Sometimes the political coverage in American newspapers can make a gossipy filmfare or stardust look like an old church bulletin.
Just over the past few years, in Amercia alone one has read about so many scandals - New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy confessing to a gay relation; some Senator caught playing footsie with an policeman in a airport toilet; some Congressman sent kinky messages to teenagers and now the latest bombshell the NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's trysts with expensive call girls!
And closer to home a recent scandelous blow-up of a think tank head in KL having a rolicking affair with a east european woman and then getting her killed when she was wanting to blow the whistle on their elicit relation and another healthy and wise Minister having a ball with a woman in a posh hotel all caught in action in camera!
Oh ya I how could I forget Bill Clinton's ever so famous remark - "I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman"!
The Spitzer scandal has set many a tounge wagging on the blogsphere, op-ed columns etc on whether men are just inherent horndogs; why should we care about personal indiscretions as long as they dont prevent the guy from doing his job; why should spouses give them another chance etc etc
I wonder if powerful men have even more poweful urges!
I really wonder how influentioal men with so much to loose, still indulge in such high risk behaviour?
Is it some death wish! Do they suddenly realise how lonely they have become after having spent so many years clawing their way to power.
Maybe.
But it could be that these high achievers are risk takers and that applies to their social or personal lives as well. Or maybe powerful men simply like being powerful and nothing is ever enough to satisfy them.
Guess, for them having a secret life is just possessing another level of power over others.
But then, I am pretty sure that ordinary Joes also lead secret exisitance - extra marital affairs, late-night porn surfing, visits to red light areas, etc etc.
The only difference these ordinary men have vis-a-vis their powerful counterparts is that their wives dont stand next to them when they confess to their world at a rostrum! And I guess mostly these ordinary folks dont have the kinda money to woo expensive call girls either.
But then am sure there are a few, just a few (weak) men, who are probably wired (in)correctly and their fear of shame trumps temptation. Thus avoiding any potential heart break, breach of trust, break in their exisiting commitments and duties (BTW - only for themselves and their loving wives) - so what if that is at the cost of ruining someone else's life! As they say, have your fun and keep safe at the same time and when it blows up, silently and conveniently move on!
And maybe that's just what entitles us ordinary folks to heep scorn on these (powerful) men who fall below our standards. We know how easy it is to be sleazy, so we put them in office and pay them big bucks to be better than us!
No wonder, just the other day I made a very emphathic statement to a friend saying that men are generally promiscuous. I was promptly asked if that was my experience talking.
Forget experience, does all this and probably more not justify what I say?
And, I dont think I am wrong! :)
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The big, unstoppable "O"
One would think Senator Barack Obama had already won the Democratic presidential nominations, judging by how presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has been choosing to rip into him time and again.
The fact that he is drawaing top-level fire, is cretainly a sign that he is surging, perhaps unassailably, ahead of Hillary Clinton.
And according me, his die-hard fan, he is rolling fast and steady despite a few bumps here and there towards the White House.
Forget the Republicans, even Hillary Clinton has been jabbing at him at every given chance. But the big "O" remains calm and civil and presidential, if you please. He infact, thanks to Mr and Mrs Clinton, has even improved on his debatitng skills and catching up with her so called ability to think on his feet and master the details on key issues.
He has to snuff out the fire coming from McCain and the Republicans to disprove Hillary's assertion that she would be a better able to stand upto to the Republicans in the November general election.
His 'hope and change' stump rally speeches have me stumped and excited.
He has started a movement.
And despite everything, his momentum remains intact.
'Hope and change' is what is needed damn badly in the world today.
Needed even more badly in India and the institutions that work to make India what it is.
Otherwise.............
Hirearchy of an organsiation is like a tree full of monkeys.........those at the top see only monkeys below and those at the bottom only see assholes above!
:)
The fact that he is drawaing top-level fire, is cretainly a sign that he is surging, perhaps unassailably, ahead of Hillary Clinton.
And according me, his die-hard fan, he is rolling fast and steady despite a few bumps here and there towards the White House.
Forget the Republicans, even Hillary Clinton has been jabbing at him at every given chance. But the big "O" remains calm and civil and presidential, if you please. He infact, thanks to Mr and Mrs Clinton, has even improved on his debatitng skills and catching up with her so called ability to think on his feet and master the details on key issues.
He has to snuff out the fire coming from McCain and the Republicans to disprove Hillary's assertion that she would be a better able to stand upto to the Republicans in the November general election.
His 'hope and change' stump rally speeches have me stumped and excited.
He has started a movement.
And despite everything, his momentum remains intact.
'Hope and change' is what is needed damn badly in the world today.
Needed even more badly in India and the institutions that work to make India what it is.
Otherwise.............
Hirearchy of an organsiation is like a tree full of monkeys.........those at the top see only monkeys below and those at the bottom only see assholes above!
:)
Monday, March 10, 2008
Being nice gets you nowhere
Being nice gets you nowhere - literally!
Everyday is a new day. There are new lessons I learn about people and their behaviour. Essentially I am convinced that these medicore people (in most cases women) cover their weakness in the garb of their aggressiveness, bossiness, nastiness, bitchiness etc etc
And everytime I narrate 0ne of these new incidents to my best friend, she is surprised at me at still getting surprised at such things. Its inherent human nature. If they are not being any of the above, then its time to be surprised and worried for them :)
But then I cant help it, by nature I am a curious being and every new act intrigues me further about us human beings. And I can never ever figure out why and how a woman can be so mean and bitchy (espcially to another of the same species at work or otherwise!).
Anyways, for starters, I decided to look up the webster dictionary to get the exact definition of "bitch" = "a malicious, spiteful or domineering woman" and this word is sometimes used as a generalised term of abuse.
Genetically, a woman is the caretaker, who nutures, keeps the family or society together and the man has always been the hunter, the provider to the family or society.
I thought its not in the DNA of a woman to be a person who rhymes with witch. Even using the actual "B" word appalls me. Its so vulgar, so incendiary. Its not a word I would use lightly on someone - even though I can easily think of a few who easily qualify - and definitely not what I would want to be called by others either.
BUT yet I must confess, I do call life a bitch! (sometimes).
I remember reading an article in Washington Post sometime back on expectation from the next US President - wanted someone (man or woman) to be a 'bitch' ; 'outspoken'; comanding; unworried about pleasing everybody and wont bow to pressure!' -
Wow!
Thank god I am certainly not running to be a president. I dont think I would like to fullfill the criteria desptie the all supposed benefits.
Whenever I watch the reality TV shows like the The Apprentice, I marvel at how being assertive and manipulative pays off. If I were to appear on the show, I would be the first person Mr Donald Trump would announce "You're fired".
Forget at work, even being nice in love does not pay off.
This being good in love not paying off fact came to surface just yesterday, when I was browsing through a bookstore and chanced upon this book called "Why Men love Bitches and Why men marry bitches"! by Sherry Arpov. Her premise is that men are not looking to marry a doormat but a strong sprited woman who can stand for herself.
In my mind, that is not the definiton of a bitch but what every woman should be.
So what even if you give the reassurance to the man that while you are his strong sprited soul mate, his duties and commitments come first AND he still in turn sheds you off at the first and foremost instance for no fault or reason!
Anyways, to me the b-word applies to the women who back-stab you at work and then throw hissy fits on how rude and arrogant you are instead. How much medicore and insecure can some of us become.
We, the women, who are programmed from young to be sugar and spice and everything nice in this big, bad, bitchy world!
Everyday is a new day. There are new lessons I learn about people and their behaviour. Essentially I am convinced that these medicore people (in most cases women) cover their weakness in the garb of their aggressiveness, bossiness, nastiness, bitchiness etc etc
And everytime I narrate 0ne of these new incidents to my best friend, she is surprised at me at still getting surprised at such things. Its inherent human nature. If they are not being any of the above, then its time to be surprised and worried for them :)
But then I cant help it, by nature I am a curious being and every new act intrigues me further about us human beings. And I can never ever figure out why and how a woman can be so mean and bitchy (espcially to another of the same species at work or otherwise!).
Anyways, for starters, I decided to look up the webster dictionary to get the exact definition of "bitch" = "a malicious, spiteful or domineering woman" and this word is sometimes used as a generalised term of abuse.
Genetically, a woman is the caretaker, who nutures, keeps the family or society together and the man has always been the hunter, the provider to the family or society.
I thought its not in the DNA of a woman to be a person who rhymes with witch. Even using the actual "B" word appalls me. Its so vulgar, so incendiary. Its not a word I would use lightly on someone - even though I can easily think of a few who easily qualify - and definitely not what I would want to be called by others either.
BUT yet I must confess, I do call life a bitch! (sometimes).
I remember reading an article in Washington Post sometime back on expectation from the next US President - wanted someone (man or woman) to be a 'bitch' ; 'outspoken'; comanding; unworried about pleasing everybody and wont bow to pressure!' -
Wow!
Thank god I am certainly not running to be a president. I dont think I would like to fullfill the criteria desptie the all supposed benefits.
Whenever I watch the reality TV shows like the The Apprentice, I marvel at how being assertive and manipulative pays off. If I were to appear on the show, I would be the first person Mr Donald Trump would announce "You're fired".
Forget at work, even being nice in love does not pay off.
This being good in love not paying off fact came to surface just yesterday, when I was browsing through a bookstore and chanced upon this book called "Why Men love Bitches and Why men marry bitches"! by Sherry Arpov. Her premise is that men are not looking to marry a doormat but a strong sprited woman who can stand for herself.
In my mind, that is not the definiton of a bitch but what every woman should be.
So what even if you give the reassurance to the man that while you are his strong sprited soul mate, his duties and commitments come first AND he still in turn sheds you off at the first and foremost instance for no fault or reason!
Anyways, to me the b-word applies to the women who back-stab you at work and then throw hissy fits on how rude and arrogant you are instead. How much medicore and insecure can some of us become.
We, the women, who are programmed from young to be sugar and spice and everything nice in this big, bad, bitchy world!
Friday, March 7, 2008
Ouch - these sissies......
The Straits Times sunday edition recently carried a story headlined "Love me, Spoil Me" about Singaporean women's high expectations of men.
And mind you, one of the key expecations is for their men to carry their hand bags !
(Ahem, my male friends from India should certainly take note of this.)
On reading this report, I thought it to be a wee bit silly and far fetched.
But loh behold, I actually witnessed this scene in person recently.
While in a taxi queue after buying groceries recently (some days after reading that report), I had a chance to observe this first-hand. A guy actually carrying his girl-friend's hand bag!!
Look at that guy, I exclaimed, tugging at my friend and her boyfriend (who was with her) and he ofcourse royally ignored me. 'Do what', he snarled edging our grocery trolley.
Thats when I realised that men generally have spatial awareness.
But imagine in this day and age of womens lib and equality, women actually expect men to behave like this! I expect a man - whatever age or stature, to atleast open the door or perhaps offer to pay (specially on the first date). BUT carry my hand bag - NO WAY!
A woman's bag, I thought, was a public manifestion of her feminity. Whether a big tote or a teeny weeny purse, its actually a deep dark cavern within which lurks make-up, money and several other personal stuff and her gossip sotrer (mobile phone and that telephone diary) - etc etc.
My handbag - is typically for me, a palce which requires rummaging whenever I need something damn fast and now - like a ringing mobile, or my ever elusive keys. A place where items are felt and never seen by anyone else other than the owner. My very own private space in a public set-up :). And mind you a man (in this case a potential prospective boyfriend, alas if and when I get one) would put his hand in there at his peril.
Anyways, coming back to that guy carrying the handbag. Well, to me, he looked like just another accessory to that girl (in this case, I dont envy her at all at having such a sissy guy). And worse, the bag was so big, and he just about her height - gosh poor thing, he looked shrunken.
I cant imagine a stooped, hand carry, dwarf to be boy friend matieral - though I must confess it was a tad bit bitchy on my part to think that way (or are the grapes sour!).
No matter how liberated a woman I maybe or sometimes (to my conveneince) traditional and conventional, to me a man has to be a man and behave like a man. I cant imagine a macho man in a polo tee with a hand bag - what a damn fashion faux pas.
A man should be a man. Wear the pants in the relation, be steadfast and sturdy in his commitment, stand by you through thick and thin, grow old with you and love you to death even when you are wrinkled and old and nagging etc etc - Its a basic primal thing.
I wonder at such women (like the one I saw with the handbag carrying guy), who are so smug with a triumphant look I sometimes see on women (specially the not-so-pretty ones), who seem to inwardly be declaiming to a sceptic like me "GOT HIM"! (okay okay, lady I too will have my arm candy - a real man man, some day)
Well, with such couples all I can say - she got the man and he got her bag.
Such women are on a pedestal, the world does not matter. And he knows his place! - well Bliss be unto them.
Sometimes I do watch such people / couples with a wee bit of envy, a look of regret.
But acutally, I would never dream of such a relation or a man.
For the reality is, I know a man cannot multitask - managing me, my handbag and the grocery trolley :)
Until then, I try and remember 'patience is genius' and I am waiting and wondering......
And mind you, one of the key expecations is for their men to carry their hand bags !
(Ahem, my male friends from India should certainly take note of this.)
On reading this report, I thought it to be a wee bit silly and far fetched.
But loh behold, I actually witnessed this scene in person recently.
While in a taxi queue after buying groceries recently (some days after reading that report), I had a chance to observe this first-hand. A guy actually carrying his girl-friend's hand bag!!
Look at that guy, I exclaimed, tugging at my friend and her boyfriend (who was with her) and he ofcourse royally ignored me. 'Do what', he snarled edging our grocery trolley.
Thats when I realised that men generally have spatial awareness.
But imagine in this day and age of womens lib and equality, women actually expect men to behave like this! I expect a man - whatever age or stature, to atleast open the door or perhaps offer to pay (specially on the first date). BUT carry my hand bag - NO WAY!
A woman's bag, I thought, was a public manifestion of her feminity. Whether a big tote or a teeny weeny purse, its actually a deep dark cavern within which lurks make-up, money and several other personal stuff and her gossip sotrer (mobile phone and that telephone diary) - etc etc.
My handbag - is typically for me, a palce which requires rummaging whenever I need something damn fast and now - like a ringing mobile, or my ever elusive keys. A place where items are felt and never seen by anyone else other than the owner. My very own private space in a public set-up :). And mind you a man (in this case a potential prospective boyfriend, alas if and when I get one) would put his hand in there at his peril.
Anyways, coming back to that guy carrying the handbag. Well, to me, he looked like just another accessory to that girl (in this case, I dont envy her at all at having such a sissy guy). And worse, the bag was so big, and he just about her height - gosh poor thing, he looked shrunken.
I cant imagine a stooped, hand carry, dwarf to be boy friend matieral - though I must confess it was a tad bit bitchy on my part to think that way (or are the grapes sour!).
No matter how liberated a woman I maybe or sometimes (to my conveneince) traditional and conventional, to me a man has to be a man and behave like a man. I cant imagine a macho man in a polo tee with a hand bag - what a damn fashion faux pas.
A man should be a man. Wear the pants in the relation, be steadfast and sturdy in his commitment, stand by you through thick and thin, grow old with you and love you to death even when you are wrinkled and old and nagging etc etc - Its a basic primal thing.
I wonder at such women (like the one I saw with the handbag carrying guy), who are so smug with a triumphant look I sometimes see on women (specially the not-so-pretty ones), who seem to inwardly be declaiming to a sceptic like me "GOT HIM"! (okay okay, lady I too will have my arm candy - a real man man, some day)
Well, with such couples all I can say - she got the man and he got her bag.
Such women are on a pedestal, the world does not matter. And he knows his place! - well Bliss be unto them.
Sometimes I do watch such people / couples with a wee bit of envy, a look of regret.
But acutally, I would never dream of such a relation or a man.
For the reality is, I know a man cannot multitask - managing me, my handbag and the grocery trolley :)
Until then, I try and remember 'patience is genius' and I am waiting and wondering......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
