Showing posts with label Jennifer Aniston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jennifer Aniston. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Thank You, Michelle: Childless People Have No Stake In The Future



I just finished watching the very moving, very passionate and very emotional DNC speech of Michelle Obama - a mother's plea to vote for the right candidate for the sakes of the children of America. I think the speech was poised to make a double impact - a woman AND a mother making the speech. The metaphor of children that runs through her speech appeals to the deepest emotion in us and only the hard hearted can ignore the strong emotions it evoked. 

She learnt well from the exposure to her husband's speeches in the last 8 years and delivered hers with perfection. She put a great speaker's toolbox to the best use with the right intonation, pauses at the right places, powerful adjectives and an end that can galvanise an entire nation to action! 

Although the applause after her speech hasn't yet died down, I think she put the last nail in the coffin for people with no children. I am not even getting into the recent furore about women who have no children. And the collective voices across the world to support Sania Mirza or Jennifer Aniston's decision of not choosing motherhood...yet! While we stand up against bullying Jennifer, we also shame Theresa May, a senior politician with proven track record, for not having children. She too was reminded that she had no stake in the future and hence wasn't capable of running her country. She was forced to speak about a very private and emotional matter of her maternal status. She was compelled to justify why she cannot be defined by, in Jennifer's words, "(her) maternal status"

But Michelle's appeal to parents at large and reference to herself and Hillary as mothers has yet again proven that childless people continue to be excluded. People who aren't contributing to the future of the country and clearly, have no stake in the future. While her image of a bright future for the children is a great rhetorical device, I strongly believe she just added fuel to the whole parenthood debate. That speech is from one mother appealing to vote for another mother. And I refuse to have anything to do with it since I am not a mother - it doesn’t talk to me. She has just reinforced that only being a parent is worth any while and nothing else is as important. 

She seemed to say - actually pretty much said it - that the future belongs to parents who have the divine duty of nurturing the next generation. I feel like the time of childless people on this planet is over. No matter how much the world erupts in support of people’s rights to decide their parenthood status, there will be these reminders to people with no kids by being left out, of not being the majority (apparently) And when something like this goes down the annals of history from the First Lady of the United States of America, we are far, far away from a time where people can be just people. Not 'parents' and 'not parents'. 

I might be over-reacting. But these are some of the thoughts that I strongly feel after watching the speech. And this post is my way of reaching catharsis and making sense of a melee of emotions - indignation, sadness, sense of injustice - that I've been through watching it. You may choose to agree of disagree but I am hoping, you'll respect my right to express what I feel. 

Friday, December 12, 2014

5 unanswered questions from my favourite sitcom, F.R.I.E.N.D.S

Photo credit
F.R.I.E.N.D.S is a favourite with millions of people across the world. My best stress burster and an all-time comfort watch, the episodes transport me into a different world. I have written about it before here and here. But I think the more you watch something the more you try to reason things out. Beyond all the fun and laughter, there are a few lingering questions in my mind that keep coming back. I thought I should share them here and see if any of you have an answer. 

1. What was wrong with Pete?
Some twists in the sitcom feel like just a whim on the part of the writers. Pete was a perfect person any woman would want to marry. Handsome, intelligent, rich and considerate - he had all a woman would want in her man. And the best Monica could get! Why did the writers kill that relationship off? The couples who were eventually put together is even more imperfect.

2. Why do friends end up marrying each other?
Photo credit
Why were friends turned into lovers? No new people except Mike. I guess there weren't any more friends left except for Joey who isn't marriage material. Monica could have married Pete, Rachel and Mark were great together, Ross and Mona were fine - she even liked his collection of semi precious stones!! I somehow don’t agree with the friends-marrying-each-other concept. Even the series is named FRIENDS!! 

3. Why did the Ross-Rachel track drag on for all 10 seasons?
It seems like the writers just did not know what new to do with the plot. The time after Emma is born, Ross and Rachel do find themselves living happily together and raising the baby. But they still act annoying by treating marriage with each other like a horrible idea. And they are anyways brought together at the end of the series! This also goes into my previous question. 


4. Why are pointless flings between friends just thrown in?
This started towards the later seasons of the series. Joey has a crush on Rachel. It doesn't work. And then Rachel has the hots for Joey! It can't get more silly. And the track is so contrived proved by their inability to take it any further even after they reveal their feelings for each other. Seems like the writers twist it that way to make it easier to kill it off. 

5. Why doesn’t Monica get pregnant?
This is my biggest question because it makes me very sad for her. Monica has always been in control and managed to discipline everyone. Looks like she just failed to control this. Given how she badly wants to be a mother, it almost seems cruel of the writers to deprive her of that joy.

Photo credit 

Do you find something to say about the series? Are there things that irk you in the otherwise perfect series? Or do you refuse to accept there's anything wrong in it and will defend till the end?

Feel free to drop your thoughts in the comments. 


A chore called laundry

The first time I read someone say that folding laundry is therapeutic, I scoffed at the idea. Mounds of laundry is something that all...well...