What is the opposite of toxic masculinity?

We hear so much about toxic masculinity. But what other kind of masculinity is there? What about positive masculinity? What would that mean to you? 

Likewise, toxic feminism. This means that there must be a positive feminism too. Or, to be consistent, positive femininity? What would that look like? 

These are the questions I thought about this week. 

To me, positive masculinity means someone who is caring, kind, and protective. 

Positive femininity means a presence that is kind, caring, and nurturing. 

To be kind and to care is necessary for a family or any human interaction to survive. Protection and nurturing are the two elements that then go into creating a unit that grows. Protection provides the boundary, and nurturing provides the nourishment. 

What would positive masculinity and femininity mean to you? 

Why do we look for the minority connection?

It just occurred to me that we are always looking to be in the minority. When we are outside India, we look for other Indians. Because we want to identify with them. 

When we are in India in another state, we look for other ppl from the same region. If we are, let's say, in UP, we look for other people from Punjab or Haryana, and vice versa. If we are an Odiya in Bengal, we look for other Odiyas. 

And IF, we happen to be in our home state, we then look for "people like us" - our caste, etc. 

This urge to look for the smaller group rather than meld with the larger group - its counter intuitive, no? Yet, it's there. We feel safety in numbers but run towards the protection of an intimate group rather than the perceived power of belonging to the majority. 

Why is that? 

Any thoughts? 

How do we explain this?

There have been multiple experiments to find out whether the world is made up of givers, or takers. 

Psychologists, Sociologists, Anthropologists, and plain scientists have conducted multiple experiments in multiple formats. 

But it doesn't matter what you put up for sharing - clothes, books, money, an entire country (a group of countries) - the result is the same - "Take What you Need, Leave What You Can" always leads to an empty tray sooner or later - with the takers emptying it. 

Always, fewer givers than takers. 

It appears that now, the Earth itself is at stake - a battle between the givers and the takers. 

And if past experiments are anything to go by, the result is already pre-ordained. 

Yet, if this were universally true, the human race itself would have been wiped out long ago - the takers would have taken the resources from everyone else, and starved the non-takers to death. 

But, that has not happened. Not just that, the human race has, in fact, made steady progress over not just decades, but centuries. 

How do we explain this paradox? 

******************* 

विज्ञान और सामाजिक विज्ञान, दोनों ने कई बार प्रयोग किए हैं, ये जानने के लिए, कि दुनिया में लेने वाले ज्यादा हैं, या देने वाले। 

बार बार, इस प्रयोग का नतीजा वही निकल है - लेने वाले। ताक पर जो कुछ भी रखा जाए - कपड़े, किताबें, पैसे, या फिर पूरा देश - "जितना चाहिए ले जाओ, जितना हो रख जाओ" के सिद्धांत ने सदा लेने वालों को ही विजयी दिखाया है। देने वाले कम, लेने वाले ज़्यादा। 

किसी भी स्तर या परिमाण पर यह प्रयोग किया जाए, नतीजा वही निकलता है - लेने वाले ज्यादा, देने वाले कम। 

अजीब बात ये है, कि यदि यह वैश्विक रूप से सत्य होता, तो दुनिया या मानव समाज भी कब का समाप्त हो चुका होता। पर ऐसा नहीं है। लेने वाले, लालची लोग बहुतायत में होते हुए भी, दुनिया आगे ही बढ़ी है, पीछे नहीं। 

इस paradox (विरोधाभास) को हम कैसे समझें ?

 

Today's Thought in Head

In all relationships, the depth of the relationship is decided by the party that wants it shallower. If A and B are in a relationship, A wants it to be a deep, intimate relationship while B wants it to remain shallow, it will, per force, have to remain shallow or break off, because B will not make the personal investment needed to deepen the relationship. A can then choose to sustain the relationship at that shallow level or break off. 

In families, romantic relationships, and even business relationships, this is true. 

The thing with this is, that only one person makes the decision to keep a relationship shallow, but both parties pay the price. Most long term relationships are like good eggs, they must either hatch (mature into something deeper) or go bad (break off). 

Over a long enough period, keeping a relationship shallow hurts both parties because there is, nonetheless, a human need for a deep connection. This is more pronounced in romantic relationships, because we are only allowed one romantic partner at a time. But even among siblings or with parents, there is an inherent need to have a deep relationship. If that need is frustrated by the current relationship, one must look elsewhere (but there is only one sibling/ parent!) or live with the feeling of lack of fulfillment. 

It is this lack of fulfillment, this constant feeling that we are living sub optimal lives, that fills us with an inexplicable void. Its inexplicable because we don't understand that we are living at a layer that is not in sync with our needs. 

How, then, does one deal with this? If so few people want to invest in deep relationships, whether at home (even parenting has become checklist based and transactional), or in friendships, then how does one find the deep connection that one seeks? 

A simple, but not so practical solution is to not be the person who holds up the depth in a relationship. You may not realise it right now, but you are going to need that depth. One day, you will be fifty, and friendless. Think of this as investing in a pension fund. You don't see the returns until you retire. Then, you get them when you need them the most. 

I have also found it to be true in the work sphere. Long term work relationships based on mutual respect. Long term vendor relationships mean that our cost of procurement goes down. Long term client relationships mean that our cost of selling is low, and we can give the client a better deal. 

In fact, Indian businesses typically demonstrate very long term employment and vendor-client relationships.