25 November 2005

Holla anyone?

Found this site: http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/ on blogger homepage. Unbelievable. Have told Jasmeen (http://blanknoiseproject.blogspot.com) about it. (I have to include the URLs in the brackets because the comp I am using right now does not have a fully supported browser. So, some blogger buttons have gone missing.)

Someone recently told me that she doesnt want to have kids because she doesnt want the responsibility of bringing them up. I felt a cold shiver. Forget the shit about individial choice. I feel scared to be around people who dont want responsibility. The world wouldnt have existed if there were more like her. This is not to extoll the virtues of mohterhood, etc. It's just the statement: I dont want responsibility. There's something very cold-blooded about it.

What say?


Finny Forever said...

When you say "The world wouldnt have existed if there were more like her", I think it's also an option to deliberately put an end to a generational narrative than exclusivley give nature or accident the pleasure of that call ie. discovering you're infertile, pregnant, miscarrying. Deciding not to have children (the reason later) would be describing the end of your line on you own terms. Is it sensible to not to protest the injustice of a (natural) accident? - like a freak thunderbolt killing one? but be reviled at a decision that leaves fewer options for natural(nature's) mischief/happenstance.

As for her reason: she didnt want the responsibility of bringing them up; life is not about responsibility, its about fulfilment. So if responsibility is the premise of her whole contention, she probably isn't wrong, since she picked the wrong premise in the first place. But if you distrust her allergy to responsibility, you have to explain viji. Why should responsibility be the means/end/deliberate concern of the adult human? When are we culpable? when are we not?

Praveen Bhat said...

Sorry, I didn't register there were two topics here. I saw the website and was searching for the second thing! :)

Looking up the former link, I'd be scared to death to live with my family in US! Also, if you haven't watched a movie called Siskiyaan, you should. I saw it this weekend.

On the latter, I think its better than having kids and not taking responsibility of them. Not only kids, that goes for anything that people think they're responsible for. I've known people who think they own almost the bloody world but do nothing for it; if something, they screw it up even further!

In short, I'd say I appreciate her honesty. Apologies, if I got carried away!

Vijayalaxmi said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Vijayalaxmi said...

Finny: For me, life has been, at least till now, only about responsibility. It has been little else.

Praven: I am not talkin about having or not having kids. When this persob told me what she did, I suddenly thought of her as a person who walked through life as you walk on a dirty street. Careful not to touch the rubbish ... Get what I say? And then I wondered that this person has no idea about the kind of responsibilities people take in life. It's a lil difficult to explain...

Finny Forever said...

Please try and explain viji. Life for you has always been about responsibility? What I am trying to say is that that "responsibility" as we are all reacting to here, sounds like a chip on the shoulder, a restraining fringe theme to the main one. the main one which must be positive and absolute. and what is that? (i'm not trying to unnerve; just believe exchange gives a better understanding)

Praveen Bhat said...

(Again a long reply, sorry)

I thought we were on the same page when I said "Not only kids... ". I mean that its better for people not to take responsibility for *anything* if they think they're not suited to it. Not everyone is a leader and I thought I appreciate it if thats what she meant. (if it was something else, I still would want to say the following since I think them to be related)

I, for one, don't take responsibility if I'm going to screw up further. So, the "cold-blooded" thing about not taking responsibility for anything, IMHO, is better than taking responsibility and not doing it or worsening it (not with everything can it be said: "atleast I tried"... especially parenthood). So to continue your argument of "The world wouldn't have existed...", I opine that the world would've been a better place if people just didn't procreate if they were to do a bad job at parenting. That is, if the world didn't exist for this reason, its "nothing being better than nonsense" as I see it.

Finny Forever said...

O and also we're forgetting here the subjectivity of the term "responsisbility". Responsisiblity to yourself and family is in many cases in direct conflict with responsibility to society, all assumptions being "progressive" capitalist.

Ubermensch said...

Well the discussion seems to have covered whatever I had to say. Just to state it again,
I think vij, in your response; you start off with – ‘for me’- which is what it is all about. ‘ For her’ the premises are different and hence the conclusion. I beg to differ on the lack of responsibility part-Responsibility, is a choice and hence conscious. I don’t think anyone by the virtue of being born human is accountable to a defined set of responsibilities as long as the actions involved are not against the statue, in which case they are illegal (not irresponsible). I don’t think that applies to your friend’s case. By being conscious of her decision and its implications, if at all she is anything, she is more responsible than anyone else.
And how would the world be, if there were more of her kind? First its hypothetical, well the world wouldn’t exist even if there is a nuclear table tennis! –However just to elaborate- the answer is status quo; take my word there are many who would want to make up for her. Besides, just deciding to continue one’s lineage doesn’t assure it is going to thrive. I have to mention the nuclear war again.
Cold-blooded? Although it is not hard to see what you mean, allow me to quote an example from Spencer, (which is something on these lines)—

A frog needs to lay about ten thousand eggs to have ten tadpoles to even to give a chance to continue the lineage,
A reptile a few hundred.
Dogs can put forth quite a few puppies
A woman is permitted roughly a max of 30 children by nature.
So as the species ladder raises the number of offsprings that is needed to supposedly continue the lineage comes down. This has been attributed to the species- confidence (consciousness) to survive. So extrapolating it is a bit further, it can be concluded there might be a time that you can choose not to have a junior to continue your trace.

So the point is, it is quite far away from being cold-blooded.
No am not, needling just thought your friend is absolutely in her rights for her decision.
I just hope she is not a devout catholic.

Vijayalaxmi said...

Responsibility is not a choice. Else it wouldnt be responsibility. Talkin of subjectivity, language is not absolute, of course. Never was.

And what is the 'main theme' of life? Main theme of whose life? Whoever said there's a main theme? Is there even a theme? And if life is about choice, why is there a theme to it?

And for the last time, this is not about lineage. It could be about looking after your old parents, could be about keeping your locality clean.

Finny Forever said...

now youre irritated. cant have a rational debate with that around. so ends the debate.

Vijayalaxmi said...

My questions in my comment above still stand.

Ubermensch said...

vij , ''Responsibility is not a choice. Else it wouldnt be responsibility''.

Is your definition of the responsibility , a set of 'to be dones' come whatever may since being born human?
If I got your meaning right, give me one such example aprt from birth* which i cant choose otherwise in my life?
*as per birth, life, i still reserve the right to end it.choice.

if your arguments is based on faith and morality count me out.

Vijayalaxmi said...

When you say 'I can choose,' I am sure it's only about you. For, I am sure that not every one has the luxury of choosing. Choice is an illusion and life is an existential trap, as someone dear once said.

I guess the fashionable way of thinking now is that one has the right to live life as he/she wants, choose to live this way or that, choose fulfillment over responsibility, etc.

I think I will 'choose' to disagree.

Ubermensch said...

Vij help me out here,
I never thought the intent of the discussion was to force an agreement or a congenial disagreement.To me it was more of rather understanding your perspective, vis-a-vis why is that you think she is 'Irresponsible'?
Which youve largely left unanswered?
Drawing from your last comment, did you mean to imply that your friend , in your view is irresponsible because ' she has the luxury to choose' or 'she thinks it is fashionable'

What made you think her decision was irresponsible?

Vijayalaxmi said...

Read one of my initial comments above: "When this person told me what she did, I suddenly thought of her as a person who walked through life as you walk on a dirty street. Careful not to touch the rubbish...'

When I wrote this post, I knew people would immediately associate it with motherhood. But it wasnt about that.

It's about the squeaky clean life carefree responsibility-free life that everyone seems to be hankering after nowadays. As I said before, it's a lil hard to explain ...