Human Rights

 Human Rights:

Opinion and Freedom. 

These are the two things that ultimately are the deciding factors for peace or war. Whether in a relationship between two private individuals. Whether within a family unit. Whether within a smaller community. Whether within a sovereign country. Or within the global community. 

As a woman, I, by social convention, hold a secondary position in my marriage. 

Whether that convention is right or wrong, who decides or decided that convention, I am not going to go into that debate right now. It is what it is. 

Social convention, as it stands today, as it has been throughout history( political, social or scriptural) and as it is obvious for the foreseeable future, puts a woman in a secondary position compared to a man. 

I have, consciously and subconsciously, through the six decades of my mortal existence, had firsthand experience of this practical truth. The initially subconscious and later conscious resistance to this mostly unspoken yet consistently reinforced convention, has brought to me in the natural course of things, what can be now described as, experience, understanding, clarity and learning. 

As a woman of the present age, I stand as what can be considered a fairly generic or garden variety specimen of the feminine clan. One who had the privilege of education, career, marriage, motherhood, right to vote, right to contest an election as a candidate if I ever wanted to( I never desired to become a leader). So at least on paper, these privileges conferred many freedoms to me. Financial freedom, freedom to have my space in the form of my home, freedom to express a political opinion at the voting booth, freedom to choose whether I want to be a mother or not, freedom to stay in the marriage or not. 

I was never blind to notice the disparity, however, between what appears as a reality on paper and what is to be experienced as a practical reality. 

And to be honest, I am truly grateful to experience these disparities being in the shoes of an entity that by convention was put in a secondary position, rather than in the top position.

The experience is simply priceless. 

It allows the insights to extend beyond the narrow confines of a gender gap. 

What the day to day living in the shoes of a person who holds a secondary position in the general scheme of things, whether in a married relationship, at the workplace or in the socio-political sphere, made me aware of is the dynamics of conflict. 

Life seemed so terribly complicated for all these years. Why am I getting upset at every turn? Why does it feel so pointless to argue with anyone? Why do I have to put up a fight to get what is rightfully mine? Why can’t simply proving my honesty not bring me instant justice? Why is it that, when I just want to live life on my own terms without interfering with the rights of others, that’s a problem for someone?

These were questions that inherently the mind had brewing in its deepest chambers. But it wasn’t posing them even to itself. It was voicing them in the strangest of any human languages. It was indirectly expressing those unanswered questions by showing irritability, anger, reactivity, displeasure, disconnect, restlessness, grievances, self isolation, frequent despair, and a general sense of dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Without any specific person or people it could put a blame on. 

And for whatever mysterious reasons, when these questions surfaced to the conscious mind, it wasnt too difficult to find the answers. What I am amazed about, is suddenly how simple it is to understand. To understand the dynamics of conflict and dynamics of mental restlessness.

What each of us invariably has, is opinion. And what each of us invariably needs, is freedom. 

Conflict arises between two people when they do not understand this basic fact. 

This is the simple chemical reaction behind any conflict. Behind any flicker of discomfort. 

I have absolutely no problem with convention and hierarchy at any practical level. A woman is secondary to a man at home for taking a stand. Though many would debate this, I am ready to say ok to this as a convention. A judge is higher than the defendant or lawyer at a trial, by convention. That’s ok. A President or Prime Minister is at a higher level than his cabinet, ok. As they say the buck stops at the one at the top.

But when practicality of convention is not understood at its fundamental level, the whole problem begins. 

Despite convention, what does not get obliterated is every individual’s right to have an opinion and right to be free. 

When such two individuals mutually agree to enter into any kind of practical relationship, be it a marriage or a family unit or community or citizenship of a country, they are acknowledging some kind of a basic hierarchical system or structure. But they are obligated to also recognize the basic rights to opinion and freedom. 

If for whatever reason, the mutually agreed upon initial terms of the relationship become no longer acceptable to one party, they retain their original freedom to excuse themselves from the contract of the relationship. Remember, freedom existed as a more fundamental thing even prior to entering the membership to the particular union. So anyone should be able to exercise that freedom.

But it is ethically and morally wrong to say I will be a member of this group but disregard its basic mutually agreed upon rules. I will do whatever pleases even if it goes against the understanding laid down in the partnership. 

Just to give an example, you are married to one person, but declare that you want all the benefits of the marriage yet choose to sleep with someone else outside of the marriage. That will not work. 

The marriage is required to ensure that both partners get food on their plate, both share the home, both can buy clothes from the income in the household and if there is more money they can even go watch a movie or a trip to Disneyland or buy a car or jewelry. There is room for these things to be done jointly or individually as their situation permits. 

When the man (or the woman) singlehandedly starts to decide everything in that home: what groceries will be bought, how the food will be cooked, what clothing every person at home will wear, what part of the household income will be allowed for what purpose, and the other partner’s opinion stops being taken into consideration, that is when discomfort will begin to be experienced. 

Remember, one of the basic things was opinion. 

So as soon as opinion of one member of the alliance is disregarded, conflict begins to make appearance. The skill of the person at the top lies in how to manage the opinions of those below him/her.

What about freedom? 

I will quote my own words that I used above when I made the statement about opinion and freedom.

“ What each of us invariably has, is opinion. And what each of us invariably needs, is freedom.”

Freedom is felt needed. But not automatically available for use like opinion.

This must be clearly understood. 

Freedom must be earned. 

And decent people earn it through old fashioned methods. 

Financial freedom is to be earned by working and earning wages through honest means. 

What about emotional, intellectual and physical freedom within one’s home or workplace? 

Who gives it to who? 

Does it come automatically? 

One must have inherent awareness to assert and earn these basic freedoms at every step of the way. The earlier in a relationship you learn to assert them, the easier they are to retain.

For a woman, the ugly distortion of what was conventional gender related hierarchy created to serve a practical purpose stands today in the form of patriarchy, misogyny and sexism. 

She has to be intelligent enough to understand that being on the lower of two levels by social convention should not be a reason to be robbed of certain earned, legitimate benefits. 

Let me explain what I am trying to say here. As a married partner, if a woman is bringing income into the household by working for the income, no matter in what capacity, she has a right to use her income to buy an expensive dress or house or car if she wants to. After having contributed a fair share to the running of the household, her earned money is hers to be decided how to be used. The hierarchical role of the man in the household does not apply to her freedom to use that money!! Period!! It also does not apply to the decisions she makes regarding what dress she chooses for herself, what food she eats, what books she reads, what music she listens to, what political views she holds, what candidate she votes for, who her friends are. No sir! Your jurisdiction does not extend to those issues. So understand that and pay attention to your personal freedoms in these matters rather than curbing hers. Both of you can be happy that way. And yes you will not perish by letting her exercise her freedoms in those matters. As long as you have been working for your own financial, physical, emotional and intellectual freedom. She is not the pipeline of these resources for your entire lifetime. She is not a threat to your existence. Your insecurity is. And perhaps your greed is. Greed can be for money, comforts as well as control and power. 

Similar distortions exist for other conventional hierarchies and these are familiar to most people. I will not specify each of them.The fundamental problem in each case is the same. Disregard for the opinion and freedom of the other.

Social freedoms, like the right to education, right to vote, right to have a bank account, right to own a house, right to express opinions in the public domain become more complex because more minds are involved. These freedoms can be earned through awareness, dialogue, activism, resistance and other peaceful means. When civil measures fail to reach agreement, wars are fought and these freedoms are won the hard way.

The person standing on the lower level of a hierarchy is the one who is responsible to earn his/her rightful freedom, including the freedom of opinion at every turn. The person on the upper level can often be forgetful or delusional about the extent of his/her jurisdiction. That person has no incentive to safeguard the basic rights of opinion and freedom of the person below himself. 

Here’s the secret behind partnerships that last and those that don’t, or more importantly  between partnerships that enjoy peace and wellbeing and those that are constantly drained by conflict. 

The conventional hierarchy is not always necessary to be overthrown in intelligent partnerships. For example the role of a judge in comparison with a lawyer is not challenged. But each partner in that working partnership is kept aware of the limits of their powers and held accountable for their responsibilities towards the partnership. In these partnerships the opinions of all stakeholders are taken into account. And their rightfully earned freedoms are protected. 

Where this intelligent communication is functioning, conflicts still arise but don’t survive too long because both parties are capable of identifying cause of the conflict and solving the problems as they arise. 

Where intelligence falls short, dialogue too can only go so far. Prolonged conflicts are the result of lack of effective communication and intrinsically missing intellectual capacity, on one or sometimes both sides. War is the result of failure of human intelligence. History tells us that paradoxically, it takes war to implement what intelligence had been trying to say all the while. 

Another important observation is the role of a third party during conflicts. 

Again, just for example I will describe a hypothetical scenario in a marriage between a man and woman. Any similarities one can see between my personal life are only lifted randomly in a bid to make a point. The picture is completely hypothetical.

So here’s the scenario. Family arranges a young couple to meet for matrimony. The guy looks charming. The girl is beautiful. They feel an attraction at first sight and get married. He is raised in a different background. She comes from an entirely different background. But they don’t think that matters as a man and wife. They like each other and take the plunge. Everything is fine for the first few years. They seem to adapt to each other. He has a job. She finds a job. They have two kids. She is coming home after a day’s work just like the man. After they are both home, she gets into the kitchen to cook dinner, while he watches TV. She cleans up after dinner, helps the kids with their homework or preparation for an upcoming test before going to bed. The man is already deep in sleep by the time. Next morning she packs everyone’s lunch and they all go about their day. Along the way, she gets promoted at her job and reaches the position of managing director in her company. He is fired from his job and instead of finding another job, he decides she is bringing enough income for the family, so he doesn’t need a job anymore. But of course he is the man in the house. He was always raised that way. He decides how the household income should be used. He can’t be the one washing the dishes or cooking or taking the kids to school. His wife’s responsibilities are her responsibilities and his authority is unquestionable. This goes on until the day he refuses to pick the kids from school when she is sick from flu. She protests his attitude. He beats her for speaking up. She tries to make her case with him when he appears more cooled down. He is least interested in listening.

His good friend who has been borrowing money from him for sustaining his alcoholic habits steps into the argument between man and wife. He tries to silence the woman threatens to spread malicious rumors about her if she refuses to do what she is ordered to do by her husband. 

Now she is not only trying to get justice from her husband and save her marriage and her home and her children’s childhood and future, but also has to fend off this additional interference from someone who has no valid part in their marriage. So despite not considering a divorce as the first and best solution for her problems, she chooses to separate from the father of her children. She does not even involve her own parents or friends in the midst of these challenges. She simply continues her job and her parental responsibility and keeps going despite the unprecedented challenges. 

In the meantime, the unemployed husband is increasingly furious because now the milking cow is not accessible to him. His parasite friend feeds into the fire by spreading false rumors about the estranged wife. The neighbors believes the rumors. They believe the men. The woman becomes the underdog left to defend her children and herself from public scrutiny while trying to make ends meet and just get through the day. 

These apparent social scenarios are projected to us as viewers with an emphasis on propagating existing stereotypes. The good guy, his helpful ally and the misguided, misbehaved wife who is brainwashed by liberal values, instead of trying to keep her family and marriage intact, has foolishly taken the kids away from their father. Sympathy and justice tend to shift in the direction of how the good and bad are projected. 

If you have the inclination to take a closer look at what’s really happening , you uncover some startling truths. The one who stood up for her own freedom without reaching out to allies and didn’t go about publicly maligning her estranged husband is one who is strong at the core. She can stand on her own under any circumstances and always has. Even when she was married and her husband had a job of his own. She neither needs public sympathy nor help. Nor sees a reason to explain herself.

The other two involved players are worth studying. 

One found it easy to give up working and living off his wife’s income. He is now bent on getting back his milking cow (and if possible other people’s milking cows) and keeping them tied up in his shed. 

His good friend is worried about his own survival. What will happen to him in the event the wife returns home but becomes the one controlling the purse. What will happen to his pocket change for the alcohol if his guy is not in charge? 

These guys look in the mirror and see themselves as the best thing God ever created! Yet they are not just unintelligent. They are also pathetically dependent creatures!! Each on someone else, for their own existence and survival. Yet they are the ones making the noise that their entire neighborhood can hear. 

The matter may eventually will go to court.

Now here’s the sad part. Will the court look at evidence or take public opinion into consideration? 

The woman’s survival by itself was not dependent on the court or public opinion. She was going on with her life despite the disruption from her ex.

Until her life became a public matter that everyone could give opinion and pronounce verdict on. 

If it was someone with my kind of thinking, I would not be bothered by either of it. Public opinion or verdict. Because justice and opinion coming from humans is to be taken with a pinch of salt. The judge in one’s consciousness is to be trusted more. 

Not every underdog is in direct contact with that highest judge and his justice. 

Not every underdog fully understands what makes them uncomfortable with their life. 

Not every underdog finds his/her own voice to question his oppressor.

Not every underdog is able to articulate the distinction between knowing their fair ranks in a social order and being taken undue advantage by those in higher ranks.

Not all underdogs are the real underdogs. Many are wolves in sheep clothing.

Therefore it falls on the shoulders of the wise people in this world to examine the truth in such disputes and support the one who is on the right side of history or amenable to move to the right side of history when counseled.

Who has earned their financial, social, emotional, physical freedom through honest means? 

Who has fought for their own voice while earning their own bread and staying content with what they can rightfully earn?

Vs

Who has always tried to gag others?

Who has tried to unfairly rob the hard earned freedom and earnings of others? 

Who has tried to interfere in someone’s marriage for their own interests?

Simple concepts:

Opinion and freedom.

Surrender yours to someone and be ready to suffer at their hands.

Try to snatch these from someone and be ready for conflict.

Honor these for yourself and for others, and everyone enjoy a life without conflict.

Lucky and rare are the few who manage to safeguard their own voices and freedoms and also have lasting relationships with others who live with the same values and priorities. 

I have given only example of gender hierarchy here and only the example of a bad marriage to highlight how any partnership in general degenerates when basic human rights and needs are disregarded. But my thoughts are meant to draw attention to all forms of hierarchies and partnerships that suffer silently, or otherwise, due to transgressions into each other’s lives. 

These are observations based on my personal life experiences and several global events that affect us all in some way or other. Any specific individual(s), communities or nations are not targeted by my comments and I request anyone reading this post to not apply my observations to any specific person or group. These are human behaviors that have very human consequences as well as solutions if identified in a timely manner and with the right attitude. Given a choice between giving up hope on humanity vs holding on to the belief that we can awaken from the deepest of sleeps at any time, I would choose the latter. Even the biggest of human problems often have very simple and basic solutions. The barrier is our mind. But solutions also arise in the same mind. When the mind speaks it just needs to pause and ask itself: am I putting the barrier or a solution?