Letting Go
Habibah said
“Or maybe, this former Perak Mentri Besar has feelings for Kak Ijat. After all, she is the Malaysian Aishwarya Rai,” Habibah said, referring to the famous Bollywood star.
TANJONG Karang Wanita chief Datuk Habibah Mohd Yusof said PAS Bukit Gantang MP Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin had claimed at a ceramah that Wanita Umno head Datuk Seri Shahrizat Jalil had a bra costing RM26,000. “If Kak Ijat’s bra costs RM26,000, I wonder how much mine would cost since my size is bigger,” she added, …Read more
Habibah said “Or maybe, this former Perak Mentri Besar has feelings for Kak Ijat. After all, she is the Malaysian Aishwarya Rai,” Habibah said, referring to the famous Bollywood star. Former Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi says he cannot be held responsible for alleged wrongdoings in respect of the on-going investigations into the National Feedlot … Read more
CLICK THIS CRIMINALLY OVERLOOKED UMNO DEMANDS SHAHRIZAT’S SARONG AND HER RM26K BRA
Although his colleagues are evading the touchy cattle scandal involving Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, Umno MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin stood by his call for her resignation today, agreeing the issue has become a liability to the party.
The outspoken Kinabatangan MP even dismissed the apparent unanimous show of support for Shahrizat during the Wanita Umno general assembly on Wednesday, saying, “We do not know what kind of support that was”.
“Because no delegate has stated clearly what is that support — support for the party, yes, I know,” he pointed out when met at the sidelines of the Umno general assembly today.
When asked if he believes the issue has become a liability to Umno, Bung Mokhtar (picture)nodded.
“I believe, because I am a strong party man,” he said.
The Umno supreme council member said although Shahrizat had briefly explained the issue during the assembly, it was more important to take cognisance of public perception.
“This is not a question of explanation. I feel she has given her explanation already.
“This is not a question of who is wrong... it is a question of how the public accepts it,” he said.
Bung Mokhtar reasoned that in the face of coming elections, it was important that Umno not be weakened by scandals linked to any individual.
“So I have already stated my stand — I request that she reconsider (resigning)... because of one individual, the party gets involved,” he complained.
When addressing delegates during the women wing's assembly, Shahrizat said she had nothing to do with the RM250 million federally-funded cattle farming project and urged PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to resign over the allegations.
She reportedly earned wild applause from wing members during her speech.
The Malaysian Insider however understands that Shahrizat's explanation had failed to satisfy a number of leaders in the party who, like Bung Mokhtar, believe the senior minister should bow out of the coming polls.
Bung Mokhtar has been openly critical of the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) scandal and was the first Umno leader who called on Shahrizat to explain herself.
The Auditor-General’s Report released last month had criticised the NFC, pointing out that it was now “in a mess”.
The report said production in 2010 was only 3,289 head of cattle or 41.1 per cent of the target set.
But Agriculture Minister Datuk Seri Noh Omar responded on October 31 that the project was a success as it met its target of 8,000 cattle by 2010 once 5,742 slaughtered cattle were taken into account.
Neither men nor women wish to deviate from their original roles vis-a-vis each other -- he, the protector;she, the nurturer. What then is all the fuss about?
When a man declares he is confused about how to deal with the new independent, self-sufficient woman, he obviously hasn’t bothered to find out what makes her tick. More often than not, scratch the surface and beneath the hard exterior, he will find the same vulnerability and need for companionship that -she has always had.
When a woman says she can look after herself and doesn’t need a man for protection, she is only uttering a half-truth. She may not need a man to feed her anymore, but she still needs him as a companion, to love and be loved in return. And though she may not NEED him as a provider and protector, who says she wouldn’t WANT him to still play these roles for her?
Basic instinct acquires a whole new meaning. It isn’t easy to do away with the instincts of centuries, when a woman needed a man who could protect her and her children from the big, bad world. Instinctively she would look out for the most macho, the strongest and the most aggressive male rather than a romantic softie! Look at a woman today – she still hasn’t forgotten her instinctive attraction to the aggressive bad guy, has she?
There are certain basic equations in the man-woman formulation that will never change. Biologically, she will always be the one with the maternal instinct, the nourisher and the nurturer. Physically, he is the stronger of the sexes and so will automatically fall into the role of the protector and provider.
What then has changed, if not the basic roles the sexes play out? Perhaps a woman’s awakening to and an understanding of her own identity and individuality is the biggest change that has played out between the sexes. Threatened by women entering what was their exclusive terrain, on an equal footing, men suddenly didn’t know how to react to the “new woman”. It was easier to convince themselves that women had changed irrevocably and so men needed to change as well.
Men have always had this need to feel essential to the system and to women; the problem is that they have overrated their role as protector and provider, while sadly underrating their role as companion and support. No longer seeing themselves as essential components of women’s need for food or protection, they have almost written themselves off, not understanding that women need them just as much for love and companionship and for procreation!
Perhaps what does need to change is attitudes. Both sexes need to understand that a woman’s independence is a natural evolution and not a direct threat or challenge to men’s traditional role. The role of protector that falls to men is more about responsibility and liability, rather than about authority. His role complements and balances the role Nature has decreed for her. So how can it be something she doesn’t want from him anymore?
A woman still needs a man to make her feel like a princess, just as he needs her to make him feel like a million dollars. She basks in his compliments, indulgencies and courtesies as much as he revels in her attention, dependence and warm care. Most men wonder if they are still expected to hold open a car door for a woman, allow her to precede them into a room or stand up when she walks in. I cannot answer for diehard feminists, but YES, say most of the women I know. We certainly expect a guy to maintain basic courtesies.
A woman, however independent and free-spirited, loves it when a man makes her feel ultra-feminine just as much as a man loves to be made to feel all macho and strong by a woman. She would still like to be picked up and dropped back by her guy and to be protected by him, just as he would love her to provide him with a good meal and look after his children. If these basic needs are met, there are a lot of adjustments that can be made in other spheres.
So, neither men nor women want each other to change or deviate from their original, basic roles. However they do need to change their attitudes to make space for the new woman to spread her wings within the relationship; she is now truly an equal who demands respect and attention. The way the sexes interacted with each other has to change, as do expectations.
Says a friend, a woman-of-the-world, “If you ask me about the kind of husband I would like, I would say he should be very rich and generous, funny, understanding and liberal; have a hearty laugh and give me good times. If he is all this, in return I will turn a blind eye to whatever else he does away from me, so long as the good times last! We cannot expect to have our cake and eat it too, can we?” she adds with a wink.
Interesting! I turned my attention to a young man-of-the-world and asked him the same question. His considered reply, “I would want a girl who is reasonably pretty, particular with her grooming, intelligent and understanding, a good cook and a great mother!” How would he react to her working late hours and travelling alone on work? “Oh, that would be cool,” he says, so long as she fulfills the other criteria…”
When a man declares he is confused about how to deal with the new independent, self-sufficient woman, he obviously hasn’t bothered to find out what makes her tick. More often than not, scratch the surface and beneath the hard exterior, he will find the same vulnerability and need for companionship that -she has always had.
When a woman says she can look after herself and doesn’t need a man for protection, she is only uttering a half-truth. She may not need a man to feed her anymore, but she still needs him as a companion, to love and be loved in return. And though she may not NEED him as a provider and protector, who says she wouldn’t WANT him to still play these roles for her?
Basic instinct acquires a whole new meaning. It isn’t easy to do away with the instincts of centuries, when a woman needed a man who could protect her and her children from the big, bad world. Instinctively she would look out for the most macho, the strongest and the most aggressive male rather than a romantic softie! Look at a woman today – she still hasn’t forgotten her instinctive attraction to the aggressive bad guy, has she?
There are certain basic equations in the man-woman formulation that will never change. Biologically, she will always be the one with the maternal instinct, the nourisher and the nurturer. Physically, he is the stronger of the sexes and so will automatically fall into the role of the protector and provider.
What then has changed, if not the basic roles the sexes play out? Perhaps a woman’s awakening to and an understanding of her own identity and individuality is the biggest change that has played out between the sexes. Threatened by women entering what was their exclusive terrain, on an equal footing, men suddenly didn’t know how to react to the “new woman”. It was easier to convince themselves that women had changed irrevocably and so men needed to change as well.
Men have always had this need to feel essential to the system and to women; the problem is that they have overrated their role as protector and provider, while sadly underrating their role as companion and support. No longer seeing themselves as essential components of women’s need for food or protection, they have almost written themselves off, not understanding that women need them just as much for love and companionship and for procreation!
Perhaps what does need to change is attitudes. Both sexes need to understand that a woman’s independence is a natural evolution and not a direct threat or challenge to men’s traditional role. The role of protector that falls to men is more about responsibility and liability, rather than about authority. His role complements and balances the role Nature has decreed for her. So how can it be something she doesn’t want from him anymore?
A woman still needs a man to make her feel like a princess, just as he needs her to make him feel like a million dollars. She basks in his compliments, indulgencies and courtesies as much as he revels in her attention, dependence and warm care. Most men wonder if they are still expected to hold open a car door for a woman, allow her to precede them into a room or stand up when she walks in. I cannot answer for diehard feminists, but YES, say most of the women I know. We certainly expect a guy to maintain basic courtesies.
A woman, however independent and free-spirited, loves it when a man makes her feel ultra-feminine just as much as a man loves to be made to feel all macho and strong by a woman. She would still like to be picked up and dropped back by her guy and to be protected by him, just as he would love her to provide him with a good meal and look after his children. If these basic needs are met, there are a lot of adjustments that can be made in other spheres.
So, neither men nor women want each other to change or deviate from their original, basic roles. However they do need to change their attitudes to make space for the new woman to spread her wings within the relationship; she is now truly an equal who demands respect and attention. The way the sexes interacted with each other has to change, as do expectations.
Says a friend, a woman-of-the-world, “If you ask me about the kind of husband I would like, I would say he should be very rich and generous, funny, understanding and liberal; have a hearty laugh and give me good times. If he is all this, in return I will turn a blind eye to whatever else he does away from me, so long as the good times last! We cannot expect to have our cake and eat it too, can we?” she adds with a wink.
Interesting! I turned my attention to a young man-of-the-world and asked him the same question. His considered reply, “I would want a girl who is reasonably pretty, particular with her grooming, intelligent and understanding, a good cook and a great mother!” How would he react to her working late hours and travelling alone on work? “Oh, that would be cool,” he says, so long as she fulfills the other criteria…”
Its only when we love and indulge our selves that we are able to love others and give of ourselves more abundantly
"For 28 years of my life, I was in a limbo,allowing my mother-in-law to take over my life completely. She controlled every aspect and I was a humble nobody who danced to her tune. Today, I realise how much of my life I wasted. Now my first allegiance is to myself," said an aunt recently.
This, coming from a woman whom we consider very self-sufficient and independent, was a bit of a shock. Her strident voice and self-assured ways today dont indicate someone who can be dominated or ordered around! Was it possible to change so much in one lifetime and,is the pre-requisite of a happy life, owing first allegiance to yourself? It seems to have worked for her!
One often comes across two extremes of people -- those who are totally self-centred and cannot look beyond themselves, and the total self-sacrificing kinds, who put themselves through hardship to serve others! Both extremes are equally unpalatable.One needs to walk the median to be normal.
Our culture teaches us the virtue of thinking of others before you think of yourself. Altruism over selfishness. Western culture is more inclined towards putting yourself before others. Loyalty and duty is one thing, but altruism is denying oneself to serve another.Each stage of life has different demands on us. Most mothers will happily tell you the virtue of putting kids before their own selves. Many give up hard-earned careers to look after their children,priding themselves on their sacrifice.
But somewhere the sacrificing parents are indulging their whims more for their own satisfaction than because it is really needed. Their sacrifice makes them feel good. In a way we indulge our own selves when we are good to others. It gives us immense satisfaction to perceive ourselves as good human beings who care more about others.
It has been a pet theory of mine (earning me many raised eyebrows and disbelief ), that we love our children because they are a part of us and dependent on us,making us feel loved and needed. All love is ultimately about ourselves. I love someone because he or she makes me feel good about myself.How many instances have you heard of people loving those who detest them?
And so, believe it or not, most of what we do in life is ultimately geared towards giving oneself maximum satisfaction.Whether you are a devoted, self-sacrificing mother, a cheating spouse, a loyal friend, a successful CEO or a devoted husband, your first allegiance is to yourself. You do what you do because it either gives you happiness or the great satisfaction of knowing you are a loving,sacrificing soul, or as in the case of a cheating spouse, deserving and smart enough to have your cake and eat it too! In the end, it is all about, I, me, myself!
All of us are complicated,multidimensional personalities whose desires tug us in various directions. What defines our personality and character is the balance we strike in resolving these conflicts and arriving at a median that promotes maximum harmony in our own being. So we all arrive at an optimal trade-off point,which may vary from time to time.
The one common truth however is that the trade-off point ensures that each personality sits at a point that serves its own self best in terms of our own self-image and actualisation of our life goals. So certainly, our first allegiance is to ourselves. For, it is only when we are true to ourselves that we can be true to others. In whatever ways you may compromise to please others, ultimately what decides your happiness quotient is the compromise you made with yourself, your principles and your sense of well-being.
There is nothing wrong with owing yourself first allegiance. So long as all of us have a good self-image, greater good is bound to follow. That is where a good upbringing and influences are important.None of us would deliberately want to be bad spouses, mothers, friends or children. To satisfy our own self-image we would strive to be good at everything. And that would lead to the good of all. Even Christ said, love your neighbour as yourself; he never did say love him better than yourself! So go on, stretch your arm and pluck the first happiness for yourself; it will only help spread happiness all around.
No comments:
Post a Comment