Female comradeship and this sea of understanding within these couches are harshly portrayed to be some space of jealousy, gossip, competition and rivalry against each other.
Visible platforms such as cinema, theatre and magazines have always ensured this sexist satisfaction to a big number of viewers who carry this to personal and public spheres to question women of their character.
Stories of women who love, laugh, grow, cry, learn and unlearn holding on to each other is a narrative that is found hard to adopt but slowly coming along the way.
Because stories have to be re-written or newly-written as they are what surrounds us .
I've grown a lot in friendships.
Especially in grieving and standing for each other.
Our children must be introduced to these wonders and power of community without inflicting any fear upon them so that they find joy in the happiness of people around .
It is very painful to watch a generation of growing individuals being told to " not trust anybody around them " and to "mind their businesses"
But why?
Embedding this idea in children is very dangerous, though we know that there are numerous situations where children are assaulted and hardly can react or understand what's happening with them. But do you think , that is the right narrative to impart?
Children must never be taught that people around them are innately bad (the conventional standards of being bad. huh) and they must not trust or develop intimacies with people out of their blood relations .
This disturbs the community or collective trust which is an essential element for every individuals life.
They must be taught about incidents happening.
About boundaries.
About good touch and bad touch.
About no and consent
And a safe space must be built around them so that they can come over to share whatever they feel to.
Rather than this, the narratives most of the caretakers adopt today to make their part and responsibility clear is a bit ignorant.
No child must blatantly doubt and fear the community they are part of, or must be given the idea of living for oneself and not caring about others is the healthiest way out.
Humanity can sustain only in community and collectiveness
Richest 1% will account for 16% of total emissions by 2030, while poorest 50% will release one tonne of CO2 a year
In keeping with the Paris climate goals, every person on Earth needs to reduce their CO2 emissions to an average of 2.3 tonnes by 2030, about half the average of today.
The richest 1% – which is a population smaller than Germany – are on track to be releasing 70 tonnes of CO2 per person a year if current consumption continues, according to the study. In total they will account for 16% of total emissions by 2030, up from 13% of emissions in 1990. Meanwhile, the poorest 50% will be releasing an average of one tonne of CO2 annually.
“A tiny elite appear to have a free pass to pollute,” said Nafkote Dabi, climate policy lead at Oxfam, which commissioned the study by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). “Their oversized emissions are fuelling extreme weather around the world and jeopardising the international goal of limiting global heating,” she said.
Earlier this year Bezos went to space in his New Shepard rocket, Sir Richard Branson went to the edge of space in his Virgin Galactic Rocket and Elon Musk’s company promises to take humans to Mars. The emissions from a single 11-minute space flight amount to at least 75 tonnes, which would exceed the lifetime emissions of one of the poorest billion people on Earth.
The paper shows that the fight to keep 1.5C within reach is not being hampered by the consumption of most people on the planet, but by the excessive emissions of the world’s richest citizens.
A recent analysis of the lifestyles of 20 billionaires found that each produced an average of over 8,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide: 3,500 times their fair share in a world committed to no more than 1.5C of heating. The major causes are their jets and yachts. A superyacht alone, kept on permanent standby, as some billionaires’ boats are, generates around 7,000 tonnes of CO2 a year.
Bill Gates, who has positioned himself as a climate champion, does not possess a yacht. Even so, he has an estimated footprint 3,000 times bigger than the good global citizen’s, largely as a result of his collection of jets and helicopters. He claims to “buy green aviation fuel”, but there is no such thing. Biofuels for jets, if widely deployed, would trigger an environmental catastrophe, as so much plant material is required to power a single flight. This means that crops or plantations must displace either food production or wild ecosystems. No other “green” aviation fuels are currently available.
Gates seeks to resolve such conflicts by buying carbon offsets. But all available opportunities to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are now required to reduce the impact of humanity as a whole. Why should they be captured by those who want to keep living like emperors?
We are often told by frequent flyers that we should overlook the climate impacts of aviation, as they amount to “just a few per cent”. But the only reason they remain relatively low is that flying is highly concentrated. Flying accounts for most of the greenhouse gas emissions of the super-rich, which is why the wealthiest 1% generate roughly half the world’s aviation emissions. If everyone lived as they do, aviation would be the biggest of all the causes of climate breakdown.
But their carbon greed knows no limits: some of the super-rich now hope to travel into space, which means that they would each produce as much carbon dioxide in 10 minutes as 30 average humans emit in a year. The very rich claim to be wealth creators. But in ecological terms, they do not create wealth. They take it from everyone else.
Rich people have a carbon footprint 25 times the size of even the typical American. To tackle climate change, we need to start with fossil capital and the most affluent.
There’s a periodic genre of environmental writing which argues that the road to a greener future runs through a kind of radical collective penance. If we really want to save the planet, or so this line of thinking goes, we all need to give up things like uninterrupted electricity use. Yet the fact remains that the well-off, and especially the extremely wealthy, are far more responsible for climate change than the people who cut their lawns, serve them food, or produce the goods they buy and consume. As the Financial Times’ Stefan Wagstyl quite succinctly put it: “Almost everything the wealthy do involves higher emissions, from living in bigger houses to running larger cars and flying more often, especially by private jet. Eating meat comes into it, as does owning a swimming pool. Not to mention a holiday home. Or homes.”
It may well be the case that fighting climate change will require middle-class and even working-class people in wealthy countries to change their lifestyles in the decades ahead. Given, however, the extent to which the rich are disproportionately responsible for global emissions, and the widespread public consensus around raising their taxes, it would be both politically popular and sound policy-wise to emphasize redistributive solutions to the climate crisis.
