Vulnerability and Beauty

Nature is endowed with variance the mammoth, the miniscule, the vivacious, the lethargic, the bright, the dull and so on. Besides the diversity, it never failed to infuse a mechanism of self-preservation. Every tiny soul is armored to persist the adversities of survival along with the vulnerability to succumb to those challenges. Man is graced with a fragile body and a strong spirit that has helped him to maneuver its way through the evolution. A peculiarity of human evolution is the discrete and contentious role ascribed to men and women.

Male/female distinction occurs across the animal kingdom where they are innately channeled to assume their onus. Female subjugation seems to be non-existent contrariwise their manhandling is prevalent in humans and gorillas with exception. Amongst humans, men are emboldened with physical strength for their defense whereas women are gifted with beauty and fragility thus enticing men for their protection. Therefore, radically it is justified for men to rehearse their strength and women their beauty for their safeguard. In a civilized society, such perception is an abomination.

Man exercising his brute force is perceived as a strongman ‘bahubali’, this earns him a social status. If he channels it in non-social determinations, he is convicted yet continues to enjoy the societal privileges. Conversely, so does not happen with women; women employing their charismas to advance in life are contemplated as iniquitous, derogatory and they seize to be a part of the civilized world. Is this to shield the culture from immorality or to seal the chinks of vulnerability in male armor? Who laid the model conduct that prevents women from exercising their strength, furthermore takes pride in men flaunting their muscle power? Or is the society too nascent that can survive the demands of male autonomy but is naive to embrace women liberation?