There was a turd of an ad campaign last year started by a billionaire, yes the one that starts with the letter b. It was called "ban bossy." The gist of it was simple, that women are dissuaded from leadership when they're called bossy. It featured all high achievers. Well it was rather simple minded, and quite far off the mark. It seemed that the women who were called whatever, they weren't deterred from achieving their life goals, and they did end up as millionaires, and one a billionaire. By the way, some people are just plain horrible. Psychologically, in some competitive sports you're evaluated by a psychologist and there are some behaviourial patterns which aren't considered normal. Well, that is what makes for a good leader, and yes, they do hire them and without such certain traits you may not get hired for some exec positions in business world. Genius, it does come with a tinge of crazy at times, but it was rather a stretch to presume that about any of the people featured in that advertisement.
Ban Bossy is just spit on the face of an excellent female manager who I once worked for. She was everything that it takes to make a great leader, and I wouldn't hesitate for a second if I ever had to work for her again. Only one, some may ask, but a great leader is not identified because they have a certain background, or a specific gender. A great leader, he/ she is just that, a great leader and personally speaking, I couldn't bloody bother for a minute what organs existed under their garments. For what it is worth, none of the male colleagues I had, gave two$#!t$ about what gender was their manager, as long as he/ she were capable.
For what it is worth, Ms. Watson was heard saying during her presentation of "he for she", she was surprised that she was called bossy. Well, you were 8, and assuming it were your peers, well I didn't learn to swear till I was in my teens. Most likely your peers weren't swearing much, and bossy while quite mild, was indeed appropriate. Oh, as the hypocrisy has been pointed out by many, so many on internet, let me do the kindness as well, and tell you that it is pretty damn hypocritical that you want curb any criticism of people of one sex.
Well, continuing from earlier, "he for she," doesn't it sound a wee bit sexist to begin with? F* right off Ms. Watson for your callous attitude and your shameless display of hypocrisy at its most morbid to be polite. A shameless display of where economic/ political power actually lies in the society. For example, in USA, 80% of domestic spending is controlled by women, and how many would bet that it would be quite about the same really in India? There is a lot wrong with the presentation factually, and the fact that it doesn't address any problems which are faced by young boys and men is quite concerning. Worse still, all that it does it to suggest that men become a better provider, better shield for women. Well, if you're a feminist, and you're offended by me calling out a feminazi for what she is, do offer wtf else does "he for she" purport? There are a lot of men committing suicide, driven to it by their wives. Yes, their wives, and this is a global phenomenon. For what it is worth, now almost across the world, in case of a divorce, a man doesn't get custody unless the woman he was married to is lowliest of the lowlies, and that is saying something. Worse still, men are being tossed into jail for a lot of flimsy reason pretty much across the world, like for not having any money for child support/ alimony. There are times, when men are required by law to pay more to ex-wives, than whatever is going to be left for him. This is becoming prevalent in India as well. First of all, how is that a crime, that is to not have money? Economy is crap for a lot of a people across the globe in so many countries, and how do you overcome that? On top of that there are views populated by people like Jessica Valenti, who is quite unfortunately, a globally recognised face for feminism, and she recommends that men be paid less for the same jobs. Yes, you heard it right. This was bloody published in the guardian, one of the widely read newspaper in the UK. Yes, the newspaper's gone to the bin, like most of the newspapers across the world. Then again, can you imagine the same thing being said by a man? No? I didn't think so either.
What has all this got to do with chivalry? Well, it is plain apparent that there is some social engineering going pretty much across the whole wide world. In this social engineering plot, for lack of a better expression, sexes are being pitted against each other, instead of being encouraged to work with each other, and improving the lives of everyone. This social engineering had an adverse effect of increasing gendered conflict. Consequence, chivalry is indeed dead, murdered by the very same people who're crying out "he for she," The bloody irony of that has entirely escaped the dullards/ and intellectually corrupt who'd sell their mothers for chump f*ing change. Yes, you, one who ascribes to philosophy of "he for she" and other such pieces of social engineering, look in the mirror you miserable human being. You, and your ilk are responsible for poor relations between the genders.
For what it is worth, in the western world, especially USA and UK etc., when surveyed, it was found that people were more happier some decades ago than they are now. Technology as it evolves, it is supposed to make human lives more easier and productive. This increased convenience and productivity, it enhances satisfaction with the lives that we lead. Let us face it, lives are considerably better off than they were a century ago thanks to advances in technology. Then again, it is a testament to this social engineering that has been going on, that dissatisfaction with lives that we lead is increasing. Infact, it is about the highest that it has been in decades.
This social engineering effort that has been afoot, and for a few decades now, it has indeed had mostly negative effects on our lives, which is seen as increasing unhappiness. India is not untouched. Well, we all know "hum do, humaare do" started sometime recently. While it was disguised a population control motto, but what it also did was promote nuclear family. Nuclear family has its benefits, but also has its own negatives, well in the Indian context. All the disparate things as they seem, are but indeed parts of what makes for a good lesson in chaos theory. Everything on the surface seems random, and are seemingly not connected while infact they're and are actively leading us to a society where we're going to be less of individuals. Individual rights are already slowly being curbed globally, and yes, the classic reaction which I see a lot of in my friends, "what's it to me? It is not affecting me personally." Well, not yet, but here's something to ponder:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
We're all but cogs in the wheel, and without one or two of us, the wheel may still stand. Surely when enough of us go kaput, the wheel will not stand for long. It is but plain and simple.
Oh yes, before I forget, I did indeed perform last rites of any vestiges of chivalry that I had left in me.
