare men with women who are trying to enter a male-dominated profession. Who have for their whole lives been told that men are stronger, funnier and smarter than them. Is this being patronizing towards the women who don't want any special favors from men? Yes, but I believe super-capable women are seldom trailblazers because they are few in number (just as few as super-capable men). These women are able to able to break glass ceilings, but only for themselves as they are seen as exceptional. While they may serve as inspirations for younger women, their performance doesn't do a great deal to change social perceptions about women. The majority of men and women, by definition, are of moderate ability. It is women of moderate ability, supported by affirmative action policies, who will truly advance the cause of gender equality when they enter male-dominated professions in large numbers. They might compare poorly with their male colleagues at the beginning, but they will get better. Just as female stand-up comedians in India will become funnier. 

Micro-rejections

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about ghosting and how it is acceptable, especially in online dating when you haven't even met that person. I said I try not to think about it too much, but I now acknowledge that I don't always succeed. As a friend pointed out, individual micro-rejections don't mean much but when they accumulate it can be unhealthy. A string of micro-rejections can weigh on your self-esteem or make you question your desirability. (I know everyone is desirable to someone else in this world, but I'm taking about being desirable to some of the people you desire). We all feel undesirable sometimes, and at such times it is perfectly okay to remove yourself from situations where you subject yourself to judgement. Take a breather. You don't have to swear yourself off dating, but just accept that dating is something that cannot be completely casual, especially for a sensitive person. You are a person with feelings and you are dealing with people with feelings, so there is always the scope for hurting others (followed by guilt) or getting hurt yourself. Of course, with experience you learn to handle some situations better but rejecting someone or being rejected is never easy, at least for some people. 

"Where were you when ..."

An FB friend recently posted a tirade against the teenagers of a high school in Parkland, Florida, for staging a school walk-out demanding tougher gun laws following a mass shooting at their school last month. His essential point was that the mostly white, privileged children hadn't protested when black teenagers died at the hands of the police or when America bombed other countries, etc. I found myself shaking my head in disbelief as I disagreed with the post on so many levels.
Leave aside the fact that these are teenagers--when I was 16, I was too busy navigating the minefield of adolescence to concern myself much over the state of the world. Of course, not all victims of violence are perceived as equal and not all protests gain equal media attention. But, should progressives be expressing solidarity with the Parkland teenagers, or should they be deploying well-worn variations of "What about ..." or "where were you when"? I don't think this is an intellectual or even moral question as strong arguments could be made for either side. One argument could be solidarity/strike when the iron is hot while the opposite view could be that minorities will continue to be marginalized even in so-called progressive movements if they unquestioningly lend their support. In the extremely unlikely event that a progressive asks me what to do in this situation, I would say  follow your heart or your gut (although in this particular instance, I would urge them to support the teenagers or stay silent). I believe we arrive at decisions based on how we feel and then think of arguments to rationalize those decisions. It is the same for political views--I would be surprised if a debate convinced anyone to change their political views. People do change their views, but through life experiences rather than due to "logical" arguments. Things get a little murky when one side deploys outright lies to bring people around to their point of view, but I am planning to write a separate post on truth.
A related point is that dissent usually requires a powerful emotional stimulus to galvanize you to action, and vast emotional reserves to sustain you. It is foolish to expect every social issue to move you to the same extent. Just because a particular issue hasn't moved you to action it doesn't mean you don't support action or are ignorant about the issue. You have to pick you battles, not just because you will be more effective if you focus your energies but because you won't have the emotional energy to fight every battle. Expecting people to protest every or even most injustices is foolhardy, and imposes impossible demands on them.

Funny White Men

A lot has been on Angry White Men and their predilection for violence and xenophobia. But, today I am going to write about Funny White Men. I have only encountered two but since this is my blog, I can skimp on empirical rigor.

The men I met both happened to be Belgian and both had taken it upon themselves to be the jesters of the group that we were a part of. One of them had it seemed taken an oath that everything that came out of his mouth would be funny. Given this exacting standard, it was only a matter of time before he said something racist or misogynistic or transphobic. He said something which effectively painted Vietnam as a giant brothel-cum-haven for sex reconstructive surgery. I wasn't a part of that particular conversation, but it was almost impossible to have a straight conversation with that guy because he would answer every question with a supposedly funny comment. "How long have you been in  Bristol?". "Oh, 200 years".  

My experience with the other guy was more direct. We were sat around a table in a pub with some other people, including a guy from Cuba. The Funny Belgian remarked that the Cuban was quite fair despite living on a sun-drenched island. "You should look like him", he said, pointing at me, throwing in the "no offence" suffix that all offenders use liberally. Put on the spot, I could only mumble that I wasn't offended. The Cuban guy replied that Cuba had a lot of ethnic diversity and he was fair because he had Spanish roots. "But, its so sunny there. You should look like him" the Funny Belgian said again, pointing at me. At that moment, I felt offended but was unable to articulate why. Even if I had been able to, I doubt he would have understood that he was trivializing race and ethnicity by reducing it to a question of skin tone. As though, race is a neutral construct and doesn't determine how the world perceives you. White people don't face discrimination for being tanned.

So, what's going on here? Is trying to be funny the refuge of the unattractive European male? His way of asserting his worth and desirability to the opposite sex? Whatever it is, there seems to be no getting away from the violence--physical or verbal--of white men. I don't mean to suggest that men are any less violent in India. In fact, maybe more. But that is a topic for another discussion.

Loneliness and Solitude

Solitude is being alone, loneliness is feeling alone. You don't need to be alone to feel alone. They say the worst thing is feeling lonely in an intimate relationship. Loneliness is not a problem per se, and everyone feels lonely from time to time. But, social isolation is supposed to be the AIDS of my generation, apparently more dangerous than smoking cigarettes. Britain just appointed a minister of loneliness, which would have been commendable if only the government had not been cutting aid to the deprived and the vulnerable in every other respect. 

The burgeoning literature on loneliness holds that loneliness is not a problem until it leads one to start spinning stories about oneself as being unworthy and undeserving of companionship. So, one should make an effort to end one's isolation but also be choosy about how one chooses to socialize so as to not to get frustrated. Easier said than done. From personal experience, I would argue that throwing yourself into social events and then coming out bored and unfulfilled can also be a trigger for harmful story-spinning. Pathologizing loneliness may not be a good idea as it assumes that everyone is the same and needs the same (heavy) dose of companionship. Different people need different qualities and quantities of companionship at different stage of their lives.

I just got back from a half-day walk with a group of internationals. For the second consecutive time, I was thoroughly bored. I didn't feel like talking to people and expounding my views on Bitcoin, about which I am inevitably asked when I say that I am doing a PhD in economics. The walks were something to do on weekends, which tend to drag as I don't have a social life in this city yet. If I stop going to the walks, the empty lonely weekends would presumably weigh on me like a millstone. But as I was returning from today's walk, I felt strangely unconcerned about how I would spend my weekends. There are far worse things than having to spend time by  yourself. 

Neediness

Neediness comes in many forms and we all know someone needy. Some of us might think of ourselves as needy or might have gone through needy phases in our lives. Or we behave/might have behaved needily in specific relationships, platonic or romantic.

We all have needs, but neediness is something more. It is seeking validation for your sense of self from other people. We all seek validation from those around us, especially dear ones, but needy people hold the people around them, even those who are not very close, responsible for that validation. That is a tremendous responsibility to put on people. Being around someone needy can feel like walking on eggshells. It feels like they chase you and then sulk when you don't chase them back. You might be fond of that person but feel pressured to show your affection in a certain way and with an intensity that you might not feel. Needy people also tend to be touchy, making it difficult to be free around them for fear of  causing hurt.

Neediness is not the same as being sensitive although most needy people tend to be sensitive. Sensitivity can be healthy, it can be cultivated to enable one to become a truer, fuller and more empathetic person. Neediness is unhealthy because it is one of the ways low self-esteem manifests---through outward projection. It makes one's own feelings the focus of every interaction, which is neither fair on you or the other person.

I hope this doesn't sound like a tirade against needy people because I have only empathy for them. I have behaved needily in the past and can't be certain that I won't in the future. The point is neediness stems from low self-esteem and self esteem can be raised.

The Longer The Winter, The Sweeter The Spring

The UK is swaddled in a snow blanket courtesy The Beast from the East and Storm Emma from the Atlantic. Schools, universities, airports and most offices are closed and many bus and train services have been cancelled. It appears that there is nothing to be done but hunker down at home. This means that the weekend effectively starts tonight for most people and started yesterday for me since I stayed at home today. Today, of course, marks the start of the meteorological spring.
Since my social life is a chimera, I prefer to plan ahead for weekends. Staying at home all day during winters is not great for one's mood, I have discovered. So, an extended weekend just means more time to fill with activities. Given that I might be cooped up at home, I'm trying to embrace the situation. Since I didn't do any work today, I am planning to work on Saturday to make up. Work, yoga, the odd TV show and blogging should see me through this weekend.
Of course, and keeping up with Storm Emma/The Beast. Living in the UK has made me obsessed with the weather. I have two apps on my phone--the staid BBC app and the edgy Accuweather. Both typify their countries of origin--the BBC app hedges its bets and talks in the language of percentage likelihood of precipitation while Accuweather claims to be able to predict precipitation to the minute. Declarations such as "Rain starting in 34 minutes" exude a thrilling confidence, which I find addictive. If tracking the weather is a form of entertainment for you like it is for me, you don't mind that they are wrong about half the time. A colleague, amused by how much I talk about the weather, has taken to calling me The Weatherman.
One of my pastimes is to check the weather in different cities of the world, particularly those places which I'm attached to and those with extreme weather. So, I track the weather in Pune (my favourite city in India), Madrid (where my sister and her family live), The Hague (where I did my master's and made lifelong friends) and Yakutsk in Russia's Sakha Republic, which is the coldest city tracked by weather apps that I have been able to identify. It is currently -35C there and snowing lightly. I don't have my hometown of Mumbai saved because the temperature in the sweltering city has no relation to how it really feels on the ground.