I recently attended a talk (interactive session) on ‘Animation and its Role in Society’. Up stands a social analyst and Senior Editor and comments that animations are spoiling the ethos of society and need to first educate mothers, since they park their children in front of cartoons and go about their work. It annoyed me to see so many nods in the audience and amused me to see the flummoxed animator from USA wondering how animations were responsible for poor availability of child care. The following is a record of a conversation I had with this so very concerned individual:
I questioned the veracity of the comment that ‘mothers’ parked their kids in front of TV. I stated that I was sure he meant ‘parents’.
No the mother is the prime care taker and she absconds from this great responsibility by either hiring others (in USA even teenagers!) to do work she should be doing. She does not seem to realize that kids learn values and ethics from their parents.
I remarked that since they (kids) learn values and such from their ‘parents’, perhaps the father too should be involved in the child care and thereby is equally responsible for ‘the deterioration of society’ as is claimed by such an esteemed analyst?
But you do not understand, or more likely refuse to understand, the mother is the primary care taker, all said and done.
Sure, till the child is about 2 at most, if you consider breast feeding etc. Then, anyone can take of the child. Or are men not competent?
Of course, men are competent, but they have to work as well. When do they take care of the child?
What about women? Do they not work? When would they fulfill their obligations?
They have household help for such things. And the market is inundated with appliances for their convenience. Yet, you all crib.
Since appliances do not, as yet, run on their own and subordinates (servants) do need monitoring, women do work as home managers these days and not maids, but nevertheless, they have work! Just as Finance MBAs are not glorified accountants according esteemed people, or that editors do not work less than reporters who actually file stories; so too women do not just have ‘conveniences’ and no responsibilities. ( I was desperately trying to be cool and collected at this point).
See you are veering away from the topic. It began with social responsibility of animations.
No sir, I am very much within the topic. Since gender sensitivity is part and parcel of society and it s needs, attitudes like yours need to be questioned.
See, the fact of the matter is children are not taken care of properly and watch cartoons that do not teach them values adequately. While women may have other responsibilities as well, we need to realize that children are our priority.
When do cartoons get televised in India? I mean on regular channels. And which are the popular timings for cartoons?
Evenings and weekends generally. Which is why I do not understand why children are parked in front of the TV? Now you cannot claim that women are working!
Of course, I can claim that! They are busy with household chores.
Household chores!!!!!! What chores? Everything is done for them.
Ok. Even if I grant this point. And I do agree with you that children should not have been parked in front of the TV and they should have someone entertaining them in other ways.
See. I am right.
Yes. Of course. Why whatever are the men, also at home at this time, doing? When children learn values etc from their parents, why are the fathers not teaching them? They have chores and no priorities???
Well, women have always been the traditional caretakers.
Hmm. Joint families have also been traditional systems. We no longer follow them.
Exactly. Women have broken this system that allowed them to share chores and take care of their children better. And now the poor children are suffering.
Hmm. When the woman is wed she goes to her husband’s place?
Yes. (impatiently)
Mostly, in India at least, if the guy is staying in the same town as his parents, he stays with his parents. Boys always feel this strong responsibility to take care of their parents.
Am I wrong?
No no. Indian children always are dutiful.
In that case, the joint family system is only broken when the guy moves away. His job leads him to new places and the wife goes along with him as is tradition. So the joint family has broken down into a nuclear family only because of guys and not women.
Men need better jobs for their families. (Desperately. Did I mention that this guy’s parents are elder brother and in Latur and he with his nuclear family is in Mumbai due to his job? Well consider it said.)
Of course. But the women have not broken down the system. And the ones responsible for taking away the child rearing support system themselves do nothing to supplement the shortage as peak time for cartoons are exactly when these considerate, family loving group is at home. Ergo, parents, i.e. fathers and mothers, are responsible for any ‘deterioration of society’ and cartoons are not a cause of such. (I look at him for his point).
(I am met with silence. Angry silence. And a refusal to concede verbally, even for now.)
(I rest my case. )
– I am also not satisfied with this dialogue for obvious reasons. I am only butting my head against a people who refuse to grow up and realize that men and women are equal; that men can nurture as well as women and that women can be as personally ambitious as men. Neither choice is wrong, unless it hurts the person concerned. Even family and friends have to recognize this right to choose happiness that does not aim to hurt other people. Personal goals are not wrong, whether they involve being a homemaker or a gardener or a scientist or a business person.
– One cannot be happy in relationships if one is not satisfied with the person one is and the goals one has achieved. Why can’t people understand this instead of forcing down compromises that individuals are not ready for. If someone is going to thank you for your choice 2 years down the line, why force the person to abide by your decision today? In 2 years the concerned individual is going to happily choose your path anyway right? This is the age of second chances. Allow people to take them.
– My parents argue that if a child is committing a mistake, parents of curse must rectify it. True. But to what extent do you correct a child? A child fights with his/her best friend. You advice. You can encourage them to make up. But if they don’t, you leave them be. Other friends will come along. And the child will learn form this mistake to never take anyone else for granted. You force them to interact and you would most probably ruin the friendship. If a child is envious of another person’s achievements, you do not preach envy is a sin; you teach the child to achieve in one or the other field and to take pride in its achievements. The envy will automatically disappear.
– Similarly, with adults. Why force them when you can guide them to voluntarily choosing the path that is ‘correct’ for them? Why force sacrifices? Why not allow them to reorganize priorities at their own speed? Why not respect individuality?
– I am not talking about values or such philosophical things. I am concerned with the right to choose careers or life partners or even what to eat today.
– Written on March 22, 2008.
I questioned the veracity of the comment that ‘mothers’ parked their kids in front of TV. I stated that I was sure he meant ‘parents’.
No the mother is the prime care taker and she absconds from this great responsibility by either hiring others (in USA even teenagers!) to do work she should be doing. She does not seem to realize that kids learn values and ethics from their parents.
I remarked that since they (kids) learn values and such from their ‘parents’, perhaps the father too should be involved in the child care and thereby is equally responsible for ‘the deterioration of society’ as is claimed by such an esteemed analyst?
But you do not understand, or more likely refuse to understand, the mother is the primary care taker, all said and done.
Sure, till the child is about 2 at most, if you consider breast feeding etc. Then, anyone can take of the child. Or are men not competent?
Of course, men are competent, but they have to work as well. When do they take care of the child?
What about women? Do they not work? When would they fulfill their obligations?
They have household help for such things. And the market is inundated with appliances for their convenience. Yet, you all crib.
Since appliances do not, as yet, run on their own and subordinates (servants) do need monitoring, women do work as home managers these days and not maids, but nevertheless, they have work! Just as Finance MBAs are not glorified accountants according esteemed people, or that editors do not work less than reporters who actually file stories; so too women do not just have ‘conveniences’ and no responsibilities. ( I was desperately trying to be cool and collected at this point).
See you are veering away from the topic. It began with social responsibility of animations.
No sir, I am very much within the topic. Since gender sensitivity is part and parcel of society and it s needs, attitudes like yours need to be questioned.
See, the fact of the matter is children are not taken care of properly and watch cartoons that do not teach them values adequately. While women may have other responsibilities as well, we need to realize that children are our priority.
When do cartoons get televised in India? I mean on regular channels. And which are the popular timings for cartoons?
Evenings and weekends generally. Which is why I do not understand why children are parked in front of the TV? Now you cannot claim that women are working!
Of course, I can claim that! They are busy with household chores.
Household chores!!!!!! What chores? Everything is done for them.
Ok. Even if I grant this point. And I do agree with you that children should not have been parked in front of the TV and they should have someone entertaining them in other ways.
See. I am right.
Yes. Of course. Why whatever are the men, also at home at this time, doing? When children learn values etc from their parents, why are the fathers not teaching them? They have chores and no priorities???
Well, women have always been the traditional caretakers.
Hmm. Joint families have also been traditional systems. We no longer follow them.
Exactly. Women have broken this system that allowed them to share chores and take care of their children better. And now the poor children are suffering.
Hmm. When the woman is wed she goes to her husband’s place?
Yes. (impatiently)
Mostly, in India at least, if the guy is staying in the same town as his parents, he stays with his parents. Boys always feel this strong responsibility to take care of their parents.
Am I wrong?
No no. Indian children always are dutiful.
In that case, the joint family system is only broken when the guy moves away. His job leads him to new places and the wife goes along with him as is tradition. So the joint family has broken down into a nuclear family only because of guys and not women.
Men need better jobs for their families. (Desperately. Did I mention that this guy’s parents are elder brother and in Latur and he with his nuclear family is in Mumbai due to his job? Well consider it said.)
Of course. But the women have not broken down the system. And the ones responsible for taking away the child rearing support system themselves do nothing to supplement the shortage as peak time for cartoons are exactly when these considerate, family loving group is at home. Ergo, parents, i.e. fathers and mothers, are responsible for any ‘deterioration of society’ and cartoons are not a cause of such. (I look at him for his point).
(I am met with silence. Angry silence. And a refusal to concede verbally, even for now.)
(I rest my case. )
– I am also not satisfied with this dialogue for obvious reasons. I am only butting my head against a people who refuse to grow up and realize that men and women are equal; that men can nurture as well as women and that women can be as personally ambitious as men. Neither choice is wrong, unless it hurts the person concerned. Even family and friends have to recognize this right to choose happiness that does not aim to hurt other people. Personal goals are not wrong, whether they involve being a homemaker or a gardener or a scientist or a business person.
– One cannot be happy in relationships if one is not satisfied with the person one is and the goals one has achieved. Why can’t people understand this instead of forcing down compromises that individuals are not ready for. If someone is going to thank you for your choice 2 years down the line, why force the person to abide by your decision today? In 2 years the concerned individual is going to happily choose your path anyway right? This is the age of second chances. Allow people to take them.
– My parents argue that if a child is committing a mistake, parents of curse must rectify it. True. But to what extent do you correct a child? A child fights with his/her best friend. You advice. You can encourage them to make up. But if they don’t, you leave them be. Other friends will come along. And the child will learn form this mistake to never take anyone else for granted. You force them to interact and you would most probably ruin the friendship. If a child is envious of another person’s achievements, you do not preach envy is a sin; you teach the child to achieve in one or the other field and to take pride in its achievements. The envy will automatically disappear.
– Similarly, with adults. Why force them when you can guide them to voluntarily choosing the path that is ‘correct’ for them? Why force sacrifices? Why not allow them to reorganize priorities at their own speed? Why not respect individuality?
– I am not talking about values or such philosophical things. I am concerned with the right to choose careers or life partners or even what to eat today.
– Written on March 22, 2008.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment