i dont
not on liberation
not on preservation
engendering consent
to matters i resent
my arrogance might go
my thoughts might flow
unyieldingly would remain
my introduction
my female form recognition
and all the suffixes
that prefix your thoughts right now
but with that nothings wrong.
My socio-cultural defination is a very fluid concept.
It might differ according to the glasses you wear.
Pragmatically speaking how much liberation does any human being need?
In the female context is liberation to be gauged by men's?
Some hold the belief that it is the 'upbringing' that females get that makes their identity. others contest that it is a 'biological' manifestation.
One way, the 'female' conception is being fought with. Other way, the 'female' conception is being held rigid.
Either way, females seem to be unsatisfied.
Picture a lonely rainy night. Put a man on the road. Alone.
Picture a lonely rainy night. Put a woman on the road. Alone.
Do your 'pictures' differ socio-culturally only?
Is the inherent female setup in mind-body-muscular strength at par with her male counterparts?
I will keep my 'prejudiced' answers to myself.
Giving in to the 'biological' debate perhaps opens a space for 'men'(no offence to all you good guys) to flex their 'superior' muscular ego.
Every society, group, gathering, forum, any place.. resounds only by the dictates of the strong. So its difficult to deny that superiority in any form that can be subjugative will be subjugative.
Thats why female liberalists are anyways on tenterhooks?
Why am i even discussing this. Everythings fine. Females are rubbing shoulders everywhere.
Not in villages. (thats why they are villages?)
Not above the glass ceilings. (thats imaginary?)
Not in our houses. (shhhh!!!?)
but with that nothings wrong.