How often have we heard the words “But it’s not fair”. We hear it from children who are denied a treat. We hear it from adults when they fail in a venture due to reasons beyond their control. We hear it from everyone who works with the poor, the disadvantaged and the sick in developing countries. Yet few people stop to analyze what these words really mean or imply.
The fact is that if by "fair" you mean everyone having the same odds for achieving success, then life has never been anywhere close to being fair, anywhere or at any time. It has not been fair even within the same family. For example, among children born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, the firstborns on average have higher IQs than their brothers and sisters, and usually achieve more in life. And despite all the sound and fury generated in controversies over whether different groups have different genetic potential, even if they all have identical genetic potential, the outcomes can still differ. There is no question that the accident of birth is a huge factor in the fate of people.
But Nature's own discrimination completely dwarfs man's discrimination. Geography alone makes equal chances virtually impossible. The geographic advantages of Western Europe over Eastern Europe – in climate and navigable waterways, among other things – have led to centuries of differences in income levels that were greater than income differences between blacks and whites in America today. A child born in sub Saharan Africa certainly has a completely different life prospect than one born in modern day Canada.
But many people fail to see the fundamental difference between saying that a particular thing – whether a mental test or an institution – is conveying a difference that already exists or is creating a difference that would not exist otherwise. Creating a difference that would not exist otherwise is discrimination, and something can and should be done about that.
But, in recent times, virtually any disparity in outcomes is almost automatically blamed on discrimination, despite the incredible range of other reasons for disparities between individuals and groups. The really serious question is what can be done to reduce disparities without creating other, and often worse, problems. Providing free public education, scholarships to colleges and other opportunities for achievement are fine as far as they go, but there should be no illusion that they can undo all the differences in priorities, attitudes and efforts among different individuals and groups.
Most of us want to be fair, in the sense of treating everyone equally. We want laws to be applied the same to everyone. We want educational, economic or other criteria for rewards to be the same as well. But redistribution of material resources has a very poor track record when it comes to actually helping those who are lagging, whether in education, in the economy or elsewhere. What they need are the attitudes, priorities and behavior which produce the outcomes desired.
A more hands-on concept of fairness gives third parties a much bigger role to play. But whether any human being has ever had the omniscience to determine and undo the many differences among people born into different families and cultures – with different priorities, attitudes and behavior – is a very big question. Trying to change whole cultures and subcultures in which different individuals are raised would be a staggering task. But changing anyone's attitudes, priorities and behavior is a lot harder than taking a stance as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil. To the extent that doing the latter misdiagnoses the problem, it makes solving the problem even harder. That does no good for those who are lagging, however much it exalts those who pose as their defenders.
Whatever the innate capacity of any race, class or other group, what pays off in the real world are developed capabilities, and these have never been the same – or even close to being the same – for individuals or groups. Unfortunately fairness as equal treatment does not produce fairness as equal outcomes. The confusion between the two meanings of the same word has created enormous mischief, much of it at the expense of lagging groups, who have been distracted from the things that would enable them to catch up. And whole societies have been kept in a turmoil pursing a will o' the wisp in the name of "fairness."
But where did the attitude, “It's not fair” come from? For some reason we live with an expectation that life is supposed to be fair. Therefore, when we encounter a situation that appears not to be going the way we believe it should be going, we believe that its outcome is not fair. Children and adults appear to have similar definitions for what is not fair. These seem to be issues related to personal relationships, the equity of assigning responsibilities and expectations, and the distribution of gifts.
It appears that this attitude almost always arises whenever someone perceives or feels threatened that someone else may be getting something that she or he believes should be her or his. The perceived right to consider that something should go to me instead of another leads to the attitude that something is not fair when it does not go the way I desire. When this attitude is perceived, perhaps a consideration of one's selfishness scale should be considered.
Why do we believe things are not fair? This attitude seems to have developed from our first interactions with others and our observations of other people's activities and lives. These attitudes can be developed from watching television and seeing how other peoples' lives are lived – although fictitious. Often in TV Land and Movie Land we see personal encounters always work out and it appears that the main characters lives work out fairly. In many of the stories children are read, the stories end with happy endings. Perhaps these expectations of happy endings lead us to believe that our life incidents should all have happy endings. When our real-world lives do not always end with happy endings, then we may believe things are not fair.
Can we really change the attitude of “It's not fair”? Perhaps taking time to reflect on the fact that no one ever stated or proved that life was to be fair might help us to change our attitude. Also, if we develop an attitude of gratefulness for what we have and are not always looking at what other people have, we may stop evaluating our lives by what might be fair and be thankful for what we have. Perhaps by forming a more positive attitude towards our personal lives and the world around us we will be more satisfied with our lives and will not be so quick to look at another person's life and compare it with ours. By finding satisfaction in our own lives we might find that judging whether something is fair or not is no longer important. Finding fairness in life might be found in doing something to help one another.
"Life is unfair," John Kennedy observed at a press conference one day in 1962. The thought had a certain stoic grace about it. Bill Gates amplified it further when he said “Life is not fair: get used to it.”
anil
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Raging old men....
We live so long now that we have not one but two crisis in our lives – a mid life crisis at forty and a late life crisis at seventy!
Everyone knows what a mid life crisis is. In 1965, the Canadian psychologist Elliott Jaques coined the term midlife crisis to describe the trauma many individuals in the developed world felt around the age of 40, when they faced the imminence of old age and, eventually, death. In the traditional narrative of the crisis, individuals — mostly men — panic and make extreme compensations for this reality. Everyone also knows that the solution that is common to this crisis varies from a drastic change in lifestyle- a new, young blonde wife or a red racing car.
The late life crisis is different yet similar. At seventy most men have completed a successful career, amassed a modest fortune, built their dream house, married off their children, played enough golf and dandled umpteen grandchildren on their knees. Now as they contemplate the years ahead they ask themselves “Now what?”
This dilemma that afflicts a few in my generation was brought home to me when a friend of five decades dropped by to see me a few days ago. Here he was a technocrat who had had a successful career, made some creative contributions to the country, amassed adequate wealth, lived in an affluent suburb and was quoted often—but now not often enough- by the press as an elder statesman of his profession. He was relatively healthy but of course heir, like most men of his age, to varying afflictions. He had no major problems that I could discern. Yet..
“Honestly”, he confided in me, “some days I get up and ask myself why? What’s left?”
Looking around I found the late life crisis had caught many of my contemporaries by surprise. Yet some had found ways to cope with it. They had found their red racing cars or young blondes too. Of course, they were different at seventy than at forty! One had turned to spirituality and religious learning and now spent time teaching Gita to avid listeners; another had retreated to a bucolic retreat near the sea to a life of contemplation and reflection; one had found a new burst of energy and enthusiasm and now travelled the world helping volunteers teach the young and yet another had immersed himself in political activism and a renewed interest in old hobbies. They all seemed to have weathered this late life crisis.
But there was a common thread running through their lives too. It seemed to me that all of them had refused to go “gentle into the night”! They all refused to give up. Each day still brought new challenges, new ideas, new inspirations. In the past they had looked for results of their efforts, now they simply did what they enjoyed or felt deeply about.
And the advice they followed was what Dylan Thomas addressed to his octogenarian father, whose eyesight and general health were failing, where he urges his father to "burn and rave at close of day"--rather than surrendering meekly to it.
“Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
Everyone knows what a mid life crisis is. In 1965, the Canadian psychologist Elliott Jaques coined the term midlife crisis to describe the trauma many individuals in the developed world felt around the age of 40, when they faced the imminence of old age and, eventually, death. In the traditional narrative of the crisis, individuals — mostly men — panic and make extreme compensations for this reality. Everyone also knows that the solution that is common to this crisis varies from a drastic change in lifestyle- a new, young blonde wife or a red racing car.
The late life crisis is different yet similar. At seventy most men have completed a successful career, amassed a modest fortune, built their dream house, married off their children, played enough golf and dandled umpteen grandchildren on their knees. Now as they contemplate the years ahead they ask themselves “Now what?”
This dilemma that afflicts a few in my generation was brought home to me when a friend of five decades dropped by to see me a few days ago. Here he was a technocrat who had had a successful career, made some creative contributions to the country, amassed adequate wealth, lived in an affluent suburb and was quoted often—but now not often enough- by the press as an elder statesman of his profession. He was relatively healthy but of course heir, like most men of his age, to varying afflictions. He had no major problems that I could discern. Yet..
“Honestly”, he confided in me, “some days I get up and ask myself why? What’s left?”
Looking around I found the late life crisis had caught many of my contemporaries by surprise. Yet some had found ways to cope with it. They had found their red racing cars or young blondes too. Of course, they were different at seventy than at forty! One had turned to spirituality and religious learning and now spent time teaching Gita to avid listeners; another had retreated to a bucolic retreat near the sea to a life of contemplation and reflection; one had found a new burst of energy and enthusiasm and now travelled the world helping volunteers teach the young and yet another had immersed himself in political activism and a renewed interest in old hobbies. They all seemed to have weathered this late life crisis.
But there was a common thread running through their lives too. It seemed to me that all of them had refused to go “gentle into the night”! They all refused to give up. Each day still brought new challenges, new ideas, new inspirations. In the past they had looked for results of their efforts, now they simply did what they enjoyed or felt deeply about.
And the advice they followed was what Dylan Thomas addressed to his octogenarian father, whose eyesight and general health were failing, where he urges his father to "burn and rave at close of day"--rather than surrendering meekly to it.
“Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Marching backwards
It was not too long ago that Indian weddings lasted for over 5-10 days with hordes of friends and family descending on the hapless parents as they prepared to give their daughters hand away in marriage. Not only were the festivities long drawn and expensive, the parents of the bride also had to find adequate resources for the dowry that was then, explicitly and now implicitly, demanded by the bridegrooms family.That was then but now these wasteful ways are making an unfortunate comeback..
There have always been many many rituals in an Indian wedding. There were the ones before the marriage: the engagement, Barni Bandhwana, Mamara, Sangeet Sandhya, Tilak ceremony and Mehendi Lagwana. During the marriage festivities, there were the Barat Nikase, VarMala,Aart,Baasi Jawari, Kanya daan, Panigrahana Hathlewa,Gathabandhan,Laja Homa, Saptapadi and Vidaai. At the new home , there was the darshan, Dwar Rokai, Grihas Pravesh, Mook Dikhai and Pheri. All these rituals had one thing in common- they all required the expenditure of considerable sums of money by the bride’s parents. A daughter’s wedding was thus a crushing burden and many a parent had to go deep in debt to pay for these traditions
Of course defenders of these expensive traditions, and there were many, argued that the Indian shastras demanded these rituals, that this was once in a lifetime occurrence, that it provided the far flung family an occasion to meet—and they could hardly stay for a day after having travelled thousands of miles—that it was a marriage to two families not of two people etc. These arguments held sway for many years till dowry deaths in rural areas and the increasing debt burdens became a national disgrace
It was the national independence movement- and Pandit Nehru in particular—who took up the cause of reforming the Hindu marriage practices against considerable opposition form within his own party. The Hindu Code Bill, which intended to provide a civil code in place of the body of Hindu personal law, was presented to the Constituent Assembly on 9 April 1948. But it caused such a great deal of controversy that it was subsequently broke down to three more specialized bills: the Hindu Marriage Bill which outlawed polygamy and contained provisions dealing with inter caste marriages and divorce procedures; the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Bill had as its main thrust the adoption of girls, which till then had been little practiced; and the Hindu Succession Bill which placed daughters on the same footing as widows and sons where the inheritance of family property was concerned.
Dowry was and remains a social evil but continues to be a common practice in almost every part of India. Women at the time of marriage are expected to bring with them jewellery, cash and even consumer durables as part of dowry to the in-laws and they are subsequently ill-treated, often violently, if they fail to do so. Anti-dowry laws in India, enacted in 1961, prohibit the request, payment or acceptance of a dowry, "as consideration for the marriage". where "dowry" is defined as a gift demanded or given as a precondition for a marriage. Gifts given without a precondition are not considered dowry, and are legal. Asking or giving of dowry can be punished by an imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to Rs. 5000. But the laws themselves have done nothing to halt dowry transactions. Many of the victims are burnt to death - they are doused in kerosene and set fire to. Routinely the in-laws claim that the death happened simply due to an accident. According to data complied by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), a total of 2,276 female suicides due to dowry disputes were reported in 2006, that is six a day on an average. A total of 7,618 cases were registered under Dowry Death in 2006, while 6,787 cases were registered in 2005, showing a gradual increase in this sad statistic
The original concept of streedhan was based on providing a newly wed girl with some things that she could cherish and call her own. Today this concept has been vulgarized to symbolize all the things that not even the bridegroom, but his family wants to have as their own. India’s burgeoning middle class - now 300 million strong - are turning weddings into showcases of their growing disposable incomes and newfound appetites for the goodies of the global marketplace. The largesse has spawned an $11 billion wedding industry, growing at 25 percent annually and beginning to rival the US industry valued at $50 billion. It is estimated that the average budget for a middle class wedding ceremony in India today is $34,000 while the upper-middle and rich classes are known to spend upward of $2 million. This doesn’t include cash and valuables given as part of a dowry. Thus on average people earning a total of $6,000 / yr spend about $34,000 on a wedding. In contrast, the average wedding costs in the US are around $27,000, with a range of $25,000 to $30,000 generally accepted as accurate.
What has changed from the 1970s is the kind of demands being made on the bride's parents. Apart from "gifts" that are nothing short of extortion, the demands now involve the kind of wedding that will take place. There is a kind of pan-Indian wedding that is emerging that is dominated by the north Indian Punjabi style of celebration. Thus sangeet and mehndi are now a must at every wedding. Ostentation is in, regardless of what you can afford. You don't have to be a Mittal or a Chatwal to imagine that you are a prince or princess for that one day. Wedding organizers have everything ready from faux palaces to exotic locations. And ostensibly sensible young people are agreeing to these tamashas in the belief that there is nothing wrong with "living it up" for that one day. Gaudy displays of wealth and going one better than the neighbors seems to be the main motivation of these noveau- riche. Some few get dragged into these displays- their original intent of a simple wedding is soon expanded as family and friends suggest additions and rituals till it becomes a “tamasha” with the poor parents footing the bill and often going deep into debt. If it was only them, one could dismiss their antics as being driven by the lunatic fringe of show offs, but unfortunately these practices are slowly creeping back into rest of the country as well. Dowry demands are rising even though they are illegal and ostentatious displays of wealth in weddings are making a comeback with paid dancers and performers. In one case, the parents even organized rehearsals to imitate a wedding in a bollywood movie.
Customs like dowry can end only when the people involved, the young men and women, decide to go against the tide, demand simpler weddings and say a firm "no" to the vulgar demands that constitute a dowry. But today all these reforms seem to have fallen by the wayside and the reformers everywhere are in retreat. And worse, the charge to go backwards to the past is being led by the more educated and the better off. It is the NRIs around the world who are reverting back to these old rituals and customs- many times without understanding them at all. The modern Indian at home too is not a reformer. If anything he is a retrograde traditionalist.
But the real tragedy of the increasingly consumerist culture in which we live today is that young people, who one would expect are capable of thinking outside the box, who should have the courage to assert what they want, are either going on unquestioningly with wasteful traditions, or are even endorsing them. As a result, any desire to curb expenditure that existed in a generation that came out of the National Movement is now so thoroughly buried that one wonders whether it will ever surface again.
Marriages may not be made in heaven, but they should not end up sending people into the hellhole of lifelong debt and misery. Perhaps it is time for another reform movement starting with ones refusal to participate in these ostentatious displays.
There have always been many many rituals in an Indian wedding. There were the ones before the marriage: the engagement, Barni Bandhwana, Mamara, Sangeet Sandhya, Tilak ceremony and Mehendi Lagwana. During the marriage festivities, there were the Barat Nikase, VarMala,Aart,Baasi Jawari, Kanya daan, Panigrahana Hathlewa,Gathabandhan,Laja Homa, Saptapadi and Vidaai. At the new home , there was the darshan, Dwar Rokai, Grihas Pravesh, Mook Dikhai and Pheri. All these rituals had one thing in common- they all required the expenditure of considerable sums of money by the bride’s parents. A daughter’s wedding was thus a crushing burden and many a parent had to go deep in debt to pay for these traditions
Of course defenders of these expensive traditions, and there were many, argued that the Indian shastras demanded these rituals, that this was once in a lifetime occurrence, that it provided the far flung family an occasion to meet—and they could hardly stay for a day after having travelled thousands of miles—that it was a marriage to two families not of two people etc. These arguments held sway for many years till dowry deaths in rural areas and the increasing debt burdens became a national disgrace
It was the national independence movement- and Pandit Nehru in particular—who took up the cause of reforming the Hindu marriage practices against considerable opposition form within his own party. The Hindu Code Bill, which intended to provide a civil code in place of the body of Hindu personal law, was presented to the Constituent Assembly on 9 April 1948. But it caused such a great deal of controversy that it was subsequently broke down to three more specialized bills: the Hindu Marriage Bill which outlawed polygamy and contained provisions dealing with inter caste marriages and divorce procedures; the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Bill had as its main thrust the adoption of girls, which till then had been little practiced; and the Hindu Succession Bill which placed daughters on the same footing as widows and sons where the inheritance of family property was concerned.
Dowry was and remains a social evil but continues to be a common practice in almost every part of India. Women at the time of marriage are expected to bring with them jewellery, cash and even consumer durables as part of dowry to the in-laws and they are subsequently ill-treated, often violently, if they fail to do so. Anti-dowry laws in India, enacted in 1961, prohibit the request, payment or acceptance of a dowry, "as consideration for the marriage". where "dowry" is defined as a gift demanded or given as a precondition for a marriage. Gifts given without a precondition are not considered dowry, and are legal. Asking or giving of dowry can be punished by an imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to Rs. 5000. But the laws themselves have done nothing to halt dowry transactions. Many of the victims are burnt to death - they are doused in kerosene and set fire to. Routinely the in-laws claim that the death happened simply due to an accident. According to data complied by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), a total of 2,276 female suicides due to dowry disputes were reported in 2006, that is six a day on an average. A total of 7,618 cases were registered under Dowry Death in 2006, while 6,787 cases were registered in 2005, showing a gradual increase in this sad statistic
The original concept of streedhan was based on providing a newly wed girl with some things that she could cherish and call her own. Today this concept has been vulgarized to symbolize all the things that not even the bridegroom, but his family wants to have as their own. India’s burgeoning middle class - now 300 million strong - are turning weddings into showcases of their growing disposable incomes and newfound appetites for the goodies of the global marketplace. The largesse has spawned an $11 billion wedding industry, growing at 25 percent annually and beginning to rival the US industry valued at $50 billion. It is estimated that the average budget for a middle class wedding ceremony in India today is $34,000 while the upper-middle and rich classes are known to spend upward of $2 million. This doesn’t include cash and valuables given as part of a dowry. Thus on average people earning a total of $6,000 / yr spend about $34,000 on a wedding. In contrast, the average wedding costs in the US are around $27,000, with a range of $25,000 to $30,000 generally accepted as accurate.
What has changed from the 1970s is the kind of demands being made on the bride's parents. Apart from "gifts" that are nothing short of extortion, the demands now involve the kind of wedding that will take place. There is a kind of pan-Indian wedding that is emerging that is dominated by the north Indian Punjabi style of celebration. Thus sangeet and mehndi are now a must at every wedding. Ostentation is in, regardless of what you can afford. You don't have to be a Mittal or a Chatwal to imagine that you are a prince or princess for that one day. Wedding organizers have everything ready from faux palaces to exotic locations. And ostensibly sensible young people are agreeing to these tamashas in the belief that there is nothing wrong with "living it up" for that one day. Gaudy displays of wealth and going one better than the neighbors seems to be the main motivation of these noveau- riche. Some few get dragged into these displays- their original intent of a simple wedding is soon expanded as family and friends suggest additions and rituals till it becomes a “tamasha” with the poor parents footing the bill and often going deep into debt. If it was only them, one could dismiss their antics as being driven by the lunatic fringe of show offs, but unfortunately these practices are slowly creeping back into rest of the country as well. Dowry demands are rising even though they are illegal and ostentatious displays of wealth in weddings are making a comeback with paid dancers and performers. In one case, the parents even organized rehearsals to imitate a wedding in a bollywood movie.
Customs like dowry can end only when the people involved, the young men and women, decide to go against the tide, demand simpler weddings and say a firm "no" to the vulgar demands that constitute a dowry. But today all these reforms seem to have fallen by the wayside and the reformers everywhere are in retreat. And worse, the charge to go backwards to the past is being led by the more educated and the better off. It is the NRIs around the world who are reverting back to these old rituals and customs- many times without understanding them at all. The modern Indian at home too is not a reformer. If anything he is a retrograde traditionalist.
But the real tragedy of the increasingly consumerist culture in which we live today is that young people, who one would expect are capable of thinking outside the box, who should have the courage to assert what they want, are either going on unquestioningly with wasteful traditions, or are even endorsing them. As a result, any desire to curb expenditure that existed in a generation that came out of the National Movement is now so thoroughly buried that one wonders whether it will ever surface again.
Marriages may not be made in heaven, but they should not end up sending people into the hellhole of lifelong debt and misery. Perhaps it is time for another reform movement starting with ones refusal to participate in these ostentatious displays.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Sporting Life
It is said that nations reveal themselves in their choice of sports and the way they play them. David Brooks in an interesting article points out the centrality of sports in the cultural and social life of a country.
Of course, people in any country participate in sports for a variety of reasons—health and fitness, stress management, socialization, relaxation, and others. But one of the more important reasons is character development. “Sport builds character” is an often used phrase. The Victorians, who were behind the idea - and who invented most of the sports we play - believed it bred every virtue you can think of: self- confidence, respect for the rules, a sense of fair play, physical bravery, grace under pressure, equanimity in defeat and magnanimity in victory. Indeed it is argued that sports culture influences young people as they are growing up.It discourages whining, and rewards self-discipline. It teaches self-control and its own form of justice, which has a more powerful effect than anything taught in the classroom.
Every country has a favorite sport which in a certain sense defines its essence. The concentration of a country on a particular sport also pervades its entire culture and mind set that emerges in interesting and contrasting ways
Thus the US, which does have a number of favorite sports- baseball, basketball, football – but football remains the quintessential American sport and defines its character. American football is played over four quarters and lasts one hour in terms of official playing time although it drags on usually for a couple of hours with all the interruptions for TV ads and injuries. It is a game of power and strategy where each player has to function as a part of the effort at all times. While there is a coin tossing captain, the fact is that the entire effort is coordinated and led by a quarterback. And the important thing in US football is that there is always a result- there is always a winner and a loser.
By contrast, European football or soccer takes only ninety minutes with one break. There is a captain but the only role he seems to play is to wear a small armband and to remonstrate with the referee when one of his team is being turned out of the game. The eleven men do play as a team but winning more often relies on individual brilliance than any coordinated attacks. Also it is not sure that each game will end in a result- a draw is an equally acceptable outcome.
Indian cricket, however, lasts 40 hours- yes 40 hours- spread over five days. Even the shortened version of the game- the one dayer- lasts for 8 hours with breaks for morning tea, lunch and evening tea. For the non aficionado, it is often difficult to make out if anything is happening on the field for long periods of time. It is difficult to determine who is the leader of the team as everyone seems to congregate to offer advice on how to proceed. The external elements play a major part whether it is the state of the pitch or the possibility of rain during the match. And, of course, even after five days, it is equally possible that there is no result – called a draw- and the opposing teams move on to another locale to repeat the five day game and perhaps another draw.
Growing up, children in these countries must imbibe the culture and rhythm of these popular sports. Thus is it any wonder that American kids and adults are impatient for results in quick time and want a clear winner or loser? Or that the Europeans tend to accept draw as a fair conclusion to any combat and are willing to wait for another occasion to find a result. Or that the Indians learn patience and are willing to accept the influence of external environment on their lives or the absence of motion as normal?
Throughout Western history, Professor Gillespie of Duke University, argues, there have been three major athletic traditions. First, there was the Greek tradition. Greek sports were highly individualistic. There was little interest in teamwork. Instead sports were supposed to inculcate aristocratic virtues like courage and endurance. They gave individuals a way to achieve eternal glory.
Then, there was the Roman tradition. In ancient Rome, free men did not fight in the arena. Roman sports were a spectacle organized by the government. The free Romans watched while the slaves fought and were slaughtered. The entertainment emphasized the awesome power of the state.
Finally, there was the British tradition. In the Victorian era, elite schools used sports to form a hardened ruling class. Unlike the Greeks, the British placed tremendous emphasis on team play and sportsmanship. If a soccer team committed a foul, it would withdraw its goalie to permit the other team to score. The object was to inculcate a sense of group loyalty, honor and rule-abidingness — traits that were important to a class trying to manage a far-flung empire.
American sports like football, Gillespie argues, have an ethos which is a fusion of these three traditions. These sports teach that individual effort leads to victory, a useful lesson in a work-oriented society. But as in sports, it is necessary to navigate the tension between team loyalty and individual glory.
Cricket played in the British tradition had always emphasized team work and loyalty. It was said that “The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton” But when the cult of the amateur was replaced by the money culture of the professional, the team ethos rapidly frayed.
But now sports in every country has become too Romanized. Seasons have become too long and the arenas too gargantuan. Athletes have become a separate gladiator class, and the recruitment process gives them an undue sense of their own worth. Individual players – be they football quarterbacks, soccer stars or graceful batsmen- are now bought and sold for the different leagues at annual auctions. Does this remind one of the slave auctions a hundred years ago in the deep South of the US? A cult of “win at any cost” now pervades the entire sports scene and incidents of ball tampering, ball handling and use of performance enhancement drugs have become a regular feature. As one coach sardonically put it “winning may not be everything, but losing is nothing”. Spectators too have been reduced to an anonymous mass of passive consumers of other people’s excellence.
It is indeed a far cry from sports inculcating good habits like self discipline, team loyalty and hard work in the citizenry of a country..
Of course, people in any country participate in sports for a variety of reasons—health and fitness, stress management, socialization, relaxation, and others. But one of the more important reasons is character development. “Sport builds character” is an often used phrase. The Victorians, who were behind the idea - and who invented most of the sports we play - believed it bred every virtue you can think of: self- confidence, respect for the rules, a sense of fair play, physical bravery, grace under pressure, equanimity in defeat and magnanimity in victory. Indeed it is argued that sports culture influences young people as they are growing up.It discourages whining, and rewards self-discipline. It teaches self-control and its own form of justice, which has a more powerful effect than anything taught in the classroom.
Every country has a favorite sport which in a certain sense defines its essence. The concentration of a country on a particular sport also pervades its entire culture and mind set that emerges in interesting and contrasting ways
Thus the US, which does have a number of favorite sports- baseball, basketball, football – but football remains the quintessential American sport and defines its character. American football is played over four quarters and lasts one hour in terms of official playing time although it drags on usually for a couple of hours with all the interruptions for TV ads and injuries. It is a game of power and strategy where each player has to function as a part of the effort at all times. While there is a coin tossing captain, the fact is that the entire effort is coordinated and led by a quarterback. And the important thing in US football is that there is always a result- there is always a winner and a loser.
By contrast, European football or soccer takes only ninety minutes with one break. There is a captain but the only role he seems to play is to wear a small armband and to remonstrate with the referee when one of his team is being turned out of the game. The eleven men do play as a team but winning more often relies on individual brilliance than any coordinated attacks. Also it is not sure that each game will end in a result- a draw is an equally acceptable outcome.
Indian cricket, however, lasts 40 hours- yes 40 hours- spread over five days. Even the shortened version of the game- the one dayer- lasts for 8 hours with breaks for morning tea, lunch and evening tea. For the non aficionado, it is often difficult to make out if anything is happening on the field for long periods of time. It is difficult to determine who is the leader of the team as everyone seems to congregate to offer advice on how to proceed. The external elements play a major part whether it is the state of the pitch or the possibility of rain during the match. And, of course, even after five days, it is equally possible that there is no result – called a draw- and the opposing teams move on to another locale to repeat the five day game and perhaps another draw.
Growing up, children in these countries must imbibe the culture and rhythm of these popular sports. Thus is it any wonder that American kids and adults are impatient for results in quick time and want a clear winner or loser? Or that the Europeans tend to accept draw as a fair conclusion to any combat and are willing to wait for another occasion to find a result. Or that the Indians learn patience and are willing to accept the influence of external environment on their lives or the absence of motion as normal?
Throughout Western history, Professor Gillespie of Duke University, argues, there have been three major athletic traditions. First, there was the Greek tradition. Greek sports were highly individualistic. There was little interest in teamwork. Instead sports were supposed to inculcate aristocratic virtues like courage and endurance. They gave individuals a way to achieve eternal glory.
Then, there was the Roman tradition. In ancient Rome, free men did not fight in the arena. Roman sports were a spectacle organized by the government. The free Romans watched while the slaves fought and were slaughtered. The entertainment emphasized the awesome power of the state.
Finally, there was the British tradition. In the Victorian era, elite schools used sports to form a hardened ruling class. Unlike the Greeks, the British placed tremendous emphasis on team play and sportsmanship. If a soccer team committed a foul, it would withdraw its goalie to permit the other team to score. The object was to inculcate a sense of group loyalty, honor and rule-abidingness — traits that were important to a class trying to manage a far-flung empire.
American sports like football, Gillespie argues, have an ethos which is a fusion of these three traditions. These sports teach that individual effort leads to victory, a useful lesson in a work-oriented society. But as in sports, it is necessary to navigate the tension between team loyalty and individual glory.
Cricket played in the British tradition had always emphasized team work and loyalty. It was said that “The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton” But when the cult of the amateur was replaced by the money culture of the professional, the team ethos rapidly frayed.
But now sports in every country has become too Romanized. Seasons have become too long and the arenas too gargantuan. Athletes have become a separate gladiator class, and the recruitment process gives them an undue sense of their own worth. Individual players – be they football quarterbacks, soccer stars or graceful batsmen- are now bought and sold for the different leagues at annual auctions. Does this remind one of the slave auctions a hundred years ago in the deep South of the US? A cult of “win at any cost” now pervades the entire sports scene and incidents of ball tampering, ball handling and use of performance enhancement drugs have become a regular feature. As one coach sardonically put it “winning may not be everything, but losing is nothing”. Spectators too have been reduced to an anonymous mass of passive consumers of other people’s excellence.
It is indeed a far cry from sports inculcating good habits like self discipline, team loyalty and hard work in the citizenry of a country..
Monday, February 8, 2010
The sins of the fathers…
Sometimes the sins of the fathers do dog their offsprings and in unintended ways. So it is with fathers and their daughters.
Even as most fathers laud the career success of their daughters, they simultaneously fret that she may lack completeness in her life in the absence of a husband and children. And this dilemma only increases with time as, with every professional advancement, the daughter becomes even more difficult to find a mate for. And yet this predicament is at least partly of the fathers making.
Let me explain. In an earlier generation and during the freedom struggle, one of the leading beliefs among the freedom fighters was that the country would not advance without the education of women, that backwardness could only be cured by making sure that women had equal rights and opportunities, that much of societies ills – dowry , sati, etc—stemmed from a lack of economic independence among women. Thus in this generation there was a special emphasis on the education of girls. and that they were treated on par with the sons. Our generation, too, had taken this to heart. I remember telling my children that they should have a professional education. Underlying this was the belief that if the daughters had an education, they would have economic independence and hence not be subject to infliction of hurt by demanding in laws, an unjust husband and that even in case of widowhood; they would be able to support their family by themselves. That was the original theory but as in all theories, it had unintended consequences.
As these daughters grew, they took their education seriously and were dogged in their pursuit of professional excellence. And they became independent in every way including the search for a mate. This was after all the era of equal rights for women.
Of course, most fathers in this generation had originally only wanted their daughters to treat education as a sort of a safety net and not as a profession. They were to be educated but then marry and settle down as normal housewives. For that was the normal tenor of life. What these modern fathers had not bargained for was that this education would lead their daughters to pursue careers with as much zest and passion as their male siblings. This is the kernel of the dilemma today.
These educated daughters far from agreeing to settle down to felicitous domesticity, started querying whether sacrificing a professional career they had worked so hard to develop, should be so easily given up for just any husband. And as they progressed upwards in their professional careers, finding a suitable match became increasingly difficult in their busy lives. Their ambivalence was made worse by looking at some of their contemporaries who had studied to become lawyers or doctors but who had had to give these professions up due to demands of marriage. Many had chosen to follow their husbands sacrificing their budding careers for his. Others who had chosen to follow dual path careers found life difficult when children arrived. Balancing motherhood, wifehood and a career brought pressures they were not really willing to embrace eagerly.
So they dallied hoping against hope for a resolution. But time only made the quandary worse. Of course not all faced this dilemma- many did find their own mates and settled down to domestic life. But for many women now in their thirties, the remaining options start narrowing rapidly.
Most still hoped to find a mate who was mature and independent and close to their imagined prince charming and one not afraid of aggressive, successful females.My own hard charging cardiologist realized her predicament when her parents died and she had no siblings. She had always been an aggressive career driven person but approaching her forties she realized she was all alone. So in a typical organized fashion she logged on to many of the dating sites and within two years found her soul mate. She is now married with a beautiful son and pursuing her profession as a research scientist. So it is possible but needs first, recognition of the issue and then persistence in finding a solution.
Another approach is articulated by Lori Gottlieb in a controversial article who posits that women need to accept men who are “Just good enough husband” material. “You have a fulfilling job, a great group of friends, the perfect apartment, and no shortage of dates. So what if you haven’t found The One just yet. Surely he’ll come along, right? But what if he doesn’t? Or even worse, what if he already has, but you just didn’t realize it?”
Maybe single women everywhere needed to stop chasing the elusive Prince Charming and instead go for Mr. Good Enough. Most women keep holding out for deep romantic love in the fantasy that this level of passionate intensity will make them happier. Another opines “I would say even if he’s not the love of your life, make sure he’s someone you respect intellectually, makes you laugh, appreciates you … I bet there are plenty of these men in the older, overweight, and bald category (which they all eventually become anyway).” In short marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you’re looking for a stable, reliable life companion.
Some women have opted to skip the husband and marriage routine altogether. A number of women I know have gone ahead and adopted a child even without a husband. Times have changed indeed and this is no longer frowned upon even in traditional societies like India. Of course they do face the problem of all single mothers albeit with a difference in this case the child is really wanted and the father would not run away. A supporting family is normally a bulwark but the absence of a male figure growing up would remain leaving at least some lack in the child’s life.
Or they could become like some women who have everything —career success, economic independence, and physical freedom. Everything that is except a husband and perhaps a child.
Some of these fathers, who had proudly lauded the success of their daughters, often rued in private, their liberal decision to educate women. It is as if they were saying, we should have educated them but not so much!
But most of the fathers I know were unashamedly proud of their daughter’s achievements and were adamant that if they were to do it again, they would still go ahead and educate their daughters so that they could achieve their potential even if it meant a lifestyle different from the traditional one they had hoped for.
Even as most fathers laud the career success of their daughters, they simultaneously fret that she may lack completeness in her life in the absence of a husband and children. And this dilemma only increases with time as, with every professional advancement, the daughter becomes even more difficult to find a mate for. And yet this predicament is at least partly of the fathers making.
Let me explain. In an earlier generation and during the freedom struggle, one of the leading beliefs among the freedom fighters was that the country would not advance without the education of women, that backwardness could only be cured by making sure that women had equal rights and opportunities, that much of societies ills – dowry , sati, etc—stemmed from a lack of economic independence among women. Thus in this generation there was a special emphasis on the education of girls. and that they were treated on par with the sons. Our generation, too, had taken this to heart. I remember telling my children that they should have a professional education. Underlying this was the belief that if the daughters had an education, they would have economic independence and hence not be subject to infliction of hurt by demanding in laws, an unjust husband and that even in case of widowhood; they would be able to support their family by themselves. That was the original theory but as in all theories, it had unintended consequences.
As these daughters grew, they took their education seriously and were dogged in their pursuit of professional excellence. And they became independent in every way including the search for a mate. This was after all the era of equal rights for women.
Of course, most fathers in this generation had originally only wanted their daughters to treat education as a sort of a safety net and not as a profession. They were to be educated but then marry and settle down as normal housewives. For that was the normal tenor of life. What these modern fathers had not bargained for was that this education would lead their daughters to pursue careers with as much zest and passion as their male siblings. This is the kernel of the dilemma today.
These educated daughters far from agreeing to settle down to felicitous domesticity, started querying whether sacrificing a professional career they had worked so hard to develop, should be so easily given up for just any husband. And as they progressed upwards in their professional careers, finding a suitable match became increasingly difficult in their busy lives. Their ambivalence was made worse by looking at some of their contemporaries who had studied to become lawyers or doctors but who had had to give these professions up due to demands of marriage. Many had chosen to follow their husbands sacrificing their budding careers for his. Others who had chosen to follow dual path careers found life difficult when children arrived. Balancing motherhood, wifehood and a career brought pressures they were not really willing to embrace eagerly.
So they dallied hoping against hope for a resolution. But time only made the quandary worse. Of course not all faced this dilemma- many did find their own mates and settled down to domestic life. But for many women now in their thirties, the remaining options start narrowing rapidly.
Most still hoped to find a mate who was mature and independent and close to their imagined prince charming and one not afraid of aggressive, successful females.My own hard charging cardiologist realized her predicament when her parents died and she had no siblings. She had always been an aggressive career driven person but approaching her forties she realized she was all alone. So in a typical organized fashion she logged on to many of the dating sites and within two years found her soul mate. She is now married with a beautiful son and pursuing her profession as a research scientist. So it is possible but needs first, recognition of the issue and then persistence in finding a solution.
Another approach is articulated by Lori Gottlieb in a controversial article who posits that women need to accept men who are “Just good enough husband” material. “You have a fulfilling job, a great group of friends, the perfect apartment, and no shortage of dates. So what if you haven’t found The One just yet. Surely he’ll come along, right? But what if he doesn’t? Or even worse, what if he already has, but you just didn’t realize it?”
Maybe single women everywhere needed to stop chasing the elusive Prince Charming and instead go for Mr. Good Enough. Most women keep holding out for deep romantic love in the fantasy that this level of passionate intensity will make them happier. Another opines “I would say even if he’s not the love of your life, make sure he’s someone you respect intellectually, makes you laugh, appreciates you … I bet there are plenty of these men in the older, overweight, and bald category (which they all eventually become anyway).” In short marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you’re looking for a stable, reliable life companion.
Some women have opted to skip the husband and marriage routine altogether. A number of women I know have gone ahead and adopted a child even without a husband. Times have changed indeed and this is no longer frowned upon even in traditional societies like India. Of course they do face the problem of all single mothers albeit with a difference in this case the child is really wanted and the father would not run away. A supporting family is normally a bulwark but the absence of a male figure growing up would remain leaving at least some lack in the child’s life.
Or they could become like some women who have everything —career success, economic independence, and physical freedom. Everything that is except a husband and perhaps a child.
Some of these fathers, who had proudly lauded the success of their daughters, often rued in private, their liberal decision to educate women. It is as if they were saying, we should have educated them but not so much!
But most of the fathers I know were unashamedly proud of their daughter’s achievements and were adamant that if they were to do it again, they would still go ahead and educate their daughters so that they could achieve their potential even if it meant a lifestyle different from the traditional one they had hoped for.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Women who have everything…
A few days ago I was searching for a gift for a friend of mine when I suddenly realized that she really had everything and that there was nothing that I could find for her as a gift that she did not already have!
She belonged to a new and growing group of elite women that I know who have everything. They all have achieved tremendous personal success in their careers. And they are unique because their rise has come through their own efforts rather than through family connections or businesses. Many of them are now at the height of their professions. One runs her own international garment business, another is chief executive of biomedical company, a third is head of a large NGO. All have reached the pinnacle of success while still in their fifties and were the cynosure of all eyes in the society they moved and incurred the envy of their contemporaries.
While successful they all shared some rather interesting traits. Most of them were divorced—a divorce initiated generally by them at a rather early stage in their marriage. Since they were all now in their fifties, it was clear that their divorces would have caused them grief in the traditional society they lived in and that this would have been done against the advice of their parents. Here I am speculating.. But the very fact that they had gone ahead with the divorce was an early indication of the steel and determination that lay beneath their mild exteriors. Clearly in most cases, they felt that marriage was or would constrict their creative talents and that they needed to move out of this relationship to carve out a distinct life for themselves. It was a risky step indeed but they had thrown caution to the winds and gone ahead. And leaving the married life despite angry protestations of their parents became the first step in their emancipation.
Once thus freed, they had devoted themselves with fierce determination to making a success of their career. Indeed many of them worked far harder than their male counterparts. Most of them were true workaholics, with one hand permanently glued to a blackberry. Having left prospect of a peaceful family life behind them, they all tended to substitute work for all the joys of domestic life. All of them worked tirelessly and at all hours to prove themselves. And all of them had.
With professional success had come economic independence as well. They all earned sizeable incomes and stock options. They owned the latest cars, dressed in the latest fashions and reveled in gourmet food and the latest wines. All now owned houses- one owned several and in different parts of the world. All took luxury vacations when they could tear themselves away from work, and had financial consultants to help them manage their increasing assets.
Physically they seemed to be in their prime glowing with the health that success inevitably brings. While face lifts and other lifts had yet to penetrate the Indian market except for the very rich, these women did spend considerable time at gyms or spas or with personal trainers to ensure that they remained in vigorous trim.
So here they were all these women who seemed to have everything—career success, economic independence, and physical freedom. What more could they want?
So I asked some of these high flying women “what do you lack in your life?”
One of them paused reflectively and replied in a pensive voice: “It is true that we have financial and professional security but what many of us lack is emotional support and security. “
Lacking a life partner, most of these women sought this emotional security and comfort in their families. All became were very close to their parents and siblings and spent an extraordinary amount of time with them. Some adopted a child and lavished their love and care on them. Others became god parents to their nieces and nephews and doted on them lavishing presents on them on all occasions.
But just as poverty brings problems, too much wealth too brings its own unique sets of problems as well. They find that a whole range of people becoming increasingly dependant on them. Family retainers often become family extortionists. Having achieved some considerable financial wealth and having no heirs to pass this onto, they often become, many times unwittingly, the expected generous aunts to their varied nephews and nieces. These in turn create new dilemmas for when the time comes to allocate their wealth, they do not know if they should treat them all equally or to play favorites, often causing rifts with their siblings.
Others still searched for their ideal soul mate even using the internet to find them. But even in this search, there was ambivalence. Did they really want a prince charming at this stage of their lives? Did they really want to give up their hard earned independence for emotional security?
“Would you consider marriage at this stage?”, I asked one of them.
“ No” she replied, “ one, it would be exceedingly difficult to find a soul mate at this stage of my life, and two, I may find one but if he becomes unwell – after all statistically men are more likely to die early or have terminal diseases—I will have to leave my career to tend to him and become his caregiver for the rest of my life. I am not sure that that would provide me with any emotional security at this stage of my life either. So, marriage no, but companionship, perhaps.”
“But what happens if you fall sick? Who will look after you and tend to you?”
This does give them pause. Being physically fit at this age, they find it difficult to imagine a time when they will encounter a serious illness or need hospitalization. It turns out, in the absence of any close family; they tend to rely on their close friends to fill this emotional need and help. It is no wonder that most of them have really close friends that they spend time with and whose friendships they nurture with considerable avidity.
And what about a lonely old age? Are they afraid of being left ignored in some corner while life passes by as they retire. Actually the reverse. In general it is women who are better able to deal with old age than men. Women find it easier to develop new hobbies- in most cases it is gourmet cooking or travel or art. Many move into volunteer activities and their lifetime of experience in the corporate world gives them considerable advantage over others. So instead of dreading life after retirement, these successful women often welcome the opportunity of using their remaining time in more useful ways.
These women are true pioneers of a new lifestyle as they continue solving the varied problems that their new life poses with considerable creativity and élan. As for that gift, a bunch of flowers perhaps?
She belonged to a new and growing group of elite women that I know who have everything. They all have achieved tremendous personal success in their careers. And they are unique because their rise has come through their own efforts rather than through family connections or businesses. Many of them are now at the height of their professions. One runs her own international garment business, another is chief executive of biomedical company, a third is head of a large NGO. All have reached the pinnacle of success while still in their fifties and were the cynosure of all eyes in the society they moved and incurred the envy of their contemporaries.
While successful they all shared some rather interesting traits. Most of them were divorced—a divorce initiated generally by them at a rather early stage in their marriage. Since they were all now in their fifties, it was clear that their divorces would have caused them grief in the traditional society they lived in and that this would have been done against the advice of their parents. Here I am speculating.. But the very fact that they had gone ahead with the divorce was an early indication of the steel and determination that lay beneath their mild exteriors. Clearly in most cases, they felt that marriage was or would constrict their creative talents and that they needed to move out of this relationship to carve out a distinct life for themselves. It was a risky step indeed but they had thrown caution to the winds and gone ahead. And leaving the married life despite angry protestations of their parents became the first step in their emancipation.
Once thus freed, they had devoted themselves with fierce determination to making a success of their career. Indeed many of them worked far harder than their male counterparts. Most of them were true workaholics, with one hand permanently glued to a blackberry. Having left prospect of a peaceful family life behind them, they all tended to substitute work for all the joys of domestic life. All of them worked tirelessly and at all hours to prove themselves. And all of them had.
With professional success had come economic independence as well. They all earned sizeable incomes and stock options. They owned the latest cars, dressed in the latest fashions and reveled in gourmet food and the latest wines. All now owned houses- one owned several and in different parts of the world. All took luxury vacations when they could tear themselves away from work, and had financial consultants to help them manage their increasing assets.
Physically they seemed to be in their prime glowing with the health that success inevitably brings. While face lifts and other lifts had yet to penetrate the Indian market except for the very rich, these women did spend considerable time at gyms or spas or with personal trainers to ensure that they remained in vigorous trim.
So here they were all these women who seemed to have everything—career success, economic independence, and physical freedom. What more could they want?
So I asked some of these high flying women “what do you lack in your life?”
One of them paused reflectively and replied in a pensive voice: “It is true that we have financial and professional security but what many of us lack is emotional support and security. “
Lacking a life partner, most of these women sought this emotional security and comfort in their families. All became were very close to their parents and siblings and spent an extraordinary amount of time with them. Some adopted a child and lavished their love and care on them. Others became god parents to their nieces and nephews and doted on them lavishing presents on them on all occasions.
But just as poverty brings problems, too much wealth too brings its own unique sets of problems as well. They find that a whole range of people becoming increasingly dependant on them. Family retainers often become family extortionists. Having achieved some considerable financial wealth and having no heirs to pass this onto, they often become, many times unwittingly, the expected generous aunts to their varied nephews and nieces. These in turn create new dilemmas for when the time comes to allocate their wealth, they do not know if they should treat them all equally or to play favorites, often causing rifts with their siblings.
Others still searched for their ideal soul mate even using the internet to find them. But even in this search, there was ambivalence. Did they really want a prince charming at this stage of their lives? Did they really want to give up their hard earned independence for emotional security?
“Would you consider marriage at this stage?”, I asked one of them.
“ No” she replied, “ one, it would be exceedingly difficult to find a soul mate at this stage of my life, and two, I may find one but if he becomes unwell – after all statistically men are more likely to die early or have terminal diseases—I will have to leave my career to tend to him and become his caregiver for the rest of my life. I am not sure that that would provide me with any emotional security at this stage of my life either. So, marriage no, but companionship, perhaps.”
“But what happens if you fall sick? Who will look after you and tend to you?”
This does give them pause. Being physically fit at this age, they find it difficult to imagine a time when they will encounter a serious illness or need hospitalization. It turns out, in the absence of any close family; they tend to rely on their close friends to fill this emotional need and help. It is no wonder that most of them have really close friends that they spend time with and whose friendships they nurture with considerable avidity.
And what about a lonely old age? Are they afraid of being left ignored in some corner while life passes by as they retire. Actually the reverse. In general it is women who are better able to deal with old age than men. Women find it easier to develop new hobbies- in most cases it is gourmet cooking or travel or art. Many move into volunteer activities and their lifetime of experience in the corporate world gives them considerable advantage over others. So instead of dreading life after retirement, these successful women often welcome the opportunity of using their remaining time in more useful ways.
These women are true pioneers of a new lifestyle as they continue solving the varied problems that their new life poses with considerable creativity and élan. As for that gift, a bunch of flowers perhaps?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)