Doing gender

 Doing gender

"Doing gender" is relatively new word for old concept of gendering or gender typing which Indian  authors once used. However our sociological study on gender is still entrenched in antecedent, hermetic and deceptive traps of caste and religion. "Doing Gender" is action oriented concept establishing authority and use of power. It does question the very nature of how all systems like state,religion,literature,knowledge; institutions like family,kinship, marriage; and How individual participate in "Doing Gender". It includes how institutions are planned, buildings are planned, power structures are planned in order to keep women out of authority and power. 
Best example of this is: 

Example 1: Lack of toilets in the building plan, in school and workplace, which in long term reduces women work force. 
Example 2: Using husband name as surname or using Mrs in place of her own name.  even today in Indian military , wife of officers are addressed as Mrs Edward(If Guy is Edward) etc. 
Another example of doing gender is separate sex based toilets and their planning. 

uniforms in school is another curious example . Its funny why not to allow girls to wear shirt and trousers instead of shirt and skirt. 

There is another curious historical example. Its related to jeans. 

1950s and 1960s jeans were called mens' dress but with time that notion changed due to change in design of clothing. Result was 70s saw jeans pant for women. During 50s and 60s there was a ridiculous argument that jeans is mens' wear not women; this kind of argument still goes on in India (we are engulfed in mythological thought of sari being women ware). 

Another example that goes unnoticed is weapons in military. These weapons are made  from heavier material not because there is  no light material and technology but designer never felt that women are also the customer and would be the part of fighting force. Never there has been much research to have weapons made up of lighter materials. Or never there has been research design aspects that suits women in combat.

Indian sociologist are less likely to using  term doing gender. As this concept gets to core by  a questioning power and design structure of existing sysyem, I get feeling that it attacks basic structure of hyped family and kinship values of tribal continuum society like that of modern India. Sociologist like M N Srinivas has in my view glorified the fossilised Indian society, though criticising very little. Srinivas doesn't having leaning towards this kind of revolutionary concept.

Srinivas's theory has invariably helped in what is called "Structuration" (by Antony Gibbens) i.e reimposing what we never wanted women to suffer.  Structural ion is system and agency theory (agency being we). Statments like "Boys are Boys" are best example of structuration. "Right to touch women","right to pass eve comment","right to have sex with wife" etc are some of the typical examples of structuration. Structuration systematise and legitimise the process that re-enforces ideological belief. This structuration is at both micro and macro level. Some of abyssal 

Structuration example are as follows : "Raksh bandan","Duty to protect women(as she is weaker sex)","sati system", "arrange marriage which also include marriage related laws". Latest concepts like "concept of love jihad","Nymphomania" are some of best example of structuration . Nymphomania  with respect to women is considered to be clinical problem as if she doesn't have right to enjoy sex). Structration is time and again reinforced by hollywood and bollywood films . 

Lady With Lamp

Sleeping Beauty

Structuration also include concept Idealisation of sexes. Structuration brings whole question of sexes into  either "0 or 1" question ie either explicitly men or women character. It would never bring sexual choice as a continuous distribution of variations. This idealization is best protested by Indian serials, best example being is "Kusum " character in one of the hindi serial . Another example is Ravi varmas painting using "Lady with Lamp" painting to idealise women rather than using " Sleeping Beauty" even though both painting are from same person (Ravivarma has drawn some of the most artictic nudism of time. No one knows it as an art, even a year back i didn't,  until i came across Gibbens theory).

(Given  2 paintings are of Ravi Varma)

Below are some of the argument put to me in recent time so here is the argument and counter argument of the same. 

Argument : India is still not tolerant and matured enough to accept such kind of ideas, in this conservative society. It is also necessary to know, how women of this country, expect them to be treated? or want to live? or want to dress?

Concept of "Right to Question"

Yes that argument may be to an extent a valid one . I have seen many others using this as base to oppose the idea in itself. I want idea to start; engagement is important, conversation is important. It might offend some people but this must not stop the discussion all together. Even government has used this argument. Countries like Australia, England , USA, Canada did use this bogey not to tell ethnic minorities, Hispanic people  and conservative majority to mend their rules with the idea that it would hurt the sentiment of people. Recently there were cases of honour killing in UK and Canada. A country with such a liberal view like Britian must not have registered such cases.  Even in France, Britain and Canada sikh and muslim councils dont allow women in discussion; dowry is common among south asians in UK,Canada,US. So if liberalism was agenda then this Honor killing would not have happened. Government of liberal countries must tell the conservative minority to get integrated with liberal culture. These type of discussion is not to bring radical change but to engage, question, converse about unwarranted, detrimental, irrational and institutionalised social behaviours. Women exclusion revolves around power and authority. Power to control resource. All societies in the world according to various (almost all) anthropologist is patriarchal and patrilineal. Even European society followed this, but thing changed , irrationality changed. Reference of "Madame" went, culture of calling with Mrs went Ms came. It take time, but we must never stop questioning. 


If Nehru had bowed down to Karpatri Maharaj massive rallies after independence then Hindu code bill could have been a dream. Even people like Rajendra prasad, Kripalani, shyam prasad mukerji,Ramnarayan opposed these bill which world now considered as Primary gender revolution by law. Value of irrationality towards gender is embedded in the most society whether its south asian, muslims ,sikh,  hindus , all should be removed.

We must mark that conservative voice historically till today enjoyed authority and power. Hence they will be much vocal. If modernist doesnt raise voice it will not effect those who are moving on but it will effect who are left behind under conservative forces. World will not stop whether you come along with it or not. We never asked women in India to wear bikinis and tight jeans but they did, right! that beauty of Individuality (not to get confused with individualism). Certain section invariably will move forward, even though society approve it or not. Struggle is about doing whats right, whats right to my consciousness, if it against right consciousness then it should be questioned. struggle is about this; "the right to question". To develop this, environment has to be provided. Patriarchal society's basic tenet opposes this very idea of "Right to question". We have been raised not to question; In sociology Indian sociologist emphasise on "relationships of avoidance" ie daughter in law must avoid questioning both in laws and sister in law. But son in law has right to question. This is not only prb of hinduism; such quote and quote examples are present in islam,Christianity etc. When we develop environment and idea and attitude of "Right to Question" then we could ask them your questions

 "how women of this country, expect them to be treated? or want to live? or dress?". 

According to my knowledge no organisation has conducted country survey on what women want ? what they want to wear? whether they want to love stranger or of other religion? whats their though about pre-marital sex? what about have partner? what about dates and sex? what about property?their design or army? their design of sports? their design mm mi jjy society? their views on property and success? what about living single? etc . These questions are the best way to start a survey organisation dedicated to "Women empowerment and Women wants" .

Word of Caution

 Word of Caution

Ghettoisation, exclusion, victimisation, prosecution, state sponsored prosecution, collective punishment, quarantine, final solution; this is minority prosecution sequence. 19 th century and 20 th century saw this. Many countries have becoming victim of their own fear. Finding so called “Inner Enemy” of the state was tool to cover up inefficiency of the so called “Great Society”. Their is nothing great about society, and their is no need to make one. Its a mythical conception of few, implemented by many more few, participated by many. Society is what we and what we intend to be; we dont need myths, heroes, messiah or saviour. What we need is rationality, tolerance, empathy. European societies have fallen victim of concept of “Great Society”,”Inner enemy” etc. It was century back; we are within the next victim of this megalomania. I am seeing the very sign in front of me; Ghettoisation,exclusion, individual victimisation and to some extent collective victimisation. Its said that only a trained eye can recognise the crack in the Gem. I am not well trained but trained enough to see the signs. Reader may not even understand what its about. Most people in megalomania follow what other follow. Majority during 20 th in Europe, didn't object to what few were doing in the name of The “Majority”. They could have stood up against, but they let it go; resulting of million were killed for just being minority . But 21 st century is different; people have tool to rise their voice; tools to campaign against ,what these fringe elements are doing in the name of “Majority”. I believe collective intelligence will prevail. Its upto people to say “No To Minority Victimisation”. Be a part of this consciousness, quarter century down the line you will be proud to tell your children that you were part that stood against “Prosecution and Collective victimisation”.

Huntington's Actors

Huntington's clash of civilisation is one of the scores of theory, that want to or atleast try to predict the unpredictable? As many are saying ,he seems to be reductionist. Definition of culture hasn't settled yet. there exist lot of overlap between religion or culture or any other unifying forces. Is there clear cut demarcation between cultures? Huntingon know that there is no such thing. can this demarcation emerge in due course of time?. Yes this can happen. When Marx proposed his theory, people laughed at him. Socialism, communism never existed as separate entity but humanity created it, influenced it, polarised it. Difference does exist today as existed from centuries. 18 th century Europe used some difference to create nationalism and concept of nation state, if same notion were to be used then Indian subcontinent would have had many nations. But it didnt , so then can we say that theory of nation state is faulty; no we cant. Over generalisation or over stretching can be disastrous. can we ignore it (nation theory); no we cant. super slav state balkanised into 9 state. point is we as player fail to recognised our own bias; we take theorist at their face value. Although huntington has failed to describe players involved in it. inter civilisational clashes and alignment effect and many such things. He has left people to discover possible solution or resolution etc. Actor of clash of civilisation are very important; he has given that credit to whole community which may not be fare. However i want to ask other here ; Is ISIS or IS one of the actor of Clash of Civilisation.

ISIS

Engineered Chaos

About ISIL

ISIL or ISIS must be seen as movement, a movement whose ideology is anti-thesis to modern establish ideology. ISIS is up, as an actor of Huntington's "Clash Of Civilisations". Post 2006, PM of Iraq has done a little to establish viable,secure, secular state. The way in which ISIS got support is typical example how Hobbesian solutionist get support to come out of "State of Nature". Taliban came to power in the similar condition. Hobbesian solution of restoring order can be worked out by small well organised militia, however post order, holding and governing such state(which require resource and motivation)will be a failure. It is temporary reactionary phenomenon for instability brought out by Iraqi government. Most people saw it coming, engineering a state post chaos is daunting task. Maliki government has repeatedly and willingly failed to respect world's suggestion. Whole region is being pushed for Three Nation Theory , one being controlled by Sunnis,one by Shia, and last by Kurds. This chaos will also see conflicting forces such as Iranians, Saudi , Americans, Western market forces coming together and battling it out. 

Why Didn't Romeo approach Juliet

“Lo barappa tindi madbarona, ivattu saturday; late aadre , it will be rush. Hage barappa alliyaru Juliet illa baa!”, said Romeo's friend.

Romeo: is it necessary to take in Juliet always in the discussion? I dont know why my parents kept my name as Romeo, “RWJ” could have been better.

Romeo's friend: whats that!

Romeo: Romeo without Juliet!... ha ha.

Both laugh, discussion goes on, covering topic about some of most irrelevant topics that they have found either in facebook or twitter or in there company. Its a 10 min walk from where they live, to a near by resturant. Its a daily routine to both, walking along the same lane, watching beyound horizon, watching out for new things in their unchanged and unchangable area. For Romeo's friend its always same, nothing make much difference, either a new restaurant or new neighbour or new girl next door. Romeo couldn't have bothered much of all these things except about new girl who have rented apartment in their lane.

Aristippus: Aha! Thats my boy. A girl , what kind of Girl? Sexy, hot or ok ok type. ? What you want from that girl? Is it...

RWJ: oh oh...wait a min before you assume thing who are you??

Aristippus: Me, i am student of Socrates ,founder of hedonism; the philosophy of pleasure . I am the guy who said physical pleasure are more powerful then mental one; which people say i proved it by keeping prostitute in my house.

RWJ: dude !!! pros. Come on that too in house.

Aristippus: you drink right. You also smoke right.

RWJ: yes thats true. But why that question?

Macintrye: Because I , Macintrye, long back asked “What is good for Human Being?”. Aristippus was one of thefirst who came out with answer ,that pleasure is the one thats good for humans.

Aristippus: Before , you RWJ, get confused let me introduce Macintrye , you know his question right. His question brought storm in philosopy . Before you also ask “whats happening?”, i would like to inform you that what ever happening ,is happening in your mind, your physical body is safe ; is safely walking with all normal funtion, with your friend.

RWJ: whats is it all for.

Epicurus: you will get to know by the end of discussion.

Aristippus: why on earth you came along, had he read you?

Epicurus: Aaha, discussion need me, i need to contradict you about your notion of physical pleasure. What you say Macintrye?

Macintrye: kalá eípe(well said), human culture is filled with emotivism. Its void of rational argument. And as you know socrates once said “people dont see same things when they are under emotive grip ”. our role is only tell RWJ whats right and wrong.

Aristippus: you and your relativism. Physical pleasure is rational thing.

Epicurus : you are misleading RWJ.

Aristippus: AHa me leading him , my comtemporary, its 21 century ...wake up,its not your time of 3rd century B.C. Let me ask some questions to RWJ if he permits.

Aristippus say pointing towards still confused, awkardly looking RWJ.

RWJ: me!! questions!!! ok.

Aristippus: why do you smoke ? Why do you drink? Why you keep cigartte box in your pocket? Why is Bacardi in your cupboard?

RWJ: wow!!wow! Slow down, i am not going to answer you all these, its my personal matters dude. Its about privacy.

Epicurus: would you want us dig into it, we are in you mind , we do have access to all.

Seemingly more confused RWJ replies: well then, here is thing. I like smoking, its gives me a kind of pleasure. I am addicted to it now so i keep it. About drinking i occasionally drink, i love rum.

Aristippus : thats what i am talking about. Its about pleasure, your pleasure. Pleasure from smoking, pleasure from drinking. Pleasure from working etc right.

RWJ: Right

Epicurus: Dont put words in his mouth Aristippus!

Aristippus: RWJ is hedonist of my type, not of yours. He like physical pleasure, he goes to party, he enjoy being lazy, he enjoy watching porn. He is classical hedonist.

Epicurus: well well, if he is hedonist , let me ask him question about girls. Why do you like that girl? Is it because you badly want to get physical pleasure by seeing her or do you want have sex with her? Or would you like to go to prostitute in order to full fill your sexual desire.

RWJ: Are you insane, are you out of your mind. Is It my mind asking these stupid question? I better shut it down.

Socrates: wow wow! RWJ dont do that, we are sorry, i will apologise on behalf of these. They dont have idea of indology. But these are question to be answer. And i would like to request to my fellow philosopher to frame question that have cultural sensitivity.

M K Gandhi : Yes well said socrates, soul is not combination or permutation of all the available solutions and know resposnes of the body, its not sofware. Its beyond that. RWJ you will discover it.

Aristippus: let RWJ respond.

RWJ: well i now know what Aristippus want to convey. Its not about sex. Ya it can be said that indian culture is not open system, which doesnt mean that we have sexual desire, so strong that we like girl only because of that. Its about some thing that makes my heart beat faster than normal, its, that make me to come out with good dress to resturant, its what make me to see again and again across the table to have just a look at her. Its about things called decency that props up when she cross us. Its calm me down, its her look that make my proud eyes to find things in air. Its my desire to be in relationship, a relationship of care , a relationship which is trust worthy.

Gilligan: well said RWJ, its me Gilligan who introduced Ethics of care in this male dominated world of non emotivism. You are right what you say about care part in your answer.

Aristippus: RWJ, you said you are addicted to smoke, why often you smoke, is it that if you dont smoke again again, what do you loose.? Is it pleasure ? Or do you smoke to keep pain out.

Epicurus: do you want to prove RWJ a hedonist of your type. Again.

RWJ: let me answer this Epicurus, yes i need to smoke again and again beause it need to . pleasure from it dont last. But you cant equate that to “looking again and again towards her to have pleasure which according to you is physical pleasure.”

Plato : where is socrates? why cant socrates tell us about Desire.?

Epicurus: rememeber he never wrote book, you are the one who wrote on his behalf. That what RWJ mind knows, so you better speak.

Plato: ham .. all i can say is about 3 things : logos, thumos, appetumia.

Epictetus: dude no greek!

Plato: well-come Epitetus. The derivator of habit. Let me now concentrate on appetumia ie desires, appetite. Humans does have desires, which are natural. Its upto the guy in question weather he want to pursue the desire, which may make person pleasure seeking, which might boil down to wealth seeking.

Epictetus: i can add that if this thought is not controlled by a choice which every one has , will lead to habit. Its same as RWJ has smoking habit. He do have a choice of not to smoke and pursue other mental desire.

Epicurus: discussion is going out of control, our dude will never understable his current dilemma. Nimanna bitre harikatene bardabidtira.

Aristippus: so its not about physical pleasure, when you see her.

RWJ: i am sure its not about physical pleasure, its more like mental pleasure. I kind of agree with Epicurus's mental pleasure.

Epicurus: I suppose Aristippus got the answer, RWJ might be hedonist of your type in smoking which i call pleasure which is not natural and not necessary. But in this case desire to have companion is a pain which RWJ is reducing by seeing forward to that girl, which he might end up by proposing her.

RWJ: Hold on a second.... dont you think Epicurus, you are going way beyond your imagination.

Bentham: every desire need to have motive; motive will search for action and action will give you outcome. When you have desire to be close to her, then why not have motive of proposing her and having relationship.

RWJ: who are you?

Aristotle: I always talked about purpose and point , ends and means to get happiness. But people side lined me, they all now listen to Bentham, the guy who just spoke with you RWJ.

RWJ: WOW! What now, i suppose discussion about pleasure and pain is over or what?

Epicurus: Kind of, we are guides, we dont decide we just suggest, its you who need to decide.

RWJ: so my looking at girls while walking along road, in resturant, office etc is natural or is it habit which will boil down to a bad character trait.?

Epicurus: Yes , they are natural but !!!

Plato: you need to control your desires and urges. Concentrate more on mental pleasures. As Epictetus said you do have a choice. making no choice in your desire for pleasure is a bad habit, especially in case of sexual desire , that to in India, where social rules are strong.

Immenual Kant: RWJ , in society like Indian, autonomy is less. Here concept of heteronomy rules ie you cant decide for yourself. But there are section of society in your own society which encouarge autonomy. So are you an autonomous person or you accept heteronomy.?

RWJ: does autonomy means having free will in all aspects of life.

Kant: No, treating yourself autonomus means ,you are neither the end nor the means of the project.

RWJ: what !!! speak in english boss.

Kant: it means, in simple word you must not be mean person, or you dont use people to get what you needed.

RWJ: what does this question have to do with girl?

Kant: i have doubt that you might want that girl because she is hot or she is rich or something else?

RWJ: 1st point i dont know her, we havent met yet. But it might that she is beautiful. Is it wrong to be with beautiful people.

Kant: there is nothing wrong in being with, unless you have a wrong intention to persue.

RWJ: define wrong intention?

Kant: getting in relation only to have physical pleasure? Or cheating her ?

RWJ: no not so , i dont have such intention. Can we go beyond this pleasure topic?

Kant: why?

M K Gandhi: In India speaking about sex is taboo. You all have started to use word” physical plaesure ” instead of sex. That Indian effect.

Kant : Answer then: are you ready to marry any girl of any region, religion, caste etc if you like her? Do you have reservation of any kind to any thing regarding a girl that you want to marry? These are gerenal question , not specific to that girl.

RWJ: i am autonomus person as per my definition; i choose for my self. But i cant guarantee the same of my family.

Kant: so you are saying your family believes in contemporary social marriage laws of you religion. Right.

RWJ: yes

Kant: Then i can say that ,they can be heteronomist to you in certain issue like marriage etc. What about your reservations?

RWJ: i do have general reservation, may be i haven't thought about it.

Kant: if you have reservation and you have historical reason to be heteronomist, then there is tendency to not to respect autonomy and hence be heteronomist toward your girl. Which may have different consequence than you are intended in the first place.

RWJ: ooh..ufoo i am getting confused now, cant you explain in simple words.?

Kant: every one has the same query about my explaination. Here is thing , there is concept of “free will “ which helps to choose things and is upholder of autonomy. If you dont have autonomy ,you may not wish to encourage it either, which might be detrimental to the free will of your love one, which might make them unhappy. Not respecting autonomy distort the intention which may bring different and undesirable consequences.

Gilligan: kant want to say that you may think, you have good intention but inherently you may not and hence your action and consequence may go wrong.

RWJ: ham! He may be right. I havent discovered much. And i dont know her intention, or what type of person she is ? Whats she values?

Aristotle : what do you think about means to get her? Do you have clarity about your goal? Do you have accountibility of these goals?

RWJ: what? She is not thing , so that i need to find means to get her.

Aristotle: my apologise; means meaning ways to get in touch with her.

RWJ: I havent thought about it, however i dont want to be seen has jerk when i approach her.

Aristotle: it means , you want to have frame work of socially approved character traits. Right

RWJ: yes and can approaching a stranger that to a girl is socially execptable?

Aristotle : approaching a girl is not a wrong thing unless you have wrong intention for approach. But is the approach itself wrong intention. May not be so ,its ends, ends are good and means are also good. But does your culture allow it ? Yes it may or may not. If your culture doesnt allow , then it might be termed as vice. In your word being a jerk.

Aristotle : let me ask you question. Where do you find the happiness. Is it in Honour? Is it in Pleasure ? Or Is it in wealth?

RWJ: isn't happiness independent of these?

Aristotle : offcourse it is independent. According to me these all give happiness, no doubt about it. But its virtue such as honesty brings real happiness. Its above all.

RWJ: you mean to say i must not show off my wealth, pleasure and honours to get to my loved one. Instead i need to be honest and not try to make up the things.

Aristotle : right. And we dont have control over your character traits but we do have control over our actions. These need to be channelised so that it become a habit, a virtue habit. Like being courages.

RWJ: if happiness is end Aristotle, what if my happiness is in contradiction of my family happiness, who are heteronomist.?

Aristotle : you need to check with the concept of Duty vs Happiness of kant.

Kant: here i am.

RWJ: do you have questions?

Kant: a lot of . To whom does these duties belong to ? Is it duty for sake of duty or Does it have elements of inclination. Inclination meaning intention of duty.

RWJ: what is duty for sake of duty?

Kant: people do their duty for sake of happiness, for sake of social compulsion, for sake of honour, for sake of status etc. Have you every done a duty without expecting reward or praise or when it hasn't given happiness . If yes ,then such duties are “duty for sake of duty”. In Nepotism, corruption people perform duty for sake of other things , these type are inclined duties. Hope you got the point.

RWJ: yes! But what how does this links with happiness and how this could stop me for not being happy.

Kant: man according to me has duty to be happy however its may not be strict duty. Strict duties comes with rights, that is right of others for whom your duties are directed to.

Aristotle: i can add a point that your upbringing could effect how you persue the things.

Kant: yes aristotle is right. Family is your upbringing unit. So do you have duty towards them ? Are they strict duties or meritorious? To what extent you are ready to sacrifice thing like feeling, happiness, pleasure, wealth to perform your duty.? What if your family doesnt approve your relation? So will you sacrifice your happiness, your pleasure of being with your girl etc for sake of family ? Or are you ready to conserve happiness of your girl and perform duty of relationship without caring duties of your family?

RWJ: Now i am getting why you people never got committed. Is deciding ,to be in relationship so difficult.?

Kant: RWJ, you havent answered my question.

RWJ: yes my family as all indian families are... is culture centric. Caste and religion are undiffering issues when it comes to marriage. But as i am autonomous i can make duty towards my family as non strict duty. However i will and need to maintain good will towards both duties ie both for family and loved girl. Does it morally stands, kant?

Kant: it may. Good will is good because of your intentions. If your intentions are good towards your loved girl and family, then consequences will be good. But i can be good in my societal frame work, indian society is different. You better know it, RWJ.

Ross: RWJ, i am W D Ross, there are some prima facie duties that need to taken care of.

1. duty of Gratitude: i.e towards your parents.
2. duty of justice: towards both girl and family.
3. duty of self improvement : not getting much in mess like these.
4. duty of fidelity: both implicit and explicit.

RWJ: Ross does these apply same for every one.

Ross: may not be so, each case is differnet. But some times some socially acceptable norms or utilitarian norms does take precedent to your thought.

J S Mill: yes in society, things works in utilitarian frame work.

RWJ: what does that mean?

J S Mill: greater happiness for greater number of people. Which means to say if the act that creates happiness for large number must be encouraged. Which may boil down to arugement that marraiges must happen with broad concent.

RWJ: Mill dont you think that it can be contested? And what about right of those who doesnt agree with majority in family frame work?

J S Mill: now you are becoming good learner. Yes it has been contested. However intra caste marriages , intra religious marriages have social acceptance because they are on majority side. Inter caste or inter religious marriages brings happiness to some section but for broader section , they dont get happiness. It might be beacasue of society being heteronomy rather than autonomous. This may not be good but its acceptable and these socially acceptable things doesnt come with pain for society. Its society point of view.

RWJ: what about right?

J S Mill: yes individual have right, which till now society hasn't learnt much to respect, but hope it will especially indian society will learn. Hope inter caste and inter religion and region marraiges become utilitarian in concept.

Aristippus: RWJ, have you ever thought that , to approach a girl you need to think so much so that you forgot what you want.

RWJ: Ham! Thats true i am normal person, i thought these people will discuss and will conclude the thing, making my work easy, but no, they havent. Things are much more complicated now.

Aristippus: ha ha ... now you know ,you might be thinking that why i am being with them brought out simple and straight forward concept of pleasure.

RWJ: no Aristippus you are not right now! You are right about physical pleasure and lust but not about other thing. Life doesnt just revolve around pleasure.

Socrates/Plato: very well said, we achieved what we intended to. We never give conclusion, we suggest, its you who have to decide. We will be present when you have dilemma, dilemma is good.

Gilligan: Excuse me!! i have question for all male scholars and to you RWJ. ?

Every say in corus : what ? Questions ? Not now...

Gilligan : Have you ever thought ,what girl might be thinking about RWJ and what are her thought about all your big thoughts?

End of mental conversation

“Yenadru order madappa, asta guraisi nodbedpa. Yed hogyalu”, said Romeo's earth friend. As he said Romeo got back to this world only to see that girl has gone out of sight.