Serendipitous Ponderings by SP

Chunaav ka mahina, hai mach gaya shorr Fir aaya hai time to choose, who'll screw us more?! In straightforward tasks like sewing shoes, we believe that only someone with specialized training can fulfill our needs. We wouldn't trust someone with no experience, to cobble together footwear, no matter how attractive s/he may look or how convincing s/he may sound. We understand the importance of technical skill and knowledge in achieving a desired outcome.   However, this logic seems to vanish when it comes to politics. Here, it's often assumed that anyone who can win support is capable of running the government.  Popularity and charisma become the primary qualifications, although effective leadership requires much more advanced skill sets. To illustrate the absurdity, imagine that you are seriously ill and need an operation. Would you choose a surgeon based on their press conference charisma or years of medical training and proven experience? Of course, you'd prefer

Pet owners bristle when their furry companions are simply called ‘dogs’. The mere utterance of the word seemed to strip away the enchantment Pooja had woven around Coco when I casually called her dog ‘a dog’. Coco (image shared by Pooja) I encountered a peculiar paradox in a recent interaction with one of my best friends, Pooja, whom, I otherwise always find to be a sensible and a scientific person. Her reaction about her pet being called an animal highlighted the clash between emotions and facts. It, at first seemed to me like an overreaction, however, upon critical analysis, I realized that our emotions often paint the world in shades of feeling rather than objective facts. She argued that one can see divinity in a pebble and a pebble in the divine, to which I totally agree. It's all about perspective. However, here is how easily I can separate the concept of symbolic power (the pebble) from the idea of a literal god (the divinity): as an agnostic with a leaning towards atheism,

'I think, therefore, I am' So, in the process, lately,  I found myself standing at the Event Horizon, again, thinking as per my natural instinct, this time, only with an existential crisis: TO BE, OR NOT TO BE, that is the question. I found myself wondering whether to approach it, never to come back again out of the blackhole, or to enter the wormhole instead? And that, in yearn for what? To stay back and if so, for what? Or to get away, if so, from what? This brought me to a question that essentially questioned my very existence, and its cause and effect. And they say, that the answers are often found on a spiritual journey. Spirituality, wait, what? Isn't it about spirits, good and bad- that is to say, angels and ghosts? Or is it to do with that, which touches our own spirit? Or is it a way for our spirits to connect with other this-worldly and other-worldly spirits employing elements that essentially touch our spirits? Through the performance of those karmas which raises

Barbie, the iconic doll, has been a staple in the world of toys for generations. We've seen her as a teacher, right? So, let's allow her to teach us something real today!  Created by Ruth Handler and introduced by Mattel in 1959, Barbie quickly became a cultural phenomenon. Over the years, she has evolved, but her journey holds a treasure trove of lessons, ranging from empowerment and adaptability to the importance of diversity and understanding your customers. In this article, we'll explore the lessons through the lens of  Barbie's manifest and latent functions   (Merton).   Barbie as a Symbol of Empowerment:  With her various careers and the respective accessories, Barbie encouraged children to dream big and be creative. She showed little kids that they could be anything they wanted to be, from an astronaut to a veterinarian, from a rock star to a scientist. She was a canvas upon which children could paint their dreams and aspirations. When kids played with Barbie

  मानवता का विभाजन पुरुष और महिला के रूप में में 'लिंग' के प्राकृतिक विभाजन पर आधारित है। प्राकृतिक विभाजन प्रकृति में अनुपूरक है जिसका कोई विरोध नहीं है। यह एक ऐसी व्यवस्था है जो मानव जाति के विकास को सुगम बनाती है। 'लिंग' की अवधारणा अनिवार्य रूप से एक सामाजिक निर्माण है। यह एक पितृसत्तात्मक सामाजिक पैंतरेबाजी का परिणाम है। यदि यह 'बनाया' गया है, तो इसे 'बदला' भी जा सकता है। 'महिलाएं स्वाभाविक रूप से पुरुषों से नीच है'- पुरुषों के पक्ष में यह तर्क रूढ़िवादी सोच प्रदर्शित करता है। शारिरिक लिंग प्राकृतिक भिन्नता है जबकि सामाजिक लिंग पितृसत्तात्मक रूढ़िवाद का परिणाम है जिसे धार्मिक स्वीकृति मिली है। जैसा कि कार्ल मार्क्स ने कहा है- 'धर्म अफीम है', धार्मिक अनुमोदन विकृत विचारों को भी बढ़ावा देने की क्षमता रखता हैं।   महिलाओं के प्रति एक उम्र का लंबा वशीकरण, शिक्षा से वंचित रखना, सार्वजनिक जीवन में भाग लेने से निषेध करना उनमे पाई जाने वाली तर्कसंगतता और क्षमता की कमी को दर्शाता है। दुनिया भर की सभ्यताओं में हर समाज का महिला वर्ग हमेशा से