Aisha and Suhabe

The following is the transcript of a speech I gave at the wedding.

Alhamdulillahi rabbil aalameen, wassalaatu wassalaam alaa rasoolillahi wa alaa aalehee wa sahbihee ajmaeen.

I've been given the distinguished honour of saying a few words, although I fully realise Aisha only asked me for my accent. That doesn't come free so I'll keep this short.

My name is Shakil, or Shak for short, and I'm Aisha's hot single cousin from across the pond. All enquiries to my mum please.

Of course I'll start by thanking Mohammad Chacha for having us and once again keeping us here in this wonderful town of Edmonton. A big thank you to all who have travelled here to attend - it's looking to be a great event.

Aisha and our fathers are brothers, and for a long time visiting Pakistan meant visiting Chacha, who quickly became, and still is, the closest of the 5 chachus I had the pleasure of meeting while growing up.

As such I've known Aisha pretty much since she was born. Of course I only saw her a few times every decade, but that hasn't stopped us becoming close despite the distances involved. I don't think it's unfair to say if we hadn't been divided by continents and oceans both Aisha and her sister Rabiya would have quickly become the sisters I've never had. Whether or not that's mutual, I can't say - I'm sure they already had their hands full with their siblings.

And as the slightly darker sheep of the Atal clan, the marriage search has been a bit of a shared journey for Aisha and me. We've swapped notes, given and received advice, and even been on speed dating together (I think the embargo on that has been lifted by now). Aisha and her family have dragged us across Europe and we once even shared a terribly unromantic family trip to Paris. The great city of love, wasted on losers like us.

Which I guess is a decent segue to the reason why we're all here today. Love. Now I know this is a terribly awkward topic, but I'm British and foreign so should be able to get away with it. If it makes things less awkward just remember - love comes in many forms from familial to friendship as well as the more romantic in nature.

So during my "research" there have been two important things I've learned about love. I'll cover them in reverse.

The second most important thing I've learned is that love is hard. It's challenging, complicated, awkward and hurts. And for many of us, it's like learning how to walk over and over again - and that's even when the people involved don't change. It's an ongoing, transient thing that will, and frankly should, always surprise us.

But the most important thing that I've learned is that love is easy. It's a choice. It's a choice to trust, to care, to be open and to communicate. When it's there, it's chilled and comfortable and healing. The challenges are still there for sure - but so are the solutions and answers. Success often comes to those who realise just how accessible those solutions are.

And Aisha is someone who finds it easy to make that choice, to love. She gives it freely to her family and friends, and I have no doubt it will be the same during this next chapter in her life. But just as its hard, and easy for her to give, its also hard, and easy to receive, and I pray that God makes it easy here.

Now I've been handed the gauntlet to make at least one person cry today, but to be honest it's not going to be much of a challenge. As her new life begins, so does Aisha leave her city of almost 25 years and her family of even longer. As someone who - proudly - has always lived with family I can somewhat relate to what that means for her, as well as those she's leaving behind. I won't name and shame - I'm not that cruel *cough* Rabiya. These are the hard, and easy choices we make to love and although there's no doubt that we all support Aisha, there's also no doubt that she will be missed by those she leaves behind.

I've only briefly met Suhabe today but it's clear that all of the good things Aisha told me about him are true. He won't need much advice from a guy like me. But to him the message is simple. Act first. Reconcile first, be first to speak during silence, first to take action when you're both bored, the first to appreciate when you both forget. Take that role and own it. It'll only come to pay dividends.

So I'm done and all that's left is to wish the happy couple all the love and peace in the world, and nothing but good times during their journey ahead.

Thank you.

Book: The Five Love Languages, Gary Chapman

Self help books are always going to be controversial. Some people will swear by them, others will see them as a con, or the monetisation of common sense. Add to this that the book might be about love and relationships and it's inevitable to be the centre of an explosive discussion.

The truth is that, as with a lot of non fiction books of this nature, they're not for everyone. If you're good at relationships or are clearly emotionally intelligent, then a lot that you'll see in a book like this will be obvious or even vacuous. Similarly I can imagine someone who is naturally and innately into fitness rolling their eyes at dieting advice.

As in previous books of this type, the main thing I took away from The Five Love Languages was a framework with which to think about the subject of relationships and marriage. From that perspective, I found the book to be great in its analysis, but perhaps a little lacking in the solutions it offers. This could be because the book is a couple of decades old now. I found the classification of the five languages pretty striking and perhaps even obvious, and was even able to go as far as to recognise which ones I would most associate with myself.

So in many ways the naysayers might be right - the stuff in here is pretty obvious. But so is most things that people don't know, and as a piece of informal academia (rather than a practical guide to saving one's marriage), I think the book was a useful one.

All the Single Muslims

(Blog title shamelessly ripped off from the recent Extremely British Muslims here)

I mentioned in a previous post how I had recently discovered a vocabulary/language/framing that I found to be quite useful in thinking about some of the trials and tribulations suffered by those looking for a partner in these modern times. In that article I alluded to some of the more unique or specific scenarios that single Muslims are subject to and as promised here is the follow up post hoping to discuss that further. To recap though, those looking for a partner generally fall on a scale between two extremes:

• The Companionates, who are looking for something a little more practical and measurable.
• The Passionates, who are looking for something a little less describable and more subjective.

I'd recommend having a skim of the last post if you wanted more detail on the two groups. The important thing to note is that companionate and passionate concerns largely lie on the same axis and it's difficult if not impossible to reconcile the two. Feedback from the last post suggests that many don't agree, and if you're one of them the following probably won't hold much water for you either. In fact in many ways the manner in which some people claim that the two are orthogonal is the essence of my post below. Not that may smack of some kind of personal post-justified confirmation bias but hey, that's why this is a blog and not an academic paper.

I'll start with Identity. We all have one. Sometimes we choose what makes it up, sometimes that happens naturally via osmosis or upbringing. As we get older, we get more control over it. Muslims are generally taught to make Islam a large part of their primary identities. There are well defined concepts of brotherhood, community and character and with Islam being a largely scriptural religion a lot of things have been modeled for us, not many less so than marriage. In essence, marriage in Islam is naturally companionate and we are taught what to value and look for, and what to offer in return.

This isn't necessarily an issue (and perhaps even made things easier during simpler times), except for the desire for (or pressure placed on) many to embrace more identities alongside that of Islam. There seems to be a natural drive to be more than just an individual of a single dimension but the trouble here is that as with most things, identity is a finite measure and has a capacity, and each component we wish to add to it takes up some of that capacity at the expense of stuff that's already there - in fact we're often explicitly told to ignore any limits we might have or compromises we'd be making, and the result is a struggle to reconcile some quite disparate internal agendas. This struggle manifests itself in the issues some face in our workplaces, in our more social settings and (as you might have guessed by now) in our marriages and relationships. And I should be clear here: having multidimensional and multifaceted identities isn't in itself a bad thing, provided that the implications are acknowledged. Unfortunately they are more than often not.

With respect to marriage most requirements from the non Islamic part of ones identity will almost certainly be passionate in nature - for example a man might be less expected to fulfill what would have been seen as an Islamic duty to provide. Potentially, partners might not even need to be Muslim in the first place. In other words, the companionate requirements due to the Islamic identity should, in theory anyway, be replaced by the more passionate demands introduced.

And this is where the first obstacle might be seen: the Muslim identity is a powerful one and difficult to overtly compromise on, particularly when third parties become involved. Some have a tough time accepting the fact that if they want to embrace new identities in themselves, then they will have to compromise on their existing Islamic identities as well as compromise on the level of Islamic identity they expect in others. As a result they are left with two sets of requirements, one companionate and the other passionate... and we already know that that's the easiest way to have a very difficult time in the search. It seems like most caught in this trap are passionates on the surface, but can't quite let go of their ingrained companionate requirements. Worse still, the companionate demands tend to be requested and not offered, with the subject offering only passionate fulfillment in return. For the opposite party, whether companionate and passionate, this will never be seen as a fair trade.

Otherwise the observations are the same as in non-Muslim interactions: there seem to be more Passionate types than Companionate (at least overtly), with the latter knowing what they have to give to get and the former taking more of a "let's see what happens" approach. The twist is that many want and want to be both, the end result being complaints about candidates either "not wanting to fulfill their responsibilities" or "with whom a click isn't found", the irony being that in some ways these two requirements will always be diametrically opposed (at least during the search itself). The search for a passionate also demands a flexibility in dating that many believe their faith might have a positive view of: intimacy, co-habitation and the like.

Apart from the mismatch between passionate and companionate requirements, this "identity dissonance" also manifests in other ways. Progressive individualism contradicts the more traditional communalism many also seem to want, and we're left in a situation where every party is looking for someone to subsume rather than join. Differing concepts of chastity and morality also tend to add confusion, resulting in marriage sites which blur photos (demanded by a companionate, but scorned by a passionate) and mass marriage events - something I believe can only be seen in the Muslim demographic.

These internal conflicts have brought challenges and problems that still haven't quite been solved, and indeed seem to be the root of many issues seen in the Muslim demographic elsewhere. Coming back to this specific topic however, it seems the only perceived answer is to somehow conjure up a notion of Halal-yet-passionate boy/girlfriend type relationships which seems extremely difficult if not impossible to implement. It's then not that surprising there's a bit of a crisis.

Or is it really that impossible? Perhaps Islam has already dealt with this very issue by default. If so the real solution might be for those in the conflicted position to figure out exactly which companionate requirements they genuinely want and then to make those abundantly clear - and once formalised in a legal way to then focus on the less objective stuff. That in itself sounds like the companionate search, except one that forces each as individuals to decide for themselves where those requirements actually lie.

On Companionates and Passionates

Despite not thinking much of the book, one of the Good Things™ I did get from my recent reading of Aziz Ansari's Modern Romance was a more precise and possibly more accessible vocabulary. Vocabulary is quite powerful: its primary use is to communicate thoughts and ideas to other people, but even if you never use it outside of your own head it also has the power to cement and crystallise otherwise nascent "languageless" thoughts and ideas that you might have floating around in the attic that is your brain. This in turn helps you figure out, challenge and nail the stuff you probably already know, and the fact that most of the notes I made during the book were not really about the book kind of demonstrates this. Of course for the sake of full disclosure those who know me will already suspect where my biases lie. Oh and yes, a relationships and marriage post is probably a bit cringeworthy especially after so much time has elapsed since the last one... but I know you all love these anyway.

So then to start, here's some of the vocabulary I learned. We'll start with the objective, that is, a marriage. There are generally two types of marriage that people (perhaps subconsciously) look for, the respective levels of popularity of which have largely shifted over time and generations. A "Companionate Marriage" is something quite functional and perhaps a little prescriptive, the given solution to real practical life problems like survival and organisation. It was largely associated with classic gender roles, tying the knot at a young age and "being happy with what you have" rather than stressing the pursuit of larger and potentially more ambitious things. It would have been pretty tribal too - so you meet people in your family, or neighbourhood, or your community. The primary point of this type of marriage is the marriage itself, that is its effect on those around it as well as those in it - so it was more of a duty or responsibility than something to enjoy. It's the model that some of us may have witnessed our parents following, and it might even have been what we learned to expect for ourselves and so perhaps then something we took for granted.

The contrary then is a Passionate Marriage, one in which there is no clear functional point except for those in the marriage to be able to feel a certain way. Intensity is important, particularly during the discovery phase, as is the excitement and, as it says on the tin, the passion. Although it can often be about sharing unique external experiences together, this is usually to extract individual value and effect. And on the theme of individuality, the practical needs from previous years are less important in such marriages as many in them are more rounded independent agents themselves. As the results of this type of marriage are largely subjective, there tends not to be a perceivable upper limit to what can be achieved, or put another way, the success of such relationships can sometimes be difficult to ascertain; one can always be happier after all. It would be pretty crass to lay the increasing popularity of passionate marriages at the feet of the media and marketing, but the two are correlated to an extent.

From these two perspectives, we see the respective consequences on related behaviours like searching and love: you have the search for a companion versus the search for a soul mate, or the essences of companionate love vs passionate love. But here's the tricky part: although the concerns of companionate and passionate marriages are largely orthogonal (that is, you can have them both), in practice they're largely mutually exclusive.

Two possibly related factors appeared to have changed over the past couple of decades, probably as technology and modernity improved our way of life and living: firstly people have practically become more independent and were able to look after themselves both financially and domestically, which in turn largely removed a lot of the practical basis of companionate marriages; and secondly people become more interesting and interested in the world - all of a sudden it was important to become a unique individual and consume as much of what was out there as possible. For a lot of women before, a (companionate) marriage was her ticket to the world; such a concept is laughable these days, although in contrast it's interesting to see how those who are looking for companionate marriages are less interested in exploring the world as an individual. Even before marriage, they would be less likely to relocate for things like work or education, perhaps since they give less value to the self development such actions bring. Conversely companionate marriages were usually seen as a barrier to this self development, and so we see a correlation between those who were pursuing self development and those who get married later, and once you don't need or value the facilities a companionate marriage offers the only real reason left to get married is, well, for the passion.

Since companionate marriages were seen as a barrier to self development, it started getting a lot of bad press. At best it was seen as a bit of the default goal, the boring or "easy" way or merely settling with the norm, offering a fixed ceiling to the amount of happiness that can ultimately be achieved. At worse, it was seen as repressive to one or both parties, and something which took away the free choices of those partaking in it (usually explicitly of the women who were expected to focus on traditional goals, but the same would apply to men who had to pick jobs based on income rather than personal preferences). It's probably apt to see companionates as "satisficers" and passionates as "maximisers", which seems to settle the argument early until you learn that satisficers usually enjoy more happiness in the longer term.

There's also a distinct difference in who profits from the respective marriages. By its nature, a companionate marriage tends to focus on the external results of the union and the benefits it brings to both the family to which it belongs and even the wider society - so for example companionate marriages would tend to stay local to respective in-laws, while others would be willing to literally search far and wide for a soul mate. Put bluntly, even if those in the marriage are not the happiest the fact that familial objectives are being achieved would be enough for those involved. Such a concept would be alien to those looking for a soul mate, for whom no achievement is counted unless it brings explicit joy and happiness to them as individuals. In fact, for them, the situation actually reverses and as long as a certain level of passionate love is achieved, the practical issues aren't really relevant. In other words, love really is their answer to all problems and issues that a marriage can face, and if the issues remain then it implies that the love is not strong enough.

That last point raises an interesting question: Are those looking for a soul mate then more willing to compromise? It's clear that, on a practical basis anyway, they are more flexible in what a prospective partner should look or be like. However this is balanced by what could be an even tougher barrier of entry - how that prospective partner makes them feel. And going by what people say, finding someone who rocks their boat in that way seems to be pretty difficult. On the other hand for someone looking for a companionate marriage, although some things are quite rigidly set in stone, the need for immediate clicks, unagi and bantz seems largely a distraction. That's not to say that companionates are looking for loveless marriages, but more that they know (or perhaps hope) that these things can be developed and nurtured over time. In some ways then their compromise is on the initial passion and attraction required and I think then that on balance both types have their set ways and flexibility.

The above discussion highlights the incompatibility of the two approaches. Companionates need someone who is able to commit to their practical concerns, whether it's the need for financial security for the woman and her children, or the need for a man and his children to be looked after in a more direct way. Those looking for a soul mate will dismiss such requirements in the first instance as "details". It's arguable whether it actually has to be this way: those looking for soul mates will claim that they will adapt to the needs of those who they love eventually, whereas a companionate really does believe that a level of passion will be inevitable later. So why can't things eventually fall into place between candidates of the two types?

On paper a passionate marriage is more of a dynamic target since it's based on an internal process that can change, so then the question becomes this: if person A, a companionate, can by all measures be seen as a soul mate by person B who is looking for passion, then should it matter to person B that person A isn't looking for a soul mate in return? It appears that this is important after all, the conclusion being that those looking for a soul mate are also largely reflexive - they cannot accept someone who won't consider them in the same way. The same argument can probably be applied to companionates, who seek a literal commitment that far outweighs one that is based on internal feelings.

So if we decide that these two camps aren't compatible, why is that an issue? Surely each to their own and all that? Well, ironically, each camp appears to be a victim of their own requirements and the type of marriage one looks for has an effect on the search too. Put bluntly, the approaches differ in pace, objective and how a match is determined.

In the search for a companionate marriage, the criteria for a match is much more objective: perhaps guys would need a decent job, and possibly the girls some expectation of domesticity. As such, the companionate search is much more formal, deterministic and even less risky and historically resulted in things like arranged marriages, getting married straight out of school, and minimal dating periods. It was quite literally the checkbox process some fondly (or perhaps not) reminisce about, and a successful meeting would usually get turned around to a marriage pretty quickly.

Those looking for a soul mate appear to take the brunt of the bad times, with complaints about time wastage, indecision, a constant lack of immediate rapport and some quite frankly shady behaviour from participants of either gender. It appears that in looking for a soul mate it is inevitable certain personal investments and risks need to be made and taken and until a marriage happens these can take their toll. Time is also required to see if successes are transient or longer lasting - the former sometimes being seen as a success in its own right - and as well as spending time, this experimentation phase might present its own problems in the face of faith or religious teachings, particularly in communities where extended time with the opposite gender or general "longer term dating" might not be as acceptable. Of course I'm largely referring to Asian and Muslim communities, but there's way too much to say about this now so perhaps keep an eye out for a follow up post. In short, almost by its very definition, the search for a soul mate has to be tough and fraught with challenges, since that's what makes them unique and valuable.

In contrast even if by its nature a companionate search is more formulaic and transparent and can therefore be seen as "easier", this is by far overwhelmed by the lack of numbers and availability of the respective counterparts. It doesn't matter how easy the determination of a match is if those who are also looking for a companionate marriage are so few in number. In that sense, companionates are hampered by the rigidity of their search - most avenues for marriage are dominated by those looking for soul mates and so there's much more dependence on community networks and introductions, facilities which are thin on the ground in this day and age.

Of course in reality most probably sit on a gradient between the two options, but not many realise that the scale is linear and that these are not orthogonal concerns. It's true that generally those looking for companionate marriages are an ever shrinking group and eventually everyone will be looking for a soul mate, so apart from the challenges mentioned above inherent to such an approach the problem of compatibility perhaps isn't going to be an issue. However those in Asian or Muslim communities may have their own challenges related to the topics mentioned above... which is something best left to a future article.

For now however terms like "companionate" and "passionate" and phrases like "the search for soul mates" lend themselves to a much more helpful framing than "backwards" or "looking for a halal boy/girlfriend" or "Muslim dating" when talking about the issues single people face today in their searches for marriage, and they are terms I will probably make use of quite heavily in the future.

Book: Modern Romance, Aziz Ansari

(Or: how to smuggle in a marriage post in through the back door)

Modern Romance is a frustrating book, and that for many reasons but mainly because of how far it missed the mark. Firstly, I had high expectations of the book's author, Ansari being the only brown stand up worth his salt in my view. Secondly, the book had come recommended by friends with similar backgrounds who had at some point in their lives experienced the journey that is the marriage search. And finally, well, it was a book about marriage and relationships which as anyone who knows me will tell you is (perhaps sadly) one of my favourite topics to discuss (which may explain why I took the rare action of taking notes while reading it).

I didn't find the book particularly funny or insightful. It pretty much said what everyone already knows - essentially that needs and wants have changed over the past few decades, resulting in a much more volatile and fragile landscape - possibly one win which marriage might not actually be relevant.

The book suffers from the same flaws any discourse on modern (or perhaps that from any time) romance: it slips into a tirade against douche guys and seeks to defend victimised women, and we hear the same old male bashing anecdotes about their ineptness. This is all true, for sure, just probably not helpful in the context of the book - it doesn't present balance, say, by talking about what goes wrong when things are going right.

Some time is also spent talking about those in Muslim countries (yay), but mainly to tell us how repressed they are (boo). Ansari also visits Japan, where he struggles to explain his findings despite finding the place titillating. I feel that he is either too naive or just not brave enough to admit that those on BOTH sides of the gender divide just aren't fulfilling the reasonable expectations of their opposites.

This lack of bravery usually results in a bit of a judgemental "holier than thou be like us in the west" attitude, which sometimes limits the debate. For example, although Ansari talks a lot about cheating and why it may or may not be acceptable, he doesn't mention polygamy as a valid way of building relationships.

That said, I am glad that I read the book if only because of the vocab and language that it introduced me to. "Companionate" is a much more apt term than "traditional", for instance. It was also instructive, if not depressing on a personal level, to be told in academic terms just how much things have moved on from those companionate times. This was actually valuable enough to inspire me to write a post using the new vocab, so watch this space.

In the end however, it all becomes a bit self helpy, but less so: even though the book concludes that companionate love is more beneficial than passionate love in the long term, it refuses to be explicit about this and still suggests that short term benefits and intensity are valuable.

So perhaps a good enough source of debate, I can't help but feel that the book missed a bit of a trick by not being nuanced or deep enough. Then again, that's probably a reflection of the times we live in, or rather the audience the book is aimed at, where accessibility and disposability is more important than anything of lasting substance.

West Coast USA, Day Four: The Grand Canyon

The insanely early start was actually worth it, as we were driven to Boulder City airport to catch our helicopter ride. Due to my size and weight I pretty much got a prime seat and so was subject to some spectacular aerial views of Hoover Dam:

As well as the Nevada Desert:

And of course some fantastic views from the bottom of the canyon itself:

But having seen it, I have to say that I was a little, tiny bit underwhelmed. I think I'll just have to put it down to desensitisation. Is it possible to have seen it all?

The afternoon was a free one, which I used to explore some of the remaining corners of the strip. I also did some halal food recon and was surprised at the options that were available.

Today was also the date for the main event of the trip; the reason I had made it out here in the first place. A dear university friend hosted a wedding party tonight at Joe's Seafood Prime Steak and Stone Crab. It was an intimate affair, with no more than 40 of us, but it was nice because of it; these were people I have known for almost 20 years after all.

But despite the partying I did endeavour to grab an early night; we're due to leave tomorrow and it'll be another early start.

A Brimful of Asha

For those of us perpetually on the same, it's always compelling and relevant to listen to someone recount their own story about being on "the hunt". The twist in this tale was that the story was told not only by the protagonist Ravi, but also with his mother, the titular Asha.

I guess the main hook here is the sheer charm of the whole thing. Asha (or "aunty" as I feel compelled to call her) is genuine and authentic, right down to the inevitable mistakes, missed lines and awkwardness on stage she warns the audience about. By its very conversational nature the fourth wall is constantly stripped down, and it becomes quite difficult (in a pleasant way I suppose) to figure out what's real, what's fiction and what's improvised. In fact, it's Ravi's clear experience on the stage which sometimes detracts from the whole thing, as his performance repeatedly reminds us that ultimately he is an actor on a stage.

Otherwise it's a pretty typical story - set a fair few years ago Ravi's parents want their son to get married and are happy to resort to the ol' emotional and physical blackmail to do it, the son refusing to marry for anything other than romance and love. It was a bit of a biased story toward the latter - the cynical side of me saw it as mere pandering to a progressive audience (I, of course, finding myself agreeing mostly with aunty). The fact that Ravi admits he did get married a year after the story was set kind of explained a lot and ultimately detracted from the potency of the message; but hey it is only a play after all.

Very funny and touching, I'd recommend A Brimful of Asha - it's playing for a very limited time here in London so catch it while you can.

Yasmin and Kashif

It's definitely a blessing having so many people around me getting married, but sooner or later there was bound to be a clash - in this case a total of three couples tying the knot in three different continents, all on the same day, meant I had to miss out on witnessing the celebrations. I guess I should be thankful that it hasn't happened before till now. If there was a way to have travelled the distances involved to attend all three I would have done so.

Yasmin is one of those pretty smart chicks who has the uncanny ability of being easy to talk to - I'm sure it has something to do with intelligence or being a good listener or something - and I've had a lot of wisdom from her over the years, particularly when it came to the whole game of finding a spouse. For sure, a part of me will miss the trading of stories and advice, but it's a small price to pay to see her on the other side.

My disappointment in missing Yasmin's wedding is only tempered by knowing how happy she is to marry Kashif, but the good news is that I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to catch up with them as they begin this amazing journey of theirs.

Imraan and Zeenat

Some friendships just naturally lend themselves to analysis. Take mine and Imraan's for example: we live a continent apart, have only met once (although that "once" did involve crashing at his place for a few days) and yet when we do talk it's like we're old friends (qualification: this may be one sided, but I don't care). Of course it helps that we have some things in common - a paradoxical blend of cynicism and optimism, that level of literacy and articulation that allows the efficient transfer of opinion and idea, and finally of course the innate ability to navel gaze. Sure we don't speak as often as we should, but when we do it's always fun.

Both this friendship and commonality make his marriage today particularly striking, and not least in a "if he can do it there's hope for the rest of us" way. Seeing him happy and excited makes me happy and excited, primarily for him but also for myself, and I expect to learn a lot from seeing Imraan get on with things. As is becoming way too common I haven't yet met Zeenat, but I am looking forward to doing so and I expect it will happen sooner rather than later.

My only regret is that I wasn't able to attend - but for sure it was only a family wedding in Sri Lanka that could have stopped me from doing so.

The Annual Inevitably Cynical "I Hate Valentine's" Post

Oh don't worry: the fact that this is my tenth post of vitriolic rambling is as depressing for me as it might be for you. On the other hand, I am impressed by the sheer stamina of the theme and although I don't know how they would look, I reckon I have at least another ten posts in me. Crikey. Ten! You can click the title link for the rest by the way.

But what exactly do I talk about this year? Could it be the unprecedented increase in apparent losership (a clear sign of whippage in my opinion)? Or how about how pervasive it's becoming in places I previously thought immune (oh why Karachi, why?)?

No, perhaps what I will talk about is my increasing indifference to the theme here, not because I denounce most forms of blatant commercialism, but because I've become even more cynical about anything and everything, of which my distaste of this day is but a mere iceberg tip.

Woah there, this post almost became seriously dark. Let's bring the humour back:

But hey, at least I got my own back on the day - Krispy Kreme offered me some sweets if I was to complete the old "Roses are red..." poem at the time I was claiming. I did so, humorously so I might add, and got not just one but two original glazed doughnuts as a reward. That extra doughnut was the difference between me being exploited and doing the exploiting, and so I see no problem seeing it as a win for the little man. There's no need to thank me.

SMBC

Who said logic and love aren't compatible?

Get this comic and you get me. Although I'm not sure I understand it fully (which in itself kinda makes sense).

Link of the Day

The pursuit of happiness makes life shallow

I've read this article a few times and still don't know if I agree or disagree. On the one hand I genuinely think having a stress free and peaceful life is the way to go and I'm always thankful how easy it is for me to achieve those things. On the other hand my best times do (and I hope, will) include those I spend fulfilling duties towards others - I especially relate to Penelope's point about choosing to have kids even though they technically don't bring happiness (don't fool yourselves, they don't).

But on the third hand still, I always cringe at how so many of my peers and colleagues seem to find this meaning through their careers - most will agree with the article in that sense I think. Of course that just means what we already know: that these things are subjective and what gives one person meaning may not provide anything to another. But in the hierarchy of things we can spend our time on I do think that some things can be more objectively meaningful than others (taking care of your family over evil banking for example) and I do think that that landscape is changing for the worse. Perhaps "meaning" has now just become a commodity that is conditioned, cultivated and marketed to us.

Thanks to Farah for the link. Oh and yes, I still love Penelope Trunk.

SMBC

It's like inception dating!

 

Except, of course, what real world scenario ever stops at just the two levels? Navel gazing FTW.

A Softer World

A new strip! And one brilliantly cynical too! Amazing!

I would have concluded that the nerve hitting by the above was a guy thing, except that the credit for finding the strip actually belongs here.

SMBC

I KNEW IT!!

But seriously you have to wonder right? Is everyone just making it up?

Amena and Mohiyuddin

The first adjectives I think when trying to describe Amena are "class" and "poise". Unlike some of her sistas in society Amena seems to have managed to steer clear of bad manners, bad humour and bad language and as a result we're left with that well mannered and well spoken classic lady type which is oh-so-rare nowadays. This is important to note (and applaud) as it's a very rare quality in an age where loudness and vulgarity seem to acceptable (and even popular) traits for boys and girls to have.

That's not to say Amena's not a laugh; she just happens to be hilarious in a decent way - and usually all at her own expense. This self-deprecating humility comes not from insecurity but from smarts - but she will also know exactly how to humour her friends without being patronising about it. You're never offended by anything Amena has to say - and even then she's always quick to accept her mistakes and apologise for them. In short there is no shortage of emotional intelligence here.

As the co-creator[1] of the phrase "HBD", she's also a prime example of how we are all responsible for the way we feel and perceive things. I don't think I've ever heard her complain about the cards she's been dealt, again a very unique attitude in a world where it's more normal for us to demand what we're apparently owed. And she can bake, which is always a bonus.

I briefly met Mohiyuddin today, and it was clear from quite early on how much of an all round nice guy he is. Responsible and easy going, he seems to know exactly how to treat the people around him be they new introductions (like us) or old friends or, of course, family. I have no doubt that both will give each other their dues and it's this that makes them such a wonderful couple.

[1] actually it was I who created this term, but the context of this post doesn't permit me to state that apart from in a footnote.

Cyanide & Happiness

Here's an arbitrary comic I found funny! Nothing to do with me of course.

I repeat, this has nothing to do with me. I don't even own a hat.

Comments

Osama Rahman

2 months ago  -  Shared publicly

 

Liar. We've seen you on the telly with a hat on! (Or rather a topi.)

SMBC

Another great tip from the folks at SMBC:

Remember: it's not them, it's you.

SMBC

A great tip from SMBC for those too... polite to do the right thing:

Of course it won't work if the other person is way smarter than you are. As is usually the case, of course.

SMBC

It seems the world is waking up to cynicism and curmudgeonry:

Ahhh when did contentment, self worth and security become so boring?