Women Authors and the Bias in Fiction

I was going through the list of books in my library – when I noticed something. Something that had previously noticed and not put too much thought about.

It looks me that most women authors writing fiction - seem to write stories – no matter the genre of fiction be it Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Thriller, Comedy, Mystery – the central pivot is romance or the protagonist has to have a romantic interest.

This is not to say that male authors don’t write stories with the central pivot being romance, or that that there is no romance angle in the stories (or by-plots) but that the preponderance of stories written by women authors – the romance angle is front and center.

Is this because that most women authors don’t write stories without romance angle – because of the type-casting of expectation/peer mentality/ group-thinking or that there is an inherent bias in the book publishing industry – where in the expectation is that a story sent in by women authors that don’t have the central pivot of romance or the protagonist does not have a romantic interest is not published?

If you ask me – it’s a mix of both the factors – or to put in a better way – a self-perpetuating cycle where women authors because of the inherent bias they feel write stories with romance angle and the editors/publishing – because they see women authors writing/turning in more stories with romance angle – expect to see all books from women authors to have romance angle and biased against stories that do not have the romance angle.

With the availability of self-publishing in recent years and especially with Amazon – ebook publishing – I think we should see varied stories from women authors that doesn’t have the central pivot is romance or the protagonist has to have a romantic interest.

Avengers End Game - Petulant Retaliation

This post was of course set off as the title suggests by the movie Avengers - End Game.

I know that so many people loved the movie. As a cinematic experience, i liked the movie, however i completely disagree with the morality of the story if you will.

Here are the reasons why?

• How is it Ok for Iron Man to snap his fingers and wipe out Thanos's army?
• Don't they deserve to live like all the other beings that were brought to life?
• Did they all have the same principles as of Thanos - that to wipe out half the life of the universe?
• What about their family and friends? - Don't they deserve time with them?
• Its been five years since half the life was wiped away.
• If they are brought back suddenly and the rest have lived for 5 years.
• What about the emotional and psychological effect on all the sentient life forms?
• Did the heroes think about that?
• How are the life forms gonna cope?
• Both the life forms that survived for 5 years and have adjusted.
• The ppl who have returned. 
• What about the availability of resources for the people who are returned.
• So, the heroes would rather that many life forms live in poverty and disease, compete for diminishing resources rather than with plentiful resources for all?
• I mean Thanos makes it very clear why he is doing it. He is not trying to become a tyrant (Sure he presumes to make the decision for all of life, but at least his logic for what he is doing is clear and understandable). He wants to see life bloom in its full magnificence. 

In short, the only reason i think the Avengers do the snap and return life is because of petulant retaliation. It's because Thanos defeated and bested them. They just want to be the winner, no matter the cost. 

And oh yeah, if I were to get a gauntlet like Thanos - I would do the same thing he did. 

Pets, Parents and Patriotism

Yep, that's the title of my blog post - Pets, Parents and Patriotism. To understand the connection between the 3, read on.

Let's start with Pets. A lot of us have Pets, or there are Pets in your home. Now, if you the question, do you love your Pets, the answer will be a resounding Yes (I mean, will will anyone have a Pet that they don't love? If you do have a Pet that you don't love - that's going to be a whole another blog post.)

Now, if i ask you do you respect your Pet? What would your answer be? First, the concept of Respect for a Pet is quite a alien thing. I know, many will disagree with me saying No, that they respect their Pets. But do you truly respect the Pet? Do you trust your Pet to know what he/she/it wants?Give the pet the space they want?

Many of us take our Pets for granted. When was the last time, you did something that showed respect to your Pet(s)?

With that thought in your mind, think about your parents. Many of us (I am not going to be politically correct, and say "All") love our Parents. How many of us Respect our Parents? I know, I know, people are going to say we all love and respect our Parents.

But, do you truly respect your Parents? I have heard many people crib about their parents (about their likes/dislikes and decisions). If you truly respect someone, would you crib about them to others or would you actively debate/discuss with them about your opinions and come to a common conclusion. At the least you will agree to disagree.

One might say, respect for a person does not mean blind acceptance for everything that a person does. No, I agree it does not. But, without trusting someone, you cannot have a respect for that person. And when you have trust and respect for a person, you don't go around cribbing about that person. And when you say you love a person, you cannot do that without trusting or respecting that person (You may disagree, but this not  a negotiable point.)

Got You, Didn't I? Actually wanted to write a longer post, before giving this punch.
Here is the question - why is it taken for granted that people should love and respect their Parents?

And taking that point further - and applying it to Patriotism. Why is it taken for granted that one has to be patriotic towards that country that they were born into? Why should one have love for a nation/homeland in the first place?
After all a nation is not a natural entity (for lack of a better word), one doesn't find a nation in nature. Sure, yes every animal has a territory that it considers its own and protects. But here is the difference, animals don't interfere in the territory of other animals. They don't overuse the resources in their territory.

And, then there is the question can a person have patriotism towards a country other than in which they were born. Can patriotism be driven purely by the ideology or the founding ethos of a country rather than in which country a person was born.

Or why should one feel patriotism itself at all? Yes, maybe it is rooted in the tribal bonding that helped humans survive. But now that we have evolved, should we still be tied to the old notions? Shouldn't one re-examine the notions.  

Euthanasia

I recently came across an advertisement from a non-profit that was asking for donations. The donation was so that they could shelter and feed more stray dogs & cats for longer time and prevent these animals from being euthanized.

And it got me thinking – how euthanizing of animals (stray, old or badly injured) is a common practice across the world.  While I couldn’t fine the numbers globally, I got the number that approximately 1.5 million dogs & cats are euthanized each year in the USA. Though this number has apparently come down from 2.6 million in 2011. Imagine that for a minute, that numbers equal to the number of people in a city like Madurai, India.

Yes, euthanizing animals is legal and people don’t want to see their pets suffer in pain. Which is all fine and agreeable. However, if you look at the legality of human euthanasia, in only 5 countries is it legal – with very specific language on when it can be legal. Assisted suicide is legal in 4 countries, some US states and 1 state in Australia – again with very specific language.

How is it that humans think that it is ok/acceptable to euthanize animals but when it comes to humans, there is dithering and specific rules and legalities laid out.

Most of you would argue that the rules and legalities are required to prevent people from being killed for other purposes and these murders covered up as euthanasia; that the euthanasia loophole could be used by serial killers.

But here is the thing, how do you know that there is no animal serial killer out there. A person who has trained to control their urges and get-by by killing only animals. Especially in India with such a large stray dog & cat population, it would be easy to pull it off. In fact, anywhere in the world it would be possible – because nobody keeps a track of the animal deaths. Btw, most serial killers start with animal cruelty in their childhood.

I believe the reason why humans consider it ok for animal euthanasia and not so much for human euthanasia is about mental conditioning. Mental conditioning of the supremacy of humans over other life forms.

We are told and the idea is reinforced from a young age that somehow humans are better and more valuable than other life forms. It’s the same idea that I was trying to make about in my previous post.

If you ask any human – why & how humans are better than other life forms, the answers would range from – look what humans have achieved, humans are the most intelligent, human are the top of the food chain.

Humans are not the top of the food chain, humans have been hunted by other animals for so many ages. Why did you think humans have a ingrained fear of the dark? As for the most intelligent – really and look at what humans have done – the invention of so many tools to kill more efficiently and more quickly; human greed, the extinction of so many animals. And the question of look what humans have achieved – again you are looking from a human perspective. Is what humans have done considered achievement? Have you seen animals in their natural state – being depressed and killing for the pleasure of killing.

If one removes the human perspective and see objectively – there is no reason why humans are better, more valuable than other life forms. All lifeforms have a more or less equal purpose in the food chain. And I would argue that humans have done more harm to everything than good.

So, what am trying to convey here? That animals should not be euthanized so easily? That a larger debate on animal euthanasia has to happen? That human euthanasia has to be made more available? Or that humans are not worthy.

Now, I definitely am saying that humans are not worthy. Which I have been making for many many years.

As for the others I am saying that humans needs to start thinking about every aspect that we have taken for granted.

Does it mean that I am going to stop eating chickens or using bug spray, Hello no that’s my prerogative.

The Flaw of the God Emperor

On seeing the title, I know many of you would assume that I am writing about a flaw in myself. I assure you that is not the case. I am the Lord Emperor remember, not the God Emperor.

The God Emperor Leto Atreides II (from the Dune Series) has the power of prescience and also lives for 4000 years to ensure peace and that humans survive in the universe. The same is the case for R. Daneel Olivaw (from the Robot series), the robot lives for a long time to guide humanity to prosperity. Hari Seldon (from the Second Foundation series) the poly-math who invents the algorithm to predict the future, uses the algorithm to leave clues to that ensure humans survive.

What’s common in all these three sentiment beings is that they all make tough choices & scarifies to ensure humans survive in the galaxy and spread across the galaxy/universe. They are all 3 also extremely intelligent, considered the best minds to ever live. They are all 3 also fictional characters, which is a minor point.

But there is a flaw that all these 3 have. Can anyone of you guess the flaw? Of course the flaw can be excused in that Anomander Rake (from the Malazan series) a sentient being (Tiste Andii) who lives for 100,000 years himself had that flaw.

What is the flaw you ask?  The flaw is that they assume that the survival of their species is requirement, a necessity. And they proceed on that premise. Let’s leave the question of Anomander Rake for now and return to it later.

My question is that why do they (Leto, R. Daneel & Hari) presume that the humans have to survive? I mean is survival of Humans really that important? What if the survival of humans causes others species into extinction as we have already seen happening on Earth? What if the survival of humans leads to the eventual destruction of the universe? I mean does Leto who has prescience see really that far into time? We do know that his father Paul has prescience, but that he could see only a part of what Leto saw.

In the book Inferno, the protagonist (Bertrand Zobrist) is seen trying to control the human population. Though, he chooses to do that by control the reproductive ability of humans than by just killing them, a choice that is supposed to “humanize” the character.  And even in this book which actually takes a good look at what humans have done to the planet; it deals with the topic of human survival as a right. It does not question, from where the right originates.  

There was a book (Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy), in which a radical fringe organization tries to introduce a virulent strain of Ebola called “Ebola Shiva” into the world in order to kill off humans to save the planet. In that book the organization is simply treated as a terrorist organization and their arguments are simply brushed off as that of mad people.

I would rather take the approach of Ozzie Isaacs (Again a fictional character from the Commonwealth Saga book series) who risks his life in order to prevent a alien species(a sentient species) from being wiped out, even though (and here is where you need to note) that alien species tries to wipe out all humans. Ozzie argues what right do humans have to wipe out another species (albeit there being only 1 member of the species alive as the others having being wiped out by the surviving member, which Ozzie argues goes in favour of preserving the lone member). Is Ozzie the only human who understands what I understand? Here, let me explain it to you.

What makes us assume that humans have to survive? Why do we never consider human destruction could may be result in a better world for all the other species? Why this question is never debated in schools and colleges? I mean we have started debating about climate change and the impact of human action. We do know for sure that human activity has leaded to the extinction of many a species. But do we ever question on what basis do we assume human survival as a right?

All our thoughts and knowledge are based on the Axiom of human survival. My question is how did human survival become an axiom?

Is it because as Richard Dawkins so beautifully puts in the Selfish Gene book, that our genes subconsciously makes us pursue that survivability of the species? But as sentient beings should we not overcome our base yearnings in order to do what is best for all rather than only ourselves. When I mean all, I mean all the species.

So you now all see why I, the Lord Emperor the best of all. For I question the very premise of all human knowledge. Why do I question that premise? For my subjects are not only humans but all of life, from the basic single organisms to the universe itself, thus the premise of all knowledge should be the survivability of the universe or is even that an axiom that is not self evident? What if the survival of this universe causes several other universes to become extinct?

So what should be the axiom on which to base all knowledge?

That is the question that drives me. To find the ultimate axiom on to base all knowledge.

Compulsory Organ Harvesting

Reading the papers for the last few days has got me thinking. I am referring to the Organ Donation Racket that has been unearthed in Tamil Nadu. 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/doctor-held-in-kidney-racket-case/article4811555.ece?ref=sliderNews

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/3-more-involved-in-kidney-racket-arrested/article4804482.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/kidney-racket-police-question-11-persons/article4807847.ece

And this is in a state that is lauded for its Cadaver Transplant system that is efficient and transparent.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/not-for-sale/article4624063.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/british-medical-journal-lauds-tns-cadaver-transplant-programme/article4614606.ece

What did the articles have me thinking about? It is this: We are a nation of 1.2 Billion people, with a crude death rate of 8 (No. of ppl per 1000 ppl who die) corresponding to 9.6 million dead people every year. And yet, most people on the Organ waitlist have to wait a long time or resort to the illegal market to access the organs.

The solution I am suggesting is a bit radical and as many of you may think mad/crazy.

The idea is very simply this: Compulsory organ harvesting from cadavers. I mean remove the getting permission of the deceased’s relatives for organ harvesting.

The immediate question that will be raised is, won’t this make it possible to easily cover medical negligence or errors? The organs will be harvested immediately, leaving no proof of what was done.

The solution to the above problem is that the deceased’s relative, in case they suspect any irregularities should file an official complaint within 2 hours of death or the organs will be harvested.

In case, a complaint is filed, the cadaver must be frozen. A preliminary investigation must be done to check validity of the complaint by a competent team of doctors and if required a post-mortem must be done within 16 hours of death. Why within 16 hours of death? Because, tissues must be harvested with 24 hours of death.  Tissues are specific parts of an organ like cornea, heart valves, skin, bones etc. These tissues can be used for transplantation or for research.

The organ/tissue harvest harvesting must be done by doctors who have specialized in this field. This will make sure that the body that is handed over to the deceased’s relatives bears no or minimal external marks of the surgeries. This will make it more acceptable for a lot of the people.

I know that the idea sounds draconian, but it is the need of the day. Isn't it a crime that a body that has healthy organs is burnt/buried rather then used to save some other precious lives?

Imagine it was you or someone close to you who is waiting for an organ/tissue and so many go to waste every day?

Of course, for my idea to work there should be robust system in place at each district level and going up to the national level.

The system involves having teams of specialist doctors who will harvest the organs, tissues. Teams of doctors, who will investigate the complaints. Mechanism to enable people to register complaints easily. System to prosecute people who have filed vexatious complaints even if there is no probable case to prevent people from simply filing cases to swamp the system. Registry of people waiting for organs/tissues at each district/state/region and national levels. Registry of universities/research companies that need organs/tissues for research.  And a thousand other details that will come up, no doubt.

The best way forward would be to put in place the systems for organ harvesting without compulsory organ harvesting but only volunteered. And once chinks in the system have been ironed out, the compulsory organ harvesting can be rolled out.  

Conscription For Police Forces in India

Police Reforms in India:

The National Police Commission (1977-81), Ribeiro Committee (1998-99), Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000), Soli Sorabjee Committee (2005) commissions, Supreme Court intervention (2006)  and various other luminaries have been clamouring for police reforms in India. The suggestions are for to insulate the police from political influence, separate the investigation arm from the law & order arm, making the police more sensitive to the common man.

All these reforms will go a long long way in making the Indian police a truly professional service and remove a lot of the pressures & strains on the policemen & policewomen. Yet, I think one area that has been missed by all of these reports, white papers and discussions.

India has one of the worst police to people ratio in the world. Even if all the vacancies are filled in the police force, the ratio will still not be up to the ratio that has been suggested as the ideal.

My suggestion is that all citizens of India should be made to serve in the police for a minimum of 3 years between the ages of 18 to 30 years. This will be a one-time continuous service period. 

The idea is neither novel nor original. Israel has compulsory service for all its citizens between the age of 18 to 24 yrs in its armed forces, with the option of continue after the compulsory 2 yrs. Switzerland has an citizen army with every able body person required to serve when called upon in times of distress. For a long time in human history, before the concept of modernized organized military forces came into being; during wartimes common people were called to augment the military.

Let me tell how the idea of compulsory police service will be beneficial.

In India, police are viewed with suspect and are often the subject to worst criticism coming next only to politicians. Sometimes, these criticisms are made without any understanding of the conditions under which the police have to work. Yes, I agree that sometimes the criticisms are warranted. Most of the criticisms are by the arm chair pundits who have never been on the field with the police working with all the pressures they face. By making people serve in the police, the issues, and the pressures and constrain faced by the police will be seen by all. It will make the people empathize with their fellow officers.

India has a huge problem of unemployment. So many talented people just waste away their lives because they simply do not get an opportunity to showcase their talent. Many are unemployed not because they do not want to work but because they do not get work. This large untapped workforce can be easily channeled to do good for the country.

There are reports that police forces have a myopic view of the minorities. Imagine what a load of good it will do by the infusion of the fresh blood into the police force? Imagine what it will do to improve the number of women personnel serving in the police force.

Why have I suggested that the compulsory service be done anytime between 18 and 30 yrs? Some people would be willing to join the Indian Armed forces or be taking the UPSC. Those people should be given the chance to join the service of their choice. If they make it, they will not be asked to do the compulsory service.

At the time of joining the people would be asked to choose between either compulsory service or voluntary service. The people choosing the voluntary service will obviously have better career progression and perks. However, the voluntary service personnel will have to do a minimum service of 10 years before they can leave the service.

I am sure there will be people who will say that suppose they do not want to do the 3 years compulsory service, what then? A suggestion would be for the people who opt to be placed on a higher tax bracket then people who do their service or that people who do their service will be put on a lower tax bracket.

There are of course, many irons to be worked out in this suggestion; and as the saying goes “the devil lies in the details” there will be many problems that need be solved before this suggestion can be implemented like what role the compulsory drafted people will play etc.

I only hope that the Indian police force become a professional police force that acts as an role model to the other forces in the world.

http://www.liiofindia.org/in/cases/cen/INSC/2006/609.html  

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=91%3Ashiva&id=753%3Asummary-of-ribeiro-committees-recommendations&Itemid=100  

http://web.archive.org/web/20130306220842/http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/aj/police/india/initiatives/summary_padmanabhaiah.pdf  

http://www.hindu.com/op/2006/11/05/stories/2006110500691400.htm