We are not angry enough

Ancient India was merely not a civilization of temples, kingdoms and literature. It also produced mathematical and astronomical and medical knowledge that become part of the larger history of science. The strongest evidence comes not from patriotic claims on social media but from surviving text, mathematical procedure, astronomical calculations and documented surgical techniques.

One of India's clearest contribution is Mathematics. The development of the decimal place value system and the mathematical treatment of zeru transformed calculation. By the around 5th century CE, Indian mathematicans used sophisticated place value notation while Brahmagupta in 4th century gave systematic rules for calculating with zero and negative numbers. The significance is enormous: modern arithmetic, commerce, engineering, computing and science all depends on positional notation.

Aryabhatta's Aryabhatiya composed around 499 BC demonstrates how closely mathematics and astronomy were connected. It includes arithmetic, algebra, geometry and trigonometry including sine tealtes calculations. Aryabhatta also proposed tha the apparent daily movement of the stars could be explained by Earth's rotation on its axis. His work combined contained methods of calculating astronomical qualities and eclipses rather than simply describing celestial events through mythology.

Indian mathematical astronomy continued developing after Aryabhatta. Brahmagupta worked on planetary positions and eclipses while the later Kerala School beginning with Madhava in the 14th century developed remarkable infinite series for trigonometric functions and pie(π). These results resembles mathematical techniques later Central to calculus.

Surgery provides another stroking example. The Shusruta Samhita traditionally associated with sushruta contains detailed descriptions of surgical instruments, procedures, suturing, wound treatment, fracture and reconstructive techniques using skin flaps. The text also describes cataract treatment and many other surgeries. And India is the birth place of plastic surgery.

The point is not that ancient India has modern science in disguise. It is not.

It's methods and theories and limitations and understanding id nature were products if their time. But dismissing these achievements just because the westerners could not accept such natural linking between science and God and intelligence is just disrespect.

I have came across a meme that says everything that is found in the modern world will have proof of existence ventures agi in the walls of temples and sculptures and words in Indian History. How foolish were we to reduce our culture to a mere good point and refering to the westen culture instead of embracing our roots. We had everything we wanted right in our palm of hands and yet we were brainwashed and ignoranct not to use the things from our ancestors and following a random person for advice.

Imagine discovering something important and doing all the difficult work, producing the evideyanr then watching someone else become the name history remembers.

That is the Matilda Effect.

Historian Margaret W Rossiteir coined the term in 1993 to describe the systametic tendency to overlook, minimize or attribute women's achivements to men. And the frustrating part is that this is not an abstract idea. History gives us names.

Lise Meitnet helped explain nuclear fission theoritically after working closely with chemist Otti Hahn. He received the 1994 Nobel Prize in Chemistry alone. Meitnet, despite her major contribution to understanding what was happening insides a nucleus was left without the prise or recognition.

Then there is Rosalind Franklin. Her X Ray diffraction research produced crucial evidence about DNA's structure including the famous Photo 51. James Watson and Francis Crick ultimately constructed the double helix model(apparently) and received the Novel Prize in 1962 with Maurice Milkins. Franklin had died by then and therefore could not receive the Nobel hug her contribution become deeply entangled in a historical where the men become household names while her role was often reduced to a footnote.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell discoverd the first pulsars as a graduate student after noticing unusual signals in radio astronomy data. Her Supervisor Antony Hewish sheard the 1974 Nobel Prize with Martin Ryle. She did not.

Chein Shiung Wu performed groundbreaking experiments that demonstratef parity violation in weak interactions. The 1957 Noble prize for the same went to Tsung Doa Lee and Chen Ning Yang.

Nettie Stevens produced important experimal evidence connecting sex determination with X and Y chromosomes. Her work was stolen from Edmund Wislon whose research also contributed to the field.

And Esther Lederberg made significant contributions to bacterial genetics and bacteriophage research. Her husband Joshua Lederberg received the 1958 Novel Prize in Medicine. Her specific contributions received far less recognition.

The above given names and examples are so small compared to the ones present with Evidence. There are a lot without proper evidence or voice. The problem is not the missing trophies.

If women are not credited they are not remembered. If they are not remembered them children grow up seeing fewer women when they imagine scientists. If they see a fewer women as scientists then the false idea that the science was naturally a man's world becomes easier to beleive.

Then the cycle begins again.

The women goes to work.
The man gets the recognition.
History remembers the man.
And history later uses the absence of women as proof that women were never there.

When being a women costs you more

Being a women can be expensive in ways that are ordinary. They barely feels like a discrimination anymore.

A razor. A period product. Bras. Hair removal. Shin care. Make up. Hair cuts. Professional clothing. Causal clothing. Pregnancy related expenses. None of these individually explain the entire problem. Together they reveal something bigger. Women are often expected to soemd money simply to meet the standards that men are not held as intensely.

The pink Tax is commonly used to describe the tendency for products marketed towards women to cost more comparable products marketed towards man. It is not literally government tax. Just the invisible cost to pay more to fit in.

A product cannot be more valuable just because it is pink. The deeper problem is system of expectation surrounding women.

Patriarchy does not exist in dramatic form. It can survive in ordinary day to day assumptions on how a women should look like and how she should dress and how she should smell and how she should walk and laugh and how she should appear and how much efforts she should put into remaining presentable.

A man can age. A women is told to fight aging. A man can have body hair. A women is expected to remove it because it is considered ugly. A can appear in simple short with minimal grooming. A women will be judged for her hair, skin, clothes, makeup, body shape and overall appearance before anyone evaluates what she actually has to say.

I came across a meme that say Men are asked not to smoke because it is not good for lungs. Women are asked not to smoke because it is not good for their honour. Why? Is it because Women got no Lungs or because A Man got no honour?

Simple words right? It kept resonating and provoked something deep inside me. Smoking is wrong no matter the gender. Why this discrimination?

This is where Misogyny enters the picture. It is not merely hatred expression openly on women. It can appear thligh contempt, punishment or unfair expectations in women just because they are women.

And the market can profit from these expectations. Feel insecure about you body? Buy something and fit the society.

The cruelest part is that women can be pressurized into spending money to avoid judgement and then critisised for caring too much about the appearance.

Too much make up? Fake.
No make up? Unprofessional.
Dressed attractively? Attention seeking.
Dressed simply? Unkempt.
Ageing naturally? "Letting herself go?"
Trying to look younger? " Obsessed with beauty"

Patriarchy created the expections
Misogyny enforced the punishment
And the market sells the solution
And women pay for it.

Look at your phone long enough and eventually something about you will start feel wrong.

You skin is not clear enough. You body is not fit enough. You clothes are not beautiful enough. You house is not sofesticated enough. Your relationship is not romantic enough. You career is not successful enough. You life is not interested enough.

And conventionally there is always a way to fix that.

Social media has turned comparison into a daily habit. We can now compare our carefully selected versions of thousands of strangers before we have even had breakfast.

An influencer posted perfect skin. Someone else posts a six figure salary. Another posts a luxury holiday. Someone shoes their "morning routine " involving expensive skincare and supplements and gym sessions and designer clothes and a perfectly apartment.

You see the final product. You don't see the sponsorship editing, filters, debt, family money or inheritd wealth or dozens of failed attempts behind it.

Yet your brain compared their highlight reel with your ordinary Tuesday. And suddenly ordinary feels liked failure.

This is where overconsumption enters. The easiest way to deal with insecurity is often presented as buying something.

You skin needs another serum. You wardrobe needs another haul. You body need another supplement. Your room needs a aesthetic makeover. Your phone is outdated. You lifestyle is not luxurious enough. And the solution is just one purchase away.

Then the algorithm watched you respond to. You watch fitness videos and suddenly your feed is full of fitness products. You search for skin care and you receive endless videos explaining what is wrong with your face and why you should change it.
You watch luxury content and your ordinary life's starts to feel cheap.
They system doens't necessarily need to directly tell that you are inadequate. It only needs to show people who appear to have something that you don't.

And the most dangerous thing is that it actually works. You buy the product
You feel excited. For a few days you feel like you are actually improving yourself. Then the excitement disappears.

Another trend appears. Another insecurity appears. Another products seems necessary.

This is how insecurity can becomes a bussiness model: make dissatisfaction permenent and consumption never has to end.

The problem is the endless conversion of I want this into I need this to be enough.

Maybe your skin does not need fixing. Maybe your wardrobe does not need new renovation. May be your home's does not need to look like some one else's. May be your life is not behind. Stop over consumption.

You were never inadequate. You were being marketed to