My favorite Naipaul story has sexist undertones. My mother doesn’t like me arguing when my father is driving. This is not because that’d distract him. She just doesn’t like it. She usually changes the subject or turn silent when I argue. Or she looks here and there. When I ask why, she wouldn’t answer, or say that she knows I’m wrong. Women hate arguments. Usually, when their husbands debate me on some abstract topic, women ask them to stop. They won’t say this, but they see debates as a sign of conflict. It took me so many years to see this. Continue reading “The World Is What It Is: We Are What We Are”
I do not feel true sadness. I know that this is a strange claim. If I do not feel true sadness, how would I know what true sadness means? But, this need not be true. I have felt sad, at times, when I was young. I no longer feel that way. I would feel quite the same way if something happens to my child—if and when I have one. I think I would be sad beyond redemption. But, I cannot imagine this happening any other way. I do not know how common it is among normal human beings to not feel sad at all.
When I cry, it is out of anger, frustration, fear, or happiness. It is never out of sadness. I weep when I read, write, think or listen to something I deeply relate to. Along these lines:
“When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will see it. You’ll know it’s there. So, you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.”
Similarly, I have never known what it is like to miss someone. Many human experiences are closed to me. But, I relate to this essay: Continue reading “The Softness And Fragility Of Baby Animals Caused Us The Same Intense Pain”
In “Editor Unplugged”, Vinod Mehta hints that he was surprised how hysterically people responded to what is possibly a false rape accusation against the Tehelka editor, Tarun Tejpal. A lot of people called this a shameful admission, because Vinod Mehta admitted that Tarun Tejpal used to hit on women when he worked under him. This makes sense because this happens, and people pretend not to notice till it suits them. When you hysterically rant, remember: Most journalists probably had seen this as a charming eccentricity of his till he was caught. But, why do men cheat? Why would women do this? It has much to do with male and female sexuality. Roy F. Baumeister has the most beautifully written explanation I have read, of what men and woman want, in a relationship. And what traditional marriage and sexual mores lead to. This is not about false rape allegations, but this suggests why men cheat, and why women make false rape allegations:
“Nature plays a dirty trick on men here. Culture compounds it. Men may be fooled into making the promise of eternal sexual fidelity. They marry an illusion. Women in love do typically have high rates of sexual desire. When she wants the man to make the promise, the woman actually changes, not in a sneaky or manipulative way, but rather because her own feelings sweep into stronger sexual desires and responses than she is ever likely to have again. Many a man thinks he has found his sexual soul-mate, whose desires match his. But when the romantic passion wears off after a year or two, they revert to their quite different baselines. Most husbands discover that their wives want sex far less than they themselves do. The woman is likely fooled also. She knows her future husband wants sex with her often, but she likes this and thinks it suits her. Then her feelings subside and she finds herself stuck with a partner who is pressing her for more sex than she wants to have. In some times and places, women have simply accepted that providing her man with sex was part of her duty as a wife. Nowadays, however, she is far less likely to think this way. The married man has thus put himself in a bind. He promised to refrain from sex with anyone else but his wife. And now she doesn’t want him, at least not very often. Let us consider another possibility. Suppose his desire for her diminishes. Many women gain weight as they get older. Does the bridegroom realize that he is promising never to have sex with anyone but her, even if she were to double her weight and become unappealing to him? In recent weeks the advice column in my local newspaper has had a series of letters from readers about prenuptial agreements that include specifications about weight control. The columnists, a pair of women, were predictably indignant about such a legalistic requirement. They thought that trying to control someone’s weight is a ridiculous thing in a marriage. In fact, they seemed skeptical of prenuptial agreements generally. Such views are understandable from women. And perhaps it is unreasonable to divorce somebody because he or she put on weight. Then again, people are allowed, even expected to divorce partners based on having sex with someone else. If the two are related, why is one the norm and the other unreasonable? The fashion industry and mass media emphasize the ideal of slim women as sexually attractive. Countless pages have been written about how difficult and tragic this is for ordinary women, who cannot live up to those ideals and therefore must feel bad. I have not seen many pages devoted to sympathy for the husbands of those women. But the media’s ideals of thinness affect men too. The men see those same commercials with the attractive models. That makes it harder for them to desire their own sagging, thickening wives. You think men don’t notice or don’t mind? Weight is not the only culprit, of course. Very few women look better at thirty-five or forty-five than they did at twenty-five. Most lose some degree of sex appeal. The bridegroom looks at his bride, all lovely and slender in her white dress, and he feels a surge of desire. He is thus able to make the promise that she is the one for him, for now and forever. He should look at the older women in the group, perhaps her older female relatives, or indeed middle-aged women in general. Not just the pounds, but the wrinkles, the downward drift of loosening flesh, the other inevitable parts of aging.
Trends in recent years have seen people marrying later and later. Men who reached maturity in the 1950s and early 1960s typically married in their early twenties. Now, the late twenties or early thirties is more common. More men resist marriage for a long time, in some cases forever. This pattern of postponing marriage has given rise to a stereotype of modern men as afraid to make the commitment to marriage. On talk shows, advice columns, and other female-dominated media, the complaint that men are reluctant or afraid to commit will be heard over and over. Thus, we have yet another bad thing to think about men: Supposedly they are afraid of a healthy, loving relationship. The discourse about whether to get married, sooner versus later, is dominated by females and therefore sees things through their eyes. The male attitudes are distorted. Assume, for the sake of argument, that there is some truth to the behavioral pattern: that men are in fact reluctant to commit. The women will label this as fear of commitment. It is treated as a character flaw common to men. One could just as well look at it all differently. I suspect the men-are-flawed view is biased and possibly unfair. The alternate could also be characterized as biased and possibly unfair, which makes them equal. The alternate view is that women are trying to hustle men to do something against their best interests. The men sense at some point they are being taken advantage of. They prefer to slow down and wait. The male reluctance to commit could be a rational response and a reluctance to be exploited. Above and beyond that, though, there are other reasons for women to be in more of a hurry than men to get married. Sexual economics theory depicts many romantic pairings as exchanges in which the man brings money and other resources, while the woman contributes sex. Her sexual desirability is based partly on her looks. These resources change over time in a way that is not kind to women. If a man and a woman wait five years, as compared to marrying now, things likely change in different directions. His salary and bank account are likely to increase over those years. Her face and body may lose some of their bloom. Hence when they revisit the marriage market, his appeal and his options will have increased, while hers have decreased. The deal he can get will improve over time; the deal she can get will get worse over time. I sympathize with her predicament, but that’s not our concern here. It’s whether his reluctance to get married right away reflects some character flaw in him or simply a very sensible, rational strategy. He has no hurry. Again, this is the mirror image of the decision whether to have sex. Women can always stand to wait a bit longer to let the man prove his commitment more strongly, before getting into bed. He is the one in a hurry to have sex. Her reluctance is understandable, and for same reasons (fear of being exploited, or simple rational assessment that she doesn’t lose out on much by waiting). Many of us men were told when young that yes, it will seem for a long time that the dating game is against you, and the woman has all the power and advantage, but at some point that will switch over. We doubted this was true, and even if it would be, the time of our advantage seemed impossibly remote. But it is correct nonetheless. The young woman holds all the cards over the young man, but by age 30 if not earlier, the man has more cards, and on average the woman is increasingly anxious to close the deal. This is all based on rational calculation of one’s appeal in the mating market and how to get the best deal. Other considerations certainly operate. Still, the calculation of rational advantage has a way of bringing people around, to some extent at least. All the talk of men’s fear of commitment can thus be seen in another light. It is a bit like a marketplace in which all the sellers are urging the buyers to buy now, hurry, sign right now! The sellers know the prices will be dropping severely next week. So of course they want to sell as soon as possible. The buyers do not know quite what the hurry is. In reality there is no hurry as far as their prospects are concerned. Sellers point out that some sales have been made, some properties thus off the market, and they imply that if you do not buy quickly, you will miss out. Some of the buyers heed the warnings and buy rapidly. But it is the sellers who have to hurry. The buyers can wait till next week, when the sellers who have not yet sold will be cutting their prices, and new sellers will be entering the market. The buyers themselves may even be better off next week, because they will have more money. The Imaginary Feminist, and plenty of non-imaginary ones, have said that the social myths of romance and love are aimed at deceiving and exploiting women. Maybe. But perhaps they are aimed at exploiting and deceiving men. It is men who must be induced to fall prey to romantic mythology, so that they will enter into marriage, where their money can be tapped to support a woman and her children for a very long time, regardless of how their relationship to that particular woman unfolds. A startling yet revealing observation was made by Norah Vincent, after she had lived as a man for some months. She said that when she got men to open up and talk about their sexual feelings, most confessed that at some point they had done something of which they were now ashamed, motivated by their sexual desires. She did not elaborate on what these were, and one does not know even whether they men told her the specifics. And despite my extensive reading of research on sexuality, I have not seen any systematic data on this question. But let’s suppose that she’s right. What would that tell us? Certainly anyone who watches the news knows that many men, even highly respectable, prominent, successful men, have done sexual things of which they were ashamed. We have seen presidents and presidential candidates admit to sexual misdeeds that compromised their careers. We have seen senators and congressmen admit to doing things in public restrooms or in their offices that have made them laughingstocks. Are these men somehow atypical? More likely these incidents are the tip of the iceberg. These men were caught because they were such public figures that when they do what many other men do, the media are eager to report on them. There are many things men could mean when they say they have been ashamed by something sexual they once did. It is not just having sex with the wrong person or wrong type of person. It may include making inappropriate advances. It may include misleading a woman such as by pretending to be in love with her in order to convince her to have sex. It may have been trying again after she said no once. Before we condemn men as hopeless sinners, however—and I suspect many men regard themselves as such, at least when they reflect on their attempts to come to terms with the inner sexual beast—we might feel a moment of sympathy for their unrewarded successes. How many times on the dance floor, possibly head swimming with too many drinks, did he want to reach out and touch some woman’s derriere, and yet he resisted? How many times did he stop as soon as the woman with whom he was necking said to stop? (Research has suggested that most women have said “no” when they meant “yes” at least occasionally, which introduces a further element of confusion to even the most well-intentioned young man.) He doesn’t get any credit for all the times he stifles his desires, despite all the struggle and sacrifice that they cost him. Daily he wrestles with the beast, and mostly he keeps it controlled, even though it is part of him and, crucially, when he does manage to give it the sex it wants, the result has been some of the most glorious moments of bliss he has ever known. Mostly he succeeds in restraining himself. Out of every thousand times he has to deny himself and stop himself from acting on his feelings, once or twice he slips up, and these can be enough to shame him. In fact he’s lucky if their only lasting effect is painful memories tinged with shame, embarrassment, and guilt. These little slip-ups could ruin him, costing him his career, his marriage, his happiness, even his freedom.”
Maureen Smith I’m starting to think the men I know are actually far more sensitive, and idealistic, than women I know and that they are less likely to admit it out of fear of seeming ‘weak’.
Spence Aaron Of course we are. Why do you think so many of us are so easily duped into throwing away our lives in wars over ideologies?
Scott Bowers Actually, you are hanging out with boys……not men.
Shanu Athiparambath That is evolutionary.
Eli Harman I think men are certainly more idealistic. Women might be better at appealing to idealism to get what they want, which would make sense considering who they’re usually trying to get it from, and qualify as a sort of pragmatism.
Freya Wilde I don’t find either more sensitive than the other. But I’ve noticed individuals differ.
Wil Stewart Abrams Evolutionarily Men can afford to be. We produce a billion sperm a day with no real stake in where they end up. Women produce one egg once a month and if it’s fertilized its a life time commitment. We have the evolutionary leisure time to be sensitive and idealistic. Evolutionarily woman have had to be selective, realistic and able to make the tough choices man are not required to make.
“Oh Rational Thought,
Which Are In My Brain,
Lead Me Not Into Anecdote,
And Guide Us Away From
In Lao Tzu’s Name,
Eli Harman I think part of the explanation has got to be the relative certainty of maternity compared to paternity.
In our deep evolutionary history, when men and women alike were promiscuous, women knew for certain who their children were, while men knew only that some of the tribe’s children could be theirs.
Consequently, women were free to develop a more perfect egoism. While men had to rely on abstract proxies like “the good of the tribe.”
Some people have noted a stronger tendency, among women, towards socialism and collectivism.
Given women’s risk aversion and security seeking, this is explicable purely in terms of rational self-interest.
Conversely, men support relatively more individual initiative and responsibility not only because it *may* prove more beneficial for them (emphasis on the uncertainty), but because it’s ascertainably certain that a certain amount is necessary to make the tribe competitive with others, whatever the individual cost.
Eli Harman Ayn Rand was wrong, her individualism is a form of altruism and egoism leads to communism.
Eli Harman How many states have been built by women?
The whole issue is riddled with contradictions. History and literature are permeated with the trope of men going off to war, and women pleading with them not to. This has been offered as evidence of women’s moral superiority. I think the explanation is rather more simple. War, even at its most necessary and just, represents paying a personal cost, for a collective benefit. Women, the ultimate selfish pragmatists, are less likely to see this as a worthwhile trade.
Shanu Athiparambath Individuals differ. But, does that mean that groups do not differ? The people who do not judge others by their group affiliations will not react so hysterically to true generalizations.
Mike Green Manalishi You may be confusing “sensitivity” and “idealism” with “Don Juanism”.
Eli Harman Also, the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. Women frequently give voice to the fear that men – being shallow – might “trade them in” for a younger model, or whatever. But the evidence would seem to suggest that they’re projecting.
I often hear that I ascribe evil motives to the people that I disagree with. People who believe in nonsense are just stupid people who are not thinking enough, they tell me. I never found this convincing. I think much of what I say is obvious, and known to everyone. Everyone knows this deep inside. Much of elementary social science is obvious. People are living a lie.
What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn’t make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn’t make it go away.
And because it’s true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn’t there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it.
Don’t believe me? Continue reading “What is true is already so”
Internet pornography leads to a decrease in the number of rape incidents. This is true. Academics have been studying this for a while. But, there is no corresponding decline in other crimes like theft or murder. Why? Madhavan of the Open Magazine, a reasonably smart guy, has an explanation:
“Porn might fuel positive attitudes towards women. The 2011 Scientific American article said, ‘Although consumers of pornography did not display more negative attitudes toward women, they were more likely than other respondents to believe that women should be protected from harm—what the investigators call “benevolent sexism”. All these might sound counter-intuitive and, for feminists, also offensive. But most of these studies are by hardnosed academics with no hidden ideology and have used tested empirical methods.”
Unlike the journalists who look at academic literature in a way not too unlike how savages look at money, this gentleman does not fear academics. But, why is this the obvious explanation? Perhaps the obvious explanation is that pornography satisfies an important need of men, and reduces the urge to commit serious crimes for sex? If sex is primarily motivated by sexual desire, isn’t this the most obvious explanation? David Friedman observes: Continue reading “Rape And Internet Pornography”
As a social experiment, I occasionally share a scene in Mon fils a moi on my Facebook wall. A controlling mother enters the bathroom when her twelve-year old son stands naked. When he covers himself up with his hands, she asks him to take his hands off. She strikes his legs with a towel, and when he tries to pick up his underwear, she snatches it and gives it to him. When he wears it staring at her face, trembling, she shakes her head smiling. She then leaves the room after stroking his hair.
Everyone ignores this when I share it on my wall, even though it is a visual. Ordinary people love visuals more than text. Yet, they ignore it, because they are not doing so because they are indifferent to it. A lady once told me that they ignore it because it is something to be enjoyed, but not to be talked about.
For people to ignore something that bothers them, it has to be something that really bothers them, something that bothers them to the point that they are compelled to ignore it. This is an important concept that has much wider implications. Continue reading “Spanking In Popular Literature”
She: I don’t feel fear in human interactions. I have trained myself to convert fear into action when I sense it.
Me: Do not be fooled by what I say. I convert fear into action too. My butterflies are unpleasant only when they inspire fear. I think you know one such person.
She: I know whom?
Me: Your guess is as good as that of mine.
She: You have no fear for me. You conjure it up only because you enjoy it. It is a game.
Me: Why do you say that I do not fear you? Look, you are quite perceptive, unlike your friend Miss X.
She: Lol. She ain’t my friend. And I have experience on my side. Continue reading “An Interesting Conversation”
Murray Rothbard, one of the greatest polymaths of all times made an interesting observation of religious cults: “Every religious cult has two sets of differing and distinctive creeds: the exoteric and the esoteric. The exoteric creed is the official, public doctrine, the creed which attracts the acolyte in the first place and brings him into the movement as a rank-and-file member. The quite different creed is the unknown, hidden agenda, a creed which is only known to its full extent by the top leadership, the “high priests” of the cult.” Murray Rothbard is said to have had some stubborn heterodox tendencies, but when he feels something is awry, you’d better take him seriously.
The glaring contradiction between the open and hidden agenda of religious cults is quite illuminating. It is true not just of religious cults, but of social movements, ideologies and of course, the most complex and ridiculous of all: human beings. Socialists and Objectivists swear by reason, science and logic, but beneath all their pretensions, we find nothing but the corpse of irrationality-of subjectivity, of feelings. We shall call this the exoteric-esoteric dichotomy. Continue reading “The Exoteric And Esoteric”
The Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) has sued Goldman Sachs as it sold mortgage securities without disclosing, John Paulson, a hedge fund manager was betting against the same securities. Sebastian Mallaby writes in The Washington Post : “The securities in question, so-called synthetic collateralized debt obligations, cannot exist unless somebody is betting that they will lose value. The firms that bought Goldman’s securities knew perfectly well that some other investor must be taking the opposite position. It was their job to evaluate the Goldman offer and make up their own minds.” And: “An investor who wants to bet against a bundle of mortgages is entitled to suggest what should go into the bundle. The buyer is equally entitled to make counter-suggestions. As the SEC’s complaint states clearly, the lead buyer in this deal, a boutique called ACA that specialized in mortgage securities, did precisely that.” Continue reading “Insider Trading: How Fair Is It?”
On May 3rd, Monday, the Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill was introduced by the Government in the Loksabha. The HRD Minister Kapil Sibal termed this as a ‘milestone’ in education “which will help benchmark quality education in a new way altogether, by enhancing choices for students and increasing competition”. The cabinet had passed the bill two months before. The left has been opposing the bill for the past four years. The bill calls for legislation regulating entry and operation of all foreign institutions. Such regulations, it is said, are necessary in the interests of students and the general public. Foreign educational institutions, according to the bill, can enter India only if they have been in the field for at least 20 years. “Unscrupulous institutions” and “fly-by-night operators” will not be given the entry pass. Continue reading “Foreign Investment In Education”