Shrek, Feminism & Men's Issues

May 25, 2007
Aditi Nadkarni

The other day, a concerned friend called me up after reading the inflammatory comments to my recent "My Dad, The Feminist" article. We spoke about why the mention of “feminism” raises so many hackles. What worried me more than usual is that one of the commentators mentioned that anti-feminist representatives included people with impressive credentials and educational qualifications. 

“Apparently a degree does not really contribute towards liberal thinking,” I said to my friend who chuckled. “News flash!” he said with a tinge of sarcasm. Now I have to admit, that "trolls" and overzealous anti-feminists crowd my mind with their arguments to such an extent that I have somehow begun to see feminist messages in everything I see. Their strategy is strangely working against them. While for the most part I am a pacifist, this one issue seems to have triggered a rare combative side in me. I guess, only when our beliefs and convictions are questioned or attacked do we find the courage to defend them, especially when they are so widely misunderstood.

"So you are probably going to stop writing about feminism, right?" he asked in a tone that suggested he already knew my answer.  "Nope" I answered as I balanced the phone in one hand and locked the door with the other. My friends and I were leaving to go see Shrek The Third. I would leave the bitter debate behind and enjoy this light-hearted movie, I decided quietly. But little did I know that this seemingly innocuous film would have anything in the least to do with feminism. Then again, it is quite likely that my already ripe psyche, fresh from the online debate, saw an unrelated scene in an animated film in this light and made a connection.  

Shrek 3 had a women’s lib angle to it!” I exclaimed as we got out of the movie theatre. “Not again!” my roommate groaned, “You know what the response is going to be.” she warned. But I was already rubbing my hands in delight.  I have always liked Shrek. Not only was it the first film to deviate from the unrealistic and unidentifiable “happily ever after…” cliché, it also changed the stereotypes of Prince Charmings and Fair Godmothers in a funny but pungent manner. The satirical messages in this film that may be lost on the much younger children are interpretable by those who they are meant for.  We are always told that appearances are deceptive. We are led to believe that we should not judge people by their looks or their labels. We are preached the virtues of forgiveness. We are taught to be independent and self-reliant.

Unfortunately, though, our childhood fables and bedtime stories contradict these wise postulates. Shrek changed all that and brought newer heroes for the little ones.  Little girls grow up hoping to be “rescued” and learn the hard way that Prince Charming is already taken by Cinderellas and Snow Whites.  Men are supposed to be the ones fixing problems, fighting dragons and crossing tricky bridges to towers where the imprisoned princess waits. Little boys try all their lives to live up to this “protector” image and end up with self-esteem issues because they couldn’t impress girls. The damsels in distress, the beautiful princesses and the knights in shining armor leave us wanting to fit into these pre-cast roles, in search of our own happy endings.

People underestimate these seemingly harmless fairy tales even though they make up our childhood theories about relationships and .  In this past week, information provided by a lot of commentators, who were very mad at me for reasons beyond my comprehension, enlightened me quite a bit, unbeknownst to them of course. I found myself empathizing when reading about men who commit suicide because of financial demands and stay in a marriage in spite of verbal abuse because they feel trapped. While admitting to abuse is easier for women, for men it is a matter of going against the norms. I have to admit, I hadn’t thought about men’s issues as much before.

Truth be told, my heart does go out to the boys. In India, while women with a career are praised like there was no tomorrow, men bear the unstated, unsung onus of being breadwinners. And then it hit me. Wouldn’t feminism actually be the answer to these men’s issues as well? No, no, wait! Don’t dismiss it just yet. This is worth a thought. If women were to be financially independent, wouldn’t it mean a little more lax for the man of the house? If she were educated, she would be more likely to help out in household matters. This, of course, is if feminism is still perceived in the traditional, untwisted sense as social, cultural, economic and political equality. If the myths about feminism were to be debunked, people would realize that it holds the answers to men’s issues as much as women’s issues.

Educating women about the true essence of feminism would ensure that they don’t turn into radical believers of the concept.  In Shrek 3, to my amazement, Princess Fiona, Snow White, Beauty and Cinderella find themselves in peril and for once decide to take matters into their own hands rather than waiting around for their knights. They actually make things a little easier for their respective partners who appreciate the assistance. Lets face it; even the knights in shining armors could use a break.

Aditi Nadkarni is a cancer researcher, a film reviewer and a poet; her many occupations are an odd yet fun miscellany of creative pursuits. Visit her blog for more of her articles and artistic as well as photographic exploits.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

May 25, 2007
11:02 AM

Aditi, absolutely! I've always believed - maybe very self centeredly - that feminism is hardly about women's issues. It is about dismantling patriarchy, which benefits everyone. When people discuss feminism, they seem to miss this basic point this over and over again. Its a social movement about justice - gender is incidental.

May 25, 2007
11:21 AM

Right on, Aditi - in fact, as Aspi says, it was an integral part of the Civil Rights movement in the United States along with race and sexuality. There are definitely Indian parallels to be drawn.

Aditi Nadkarni
May 25, 2007
12:00 PM

Hey Amrita & Aspi:

You know, I had the best time writing this article in particular because I felt almost enlightened by the parallels I saw. I hate labels more than anything else....they are rigid and a little condemning. Feminism in India has been marred by such labels and only by educating people about the key concepts of feminism will this revolution take place. If more men, like Aspi suggests, begin to see the obvious answers to men's issues in feminism, things would be a whole lot easier. But itsa long road before we see light :)

Shrek has forever gone against labels and stereotypes. I was very pleased by the women's lib angle in the film. Very rarely does such a popular medium inculcate social messages in its entertainment quotient. After all it is a big risk since nobody likes change and it is not easy to move out of one's comfort zone to see the other side. Besides, I must confess, I am as sick and tired of damsels in distress as I am of chauvinistic men. It is a two variable equation where these elements feed each other's needs and then lament the consequences. Once each variable takes its independent course, things will become more flexible and evolved.

@Amrita: You won't believe this but a women's newspaper edited my article so that the words "intellectual feminism" wouldn't appear. It will raise too many hackles, I was told. If our media prefers to pickle mindsets in the same, comfortable, unthreatening psyches, we can't really blame just the general public. Our nation's film industry is the largest and Hindi films are so very popular. But where is the female protagonist in our commercial cinema? Her role has been reduced to that of eye-candy. We went from Mother India to Ms.World in fifty years?! Sad. A country's art should mirror its progress but I fear that our films do not. We don't give it much thought but it is very disorienting to see such a stark contradiction between social expectations and what is shown in films. It is a slow brain-wash, I think. Oh, I feel another post coming on! :)

May 25, 2007
12:25 PM

"feminism is hardly about women's issues. It is about dismantling patriarchy"

Then 'feminism' is a bit of a misnomer isn't it? True equality is when everyone sees people simple as people, not as white, black, fat, thin, male, female etc. Not just treating people as equal but *seeing* them as equal. This is of course an ideal situation and unfortunately not enough people do so. Feminists, with their usual banter, are among those that fall broadly into this category. Perhaps Aditi and the above posters are exceptions, but most of the feminists I have come across are extremely rabid. It then makes me chuckle when they talk about wanting equality. It's like trying to end racism by following a 'Black power' movement.

PS Aditi, re: the eye-candy comment - on the contrary it was never more true than in the yesteryears! Mother India was one of those very rare films in which the heroine dominated, but in most films their roles were rather one-dimensional and decorative. Heroine-oriented films are much more common these days than they were earlier; for every Mother India there is a Black, Page 3, Dor, Morning Raga etc. It is heartening too that these heroine-oriented films can also be mainstream and commercially successful today, rather than being low-budget arty films that few people watch (not referring to Mother India and the likes here).

May 25, 2007
01:24 PM

Dingbat, the origins of any social movement are rooted in singular issues. You can't have anything without an achor like that. But feminism has been unique in that it has been able to extend itself with passing years by embracing issues larger than the ones it set out to tackle immediately.

I love the personal is political message and also that systemic nature of thinking and the relevance of both.

You probably are right about social movements getting hijacked by people with varying agendas - but complete synchronization of purpose is an impossible dream, maybe holistic synchronization is good enough.

Aditi Nadkarni
May 25, 2007
01:36 PM

Dingbat: Very interesting! Point well-made. A misnomer. I never thought about it like that, to be honest.

To use your analogy of racism: The US still celebrates The Black History Month in honor of the African American leaders even though now IDEALLY racism should not exist. But it does. There still are White supremist groups and racism is rampant. In fact, it is almost second nature for some people. In such an environment having a Black history month ensures that not only does the long struggle against racism receive attention but educational institutions and national awareness in the field increase.

Similarly, for you and me feminism is an evolved concept that one should now discard since if it is about equality then why have a label that favors one gender, right? But in certain sects of society, in the rural areas and within specific communities, feminism still requires its reformist structure. When one gender has been deemed oppressed, has been denied equal rights for so long, it is necessary for the social movement associated with its upliftment, to still be very much alive.

**However if you are suggesting that the concept of feminism should now adapt to the changing times, I agree with you. It takes a few temperate feminists to tame the rabid ones :)**

By the way, I loved some of the films you've mentioned. Sadly they were all non-mainstream films. Films like Guru and Rang De Basanti received box office medals and were submitted for international film festivals. Rang De Basanti topped the charts this past year and nobody noticed that while all the men died heroic deaths in the film, the women were left out of the plan and left behind to mourn. LOC Kargil, Border all had brave men fighting our wars and women who were weeping widows left behind. What about the female officers in our army? Do you think anybody will make a film about Kiran Bedi and expect it to be a commercial hit? I doubt it.

You are right about the role of heroines in films of the yesteryear, in my comment I was referring to the ratio with which our commercial films should've metamorphosized alongwith changing times. I don't think they did.

May 25, 2007
04:19 PM

So now saint feminism started working for Men's welfare starting a welfare campaign of finding husbands , they cannot answer to the misery, pain and trauma of several thousands mothers, sisters and daughters by this ugly hidden agenda feminists, putting saint faces now. Equality is limited to money and status only, only when you agree with you are educated, well qualifed.

Why don;t these feminists start their campaign with matrimonials, i want a men with less degree than me, earning less than me,

May 25, 2007
04:20 PM

Aditi you commented on another post:

"What you fail to understand is that if more women were educated about what feminism truly stands for we would have LESS of the misinformed radical feminists."

The anti-men laws are framed by radicals in the powerful position like Girija Vyas, Ranjana Kumari, Indira Jai Singh, Flavia Agnes et al. Can you make an effort to educate them on what feminism truly stands for. If you can do that I would believe what you are saying.

Can you make an effort to educate them on 498 A and DV Act, that they go against the philosophy of feminism. If you can, I would believe that you understand the men's issue.

If you can do the above, I would believe what you are saying, otherwise you are no different from them. You write just for the sake of argument

May 25, 2007
04:30 PM

There should also be ugly feminists display months and contest, where they can tell proudly how much destruction they are doing. Killed so many families, mothers, sisters and daughters.

But they are not satisfied they want full years for their grees, why they have to clarify every now and then, oh islam is peace, feminism is peace. oh few are bad

Point to author : focus your energy in the welfare of the families in the name of families, which you are destructing like hell, 10 yrs before divorce rate in india, 6%, now, 65+%.

Already you had broken joint families to nuclear family and now he and she family.

May 25, 2007
04:41 PM

This is what your parents forgot to teach you,
which you had to learn from Shreik,
there are Ahilya bai, Jhansi ki rani, savitri, countless noble indian ladies, who put their everything for the defence of their family. For generations, for boy or girl, it is taught, family, society and nation welfare is before him or her, with the feminist bandwagon which you and your cults are riding is all about me, me, mine. there is no sharing, belongingness and togetherness.

All your preachers and preachings are dismantling and destruction, why it cannot be remodeled, redesigned, things have survived in india for millions years.

Feminists agenda is to rush to Iraq War or to flush soviets out of Afghanistan without, what to do after that. Ok we destroyed, now what ???

In this preachings they are fooling, innocent 3400+ kids and counting, not to include millions of innnocent iraqi, for greedy lust for money, which is all feminist agenda is about. Now putting a saint, ok we will now work for men's welfare and spread democracy in them.

Aditi Nadkarni
May 25, 2007
04:42 PM

Wasif: The fact that I write on a public forum, for various newspapers and in my own way try to speak to young women about what feminism truly means, hopefully is a testimony of my own sincere efforts towards redefining feminism.

By fighting my very pacific and rational means at doing this, you are in fact standing in the way of my attempts at doing precisely what you suggest I should be working on: awareness

If the feminists that you have stated are radical in nature then the voice of liberal, tolerant and rational feminists has to be powerful enough to drown theirs.

The problem is you fight the wrong people. Shouldn't you be fighting the radical feminists instead of a female author who is trying to clarify that feminism although perceived in a bad light by men and women is truly about equality and not about chauvinism?

Please read my latest article:


In this article I examine men's issues too and evaluate if true feminism could have answers to some of the grave issues that men today are facing as well.

I don't know if you guys notice but I never respond acerbically to any of the harsh personal attacks. It makes no sense, really. If you want to see the little good that I try to do, thats great otherwise I can't really help it.

Also, to be very frank there are countless laws and legal loopholes that are abused by unethical people. The Dowry Act by the nature of its stringency happens to be one that could use reform. My heartfelt sympathies to those that have been falsely framed by these laws. I have maintained that I am personally against abuse of such laws by people.

Take a look at my views and my articles:
Does any of them suggest anything remotely radical?
Do I say that men are the root of all troubles?
Do I say men's problems don't exist?
Do I claim that the Dowry Act is good?
Do I suggest that feminism should exclude men?

On the contrary I try very hard to maintain my views of equality, harmony and balance between the genders. So how am I the culprit?

May 25, 2007
05:13 PM


why for a feminist , it is a she or he, or she vs he, why it cannot be 'we'.

Two people, one together in the peace and prosperity of all.

Oh, women needs liberty, independence, blah blah, after that what ??? I don't like you, i will see in court, and if you should know, US is the most litigating nation with the correctional facilities busting out to their seams, with the female criminals on rise exponentially. this is what your feminism and equality is targetting for.

Just what is the target of your feminism, liberate 1000 women, why it can't be to liberate 1000 people irrespective, and for that you don;t have to ride feminine bandwagon, and brand yourself or your father as feminist

Aditi Nadkarni
May 25, 2007
05:28 PM

@Shanti: I am just glad that you asked me a question without making personal attacks. Now I can try to answer and I hope you read it without prejudice. You asked: "why for a feminist , it is a she or he, or she vs he, why it cannot be 'we'?"

It SHOULD be we! That is precisely what I have been saying. In all my articles I stress that by rallying and debating we cannot bridge gender differences.

Just as Indians fought during the freedom struggle, women rallied for a right to make their own decisions. That is feminism. Not a man-hating scheme that breaks down families.

I am not sure how you got the idea that I was against famillies. I agree that a family structure is very important for the progress of a nation.

Feminists are responsible for a lot of good reforms that have benefitted families:

1. Educating the girl child
2. Women's health issues
3. Family Therapy & Counselling
4. Birth control regimens
5. Children's health and awareness
6. Reduction of prostitution
7. AIDS Awareness among prostitutes
8. Financial independence for women
9. India's cottage industries (Mahila Udyog Kendras)

A handful of radical feminists may exist but a majority of them are educated women with families, husbands and children. They are doctors, engineers, army officers, teachers, scientists and journalists. By denouncing a concept that allowed women to educate themselves, to vote and to have a choice, you are dismissing an important era of social growth.

As a woman, today you get the opportunity to sit at a computer and type out a reply that insults other accomplished women since you are allowed freedom of speech. There was a time in history where just because you are a woman you would not have been allowed to be literate or express yourself. The feminists are the ones you should thank for this privilege.

***I have always believed that between hatred and rationale, the latter prevails. So if you continue to respond with personal attacks, please remember I do not mind. If you do however think about what I have to say, I will feel extremely rewarded.****

May 25, 2007
06:23 PM

Again, it takes back to the same question, why you have to be branded as 'feminist' to do that, and 'me,me and mine' philosophy, or 'my way or high way' concept. Read your knowledge source of wikipedia. Does all the people who had contibuted to the points you listed are 'feminists' only. Even majority of them were not feminists. they were doing it because it is good and good for everybody, not just women. Climate was good and it was a peaceful, can you claim the same for women in Iraq, there is no peace, women are worst off. All feminists should assemble there and work for points you listed there.

Did you say, indian men only worked for freedom, women were sitting at home.

What are there 'own' decision, they are rallying for, "birth control", why don't femininsm preach doing sex for procreation only, why some person have to be 'macho' or with 'sex drive' to be feminine, and then take pride in killing.

Its like smoke cigrattes, pay for them, have lung cancer, pay for them. Again, it will be a choice, and had you worked with drug addicts or smokers, they all start casual, once they are in, they are in, there is no exit. Again, for exit, pay a heavy price. So from start to finish pay me.

You say 'reduction in prostitution', it had morphed into better way, and same feminists are patrons of it.

Do you say, since several thousand years in india, women did not have a chance earlier, they may not have a face, but they were there, and thats why everybody is there. And the face you are trying to put on, is a very ugly face. A women who makes a home and family, is worth trillion of your 'she and he' you are trying to preach, and that is what was indian women was known for, without a face but source of all strength. Your feminism had commoditized it and put it on the street.

It also comes back to the PERENIAL question, oh some are bad. they are bad 'feminists', i am the good one. so why don't you first flush those evil out from your herd FIRST, then you can claim, i am just feminine. no good no bad, no radical, no temporal, no moderate, pure 'devi'. So before talking and working for other's welfare, why don't you work on the feminists own welfare first, and flush those dirty out first, so that there are no bad ones.

Researchers like you flushed out polio and many diseases, why don't you cure your own disease first. Why don't you start a campaign of "weeding out bad feminists" first, instead of labeling your dad as feminist.

If there are 'few' bad feminists as you claim, it is very easier to clean them, majority of you good ones can even 'quarantine' them, and vaccinating them.

What ticked me off, you had brought your father to the herd, which is mostly having the face of cheapfuls, ugly, you remain where ever you are, but don't bring a respected loving relation to your herd, you are giving wrong message and model to the millions 'HUSBAND PROCURERS' out there.

May 25, 2007
07:16 PM

There is one more funny point i saw a lot -
Almost Every contestant in beauty pagent contest, flashing their body part, in the last finale, very proudly claims,

" I want to be a Mother Theresa" .

After winning, Mother Teresa is lying in the dust bin, and zoom, all of them became proud feminist.

May 26, 2007
01:22 PM

It seems the author is in shame for her agenda of bringing dad(?) in her dirty mud, and now working on men's welfare as well, while finding her 'several knights in the shining armor'.

Here she talks as saint 'Mother Teresa' here, at the same time, praising, promoting and patroninsing 'adultery' in married women. She had proved her FEMINISM.

By any chance, SN are your Senior Nadkarni ???
Hope you should be proud of your daughter's promotion of adultery, while wearing the dress of Mother Teresa, no wonder, there are so many scandals in the chruches.

May 26, 2007
02:00 PM

Ha, ha. Knights in shining armors do need a rest! Shrek was fun as always. I liked your film reviews and the style of speaking of social issues through the review. It is interesting.

June 11, 2007
01:46 PM


Somebody sent these three links of yours,
only words can be told to you , "Shame on You"



June 11, 2007
03:51 PM


quite curious, is your Dad is same feminie as like Mahesh Bhatt.

June 13, 2007
11:23 AM


June 13, 2007
01:39 PM

Trollers??? Soon there will be more than 3 billion of them, what would poor Am do then.

June 14, 2007
12:24 PM

Amrita and Aditi,

I read your articles and with interest your comments.

Any men commenting on your posts to disagree with your opinion are being branded as Gay or so,
Any women disagreeing with your dirty agenda's are branded as fucked up ladies or so, why they are not lesbians by the same token, or is feminism is lesbianism.

Also, with interest i saw your feminist Dad's,
you folks had never answered about a Great Feminist Dad called as Mahesh Bhatt, who kisses her daughter openly, and who knows what he do closely, and terms marriage as "legal prostitution".So now what you will term your mother's, "legal p-------?"

June 14, 2007
01:58 PM

Why men supported feminism all along?

Because, they saw something out there for themselves as well. We all as we grew up, saw that women's liberation will free men from "protecting and providing" for women.

Alas, we are terribly mistaken. The very concept "women's liberation" has become a frankenstein monster which murders small unborn children and even gets it legalised in UN.

Women are happy to embrace feminism. But, they are very reluctance, when men talk about their liberation from "protection and providing".

Recently, I got the info about couple of professors in an IIM talking about how feminism has become a nuisance for academics.

Since last couple of years, we are sensing radical thinking seeping into corporates and IT companies.

It is women who are into women vs men battles.
For them, the whole world is black and white.

The newspapers and tabloids churn a regular dosage of gender hate. These intolerant recruits of radical feminism either abuse others or corner and abuse themselves.

I sometimes conduct informal surveys regarding views of men towards women's issues. Recently, I asked them, "I am going to give 14 multiplex moview tickets to the team on International Men's Day". At least half of them said, "yes, that is very much needed in present scenario".

2 out of every ten have a horror story to tell, "women have become a nuisance today, my friend's wife in created great nuisance and harassed him and his family."

Patriarchy gives women immunity, ie protection from prosecution if they commit crimes. Women do not want to shed all those benefits that they get from patriarchy.

They want to ride both the boats, the patriarchal boat, which makes their husband/bf/brother/father an unpaid body guard and the feminist boat where they rant about choices.

It has to be noted that men face hardships from all dimensions of life. So, it is not a big problem for them to take some more nuisance from women. But, then they decide enough is enough, they exercise their choices.

Even today 3 times more men compared to women die due to accidents, murders and suicides.

Yet, we see news like, "20 people including 3 women and 2 children died in any accident."


"do not drink and drive, your family needs you."

as if it is perfectly OK to drink, drive and die if one is a bachelor.

Men go to war in Iraq because they have to keep the US economy running. In US, 85% of the consumer spending is by women. So, men die in Iraq so that women can enjoy the fruits of a vibrant economy. And yet, men are blamed for all the wars.

Men fight wars and risk their lives just because they have to feed their families when the resources are scarce.

Yet, feminists term men as war mongering brutal creatures. They easily forget Indira Gandhis, Benazir Bhuttos and Golda Meirs who were no less than any man regarding war mongering.

One must recollect how brutally Indira Gandhi tackled the Naxabari movement in 70s.

June 14, 2007
02:23 PM


You wrote:
We are preached the virtues of forgiveness.

Why? Because, people who can not forgive are weak and they lead weak lives.

Feminists are settling scores with today's men for some real or imaginary injustice done to them some centuries back.

Just because the real or imaginary oppressors are dead and gone, feminsts have to seek revenge and justice from the present men even, if they are innocent.

As far as I understand feminism is certainly a revenge movement. Forgiveness has simply no place in any version of feminism.

So, what goes on is Feminazism.

They seek revenge just like Nazies.

Both feminists and Nazies stick to their idenitities and claim superiority over others.

Both indulged in false propaganda.

The feminist propaganda is at least 50 times bigger than Nazi propaganda. Nazi propaganda was only limited to Germany, Austria, parts of Switzerland. Feminist lies and false propaganda covers most countries in the world.

Otherwise, how these bitches could get away claiming in Indian media that 70% of Indian women face domestic violence.


Women have the choice:

Screw up family, screw up the society, create anarchy.

That will lead to commodification of women, prostitution and finally rape in the whole society.

Just look at teen pregancy rate in US. On can imagine the same happening in India and its consequences. Then feminists will demand the Govt to spend billions to solve the problems created by these bitches.

Old people are thrown out of houses because of feminism as the women do not want their in-laws in their house. It is a complete no-no, if the in-law even visit once in a while.

India does not have a social security system. But, the bitches want India to emulate US.

The problem is the half-baked UBIs(Unfortunately Born in India) who suck up to every "American Pie" and start preaching same nuisance everywhere in the world.

These morons forget that in US has got prowerful structures and within those powerful structures, they have the freedom. They do not realise that in India, the structures mostly do not exist. In the name of "Free Choice/Free will", they want to demolish, whatever structure that is intact in India.

Sif member
June 14, 2007
09:05 PM

sapna mera tut gaya.....sab kidar feminisht jaaye hua hain....sapna mera tut gaya

we cannot have a WOMAN president now .

Sumanth boss ( senior activist) )stop this from happening. Even if it is fund collecting I will come forward. You had promised us that together we can stop political parties who support feminisht .We can support other parties who are against it and lure them that we can be their vote bank.

Please let us do something.
We have failed in the following
1) DV act
2) Dowry Act
3) Abdul Kalam never did anything for us since he was a bachelor
4) We could not stop provoked from releasing.
5) And Sheila ran slept with another man

The Women camp had some strange silence in Feminist camp since many days.. Everytime they become silient they emerge with a news that is like a shocker.

Please tell us what we can do so that our message spread

we cannot have a WOMAN president now .

Forget these aditis, DS and amritas, we can take care of them later. Now let us take care of their grandmother

June 14, 2007
09:15 PM

Yes, #25! You have no valid statements to make. You must be feeling highly insecure about yourself. So, pretend to be a SIF member.

Sif member
June 14, 2007
09:25 PM

Siffer brother

i dont have time for you insecurities, for all you knwo you maybe an outsder trying to create a fight. if you are memmber then we do not have to fight amongst ourself , we have to unite.

when my other sif brothers will protest on this new president, are you going to tell them that they are insecure. You know what you can sit and warm your ass.

Sif member
June 14, 2007
09:26 PM

Siffer brother

i dont have time for you insecurities, for all you knwo you maybe an outsder trying to create a fight. if you are memmber then we do not have to fight amongst ourself , we have to unite.

when my other sif brothers will protest on this new president, are you going to tell them that they are insecure. You know what you can sit and warm your ass.

June 14, 2007
09:38 PM

Right! Indian President is as good as a rubber stamp. Thanks for being concerned about such a crucial issue that threatens the nation.

Jayanti Natrajan
June 15, 2007
02:05 AM

Its really a shame on these feminists that great women like Sita, Lata Mangeshkar, and now Pratibha Patil had to be maligned. At least, they never claim themselves to be feminist.

Amrita and party, are you girls a sister, daughter and mother also, or all you know is just sex, sex and sex, and your boyfriend man's. Don't you think about your family which gave birth to you, and one which takes you and you can then carry forward.

June 15, 2007
11:42 AM


This blog attempts to create an opportunity for commentators who are otherwise blocked by DC to exercise their free speech.

Why Mani Is An Idiot
June 27, 2007
07:30 AM

I believe Aditi has addressed some of you idiots and your complete lack of logic in her new (and may I say hilarious) post Discussion Doctor :D


Best way to shut you all up is to expose your lack of intelligence and awareness like she does every time, with her pungent humor. Take that.

Seems like posts are totally deleted
June 28, 2007
09:28 AM

Now, frustated feminists are totally chucking off the messages. Great show, it shows how hypocrite and shameless you are

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/5394)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.

Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!