Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts

Women are Rational, Autonomous and Equal

What exactly does it mean to be a human being? This subject encompasses anything from whether or not a culture or society views women as completely human to whether or not women are thought to be logical. 

Although these concerns may appear silly, it was not long ago in our collective history that women were not considered completely human or rational, and in many parts of the world, women are still seen as inferior creatures in comparison to males. 

There is ample evidence that women are viewed as less than fully human even when a society purports to value equality. We may examine the educational options available to women once we have established that women are actually human and that they are and should be regarded complete moral beings (with all the rights that come with that status). 

For a long time, feminists have been concerned about the right to an equitable education. 

Some early feminists believed that females should be educated in the same way that males are, rather than at 'finishing schools,' which primarily taught females the skills they would need as bourgeois housewives. 

Furthermore, women have just lately gained access to higher education institutions. More recent feminist interpretations of equal intellectual and educational rights address issues like as classroom behavior, course content, and the predominance of positive role models. 

We may start with the most basic of questions: who is a human? 
Women are still battling to be accepted as fully human in various parts of the world and at various times in our own communities. 

There are clear statements to the opposite in the Western philosophical tradition. The philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE), whose philosophy pervades much of Western dogma, notably stated that the female is a malformed male. 

Despite the fact that his message was far more complex and subtle (and should not be divorced from his philosophical theory of reproduction), this single remark continues to carry disproportionate weight in many situations. 

Aristotle inspired Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE), who understands this passage to signify that females are misbegotten in their particular nature rather than in their universal human nature. 

One interpretation is that women are essential to the species, but that as individual representations of the species, they are at best inadequate. Because he supplies semen in the process of reproduction, Aristotle and Aquinas believed that the male is the more perfect of the two. 

The ovum was not identified until the late nineteenth century, and it was assumed to be the catalyst and maybe the location of the soul. 

Aquinas could not have realized the degree of the female involvement to conception when he wrote over 700 years ago (though he did know about the female role to gestation). 

Throughout history, moral and political thinkers have neglected to incorporate women in their views of society. This was despite Plato's Republic (428/27–347 BCE) setting the tone. Plato maintained that women should train alongside males and that everyone should discover their position in society based on their own particular natures rather than preconceived notions about the nature of the sexes. Plato, on the other hand, makes a completely different assertion in a later book. 

Women are produced from the souls of the most vile and illogical males, according to the Timaeus. Regrettably, this later feeling fared better in political theory than the Republic's gender equality. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) was a Christian theologian who tried to combine Platonic philosophy with Christian religion. Augustine's opinions on women are a little hazy. 

On the one hand, he supports women's complete humanity, claiming that both men and women have the image of God (which separates humans from other creatures). 

The picture of God can only be found in the portion of the mind that is dedicated to God's contemplation, and both men and women have this potential. However, both women and men have temporal or worldly responsibilities that are prescribed, at least in part, by their God-given natures. 

Women appear to have greater temporal responsibilities (think of childbirth and nursing tasks), and hence are unable to dedicate as much time or intelligence to God contemplation. As a result, women are both equal and unequal. 

Each of these works explores the subject of whether or not women are human in their own unique way. Saying "yes" or "no" is a little too easy, but some early thinkers plainly did not believe that women are human in the same sense that males are. 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), a more contemporary character, believed that women were human, but that they possessed a unique set of intrinsic virtues that required them to be trained and treated differently than males. This poses a comparable concern about women's moral personhood rather than their humanity. 

The focus of Rousseau's discussion of a woman's moral behavior is on her responsibility to be a decent wife and mother. He distinguishes between male and female virtues. Instead of being bold and intelligent, women were expected to be meek and lovely. Rousseau thinks that a woman has no responsibilities outside of the house, ignoring the experience of women who are forced to labor outside the house. 

To put it another way, Rousseau's virtuous woman is a lady from the middle to upper classes who has the time to give her entire attention to her husband and children. Rousseau isn't the only classical moral and political theorist who thinks this way. 

The notion of the person as a participant to a social contract is central to classical liberalism. Individuals who adhere to classical liberalism, on the other hand, are thought to be free of domestic responsibilities. 

Furthermore, the individual rights that governments are supposed to defend are nearly invariably mainly or largely the rights of male property owners. 

Women are supposed to be a part of the man's 'person,' who represents the family in all public and political concerns. 

Women of the working class were clearly considered as wage earners in socialist traditions, but the socialists of the nineteenth century had little interest in any contribution from women. 

To call someone a moral person, one must first recognize that they are a human being with particular abilities. These abilities usually involve the ability to create and act on independent judgments. 

In some political and legal circumstances, the condition of moral persons is extremely crucial. Children, for example, are frequently dismissed as moral beings because they are seen incapable of independently determining what is good and wrong and then acting on that determination. 

Whereas ‘human' is the metaphysical category (i.e., the category of creatures to which someone belongs), ‘moral person' is the normative category to which rights, privileges, and duties are often assigned. 

Women as sensible and self-reliant Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) was an eighteenth-century feminist who contended for women's moral individuality as well as their entire humanity. 

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), her magnum opus, pushed for gender equality and reacted to many who argued differently. Wollstonecraft was a passionate advocate for social justice and human rights, and she wrote a number of publications before her tragic death (and is also known for her famous daughter, Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein). 

In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft argues for women's rational humanity. Of course, she also advocated for women's civic and economic rights. 

Human beings, according to Wollstonecraft, are defined by reason, virtue, and knowledge. Humans are distinguished from other animals by their ability to reason. 

This was and still is a popular perception of humans: that we are rational animals, and that it is our ability to reason that makes us superior or more heavenly (think of Augustine and how the rational mind might be directed toward God). 

What separates one human being from another is virtue, moral goodness, or character. 

Wollstonecraft is obviously allowing for the idea of degrees of perfection — distinctions that distinguish some beings from others. Her argument, though, is that being born female does not define one's goodness in and of itself. 

Finally, knowledge is obtained by experience, but if one's experience is limited by societal mores, one's nature will never be perfected. 

Nature's completeness is required for happiness. As you can see, Wollstonecraft laid the ground for demonstrating that societal norms that prevent women from obtaining experience and knowledge also prevent them from being happy. 

Furthermore, she maintained that the so-called "feminine qualities" extolled by Rousseau and others at the time were just standards of decorum. 

Women were educated to be lovely rather than moral, and as a result, they were doomed to be second-class citizens. 

Women were prevented from acquiring reasoning abilities, and as a result, they lacked the virtue that society required for full citizenship involvement. 

Women were being regarded as less than human, Wollstonecraft reasoned, by excluding them from the formation and practice of logic. Her principal answer was to give women with actual education. She maintained that in order to be completely human, women must be able to act independently. 

She did, however, contend that wifely and motherly obligations were among the mandates of reason and should be properly carried out.

An equal education that provided women with abundant opportunities for intellectual and moral growth would result in marriages marked by camaraderie between equals.

Friendship, not social standing, would be the yardstick for marital success, since a woman might be a friend to her husband rather than merely a pretty decoration in his home. 

Nonetheless, despite the fact that men and women have similar intellectual skills, Wollstonecraft claims that they have certain disparities, the most obvious of which is in their domestic duties. 

One of the convincing points in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman compares women's existence under social propriety limits to soldiers' lives: "Like fair sex, the business of their lives is gallantry." They were raised to please others, and they only live to please others. They do not, however, lose their place in the gender hierarchy.' 

Some feminists eventually found fault with Wollstonecraft's seeming exaltation of reason. They claim Wollstonecraft was embracing a male personality model. Suggestions that women can match that paradigm and should be provided with the social and educational opportunities to do so appear to elevate males by making women more like them. At the very least, emotion appears to be pushed aside in favor of logic.

 But perhaps it is an oversimplification. Perhaps we shouldn't accept the idea that rationality and passion are mutually incompatible. Some recent feminist ethics and epistemology work attempts to reclaim the relevance of include emotion in personhood conceptions. 

Virginia Woolf (1882–1941), another important twentieth-century woman, championed first-wave ideas. A Room of One's Own (1929) by Virginia Woolf explores the obstacles a woman might encounter in pursuing an education at a famous institution on par with a man. 

Woolf urges her reader/listener to envision what it would be like to walk across the huge lawns and dine in the big halls of Oxford or Cambridge, originally offered as a series of lectures on women and fiction (referred to as Oxbridge). She asks us to imagine a female Shakespeare – his imaginary sister – and consider the obstacles that might have stopped her from realizing her writing potential. 

A woman in Shakespeare's day was excluded from lectures and libraries, publishers would reject her work, and societal expectations would prevent her from writing for lengthy periods of time. 

Woolf expresses his curiosity on what it would take for a woman to make a piece of art. 

In response, she sends her character to the British Museum, where she seeks to discover the truth about women. She is astounded at the large quantity of novels in every genre published about women, the majority of which are written by males. 

Men of all stripes have solutions to the question, "Why are women poor?" 

These texts claimed to explain why women lacked morality, knowledge, and physical strength. Woolf's amusing portrayal of this journey into women's literature emphasizes a lack of information – but not a lack of opinion – on the problem of women's lower social standing. 

Of course, they all failed because they started with the notion that women are inferior, and their works were full of rage. 

The fight to preserve supremacy is at least partly to blame for the rage. 

According to Woolf, males have exploited women as a kind of mirror in which to reflect themselves in greater terms. 

That is, guys believed they were better than they actually were because of women's adulation. 

Woolf foresees a period when women will no longer be the protected sex, even forecasting that within a century of her work, women will be soldiers and laborers alongside men. 

Her idea was that gender roles vary depending on societal ideals, and that gender stereotypes would shift or vanish if traditionally male social roles were offered to women. Woolf anticipated that women will participate in a wide range of activities, and that the "truth" regarding women's inferiority would crumble. 

The ‘protected sex' is effectively barred from exercising its rights. 

Woolf famously asserted that a woman needed a "place of her own" and enough money to sustain herself in order to write fiction – and indeed to engage in social life as men do. 

As we've seen, Mary Wollstonecraft believed that in order for women to develop their reasoning and moral virtue, they required freedom. Virginia Woolf, in a similar vein, emphasized the numerous barriers that women face in their intellectual pursuits. 

Both believed that humans were independent, and that women were viewed as less than human when they were prevented from acting freely by tradition or societal mores. 

To be self-legislating is to be independent. 

In a broad sense, this indicates that you set your own rules, but it's more usually understood to mean that you determine what you should do in all situations, big and small. 

Women's liberation theorists such as Wollstonecraft and Woolf show how societal expectations, regulations, and economic systems prevent women from exercising their liberty.

So, while Wollstonecraft, Woolf, and others argue that women should have the same education as men in order to prepare them for full involvement in social life, they also realize the need to modify other systems.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You may also want to read more about Feminism and Activism here.

Prosecution-Lynching-Conviction of Jasmine Abdullah Richards, Black Lives Matter Organizer in Pasadena

Dear Feminists,


"I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept."

~Dr. Angela Davis

As many of you have heard, BLMLA/DENA organizer Jasmine [Abdullah] Richards has been charged with felony lynching. As students of Cal State LA and advocates of a social justice politic, please consider signing the petition to Free Jasmine Richards from political imprisonment.

If you are unfamiliar with what is happening to Jasmine, please read on & watch the videos below.

Black Lives Matter Organizer Jasmine [Abdullah] Richards Convicted of "Attempted Lynching"

"The charge stems from an August incident where Richards and other Pasadena, California, activists tried to remove a Black woman from police custody. Black Lives Matter Pasadena founder Jasmine Richards was found guilty of a felony on Wednesday (June 1). As Mic reports that Richards was charged under a California law that—until last summer when legislators amended it to omit the racially-charged word—defined lynching as "the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer." The charges stem from an August 2015 incident when Richards led a march highlighting Pasadena police officers' 2012 killing of Kendrec McDade. When Richards and other activists saw police arresting a Black woman at a nearby restaurant, they surrounded her and tried to remove her from their custody. Activist and New York Daily News journalist Shaun King shared a video of that incident in his own article about Richards' charges. This isn't the first time the law has been used to prosecute an activist. In January, Maile Hampton was charged under the same statute for attempting to free a fellow protestor from police custody. The Sacramento Bee reports that prosecutors dropped the charge in April. "A law that was enacted for the purposes of defending Black people against hangings and torture is now being used against Black people who are fighting for the lives of Black people who are killed by the police," Richards' attorney, Nana Gyamfi, told Mic. Gyamfi also said that no Black people served on the jury that convicted Richards."

--Sameer Rao, Colorlines, June 3 2016

Read the whole article here:

Watch this video of the pretextual incident (warning: police violence):

"Political prosecution and the attempted lynching of Jasmine Richards." 

-- Nana Gyamfi, attorney of Jasmine Richards. 

"Jasmine is a political prisoner and represents probably the hugest threat to the state in that folks at the bottom can recognise their own oppression and rise up against it." 

--Melina Abdullah, Chair and Professor, PanAfrican Studies, California State University, Los Angeles, Black Lives Matter organiser

You can watch "Democracy Now" broadcast about Jasmine Abdullah Richards here:

Watch interview on "Uprising with Sonali" with Patrice Cullors and Jasmine Abdullah Richards about forming Black Lives Matter.


Habeas Quaestus' analysis of the history of CA Penal Code § 405a :

Please consider signing and forwarding; please spread the word.

Judge Elaine Lu presided over the case and is set to sentence Jasmine on Tuesday, June 7th. The charge could bring as much as 4 years in state prison. Will you please quickly sign the petition before Tuesday?

Text of the petition:

In a perverse misapplication of a 1933 California law intended to stop lynch mobs from forcibly removing detainees from police custody and engaging in public murders of Black people, Black Lives Matter organizer Jasmine "Abdullah" Richards was convicted of attempted felony "lynching" on June 1, 2016.  

The 29 year-old lead organizer for the Pasadena Black Lives Matter chapter was found guilty of charges related to an attempt to shield a Black woman from what she believed to be unlawful detainment by Pasadena police, following a "Peace March" that she and the chapter organized.  While there are no allegations of violence and no injuries suffered, the peaceful gathering of 15-20 children, mothers, and community members was dubbed a "riot" by the prosecutor - a necessary element to the "lynching" charge.  

Jasmine's story is incredibly inspiring. Growing up in Pasadena, she has said she felt 'lost' until having a political awakening inspired by the Ferguson protests in 2014. Jasmine traveled to Ferguson as part of the 'Black Lives Matter Rides' and returned home feeling the call to fight back against police violence.

Unfortunately, her newfound purpose was met with aggressive harassment by law enforcement. Jasmine was repeatedly targeted for arrest and faced exorbitant bail amounts and excessive charges. Now local police and prosecutors have taken the extreme step of convicting Jasmine of felony attempted lynching - labeling her 'Peace March' a riot and comparing Black Lives Matter to the Klu Klux Klan in the process.

Judge Elaine Lu presided over the case and is set to sentence Jasmine "Abdullah" Richards on Tuesday, June 7th.  Jasmine is currently being held in Los Angeles County jail.  The charge could bring as much as 4 years in state prison. Jasmine has been fighting for her community. Please join us in standing with her and demand "No Jail Time for Jasmine."

This is the letter we will send to Judge Lu.

Dear Judge Lu,

I am writing you to ask that you not sentence Black Lives Matter activist, Jasmine 'Abdullah' Richards, to any jail time for the preposterous 'attempted lynching' she has been convicted of.

As you know, the law that Jasmine was convicted under was created to protect Black people from race-based mob violence at the height of America's lynching epidemic. It is incredibly insulting to Pasadena's Black communities and all people of conscience to use this law to incarcerate a non-violent Black political activist. 

As a Judge, you are sworn to uphold the constitution including our rights to peaceful assembly and free speech. Regardless, of how you may feel about the cause of police accountability, imprisoning Jasmine for what happened at the Peace March she organized in 2015 would set a dangerous precedent and only exacerbate the lack of confidence Black communities have in the criminal justice system.

Please do not allow your courtroom to be used as a tool of intimidation and retaliation. Refuse to sentence Jasmine to jail time.

Thank you,


Posted by Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

In Solidarity with Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance at Cal State L.A.

@fmlacsula &

The Spirit of Freedom is The Spirit of Love

        Re-posting this interesting excerpt seen on Intellectual Takeout ,

"All riches must finally fall into the gap between thoughts and things. Governed by mind but caught in matter, assets must afford an income stream that is expected to continue. The expectation may shift as swiftly as thought, but things, alas, are all too solid and slow to change. The kaleidoscope of shifting valuations, flashing gains and losses as it is turned in the hands of time, in the grip of 'news,' distributes and redistributes the wealth of the world far more quickly and surely than any scheme of the state.

The belief that wealth consists not chiefly in ideas, attitudes, moral codes, and mental disciplines but in definable static things that can be seized and redistributed — that is the materialist superstition. It stultified the works of Marx and other prophets of violence and envy. It betrays every person who seeks to redistribute wealth by coercion. It balks every socialist revolutionary who imagines that by seizing the so-called means of production he can capture the crucial capital of an economy. It baffles nearly every conglomerateur who believes he can safely enter new industries by buying rather than by learning them. It confounds every bureaucrat of science who imagines he can buy or steal the fruits of research and development.

Even if it wished to, the government could not capture America’s wealth from its 1 percent of the 1 percent. As Marxist despots and tribal socialists from Cuba to Greece have discovered to their huge disappointment, governments can neither create wealth nor effectively redistribute it. They can only expropriate and watch it dissipate. If we continue to harass, overtax, and oppressively regulate entrepreneurs, our liberal politicians will be shocked and horrified to discover how swiftly the physical tokens of the means of production dissolve into so much corroded wire, abandoned batteries, scrap metal, and wasteland rot."

~ George Gilder, 'Unleash the Mind'


         Isn't it amazing how we fail to learn, or 'Unleash the Mind' as Gilder rightly put it, despite so many of these examples that remain lost and buried in the forgotten pages of history. The diverse values that make this country so unique and blessed, indeed are of a very personal Nature. Despite all the adversities including the shifting tides of globalization it is extremely difficult and close to impossible to shake or take something so personal away. Sadly, you only understand the meaning of what is dear and priceless when it is lost or when you have newly discovered what you have never had.....

    This is another article I wrote a while ago relating to the same subject. I wanted to share some of these deeper sentiments and thoughts from around the world,

The Spirit of Freedom is The Spirit of Love

    This is a response made to a very valid, interesting and mind opening note made by my friend Princess Erika de Krutova,

" I do not understand. America is so strong on freedoms. I have read your Constitution many times in an effort to incorporate some ideas and items into our country. How is it that freedoms can be taken away? Everyone in my country and almost all I know across Europe envy the American way of life and freedom it brings." - Princess Erika de Krutova

Here are some of the colorful and inspiring responses that were made.........

Sherry Lee: "Freedom cannot be taken away of heart mind and spirit but evil people empowered by satan want to enslave because that is the nature of the beast. They want to destroy happiness on the planet and light and fill every soul with terror. I have worked with these people. There is no logic, love or sanity in their universe. Only darkness. They create destruction. If they enslave a few they will enslave the world through advanced technology. I wrote a book about this. It is called 'In Satan We Trust'- Age of destruction. The devil gains whatever power he can. The foolish servants of the anti Christ dominate to get control. Anyone with half a brain knows this sick power won't stay in the hands of a few. It will spread and lead to world destruction unless it is stopped. This can't have a good outcome...."

Michael Scott:"Seems to be a combination of greed based economics and an evil need to change something established by a previous person in power. Freedom is a commodity it seems in so many ways and a country can go bankrupt in private and turn the tables of any constitution. There is much to say abou this. I am so glad you are asking. It is wonderful to hear you interest and passions......"

Simon Templar:"When considering American freedom you should start with the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths as self evident..." Then move on to the Constitution. The Constitution is more of a document outlining how the national government should operate and the authorities it is granted. The first ten Amendments secure many of the freedoms that Americans enjoy. However, the power of big government is always a threat to those rights. The Constitution clearly states that those powers not enumerated within the document are reserved to the states and the people. However, the "New Deal" the federal government usurped many of those rights under the banner of the "Interstate Commerce Clause." The degradation of rights among the American people can be directly attributed to this one interpretation of the Constitution. Freedom is lost through fear. When fear enters our society the people willingly forfeit their freedoms so that they feel safe and secure. Therefore, you will always see some incident that creates fear in the people, economy problems, terrorism, etc. prior to the government removing rights and liberties. And always remember, there is the ideal of American freedom and the reality that those freedoms are always subject to a politician's interpretation........"

My comment and response to add to this excellent discussion,

        I agree with several of the valid points made by Simon. I strongly believe that this ' Ideal of American freedom' is still truly well within the reach of all Americans regardless of the political environment, primarily because this ideal and the very Spirit of it is something deeply rooted in the hearts and minds of almost every generation of Americans to date. You must never alienate the fact that the capitalism we have here and the economy it supports has thrived alongside this freedom. Perhaps most of the doubts, wider issues, corruptions, fears and the rest of the problems we face today stem from the inherent flaws of capitalism, whether it is the uneven distribution of wealth, opportunities or the current ill health of our economy. For better or for worse, with time change is imminent and inevitable. As far as the ideas of corruption, uneven distribution of power and abuse of authority are concerned we are still in the infantile stages as compared to some of the well established cultural norms and structures elsewhere in the world. As long as Americans can still vote, Politicians can and will be replaced. As long as Americans still have a voice and some of the brave and pro active journalists continue to do their jobs we will always question, expose and root out any and every form of high handed corruption that threatens our freedom and liberty. Freedom is a rare quality, with many facets and dimensions. This ' Ideal of American freedom' is more than just a sentiment; it is immaculate and has no hypocrisy or so called evil infiltrating its definition since its birth several centuries ago. This is something emotional, psychological and most certainly something beautiful and spiritual that every American carries deep within his heart and mind. Psychologically, yes, I agree that fear comes and goes but most certainly it has a role and a part to play in giving us the window of opportunity to weed and root out some of the flaws and socio-economic problems we face today. Unlike many resentful perceptions, this Freedom is something very obvious in almost every generation of Americans. If you compare an average American with let's say someone else there is something very obvious, unique and special in the way he/she is thinking, evolving and functioning, that sense of independence has a very strong personal side to it, which has been handed down from generation to generation and can rub off very easily on someone who is open minded and open hearted enough to accept the truth that is innate and germane to this freedom and to this nation. Perhaps the only serious threat that many of us overlook and side step is the fact that if what we face today continues to dwell and grow, creating an environment where corruption, high handedness and abuse of authority prevails and instills growing fears in the hearts and minds of our young working men and women, the youth of this nation and the new generation, then we risk creating a generational gap and may fail to propagate this gift of freedom to our children and to our future. This to me is very unlikely because of the level of awareness that is currently widespread among the educated, enlightened and bright minds that serve as the wheels, the engine, the fuel and the driving force of this nation. 

          On a broader economic context, capitalism has its cycles, and just as they did during the great depression, the Americans of today will face and overcome this test with the strength of our Spirit. They will never fail to surge this nation forward and this ' Ideal of Freedom' is certainly somewhat of an untainted divine gift that serves as their God given right to continue to face their fears, problems and strive forward into a future filled with socio-economic and cultural evolution, opportunities to growth and prosperity for all, and the many countless gifts that come with carrying the ideal of Freedom in your heart. The Spirit of freedom will never fail those who have placed their trust in it. That's what it takes to be an American. This, my opinion, is the Truth that I have had to live with, the Truth that I have observed and the Truth that I continue to study. 

        It doesn't matter where you're from or where you're going, this sense of freedom will stick and stay with your Soul no matter what. As they say Freedom isn't free but it is worth so much more than all the gold in the world, and we treasure it with all our hearts and all our lives.

     Many thanks to my friend Princess Erika de Krutova and her friends for providing such an insightful and eye opening discussion. I hope, pray and wish everyone the best of what the Spirit of freedom has to offer and give to all its children.

Love, Peace, Freedom, Best Wishes & Blessings to You All,

Jai Krishna Ponnappan :)

What is Love? Baby Don't Hurt me.. No More...

This is a response to a message posted on one of my favorite pages and sites,

Here's the original message,

"And if you love this Hollywood liberal, you're gonna love this piece, too:"

The link to it on fb,

And the image/message that went with it,

Now this here response is for your serious, respectful and kind consideration

                There is a tradition in India with regards to the subject of marriage. Usually among Hindus they check to see if the horoscopes of the bride and the groom match and if they are compatible or not. Sometimes there are flaws or malefic signs such as a "Manglik Dosh" where in the planet Mars is badly positioned within the natal chart often portending the death or affliction of the other partner. So as a cure for this they have the person ceremonially marry a tree and then they ritually offer the tree as a sacrifice to avoid and do away with the ill that would have afflicted the other partner. Trees are quiet beautiful, some may really Love them, some have genders.. male and female like a banana tree or a peepal tree. May be it's possible to imagine the tree as a beautiful Woman filled with Life and Love. So would it be ok to fall in Love with a tree? Would it be alright to get married to a tree? Could you kindly legalize it if you think so. Such remedial rituals are ancient, purposeful and meaningful. It may seem really strange.... :)) Would it be ok if someone is capable of imagining and falling madly in Love with an inanimate object such as a stone and then get married to it. Again, It might seem a bit different, bizarre and strange but it is still Love, it is a question of companionship and marital bliss for the concerned person. Can we have a new law that permits these unions..... Again from the image and the quote above -> What You fall in Love with is entirely up to You. Does it make any difference to anyone else who is reading this ?


"If a Hindu bride has Manglik dosh (chevvai Dosham), the bride groom also should have it. Then the effect of one is cancelled by the other. This is a major problem in finding a suitable bride or bride groom. Several marriages are delayed because of this.

In Hindu tradition, if the broom doesn’t have the manglik dosh, in order to neutralize the influence of evil manglik dosh of the bride, she should marry a Sacred fig tree (Peepal / peepul / pippala / Arasa maram / Arayal) or a plantain tree (banana tree / vazhai maram / vaalai maram / waalai maram) before the broom ties the Mangal sutra. This is a cleansing ceremony. Alternatively, the bride marries a clay urn and breaks it soon after the nuptial ceremonies. This signifies that the bride has become a widow, and the manglik dosh (chevvai Dosham) problem has been solved."


Here's a real life example from Bollywood,

"Aishwarya Rai, who has been in the news lately because of her engagement to Abhishek Bachchan, has apparently been ritually married to not one but two trees before her real marriage (thanks, Antahkarana). The aim is to counter the astrological effects of being born a Manglik: ...."


P.S ~ Hey, You know What... I happened to have a bit of that Manglik thing in my horoscope. I need to find me a tree for marriage... for the cleansing ceremony and stuff. I am an open and honest man, I always aim Straight and I promise to Love and thank Her(my tree) for being their for me as a sacrificial blessing. I know this is way too much to ask but for the sake of the Tree and my  Love for it can we consider legalizing this brief union ;) 

I know....Yes it's true.. apart from the 16 trillion dollar debt apparently this really IS anY extremely grave issue during election 2012 and we need to focus and work hard on it. 

Love is important. Human rights are important. Respect is important. Perhaps more than anything else..... with or with out an ounce of thought or feeling for this great country and for those who are helpless and obsolete before this growing, enslaving and staggering debt. And yes off course my tree is important to me and my bride to be. But for the sake of my own conscience I'll keep her (my tree and all the popularly practiced rituals of India) a personal secret for now :) It doesn't make a difference..does it ?

With Tons of Love to Absolutely All the minorities and All You people and Trees out there. I Wish You All without any discrimination what so ever the very best of Blessings :)


Jai Krishna Ponnappan

Love & Have a lil Fun While You're at it ;)