Fix the System, Not the Women by Laura Bates

The system somehow reflects how the society is, so implying that fixing one is going to fix the other is a premise set to fail.

The word is changing, and there are developments in a lot of areas where the attitude, environment, and system has improved even if it is far from where it is expected to be. However, the crime against woman is not such a field. Violent crimes are sometimes gender neutral but the gender specific crime rates can't hide behind the argument of it going up overall.

The women are still vulnerable to a lot of crimes, and petty mindedness which can be only fought with implementation (not just creation) of tougher rules, and education. This is easier said than done but this is the best way forward.

Peace

Confessions of an English Opium-Eater by Thomas de Quincey

This is something which I was reading in parallel to other books during commuting.

It is marked as a classic or the firs one in drug addiction writing but this doesn't go very far beyond the clouds, memory of some moments, general apathy, and all the senseless ideas which keep people hooked to an addictive substance.

This is more like a self-aggrandizement statement rather than a record of experiences.

Not worth a read even if it so small.

Peace

Different by Frans de Waal

Does gender defines the way a person behaves? What is the difference between gender and sex? Do people born with gender irrespective of sex?

Chimps and bonobos are human's closest relatives in the evolution cycle. Primatology is an observational field which records the interaction of any species to understand its behaviour. Chimps and gorillas have very clear physical distinctions between male and female, and they are known for the male aggression. But if we set aside the alpha male theory, there is a lot in their behaviour that trumps the whole idea of male domination. The male is more territorial and hungry for leadership (which leads to more mating opportunities) while female are seen as the pilar of social cohesion, and in this role they do perform a lot of negotiations/power balances that the idea of alpha male sounds ridiculous.

Additionally, if we turn our attention to bonobos, the whole idea of any domination, authority, sexual definition/preferences etc just goes for a toss. Bonobos are rarely in conflict for power irrespective of gender. But this is something which doesn't sell, and to add injury to insult - their hypersexuality is something which is always whitewashed in any documentary about them.

Ultimate question - does the behaviour of closest primates tell how humans inherit their gender? Maybe or maybe not, depending on whom you're asking. But an observational primatologist can tell you that we've more in common with chimps and bonobos than we can accept.

This might not be the best argument defining gender dynamics but something worth a thought.

Love

The Devil's Element by Dan Egan

The devil's element is Phosphorous and it is called so because it glows in dark, and can catch fire on in air with moderate temperature.

The whole ecosystem which supports the life as we see is a very fine balance between all the elements in nature. The human consumption behaviour at a large scale can disturb this balance which results in catastrophic events which is not just global warming but others as well.

This one is focused on Phosphorous which was part of this balance but the imbalance due to human activities (industries, agriculture and even dairy farms) has tipped the balance, and once this phosphorous shows up in the fresh water lakes and rivers, its immediately puts the life around it in danger. Not just the marine life but human life as well. The books explains the results of free phosphorous in the nature, and does explore its historical origin when the humans started using at an industrial scale.

Ozone layer was a victim of such industrialisation and a restriction over CPC set the path for its recovery. This can be done again with Phosphorous but it needs more efforts and coordination not just with the industries but people's consumption habits as well. This requires education not only for the policy makers but it also needs wider visibility among consumers.

Peace

Trust the Plan by Will Sommer

Any explanation of causation which is far from fact can or can not be called conspiracy theory. But does the facts make much difference? Does a plain hard fact changes the perception of a believer in conspiracy theory? Maybe not because that unfounded belief is the first thing that nurtures such theories.

Having these theories in all spheres of society is not a new thing. Humans believe in these theories since long when we started playing make believe games. It just got amplified with the help of social media which provides a fertile field to spread far and wide. A probable reason for people latching on to a theory is that it explains things in such a way that it potentially absolves the adopter from any real or imaginary guilt. It also provides a narrative which is more easier to follow with less mental acuity, and no efforts. Once sold it propagates on its own.

The good news is that these theories wither on their own in the face of time but not until sometimes causing some great damage. The bad news is that there is no way of fighting these apart from real cold facts which has less chance of success due to the mental blockage which favours such theory over a fact.

Most of the times there is some vested interest in propagation of such theories which can be financial or political but there are times when it just part of a thought without serving any purpose which may sound harmless until it moves into more violent domains.

It would be so easy to say that all such narratives should be judged by rationality but a fertile mind for such theory just doesn't have the interest or inclination for any rational judgement. Which is why once settled, it just needs to be waited out. It can be a long wait but it will go away just to be replaced by something new.

Peace

How to Think Like a Woman by Regan Penaluna

Its a mix of a memoir and a case for women in philosophy. The overall narrative is good but it falls victim while not doing justice to any genre. A book is never about a genre, and a writer rarely starts with a category while writing fiction. But this one fails to deliver the message by adding to many things in one place.

It does provide well documented references of how women were blocked from getting enrolled in schools and colleges, and got the least support even when they did crack the glass ceiling. But this was true not just philosophy but for any subject during those times. The prejudice against females did injustice to a lot of brilliant women, and philosophy was just one of these subjects. The arguments given against women's entry in any subject was same (lack of intelligence/brilliance, non-competitiveness, inefficiency or sometimes just not being man).

In modern times when the women have far bigger opportunities, they are outshining any other male in their field of specialisation. Which gives the hope of equality in the future. However, the recent trends of boys falling out in their development has been a concern (though not addressed yet) needs closer monitoring to avoid any over correction.

The world will keep changing and the dynamics of a society will favour one or the other every time. This book gives the example that even after all the blockers there were people who pursued their passion even at a higher cost, and they were the one who set the foundation for the future.

Peace

Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman

It is not called an idiot box because it serves stupid content but it is so non-interactive, short on serious discussion and as brief as profitably possible.

This may sound a bit harsh on TV, or any screen for that matter apart from a book reader in the evolution of media since it began with printing but this is true. And this book even being really old (published in 1985) puts all the right arguments forward. If only he had a chance to rewrite this today he'd have more arsenal in his attack.

TV as a medium could have been a better compared to what it is today only if it had been invented in a different time. It grew to what it is today in the time when everything was expected to be commercialised, and it lost the opportunity of being as meaningful as a book. The commercial aspect moulded its content to be short, fuzzy, entertaining, and eventually serving the wrong sides of business, religion and politics.

A different observation from my side was that all the modern studies show that the TV doesn't have a quality of holding anyone's attention for long unlike books. Which led to the further technological developments of recording, OTT, and what not. But this is still a proven fact that TV doesn't have people's attention for long which we attribute to its non-interactivity. All the stories that we've ever heard are cherished because they were read by us to told to us. And, even when the books don't have the interaction built-in it, it has the higher engagement quotient and depending on the writer's excellence they can stick for real long time.

All the digital mediums don't suffer the same attention span problem. Think of video games which keep the people hooked for days at a stretch but they latch on to a different hook in the brain.

This is worth a read for anyone, and hopefully if you're big on any screens (not just TV) it will give you some pointers on why it is the way it is.

Peace