The paradox

According to a legendary epic, when a character was asked "Which is the strangest thing in this world?", he replied "Individuals always see people dying; still everyone believes that she or he is eternal". In the present world, if a ghost comes to you and bothers to answer the same question, you can safely answer: "People tell that men have an edge over women while the fact is perfectly the opposite. What can be stranger than this?" If the ghost is sincere, it should say "perfectly true".

If you go to a person of the lowest rank (like a bankrupt in the street) and ask "Who is dominating? Women or men?", answer will be bounced without delay: "Definitely women". Now, if you go to a genius and ask the same question, spontaneous reply would be: "It is women only; I can't imagine how you could get doubt about this". But the rest of the world is under ignorance and all lead just fraudulent lives, proclaim fraudulent life and even force all to live fraudulent lives.

Every historian and authority on history agree that Kalhana's "Rajatharangini" is the most authentic (many authorities tell that it is the only authority which gave the history of ancient India 'as it is') book. It not only pictured bad kings but also vividly explained the atrocities of contemporary women including queens. Have you read "Jathaka" stories of Buddha, which are considered to reflect the society of Buddha's time? What about "women" in those stories? For sample, according to one story, a step mother forces a young prince to have sex with her and when he sternly refused, she complained to the king that the prince tried to rape her. What about "Arabian Nights"? Is it fair and right to tell that whatever women do, whatever they tell is always correct and unquestionable? Even writers like Tolstoy who is known for his unbiased, clear and sane views didn't hesitate to point out when women did mistakes.

I know that sometimes I write like "men" and that is intentional. If women can always be "women" (not essentially humans) why can't men be "men" at least sometimes? One can argue: "If a dog bites you, why should YOU bite the dog?" I would say: "If there is no other means, I won't mind biting the dog back if I think it will help me get rid of the dog". There may be one more advantage of aping women. If women can't see what they are doing, and if they don't have a mirror, an ape which tries to mimic them can help them see what they are doing. After all, how many write about men? As I have mentioned in one of my previous blogs, if we take the ratio of the number of men harassed to the number of people who write about men and compare the ratio with the ratio of the number of women harassed to the number of people who write about women, we can see that men have less voice, no.. no.., hardly any voice, sorry, men have no voice. Is it not better to give voice to the voiceless instead of adding voice to the people who are already making noise?

By equality, people believe that if the number of men harassed is equal to the number of women harassed, then men and women could be considered equal. If feminists have a humanist face, why can't they see that "equality" could also be achieved if there is no harassment of either men or women? 1=1 sounds ok, 2=2 sounds ok but 0=0 sounds quite odd?

One can ask me: "How can you be sure that what you see is real? Why can't that be an illusion?"
According to Swami Vivekananda: "One who KNOWS AND KNOWS THAT HE KNOWS is a teacher". But don't call me teacher! I am a blogger!

One asked: "Why are you writing about men only? Why can't you see things in entirety?"
"What can be a better, noble and satisfying job than giving voice to the voiceless, trying to clearly express ideas which are hardly expressed?"