bajaj.com

Extraordinary leeway is awarded by society to teachers when it comes to tolerance of their being authoritative while being wrong, without considering the impact to student morale and the diminished quality of education thus meted out and its greater impact on society.

I have come across educators who have been exceptional people, which I believe is what made them good teachers or principals, as students imbibe more from a teacher’s actions than their words. When actions don’t corroborate words, then comes disillusionment.

One of my first memories: I once found a wad of money while picking litter from the school grounds, which I dutifully handed to the supervising teacher, specifically stating that someone might have lost it. The teacher shamelessly pocketed the money right before my eyes! The incident has stayed with me for several decades as I write this. I had the morals to not keep the money, but a teacher who is supposed to be one teaching them had none.

The most consistent issue I have encountered with educators is ego. I have experienced, seen or heard of everything from a student being reprimanded, to being hit or caned, because a student bruised a teacher’s ego. The other teachers, support staff, vice principal and principal all have each other’s backs in their self-contained ecosystem, whereby they lose all respect, as students are very perceptive. Whereas outside the school, power is divested between the police, judge, jury and prison warden. A judge would not be automatically inclined to issue a warrant just because a police officer believes someone committed an offence and as such are held to a much higher standard of conduct.

Often teachers become loud, obnoxious and obstinate in the face of reason, in an attempt to assert their authority. The only thing it affirms is their frail ego, insecurity and poor character. Personal baggage is likely another form of low sense of self worth and corresponding efforts to feel good about oneself, that results in the unfair treatment of students.

An educator who misapplies feminist principles reprimanded a male student for so much as defending himself from a larger, tougher and older female bully, stating that a boy can hit a boy, a girl can hit a girl, a girl can hit a boy [and they would look away], but never can a boy hit a girl no matter how extenuating the circumstances. Does teachers bringing personal baggage or patriarchal resentment into the classroom not just go to create misogynists?

This shows some educators misapply principles of equity, punishing students unfairly under the guise of social justice. When authority is used to silence rather than support, it erodes trust—regardless of gender.

Another teacher viewed an innocent fan art of a girl, reproduced from an anime character, as being, “degrading to women” and asked the student to change it; whereas when shown to another, older teacher, as a [true] feminist she had absolutely no issue with it. As a consequence of telling on the teacher, the teacher prohibited the student from ever handing in reproduced art for her class. This once again demonstrates that the student always pays for the teacher’s insecurities. A female teacher who carries her sentiments with respect to patriarchy to school and punishes students to feel superior, is what is really degrading to women.

Picking on a student is extremely abusive. If a student disobeys, a teacher makes his life miserable. A student used a laptop to accomplish a task instead of paper. The teacher retaliated with revoking his privilege to eat or drink anything (except water) or listen to music, or talk in class. Yes, the student should be following instructions, but the teacher should not be punishing him with power play either.

Teachers seem to forget that it is us taxpayers that put food on their table, and they not only fail to do their job of giving our children a quality education that includes imparting good human values, but are also abusive and hurtful towards and disillusion them. Being rude to students seems to be the norm, like they are cattle to be herded, not young people with feelings that get hurt. Like a student said in jest, “You [the teacher] are like the dominatrix that is paid to dominate us at school”.

It’s said that “power corrupts”, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.

David Brin

Why then are we surprised when world leaders act authoritarian with total disregard of democratic process; considering they are products of the education system and as such are merely modelled after their educators?

Many who identify as feminists today—though well-intentioned—often adopt a stance that inadvertently undermines the very principles of equality they claim to champion. By pushing for the erasure of all gender distinctions, even those that are biologically or socially reasonable, they risk distorting the public perception of feminism and overshadowing those who genuinely seek justice and balance.

The women’s liberation movement is not really a liberation movement. It is in fact just the opposite: it is trying to imitate man, to become as hard as men are, to do whatsoever men are doing. And remember one thing: if women try to imitate men they will always be carbon copies; they will not attain to their fulfillment, they will not attain the full potential. And they will always remain lagging behind. And they will become ugly too! The real liberation movement has not started yet. The real liberation movement will insist that the woman has to be more and more feminine, that she has to be rooted in HER nature, that she is not to follow men in retaliation, in reaction, in rebellion – that is stupid. No reaction ever helps. The woman has to be herself.
— Osho, The Fish in the Sea is Not Thirsty

As Osho observed in The Fish in the Sea is Not Thirsty, the women’s liberation movement, in its current form, often appears less about liberation and more about imitation—an attempt to mirror masculine traits and behaviors rather than embracing the unique strengths of femininity. He argued that true empowerment lies not in reactionary mimicry but in self-actualization: “The woman has to be herself.” Liberation, then, should mean freedom to flourish in one’s own nature, not to conform to another’s.

Unfortunately, in some cases, this distortion of feminist ideals has led to adversarial attitudes toward men. A subset of self-described feminists—sometimes referred to as pseudo-feminists—seem driven more by resentment than reform. Their actions, particularly in cultures where legal safeguards are weak, can include weaponizing serious accusations like domestic violence without accountability. This not only jeopardizes the lives and reputations of innocent men but also undermines the credibility of genuine victims and the justice system itself.

Such misuse of power contributes to a cycle of mistrust and resentment, fueling misogyny rather than dismantling it. When justice is replaced by vengeance, everyone loses—especially the cause of true gender equality.

If I say, don’t think of a flower, definitely not a rose, what are you going to think of?  First a flower, maybe even a rose, then definitely a rose.  So what do you think will happen when you are told that you need to be thoughtless and that is meditation?  Your mind will run rampant as you try to not think of anything, and you will be frustrated.  So how to meditate?

With meditation being cited as the universal cure-all and solution to every problem in every religious and spiritual discourse, without ever being told how to go about doing it, dissemination of unhelpful one-liners like it being ‘a state of no-mind’ or ‘being thoughtless’, and worse still spiritual elitists saying it is not something one does but rather something that happens, it can be confusing and frustrating to the point where one just gives up.

Thought substitution is more doable, as in exchanging negative thoughts for a relatively pleasant one.  Just like we distract ourselves by watching a movie.  I find thinking of something I like and which scenario I can play in my head works very well for me to go off to sleep.  In day-to-day work, it is easier to be mindful; single-mindedly consciously thinking of only the performance of the task at hand and not what I am going to do next or another such stray thought, but that is definitely easier said than done.

The second technique is ignoring.  The thought comes, you know it is detrimental, so for example, I would say, “Okay, hello thought, thank you, but I need to move on”.  That way I am kind to myself, not reprimanding myself for the thought and not dwelling on it either.

Meditation is the third technique.  Now I say technique because the practice of instructions to train oneself to be in a meditative state is commonly referred to as meditation.  Hence the debate about what meditation is.  The purists say, “meditation cannot be done, it happens”, and mock those trying to practice a discipline.  That is not helpful; it is demoralizing.  Recognizing that meditation is a commonly used term for a practice and not for the meditative state itself helps bridge the gap – just as ‘medicine’, while a discipline, is a word commonly used in place of ‘medication’.

Meditation is not the exclusive domain of people who consider themselves spiritually accomplished either, just as breathing is not.  It is not difficult; just different from the other two techniques.  It is observing.  So, say you close your eyes and these random thoughts begin.  Observe the thoughts like a third party witnessing the goings on.  Being thoughtless, in a meditative state, should follow as a consequence of merely being that observer.

One cannot really try and meditate.  One can reach a meditative state by observing one’s thoughts.  Such a meditative state is a temporary respite.  In that sense too it is a practice – towards constantly being in a meditative state, being an observer, whereupon the practice is no longer needed.

If you are lost in thoughts, then that is agitation.
If thoughts are lost in you, then that is meditation.
— Swami Tejomayananda

The narrative that divorce is always better for children is typical feminist pork for putting one’s happiness before that of one’s children, to divorce women from the responsibility that comes with being a parent. Despite anti-male activism and exalting pro-divorce, anti-children values, these feminists call for mother-headed households!

Marriage and children are a commitment — it can be joyful, challenging, stressful or even downright miserable; but that is life itself. When there are marital troubles such feminist-minded women seize the opportunity to manipulate the man to believe that it is his fault, then capitalize on his guilt to broker a deal on marital assets to become financially independent and exit the marriage to lead her dream life built upon the graves of the well-being of her children and ex-husband.

Systemic incentives may unintentionally reward exit over repair, leaving both partners and children to navigate the aftermath.