OPINION

IPC Section 498A and The Institution Of Marriage In India

July 13, 2007
Aditi Nadkarni

The exchanges between some of the strong, opinionated women who believe in liberal feminism and the Save India Family Foundation (SIFF) members have predominated a whole lot of recent discussions on DC. My articles received harsh responses from most SIF members and sometimes offensive comments. Editors had to operate overtime trying to catch up with the foul mouthed and mostly baseless accusations. For the most part I was confused. I had no idea who these people were and why they were so mad about my father being feminist. I didn't know why they referred to me as a man-hater. I was introduced to a new term: Feminazi.

I have always believed that there is an upside to everything and so it was that this brutal onslaught brought on by the SIFF members forced me to wonder what it was that had made them so bitter towards feminism. At first I just assumed they were male chauvinists. But surely chauvinism wouldn't be motivation enough for these people to be on a public forum ranting like this. Then there were these snippets that would fall out of their lengthy comments. These small peeks allowed me some insight into their stories and roused my curiosity immensely. I wanted to know what was behind this anger. I tried being nice. I asked questions. I ignored the cutting sarcasm and criticism and I mustered every bit of my patience in trying to find out what they were so mad about. I thought about giving up but my need to find out was so strong that I went online and searched. Google, as always, opened up its wide and sometimes indiscriminate ambit. So I went to Youtube and searched for 498A and I was in for a surprise.

There was footage of shows on Zee TV, there were interviews with people who has been booked under the Indian Penal Code, section 498A and there were debates on Indian television shows where people argued relentlessly over whether a domestic violence act was necessary. I didn't see any victims of abuse speak up. I didn't see interviews of any battered women like the ones I've seen on Oprah. In the shows titled "Abuse of Section 498A", the story was narrated by the man who claimed he had been falsely accused unlike something like Dateline-NBC where both parties are interviewed.

The interviews with family members who were accused of dowry harassment is what interested me most. Why? Because they were women. They were mothers, sisters who had not lived with the couple, at times not even in the same country and they had been listed as accused.

But frankly, no matter how touched and how affected I am by somebody's testimony, I always like to maintain that there is another side to the story. What I did decide to write about is the one observation I made while watching all the footage. One by one, I watched the cases and lo behold, the one strikingly common factor stood out: arranged marriage.

People narrated how the alliance had been recommended by an aquaintance and how problems began when the girl insisted that he leave his parents and set up a house with her. Some of the men also described how they found out about their wife's pre-marital affair almost a year into the marriage. Oddly money issues were prominent. The men claimed that the woman had demanded money or had complaints about his finances. Some men narrated that their wife's family had been insulting and they had suffered humiliation. Some of the relatives who had been arrested stated their confusion over even having been included on the accused list.

This made me wonder about an issue that thus far hadn't been on the forefront of my thought process while discussing section 498A: the issue of marriage in India. Every year, at least one Indian post-doctoral fellow or young doctor in our city flies back to India and within a period of 5 weeks returns with a shy bride. When asked about how long they'd been dating, they giggle and clarify that it was an arranged match and they hadn't known each other until a few days before the engagement. Maybe its just me, but doesn't a decision as important as who to spend your life with, deserve more attention? If marriage is a gamble, shouldn't one do their best in trying to ensure that the odds are in their favor.

The other noticeable lapse seems to be in the area of discussions that people have before they tie the knot. The parents ensure compatibility in terms of religion, caste, horoscopes etc but what about the important decisions of life. True, one can't possibly sit down and decide everything at one go but how about a few relevant areas: children, lifestyle, finances, whether they will be living in a joint or a nuclear family set-up, what kind of careers will they adopt after marriage and when will they plan for children. These are basic issues that would affect the fate of any marriage. Agreed, that circumstances and even personalities may change after marriage. Isn't that all the more reason to take some time before binding yourself legally and emotionally?

People seem more worried about what such a law will do to the divorce rates. I honestly want to know how many people really care more about the nation's divorce rates over their own happiness? If you are unhappy with a person, if there are serious incompatibilities, would you choose to live with the person for a lifetime because your nation's divorce rates is escalating? I doubt it. It is somewhat of a ridiculous rationale to prevent domestic violence laws. A more logical approach would've been to ammend the laws and make them gender neutral.

As I watched and heard people's views on some of the shows on Youtube, I wondered what the absence of a domestic violence or dowry law would mean for women. Should they be stuck in unhappy marriages? I have often heard complaints from men that women who prefer a nuclear family set-up are mean, insensitive nags who don't care about his family. And I wonder if they never thought to discuss this issue before they took the plunge. There was a time when women would live happily and without complaints in a joint family. They would invest a better part of their day in serving their old in-laws. With changing times, women have careers, they now are conditioned to voice their needs and their preferences. The lack of proper dialogue within a marriage, interference from in-laws, breakdown of communication are all seen as causes of emotional and mental distress. How does a woman deal with this distress? Is it fair for men to want an educated woman, who has a brilliant career, an education to match his, a modern sense of thinking and still wants to live in a cramped house with his parents and siblings? Or is it an issue to be addressed between couples before the "I dos" are said.

It was convenient for many an NRI man to hop on a plane and return with a wife who could cook for him and fill the loneliness of life in a foreign country. What about the emotional health of the woman who is suddenly away from her kin in a new country such as the U.S. where the social life is sometimes defined by your work place or weekend visits to the temple. I have had a few friends confess that sometimes it is just pressure from the family and the lack of a social life that prompted them to look toward matrimony.

With the advent of such a stringent act, it is time to speculate about the metamorphosis that the very institution of marriage will undergo in coming years. Nobody deserves to be thrown in prison because they invested less time in evaluating a prospective bride. It could very well be that one makes a bad judgement or is cheated. Nontheless precaution seems like a better option compared to the harrowing struggle that families have to go through once things boil down to the legal bond that marriage is.

A few weeks ago, in one of the angry comments to my article, a guy vehemently declared that men would now think a million times before they get married. Maybe they should. Maybe marriage does deserve a million considerations before the final decision is made.

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

#1
AK
URL
July 13, 2007
03:09 AM

feminazi ! THERE YOU GO !

#2
Dev
July 13, 2007
03:42 AM

Very well said. The fact is the system of arranged marriage had worked well in the past. Previously women did not have careers and men and women did not have much of a chance to interact so that they could choose their own spouse. In such a situation ensuring similar backgrounds would give a high probability of compatibility. The problem is times have changed and we are stuck with an old system. We are forced by society to continue in the name of culture leading to a host of problems as you mentioned.

Regarding amendment to 498a Sumanth had given a link to Malimath committee report on reforms it's a wonderful read though a 300 page document can be tedious.

#3
SS
July 13, 2007
03:56 AM

Ms. Author, You claim yourself a researcher, a penny to it.

Still you don't understand the hatred in an evil women. "Yeda samjha hai kya Pooja Chauhan ko",

You need to open and research the rehab for such living beings, before trying to export your unproven and pathetic theories of the society which is just 300 yrs old. and attempting to ompose that which is unknown years old.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#4
Preeti
July 13, 2007
04:01 AM

Aditi,

I am so touched by your article...somewhere you have voiced the minds of several wives. You post, your words, has a soul, has a message in there.... it has tapped the current status of several wives across the globe. I am a little surprised you were able to do that especially when you are not married.

Let me elucidate the situation where in you expressed that why mothers and sisters ( and father) were caught in between, when they were not even physically living with the couple. It is possible. For example, if an independent NRI guy goes back to India and marries a lady( his lifetime partner) obediently at the insistence of his parents, then that obedient son can be influenced in several other ways across the planet as well!!
When sons in India obediently agrees for an "arranged marriages" then a lot of other demands by way of unwarranted interferences can also be made through the son who in turn may expect from his wife at the insistence of his parents.

For more understanding you may want to read this article

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=125583

Says Kiran Walia, MLA and Former Chairperson, Delhi Commission for Women,

"Another aspect is that she(mother) nurtures her son right from childhood, so there is a sense of possessiveness. Thus she becomes the main weapon when it comes to torturing her daughter-in-law,"

Says Dr Aruna Broota, clinical psychologists feels it is the power factor that plays a main role. A woman who is dominated throughout her life feels she can only use her power over the young bride her son brings in.

"It is a natural human need of a person whether man or woman and that is the need of power. So whenever she is gets that power she uses it to abuse or protect. Jealousy is also another emotion, which comes in all human beings men or women. Whenever he or she feels someone is more preferred than him or her then the sense of losing power makes the person abuse the power," said Broota.

"Men too play a very significant role as they thrive on this politics and enjoy the politics between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, thus enjoying the power that they being the head of the family are ultimately being resorted to," Broota adds.


From the above it can be concluded that the major areas that require immediate attention, lie within a woman herself, which contributes to a greater extent to the low status of women in the society.

According to studies a woman is said to possess immense mental strength and an ability to think rationally. It is up to her to use her strength in a manner that raises the status of women in the society.

It is said that the presence of an educated and rational thinking woman in a family makes healthy educated future citizens of the country.

If we desire for a healthy male female balanced ratio based society tomorrow, then we need to strive in the direction which will elevate the status of women.

And it will only then be possible to bring down government figures projecting the death of 10 million girls - either in the womb or immediately after birth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore you might now be able to comprehend the role of sisters and mothers of the husband. They are women no doubt, but that does not make them innocent right away, even though they maybe living across the globe. It is all about the influence the mother/father/sister may have over their son, his private life, his decision making which may time and again impede his relationship with his wife slowly and steadily.

And again you have appropriately pointed out that let us for example say that dowry and domestic laws cease to exist. It no way guarantees the change of attitude of men nor women....all depends on expectations, outlook and intentions. And more so respect, respect for the new bride, her space and her choices. Even in the absence of such laws the state of marriages that currently exist, would remain the same. Husband would not keep wife in his houses if the monetary needs/expectations were not met AND a wife who has a mind of her own and self-respect would not stay in an unhappy marriage either.

I would once again say that your post has a deep spirited quintessence.. a true empathy for the wives and I hope it gets its due!




#5
Preeti
July 13, 2007
04:05 AM
#6
SS
July 13, 2007
04:17 AM

Preeti,

As your bunch claims the fairness,
in the same breath,
can you tell us first hand about the ,
influence of the father/mother/brother/sister of the lady, who had arranged the marriage of the lady, with a unknown boy from inland or overseas.

What is the power equation from their side.

Do they marry thier daughters to a boy who is un-employed, and if their girl is earning to alow-earning man. NEVER! Always a status is desired, and which your author who is a speciliast in MATRIMONIAL ADV can attest.

What stops them to be greedy and a parasite, and evil eye and mind on their SIL and his family wealth.

Do you know about the Ambatti's case, they claimed to pay Rs 12,000 to a family of 4 doctors, one of them being the youngest doctor (a teenage) in the world from Harvard,
and guess,
their claim to settle the matter,
$500,000, yes, 5 Lakh USD.
And this is the consistent pattern of all 498a's.
This law is not about dowry, but evil women's and their evil quest.
And,
not giving the GIRL what is her due, a share out of their own property. They write her off from that.

A smart women is like a smart entrepreneur,
succed against all odds with flying colors,
and that is what Indian Women all stands out,
which this feminist author and ilks like you,
want s to bring them to a level of object displayed around in undergarments.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#7
SS
July 13, 2007
04:19 AM

Editor,

Do you see some work for you for
[COPY - PASTE].

#8
FF
July 13, 2007
04:20 AM

Do not forget to read the following article. A very touching one indeed.

http://www.indiatogether.com/manushi/issue148/dowry.htm


In the above article "Madhu Purnima Kishwar" a woman who has been associated with women causes for over 30 years!!!, states


... I have not come across a single case where a man battered a woman solely because of additional dowry demands and would begin to treat his wife well if his in-laws met with all his demands.


By contrast, I have come across numerous situations, where a woman suffers a lot of taunts and even violence because her husband's family feel she might start considering herself high and mighty for bringing in a huge dowry.

...





Dowry which is in-fact wife's share has been beaten to death of feminists and society. Just that some 50 years back (when divorce was unheard of) it (The dowry) was handed over to husband under the pretext that since he is in charge of all finances of house he can better manage money since women were not literate enough to manage finances.

The only difference to have happened since is

Women have become more literate and we can trust them to manage their own finances thus there is no point in handing over the money to husband.

That is all about "dowry" which has been literally pulverized and beaten to death for no fault of it. Dowry is not about giving money, share, property e.t.c to husband, but is about giving due share it the woman. The day one understands it, he/she will stop hating the tradition of dowry.

#9
FF
July 13, 2007
04:22 AM

Sorry about some quotes that got left out

Do not forget to read the following article. A very touching one indeed.

http://www.indiatogether.com/manushi/issue148/dowry.htm


In the above article "Madhu Purnima Kishwar" a woman who has been associated with women causes for over 30 years!!!, states


... I have not come across a single case where a man battered a woman solely because of additional dowry demands and would begin to treat his wife well if his in-laws met with all his demands.


By contrast, I have come across numerous situations, where a woman suffers a lot of taunts and even violence because her husband's family feel she might start considering herself high and mighty for bringing in a huge dowry.

...





Dowry which is in-fact wife's share has been beaten to death of feminists and society. Just that some 50 years back (when divorce was unheard of) it (The dowry) was handed over to husband under the pretext that since he is in charge of all finances of house he can better manage money since women were not literate enough to manage finances.

The only difference to have happened since is

Women have become more literate and we can trust them to manage their own finances thus there is no point in handing over the money to husband.

That is all about "dowry" which has been literally pulverized and beaten to death for no fault of it. Dowry is not about giving money, share, property e.t.c to husband, but is about giving due share it the woman. The day one understands it, he/she will stop hating the tradition of dowry.

#10
FF
July 13, 2007
04:22 AM

...

#11
FF
July 13, 2007
04:25 AM

Apologies for duplication(triplication)...Some software issues at my end....

#12
SS
July 13, 2007
04:27 AM

All her claim to research were really fake and evil desgined,
it is an attempt just to distort and present her own brand of feminism to her cheer leading crowd.

She had proved one point beyond doubt, why people should hate feminists.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#13
Siffer
July 13, 2007
04:31 AM

Aditi,

Are not you jumping into conclusions too fast?

Our data shows "false 498a" has very little correlation to love or arranged marriages.

We have enough cases where people married for love and 498a is filed. May be the incompatibility between the man and wife's family is the key there.

I have seen many false 498as being filed, when people married within relatives (children of a brother and a sister married to each other in south India).

So, you are going to conclusions too fast.

Here are my points:

1) Is not divorce being glorified in media without considering what people (both men and women) go through when they go for a divorce?

Even when it is a mutual consent divorce, the trauma on both men and women is very high.

Only a small percentage of all divorces are mutual consent divorces. But, Media only sugar coats the entire process and misleads the common people.


2) No one is asking why "Dowry Law" failed? What was the problem with the implementation that Dowry Law failed?

Firstly, the dowry law assumes that it will deter the greedy people. That did not happen as women never got equal inheritance from their own parents.

Even feminists did not agree to stop attending dowry marriages. The law was enacted, but everyone including feminists accepted that dowry/streedhan is a part of the marriage transactions.

3) Even today the cost of a marriage in India is hundred times more than cost of marriage in US or Europe. We call it marriage industry and it contributes to our GDP. Is not it?

Nothing was done to stop extravagant marriages.

4) The Law 498a presumes the accused to be guilty till proven innocent. That is against the cardinal principle of natural justice.

5) The law is basically sustained by feminists so that women can blackmail the husband's family to shell out a huge alimony when a marriage fails.

So, the tem Sowry is coined by SIFF activist Peco Chakravatru.

Often Sowry (alimony extorted by threat of 498a or when the guy's family is in jail) is more than the guy's entire savings which basically makes a guy bankrupt. Adding to that the family gets jailed and runs around courts.

6)Feminists talk about gender equality. But, they vehemently oppose any law which can protect men from threats or harassment by wife's family(including her influential/rich father, brothers and other members).

That is a double standard.

7) When a man has a widowed mother or an unmarried sister, Indian society considers it a duty of the man to protect and provide for them. Recently a high court has ordered maintenance for a sister from her brother.

Now, if the wife demands the widowed mother and unmarried sister tobe thrown out of the house, the man is caught between devil and deep sea. What will he do?

8) Aditi, you wrongly assume that Dowry law and DV act help a woman get out of her marriage easily. If a woman has to get out of marriage, then she has to file for divorce and ask for maintenance if she has no source of income. Normally in 6 months the interim maintenance is ordered and it is a criminal offence of the man does not pay.


9) Regarding NRIs, a lot of stories are propagated without taking into consideration about their contributions to the society. We try to own up successes/contributions of Sunita Williams, Kalpana Chawla or Sam Petroda, but we denigrate Balakrishna Ambati's family in media when they got into a dowry case.

NRI's are arrested as soon as they land in Indian airport. Renuka Choudhury's daughter's father-in-law was arrested as soon as he landed in Hyderbad airport.

The Domestic Violence and Workplace Harassment laws were blatantly misused in US. The same is happening in India.

The only difference is that US or Europe do not arrest family members of the husband.

Feminists like Joyna Kothari always advocated for mandatory arrests whenever a complaint is made.



The bottomline is that both women and men are capable of abusing the spouses. Then why the laws only take cognisance of the offences by men while overlooking offences by women.

This is contrary to the claims of gender equality made by feminists. Some feminists claim that if the laws are made gender equal then men will misuse the law.

------------
Women's Rights are important.

But, how can license to jail a person (at will) be a "human right" ?

This defies common sense.
------------

#14
Siffer
July 13, 2007
04:44 AM

Why we have to take the words of "feminists at face value?

Both Kiran Walia and Aruna Broota are die hard feminists. Lets not forget feminists have infiltrated into all academic disciplines.

For example, Ranjana Kumari, a die hard feminist claimed that her organisation will do a research to find truth about 498a misuse.

Feminists are a party to this issue. How can they do any research without bais?

Lets ask independent experts.

Lets ask Soli Sorabjee.
Lets ask Arun Jaitley and Abhishek Singhvi.

NCW is not National Commission for Women. But it is National Commission for Daghters-in-law.


There is no data anywhere on harassment of women by their mothers-in-law or sisters-in-law. What we have got are stories and isolated stories.

They are not enough to stereotype mothers-in-law as evil.

#15
Siffer
July 13, 2007
04:49 AM

No one is saying eliminate dowry law or DV laws.

In what way arrest of in-laws, children and grand parents without evidence eliminate dowry?

Let the law be bailable, compoundable and non-cognisable, and let the trial take place and let the verdict come out in our rotten courts.

Just because the courts are rotten, should we be punishing people before the trial?




#16
Foot-in-mouth
July 13, 2007
04:50 AM

Yo feminists, tell here your theories, research and conculsions,

if you don't know, 90% marriages in USA are broken becuase of non stop interference of the Mother of the Girl. They don't know thier backyard, and attempt to clean other's frontyard.

And this herione and her cronies, so called feminist who is opiniated (on opium) and liberal too, what a contrast.



RAJKOT HARASSMENT CASE

Font Size A+A+
Sex twist to dowry case, NCW probes bare truth

CNN-IBN

TimePublished on Friday , July 13, 2007 at 08:25 in Nation section

TagsTags: Dowry Harassment, Rajkot
E-mail this report | Print this report

New Delhi/Rajkot: On July 6, a young woman in Rajkot protested dowry harassment by walking semi-nude on the city streets.

Twenty-two-year-old Pooja Chauhan hit headlines after she took to the shocking form of protest alleging torture by her in-laws and husband, embarrassing the police into filing a dowry harassment case under the Domestic Violence Act.

But now there's a fresh twist to the case.

The National Commission for Women says it wasn't dowry harassment, but sexual exploitation that forced Pooja into walking the streets in her undergarments.

"She was misused by various people. There must've been a trafficking chain. These are people exploiting young girls in their vulnerable situation. We have one or two names given to us by Pooja. We've given it to the police commissioner," says NCW member, Malini Bhattacharya.

NCW found Pooja was a victim of child trafficking and despite her love marriage with her husband Pratap, she was again pressured into taking to flesh trade.

"I was sick of my mother-in-law and husband. I am so sick, I don't care even if I die now," says Pooja.

Meanwhile, the city police is probing the domestic violence case registered against Pooja's in-laws.

Rajkot police commissioner Nityanandan told CNN-IBN that though police have no information about trafficking and prostitution angle, they will wait for the NCW report to decide on further course of action.

Law catches up with in-laws

Pooja's husband Pratap, mother-in-law Hansa and two neighbours were arrested on harassment charges immediately after the news report and are currently out on bail.

They were summoned by a Rajkot court on July 8 and were asked to respond to Pooja's plea for the demand of alimony and social, mental and physical protection.

Pooja - who went underground after making news - is currently staying with her parents in Rajkot.

The court also ordered police to provide protection to Pooja and also said she should be allowed to continue staying in her rented accommodation.

The court's order directed her landlord in Shastrinagar, where Pooja stayed for the past year with her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, not to ask her to vacate the house.

Meanwhile, NCW says its top priority is to rehabilitate Pooja and her daughter.

(With inputs from Rohini Mohan, Deborah Gray and Meghdoot Sharon)

#17
Siffer
July 13, 2007
05:24 AM

Okay, we now heard from NCW.

Since when Pooja started getting involved in sex trade? Why her parents washed their hands off?

#18
Siffer
July 13, 2007
05:34 AM

Aditi,

Your article works on popular stereotypes propagated in Media.

SIFF's data shows following reasons for 498a:


1) Interference and abusive behaviour of mother of the wife.

2) Wife expecting the husband to give huge amount of money every month to her brothers or her family.

3) Husband not being able to meet the lifestyle demands including diamond necklaces. We have got hand written letters by wives where they say give me 70,000 for a diamond necklace or else I will put you in jail.

4) Wife being provoked by some feminist friends with whom she innocently discusses some trivial misunderstandings with her husband.

By default, we tell all men to make a separate house as they join SIFF.

Not even 5% of cases, Harassment by mother-in-law or sister-in-law is the cause. Because many mothers-in-law have their own set of issues and life and many sisters-in-laws are married or they have their own career to take care.

If you do not want others to stereotype you or feminists, then should not you also stop stereotyping people by jumping into conclusions too fast?

Even in videos in YouTube related to SIFF members, there is still a bias. We know a story and we know how the moderator twists the facts.


The bottomline, the main problem of marital incompatibility is not mother-in-law, but the consumerism and life style demands by wife in an era of gender equality and also expectation by wife that the husband will also protect and provide for her parents and her family members.

I have heard situations where a wife can ask her husband to take a portion of marriage expenses of her sister.


#19
Siffer
July 13, 2007
06:14 AM

Is this a well-researched article?

Or is it a post designed to gather data?

It definitely does not seem to be the former kind.

It does not matter how you marry (arranged vs. love marriage) you can get into a 498a case with the same probability. The cases seen on youtube are the tip of the iceberg compared to the thousands of 498a cases that are filed every year. Writing an article such as this without enough research oversimplifies, and in fact misrepresents the problem.

#20
Siffer
July 13, 2007
06:48 AM

"It was convenient for many an NRI man to hop on a plane and return with a wife who could cook for him and fill the loneliness of life in a foreign country."

Aditi,

Ever heard of Green Card marriages in which women marry so that not only can they immigrate but can also pressure the husband to help their kin immigrate? Ever heard of women marrying just because they believe in the myth that living in the US guarantees an "affluent" lifestyle and their dreams fall apart when they realize that life in the US means you have to work hard? Ever heard of educated (and possibly employed in India) women coming to the US and blaming the husband for the difficulties imposed by the American system in obtaining a job and work permit?

#21
Siffer
July 13, 2007
06:56 AM

"If you are unhappy with a person, if there are serious incompatibilities, would you choose to live with the person for a lifetime because your nation's divorce rates is escalating?"

True. But you have a "choice" only if you are a woman. A women can leverage the law whether she wants to keep the marriage or get out of it. Today,a man is more often than not at the mercy of the woman because a woman is always considered a victim of bad marriage no matter what the circumstances may be.

#22
Siffer
July 13, 2007
07:02 AM

"As I watched and heard people's views on some of the shows on Youtube, I wondered what the absence of a domestic violence or dowry law would mean for women. Should they be stuck in unhappy marriages?"

This sentence seems to be confirming that domestic violence and dowry law are a way to get out of unhappy marriages. To leave an unhappy marriage you have to use divorce law since women are granted easy divorce anyway if they want it.

#23
Sumanth
July 13, 2007
07:14 AM

If mother-in-law is abusing the daughter-in-law and if 498a is filed, then it is not a false case.

Most Indians marry in arranged marriages. It is not that only men, but also women prefer arranged marriages.

Most women convert the move marriage to arranged one by allowing their parents to do all the talking once the couple decide to go ahead.

The Reasons for False 498a are:

1) Life Style Demands.
Demand of huge money every money every month.

2) Asking husbands to give money to her parents or invest in her parent's business which has gone sick.

3) Asking the husband to pay some portion of money for expenses of her sister's marriage or her brother's studies.

4) A headstrong mother of the girls who create hysterical tantrums at every drop of a hat.

5) Adultery.

6) Forced marriages: A woman who is forcibly married by her parents to a man without mentioning her background.

7) The girls who are bipolar or schizoprenic or epileptic and their parents concealed the info.


8) Green Card marriages: Where the girl wants a green card and hence she marries a man.

Aditi fails to discuss all these issues and harps on arranged marriages and mother-in-law themes.


#24
Siffer
July 13, 2007
07:19 AM

"With changing times, women have careers, they now are conditioned to voice their needs and their preferences."

With changing times women have asserted their rights but many forgot that marriage also brings responsibilities. It is the duty of women too to think before hand if they are ready for responsibilities. The more prevalent trend is to first marry because a man seems to be a good catch with the illusion that you can "manage" him to suit your needs after marriage.

"The lack of proper dialogue within a marriage, interference from in-laws, breakdown of communication are all seen as causes of emotional and mental distress. How does a woman deal with this distress?"

Ever considered the same happening to a man...because it does almost with the same frequency as it does to a woman? Coming to dealing with that distress, are you suggesting that this distress is enough for a woman to invoke 498a and DV Act? How then should men deal with similar distress?

"Is it fair for men to want an educated woman, who has a brilliant career, an education to match his, a modern sense of thinking and still wants to live in a cramped house with his parents and siblings?"

Isn't this statement a complete exaggeration? "Educated men seeking educated women with brilliant careers and modern thinking...to live in a cramped house with parents and siblings"????????? This seems more like an unreasonable and unfounded fear that a lot of modern women suffer from thanks to feminist hype about oppressive family/marriage.

#25
Sumanth
July 13, 2007
07:44 AM

Impact on discussion on blogs:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tweak_the_dowry_law/articleshow/2199028.cms

This article is by a feminist "Ratna Kapur". But, sentences in her article contain SIFF's signatures.

But, the article is poorly written even if it has a bias towards feminists.

She writes:
"Dowry harassment by a husband or his relatives was outlawed in 1983 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is non-bailable and non-cognisable."

Truth: the law is Cognisable and hence people are arrested without evidence.

She writes:
"Yet, the latest available National Crime Records statistics show that there have been over 58,000 incidents of dowry harassment and over 6,700 dowry murders in 2005. Most of the cases of dowry harassment are also filed after the woman is dead."

She makes a dangerous claim that most women out of 58,000 cases of harassment are dead, which is a lie.

In a year:
The total number of murders
of women in India are 7900

The total number of suicides are 41000.

If we go by Ratna Kapur's words all women who are dying due to murders or suicides are dying due to dowry. This is ridiculous.

She avoids the issue of making dowry law bailable.


Overall, a feeble attempt by a feminist to salvage some ground in a losing battle.

This article is a victory for SIFF.

#26
acerbic
July 13, 2007
11:34 AM

Ms Aditi:i would like to point out the following remark made by you in your article.."Is it fair for men to want an educated woman, who has a brilliant career, an education to match his, a modern sense of thinking and still wants to live in a cramped house with his parents and siblings?..."

1.This kind of sweeping statement reeks of reinforcing the stereotype.....c'mon "brilliant career" and then "cramped house"...in the same breath???....what are you talking about?...are you saying that a man looking for his equal will want to live like that?....i'm no siffer...i also know nice girls....will a woman with a brilliant academic record and a great career wan't to live like that?

As pointed out by others section 498a abuse is not arranged marriage specific...although the large majority of cases are where the marriage is arranged...

I think you should research your facts some more.....i don't think you are a "feminist" in the sense that some people have implied you are ...but it is quite obvious from the slant of your writings that your sympathies lie with women..which is o.k...but then....i also don't think the vast number of indian men are wife beaters or abusers ....sweeping statements to that effect have been made by people like Shabana Azmi no less...and absolutely no facts to back their claims...just some assertions..which unfortunately stick.....it would also do well to remember that times have changed...the tables have been turned on the men....people like Sumanth have mentioned elsewhere on this blog that they are prepared to be "the exact mirror of feminists"..why??.. this state has come to be because they realise that slowly the tide has turned well and truly against men....section 498a which was introduced to redress a grievance has become a powerful draconian tool which has ended up being much misused...


lets have some facts for a change...i'm all for putting erring men and women behind bars...lets stop targetting a particular gender....there is no such thing as the weaker sex...that is a myth...lets take each case on its merits and lets stop tarring all men with the same brush.

#27
Acerbic
July 13, 2007
11:41 AM

i think we should all stop calling ourselves "siffers" or "feminists" and call ourselves " humanists".....that is the only way forward...

#28
acerbic
July 13, 2007
12:12 PM

a cursory look at the profiles posted on websites like shaadi.com will reveal that arranged or otherwise the expectations from either side is in the vast majority of cases quite high..in some cases it is overtly expressed ...in others it is tacitly implied....and that is part of the problem...men and women are looking to match amongst other things... stations in life... a bit like match the following in school...but that approach doesn't always work....the fewer calculations are made the lesser the chances of a marriage ending up on the rocks in case those very calculations go awry.

#29
SS
July 13, 2007
12:31 PM

Siffer : Excellent point by point rebuttals of this author, who is a 'chameleon' feminist, who can change colors, with great expertise to the twist the facts.


Aerbic:
Points well made.

# This author is a specialist in Matrimonial Advertisement, since age 10.

# She carries high morals, and infidelity and extra marital things amuses her.

#30
SS
July 13, 2007
12:32 PM

Siffer : Excellent point by point rebuttals of this author, who is a 'chameleon' feminist, who can change colors, with great expertise to the twist the facts.


Aerbic:
Points well made.

# This author is a specialist in Matrimonial Advertisement, since age 10.

# She carries high morals, and infidelity and extra marital things amuses her.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#31
SS
July 13, 2007
12:34 PM

Siffer : Excellent point by point rebuttals of this author, who is a 'chameleon' feminist, who can change colors, with great expertise to the twist the facts.


Aerbic:
Points well made.

# This author is a specialist in Matrimonial Advertisement, since age 10.

# She carries high morals, and infidelity and extra marital things amuses her.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#32
Aditi Nadkarni
July 13, 2007
12:46 PM

To SIF members:

I started writing this article a little while before discussing this issue with a few people who have since then enlightened me some more about 498A. I set the post to draft last night hoping to edit it some more this morning but I am just very surprised as to how it got published.

In fact when I saw the name of the article I wondered how somebody else would've thought of writing something on the exact same lines as I'd planned! :) Then I saw my name under the article and it sent me reeling. But its all good. If I have made a serious lapse of judgment somewhere in stating something then I will clarify and apologize since this was my very first draft.

I wanted to make quite a few changes, update references: firstly, I wanted to replace the term arranged marriage with a more broader concept of marriages that are not just arranged/ love matches but people take very little time to evaluate issues beyond the romance.

#27: acerbic: I agree. I notice you have pointed out some deficiencies in my article in some other comments which I will take a look at in a while after I get over the shock of having my rough draft published with 28 comments already :D And I promise, if there is something in there which I may have stated without complete knowledge of the situation I will acknowledge as I always have.

I will start replying to some of your comments once I read through my own article.....I started this draft a few days ago and need to go thru it myself.

Meanwhile: just a heads up: I will not be answering to #1, 2, 6, 7, 12 and other such comments where no rationale or sensible line of questioning is provided. If you want to unleash personal attacks, feel free but it will guarantee that I will NOT respond to any other comments from you after that. It is pointless to get into a mud-slinging battle online.

@Preeti: Thanks! I wonder how you came to the conclusion of me not being married. I don't believe my marital status has ever been revealed. I will not say either way but was curious about your line of thinking.

So people, I will hopefully have answers to some of your questions after I read the links you guys have sent and the logic of your perspectives.

Gimme some time to gather my wits.

Thanks!

#33
Kris
July 13, 2007
12:55 PM

Aditi - I am disappointed to say the least with your analysis. You have not addressed the central issue of 498a - its amenability to misuse in declaring everyone accused by an unscrupulous woman to be guilty. You oversimplified the matter by talking about arranged marriages, which is an altogether separate matter for debate.

There are only a few members in SIF whose stories are in public fora. There are many others who had love marriages, marriages without any interference from the families, marriages where the setup was nuclear - 498a was still abused in these cases. There were cases of financial fraud, attempted murders, adultery and paternity fraud committed by women and then still a refuge was taken under 498a.

This mindset that women are incapable of wrong and it is always the men who are perpetrators of violence is perhaps a biologically deeply etched pattern in the human brain, that no human being is capable of escaping it, no matter how pious their stated intentions may be.

Until, one can break free of this stereotype, people will invent all sorts of justifications and rationalizations for their own irrational beliefs.

One of my friends jokingly once said of what he called Bamboo Theory -
"Until the bamboo is stuckup your own ass, you wouldnt know how sharp it is"

Best wishes.

#34
Preeti
July 13, 2007
12:58 PM

Why I thought you were not married...hmmmmm, am pretty sure still. But if otherwise it might have been a well kept secret, any reason why?

#35
SS
July 13, 2007
01:05 PM

#32,

Quite interesting fiasco,
it appears, same as "NCW u-turn on Pooja Chauhan, with more mud dumped on her"

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#36
Dev
July 13, 2007
01:06 PM

Sorry my coment was not meant to be sarcastic I meant only to complement your writing.

Devasis

#37
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 13, 2007
01:39 PM

#36: Gosh, Devasis: I meant #3 not #2 which I believe is your comment. Thank you for your kind words :)

#34: Preeti: No particular reason why. I feel that since I write about both feminism and men's issues, my own personal status would only cause perception of bias...but I'm still dying to know why you are so sure of my not being married if of course there is any particular reason :)

#33: Kris: Glad you showed up and sorry you were disappointed with my article :( I dunno if its clear from the tone I took in my article but honestly, I was not in any way justifying the stringency of the 498A. This article is a neutral examination of what effect such a stringent law would/ should/ could have on the institution of marriage in India. It is more of a discussion, an attempt to voice the questions that haven't been raised yet. I will start addressing your questions first:

You say: "There are only a few members in SIF whose stories are in public fora. There are many others who had love marriages, marriages without any interference from the families, marriages where the setup was nuclear - 498a was still abused in these cases. There were cases of financial fraud, attempted murders, adultery and paternity fraud committed by women and then still a refuge was taken under 498a."

Did you read the second to last paragraph of my article? I have left ample room to leave open the possibility that not all 498A cases, accusers/ accused are a manifestation of the points I raise. No. I have assumed that there are many more cases that I haven't yet seen or heard of. And I am sure they are on both ends: marital abuse or section 498A abuse. It still shouldn't stop people from being more careful when they take vows, right? In fact it is all the more reason.

Kris, I have stated like a thousand times by now that I am against unfair laws...because they could even affect me, right? But this article here, doesnt evaluate whether such a law is right/ wrong, it simply discusses the effects it could have on society.

acerbic and Siffer: You guys bring up some excellent points and express the lack of discussion regarding those issues in this article. Sumanth too mentions in #23 a lot of what I myself agree with. I have used very few examples. I may have missed out on the cases you list because this article as I will state repeatedly is NOT evaluating whether this law is right or wrong but discussing (not even declaring) the social implications of such a law on marital decisions. We disagree on certain issues but I think we can all agree on one thing: the 498A law may cause men to think a lot before they decide to take the vows. And that is what this article is about.

I agree with you guys: there are some stereotypes in this post, but they are not declarations, they are more scattered examples of such stereotypes that are evident in society which can fuel this discussion in as many directions as possible.

You guys fail to notice that I voice both 498A accused and potential accusers. I don't side with anyone because frankly the 498A can be a detriment to men and women both, I don't even know why it is projected to be anti-men. Women could be arrested too! I only bring up certain issues that have come up in discussions.

acerbic: #26: You suggest that my sympathies lie with women. Not true. I don't think sympathy really serves a purpose. However being a woman I do have an advantage when it comes to understanding a woman's psyche. Hence I feel more comfortable discussing it. This does not mean that I believe all Indian men are wife-beaters etc. Of course not! I am not a man-hater at all. I believe in societal harmony between the genders. My examples in the article are based on the issues that were highlighted by the footage I saw and the issues that I have most commonly heard.

My favoritism is only towards justice and humantity not men, women etc. This article is more of a compilation of my own questions and musings on this subject. If you guys add to it or further enlighten me, I will only be grateful.

People who have had exchanges with me on this forum before know that I am open to information even if it contradicts my own take on things at times. I will however defend my choice of a subject: people have discussed feminism vs 498, men vs 498, SIF vs 498 but nobody seems to ask the most basic question: what would 498A do to the status of marriage in India? Will it be looked at as a legal liability. Will people now jump into marriages just to rid themselves of loneliness (lets be honest, some people do that, don't they?). Will they take more time? What will it mean for the arranged marriage concept? These are questions. They are not absolute statements but areas for evaluation.

Thanks!




#38
SN
July 13, 2007
01:51 PM

I really like this article. I'm a guy and when I see some of my friends get into matrimony in haste without first taking time to know the girl it makes me very mad. I feel like they are setting themselves up for trouble. I think the central idea of your discussion is very important and shouldn't be lost in the issue about 498A and that is this sentence:

"Maybe its just me, but doesn't a decision as important as who to spend your life with, deserve more attention? If marriage is a gamble, shouldn't one do their best in trying to ensure that the odds are in their favor."

Its not just you. I agree!

#39
SS
July 13, 2007
02:40 PM

"I meant #3 not #2 "

One more U-turn,
it seems a feminist trend of the times.
Spit and eat.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#40
Buzzy
July 13, 2007
05:35 PM

[EDITED - PERSONAL]

#41
Buzzy
July 13, 2007
05:39 PM

[EDITED - PERSONAL]

#42
Minal
July 13, 2007
06:25 PM

Hey I think your article inspite of being a first draft is well-written. the ideas are all very clear: they don't speak in favor of 498A or men or women.they just discuss why people shud think before they get married and what the 498A could do to marriage systems in india. when I saw Buzzy's comments in the fresh comments panel I thought u had written something very biased. But this seems like a very balanced view. i just wanted to add that the "think befoer u leap" policy shud apply to love marriages too.
i hope u dont get upset by things like such curses etc. u r a good person and they wont affect u. take care

#43
Kannan
July 13, 2007
09:26 PM

There are people hollering at feminists when they should be questioning people who reduce marriage to a formality, a social protocol.
Its not just arranged or love, just the concept of marriage in India needs some reform especially if women don't fit into the roles that they fit into years ago. If laws are changing, women are changing, times are changing shouldn't marriage change, shouldn't traditions change?

Look at Mr.Sumanth: all statistics. Is there a statistics for happy and unhappy marriages? No. Because only after the marriage ends the analysis begins. So if you are trying to save Indian families you should think about the contents of Aditis' article.

#6 "Do they marry thier daughters to a boy who is un-employed, and if their girl is earning to alow-earning man. NEVER! Always a status is desired"

Why should parents marry off their daughters to a loser with no job?Pls tell me!! Would you? Should a matrimonial adv read "Seeking unemployed, loser with no social status for our daughter"

Don't men go around placing advs that demand "Fair, slim bride"??? What a dumb suggestion.

I have a sister. She is an engineer, she is pretty but a little short and wheatish. In our community in Andhra getting her married in the same caste and other requirements prescribed by the family is difficult. As a brother I watch my sister go thru the humiliation of being rejected by men who come to our house and his parents say things like "He still needs to get settled money wise before he marries, beside she is a little short. He is very particular about height." Why didn't they think of this before they started looking for a bride for their son? Why mention it at that time and then speak of my sister's being short? Relatives tell us that we should offer to help him out monetarily so we can encourage the alliance. My sister deserves better but getting married outside the community is not currently acceptable yet in the family. Do you know what it feels like for me as a guy to see my sister go thru this?

There is someone who writes 'Mothers, Sisters, Daughters Against Feminism"

What a joke. If you are against feminism you shouldn't be online expressing your views. You should be in the house, NOT allowed to vote, not allowed to have any of the basic human rights, not allowed to education, dependent on a man to tell you what you think. Because feminism brought those rights to women. Read history. Radical feminism may be bad but so is radical religion....but you are still religious no?

I know one thing, law or no law, marriage and the social considerations that revolve in determining this delicate relationship need to evolve with time. Only then you wont have complaints like "I didn't know she was so concerned about finances" "How could I stop living with my parents?" "She did not want kids!"
Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand?

#44
SS
July 13, 2007
09:47 PM

Kannan,

Who says feminism, brought all this stuff.
Was there anything called as FEMINISM couple of years ago, and still in india, women had power and progress. Had you heard of names, Jhansi ki Rai, Devi Ahilya Bai, Sarojini Naidu, etc.

Feminism imported from west, did stolen the womenhood from the Indian women.

It is a myth created by the HUSBAND PROCURERS and then the quest for POWER to rule. You do not have problem with this feminist author agenda's of encourging pre-marital chemistry checkups, dating, extra marital affairs, killing children in the wombs, etc. you can teach your sister that, but pl do not attach it to the systems in India.

Why don't you FEMINISTS start a matrimonial section in this board for your types, you marry a feminist, get your sister married to FEMINIST man like you on this board, and also keep your FEMININE laws to your community only, and leave the rest of us.

You sister will understand a bit of it, when she will get CURSED by your wife, if she is evil like these feminists.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#45
Siffer
July 13, 2007
10:25 PM

"Why don't you FEMINISTS start a matrimonial section in this board for your types, you marry a feminist, get your sister married to FEMINIST man like you on this board"

That was one heck of an idea. Very good one.

Now check this out. Here is an example of how women use laws as weapons to take revenge. In fact IPC 498a is really not a protection law because it aims to punish the accused husband and in-laws (even before charges are proved)...and not so much to actually protect a woman. A very good tool to take revenge, huh?

http://www.shaaditimes.com/ch/legal/immigration/070710-dowry-abuse/1

Mamta asks,

I have been married since 4 months, and I am on H-4 visa. I am facing problems in my marriage. I am planning to file charges against my husband and his family in India on the basis of dowry, mental and physical torture. I want to know:

1. Will this case filed in India affect my husband's H-IB status, as I want his H-IB to be cancelled?
2. He has filed for permanent immigration to Canada that is expected by December. Will these criminal proceedings have any effect on his PR?
3. He has also updated my name in PR of Canada. If in case the PR comes in December and the divorce is yet to be granted, will I be eligible for that or can my husband cancel my name submitted for the application?
4. If his H-IB gets revoked (definitely my H-4 will automatically get cancelled), do I have an option to stay in the US?
5. Can I file charges in America against my husband, of physical and mental abuse? I don't have enough money for legal proceedings. Will I get help?

Dear Mamta,
It is more fruitful to take action against your spouse in the US itself. You can call the local police nearest to your residential area and explain them your problems. They will take immediate actions. Your husband's H-1 visa may also get cancelled. This may also affect his application for permanent immigration to Canada. In India too, you can file the complaint and take actions against your husband and in-laws. If you are maltreated, and want to take a legal action against your husband, then be prepared to return to India, since your H-4 status in the USA is dependent upon your husband's H-1 status. Similarly, if you are named in the PR petition of Canada your husband can withdraw his support and drop your name from there.

#46
Kannan
July 13, 2007
10:29 PM

#44

Your comments only reflect your own views. If they are bitter and angry views they will see bitterness and anger.

Even before the term "freedom fighter" was coined there were people who fought for their rights hence defining the movement by when the term was coined is a bit stupid. It is a term that can be taken according to the understanding of people. If you came across a woman who "cursed" you and was mean to you and said she was a feminist, it doesnt immediately mean that the nice old lady who lives next door and believs in feminism turns into an evil hag. It just means YOU had a bad experience. We all do, we get over our bad experiences and try to see positivity in walks of life.

You spread your hatred like you have in #41. You wish upon a woman total destruction of her family when she has said not even one evil word to you. You prove who is evil and who is not.

If you are a woman and you can wish upon another woman the destruction of her family without just cause, your womanhood doesnt need to be stolen. You dont have any compassion in you that is and should be the essence of anyone human.

You will by your cruel and baseless curses bring upon yourself the destruction that you wish upon those you did you no harm. Just wait. Just wait and watch.

#47
Kannan
July 13, 2007
10:36 PM

#45 Siffer You are taking a woman's marital issues without knowing what she has been through and putting it up for you and your buddies to laugh at????????? what kind of people are you???? How does this question indicate that the woman DID NOT REALLY SUFFER during the marriage from physical/ mental torture??????? HOW? Do you want her to list what her husband did to her? Is this what you advice all guys to do when they get caught abusing their wife? Put their legal queries and laugh at them? advice them to assasinate her character, gather witnesses to prove that her family wanted money? You are heartless.

#48
Siffer
July 13, 2007
10:37 PM

Most feminists who have anything to do with influencing public policy are angry, nasty, and mean. So, it does not matter what the old woman next door who calls herself a feminist thinks. Feminists in power have destroyed way too many lives to give credit to the nice old feminist woman next door who only romanticizes about equality.

#49
Siffer
July 13, 2007
10:41 PM

There is not one place in comment #45 where there was laughter.

But thanks for drawing attention to it so that more people will look at it and learn what it is about.

#50
SS
July 13, 2007
10:47 PM

#46, read your own comments, (#41 ia written by BUZZY in his or her own personal capacity)

[EDITED]

#51
SS
July 13, 2007
10:58 PM

#47 - You are talking a woman's problem,
read it verbaim,
"I am facing problems in my marriage. I am planning to file charges against my husband and his family in India on the basis of dowry, mental and physical torture."

She is facing problems in her marriage (which are not dowry, mental or physical torture),
and planning her CLEAR revenge (CURSE) using the dowry, mental and physical protection laws for women,
not only on her husband, but all his family, which includes mothers, sisters, children anybody, plain one Broad Brush to destroy everybody.

I hope you don't teach this to your SISTER, and save herself from the evil FEMINISTS, and also your wife from these BITCHES. there only agenda is to spread Hatred, and destroy families.


-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#52
Anon
July 13, 2007
11:34 PM

#51: Should the woman have detailed her abuse or the kind of problems in her marriage in order to get some consideration from SIFF members? Problems in a marriage could mean anything ranging from basic incompatibility to physical abuse or mental torture. How does a woman start detailing that on a question to a legal expert on shaaditimes where SIFFERS can copy and paste her questions to then analyze the credibility of her claims publicly. While you are free to make all the assumptions you want to, it bothers me that some of you are always more inclined to believe that women are lying about the abuse no matter what the truth. Do you guys give it a thought that there might be a possibility that there may be abuse going on? When should we believe the woman? When she is covered in bruises, when she has cigarette burns on her arms, a black eye, when she looks depressed and has dark circles, and even finally when she does commit suicide you guys will claim that it isnt a guy's respobsility that she decided to end her life. Your logic is that several guys commit suicide too. As a pyschiatrist I have seen suicide in guys based on financial pressures but women commit suicide in the presence of immense emotional distress especially mothers who choose to leave behind little kids. Some women no matter how financially stable, how stable in their careers if their husband is constantly demeaning, sarcastic, abusive in language will sink into depression. I am not saying there arent ANY men who wont go thru this, I am saying it is more common in women. But if you lack compassion nobody can convince you.

#53
Sandeep
July 13, 2007
11:35 PM

Ok first thing, I never thought that this is an analysis of 498A or whatever, it is a pure journal entry of what the author feels about the issue. So all you here providing the cut and paste theories available on net is all bull.

Secondly, I summarised this article as rationale of the process of getting into a committed relationship and taking responsibility [not marriage], and most of the responses here talk here about the post marital syndrome.

People are ranting here about the parental, societal adn other pressures on boy and girl... but seriously is this couple so dumb that they are ready to tie up a knot scummbing to the pressure. whats the use of degrees and careers, if then cant make one important decision about their life without being pressurised.

I know the ref about the NRI going on 4 weeks vacation and coming back with a wife or settling in India for a husband, the prime motive there is "GETTING MARRIED" and not about finding a life companion. Its time we understand the difference. Why just NRI's, if you see around people are obsessed with "getting married" rather than finding life partners. If you ask them for what was their courtship period, pat comes the answer " ours is arrange marriage", but the dumb people dont understand the question in first place.

I know whatever meetings these arrange marriage couples before marriage can be deemed as "honeymoon period", where both of them are at their best to present themselve in goodlight and dream about life and romance.

Once a engaged couple boosted me that they havent matched horoscope but have matched blood groups, i was impressed. So I asked them causually so whether we would seeing you 2 getting into you 3 soon and the mood changed, apparently they never bothered to discuss their parental instinct. It came out that girl didnt wanted the child till they have their own apartment and settled in their respective careers and the guy thought otherwise. So much for matching blood groups.

We gotta understand that social dynamics has changed, what worked for our parents and grandparents will not necesarrily work for us...times change [whether you like it or not]

What also amuses me all men want working wife to support the family income [ i am pinning my hopes on Careerist], but expect that she should do all household chores too. Plus if the family is gonna be joint family expectations multipy. Its not just in India, Indians in US and canada feel that its wife's job to cook, do dishes and keep the house clean.

Today with her own career and her own life, if a girl demands her own space and privacy and her own life, why is seen as threat to mankind? why is she seen as a homewrecker?? People would argue with me its matter of adjustment. Then if its just about adjustment will the boy go and stay with the wife's family. After all its just adjustment, what difference it makes whoz staying with in-laws ....rite????

Frankly I give a damn about the term "Feminism or feminist", I dont care as who stands by it and who hates it, as long as one has common courtesy of respecting a woman and holding up her dignity.... whoever she may be.

#54
Sandeep
July 14, 2007
12:00 AM

Just thinking out loud.

"Will having a pre-nuptial agreement be any help in resolving marital issues???"

Its a contract between two consenting adults who can draft the conditions and solutions. which would save the bad taste after a bitter marriage.

This is not new to our society, for one I know Maharashtrains use to practise this [donno if they still do]. Both, the grooms and brides sides use to sit together and discuss & distribute the assets between the couple, this was binding for both the parties.

#55
Dev
July 14, 2007
01:13 AM

Sandeep:
Fact is they are "that dumb" and it has nothing to do with education. Most are under the parents wings and are attached to their mothers apron even if they are seperated by oceans. You are expected to get married once you reach a certain age,the maturity and independence required for speculating on factors required for compatibility usually comes long after marriage. I have been reading a lot on emancipation of woman. I wonder how emancipated are the men at the time of making such critical decision.

Devasis

#56
Sumanth
July 14, 2007
03:33 AM

Pooja Chauhan is a fraud. Her husband fires salvo at Judiciary.

He Demands Narco-Analysis test on him.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=245823

It is a case of an innocent man, his mother and neighbours being harassed by an unscrupulous woman.

The news report says:
-------------------------
Earlier, a team from National Commission for Women said Pooja had become victim of exploitation by society but was never harassed by husband or mother-in-law for dowry demands or not bearing male child.
--------------------------

So, why the whole society judged her husband and her mother-in-law? In fact, it is they who tolerated all the abuse. I read people talk about parading her husband and mother-in-law naked in the street.

This shows how feminists have brainwashed the whole society.

So, it is important to know that every single feminist is a rough behind nice behaviour and every single feminist has to recruit people to her cult to break the society and harass innocents.

Now, why no action is to be taken on Pooja Chauhan for harassing innocents with false accusations and defamation?

Why she must not be tried for indecency?

The whole feminist lobby in media has got caught with its pants down.

Will National Human Rights Commission listen to what an innocent, victimised, sick mother-in-law have to say?

The entire Semi-Nude scam backfired on the people who schemed it by paying money to Pooja. Those people who tutored her to do all these naked drama must be jailed.



#57
FF
July 14, 2007
04:12 AM

Sandeep you said... whats the use of degrees and careers, if then cant make one important decision about their life without being pressurised.

Well decisions go wrong, Do not they and you can not always blame it on the dumb(ness) of couple involved. And marriages go wrong in all countries. Divorce rate in US is 50% despite the fact that many of those have courtship period (and spate of sexual escapades) spanning over years before they marry.

If we are to accept changing times, changed women and we still think it is ok to have women act as wildly like they do, then we have to accept that divorce rates will also escalate. There is no rocket science to it and is amply demonstrated by statistics in all developed countries. The statistics of Developed countries demonstrate that a broken marriage has many reasons besides the M-I-L phenomenon.

I beg to differ, but i see your explanation of marriage breakdowns as bunch of reductionist arguments.


Now to the actual question, Are you suggesting a 498A be condoned in any way? 498A is mere tool for woman to justify her stance in a broken marriage. The pecuniary benefits attached to it are just an added incentive.

#58
Sumanth
July 14, 2007
04:20 AM

Rajkot Protest Video at YouTube.

Congress Party Hai, Hai.
Renuka Choudhury Hai, Hai.
Andha Kanoon Hai, Hai.

Watch the Vociferous protest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0qG8FM5pzk&mode=related&search=

#59
Siffer
July 14, 2007
06:51 AM

People who think decisions regarding marriages should be made one way or another, please come off your high horses and quit calling others dumb. Apply your principles of mate finding to your personal lives and share it as a suggestion to others who ask if you intend well. But realize that Indian population is very large and it is very diverse in terms of culture, education and social mores. People follow a certain way of life they are used to given that it is a generally successful strategy in their own community. People marry for different reasons too. You cannot be telling people what to marry for either. What works for one does not have to work for others. And like FF said, even in the US where people find partners differently than in India, nobody has a standard sure shot strategy for a marriage that works. Wondering about what will work is okay because eventually it may help you in your own personal decisions. Calling what other people do with their personal lives dumb only shows that your education has not really taught you to think beyond what you think you know.

#60
acerbic
July 14, 2007
11:06 AM

marriages are based on high and often completely unrealistic expectations..from both sides....the images pouring forth from print and advertising carefully cultivate this myth of the ideal man or woman....the images are sedulously created to create an impression that such a woman or man indeed exists....its a bit like the old cliche... a woman's ideal man would be someone who can provide for a mink in her closet, a jaguar in her garage, who's a tiger in her bed, and a jackass who pays for everything....keep dreaming girls.....but then there is no such thing...the Mills and Boon hero is a myth......so is that of the loving,caring,non-judgemental,non-calculating so called weaker sex.....I can't help but feel that we men and women,unwitting victims of new age advertising and old fashioned plain greed are like Willy Loman ,the hero of Arthur Miller’s play Death of a Salesman. He is torn apart by the gulf between his expectations – the promise held out to everyone of fame and fortune – and reality. Even as his modest powers decline and his career falls apart, he believes that he can still be No 1....like Loman we never get there......and then we take it out on our spouses when expectations clash with reality...voila ...section 498a...how handy!

#61
acerbic
July 14, 2007
11:13 AM

marriages are based on high and often completely unrealistic expectations..from both sides....the images pouring forth from print and advertising carefully cultivate this myth of the ideal man or woman....the images are sedulously created to create an impression that such a woman or man indeed exists....its a bit like the old cliche... a woman's ideal man would be someone who can provide for a mink in her closet, a jaguar in her garage, who's a tiger in her bed, and a jackass who pays for everything....keep dreaming girls.....but then there is no such thing...the Mills and Boon hero is a myth......so is that of the loving,caring,non-judgemental,non-calculating so called weaker sex.....I can't help but feel that we men and women,unwitting victims of new age advertising and old fashioned plain greed are like Willy Loman ,the hero of Arthur Millers play Death of a Salesman. He is torn apart by the gulf between his expectations the promise held out to everyone of fame and fortune and reality. Even as his modest powers decline and his career falls apart, he believes that he can still be No 1....like Loman we never get there......and then we take it out on our spouses when expectations clash with reality...voila ...section 498a...how handy!

p.s:will someone delete #60..:)

#62
Jay
July 14, 2007
11:31 AM

#59 Siffer:

Your theory of people marry for different reasons is true and very fair in its logic but the article is not asking people to marry for a certain reason. The gist of the entire article in this sentence from the article, itsa perfect summary:

"Nobody deserves to be thrown in prison because they invested less time in evaluating a prospective bride. It could very well be that one makes a bad judgement or is cheated. Nonetheless precaution seems like a better option compared to the harrowing struggle that families have to go through once things boil down to the legal bond that marriage is."

You mention US statistics. In the United States not much social stigma or societal pressure is placed on the couple to carry forward their marriage no matter how unhappy they are hence people are more likely to go the divorce route. Getting a divorce is legally also easier. Courts ensure that the woman gets child support to take care of the kids, she gets tax benefits if she is a single mother and there is of course social security/ unemployment benefits that supports people. Here you cannot bribe police. The domestic violence laws are present in most nations and some of them are very severe. If history would've indicated that men have suffered physical abuse over the years, domestic laws would've favored men. But past many years have indicated something different. Laws cater to that image.

It is odd that humans would make the institution of marriage, make the legal bonds surrounding it, make a divorce system to void this legal bond and then howl about it being used too much. Would a nation's low divorce rates without a doubt indicate happy marriage? It won't. It may just indicates that people are hesitant to get a divorce becoz of family, social, financial or other such pressures. Its wrong.

If families have to be saved, people are going to have the work on the "precaution" that Aditi speaks of and not the aftermath. Planning ahead is always better than cleaning up later, right?

There are no keys to a happy marriage and it is very possible that despite everything being in a couples favor it just didn't work out. Therefore I liked this sentence in Aditi's article the best:
" If marriage is a gamble, shouldn't one do their best in trying to ensure that the odds are in their favor."

There are risks in every gamble but you try. Even when you roll the dice you shake it for a while, warm your hands, you take time and try to throw it a certain way. The dice falls like it has to but at least you tried.

******
The problem is some of you guys haven't read the article and are discussing it only based in the context of the law becozof the title. My guess is that the title was meant to get some of you here and reading. It was also meant for some of us to go watch the Youtube videos and out of the 4 videos of section 498A abuse, 3 are arranged marriages. In fact in one of the videos the woman herself states that people should think before they get married and not do it in haste. Not enuf datta to make a conclusion but enuf to start a discussion based on that. It is definitely food for thought.

The article as many (Sandeep, Minal, ) have suggested is a cause effect speculation between such laws and the institution of marriage. Aditi hasn't categorically stated that such and such is right, I wouldve probably questioned her too if she had. She asks questions. So answer her and have a discussion. Don't conclude something like FF has in #57 and then interrogate people on whether they condone 498A. Its pure logic that people who know the law and are aware of how stringent it is will speak up against it becoz it defies human rights.

But this article is about deeper things than that. It is about the question :Inspite of us being educated if we choose to give the important life altering decision of marriage very little thought what are the dangers we are exposing ourselves to?

The only people who can contribute towards this discussion some more are ones who are in a very happy marriage and tell us their experiences before they took the vows.

#63
Minal
July 14, 2007
12:22 PM

When people get a chance they should read how domestic violence is defined by the US office on violence against women. A nation that has is so developed has such stringent laws against domestic violence and in India there are several backward rural areas where one needs to have such laws in place and we have educated men protesting against such a law. I wonder why. Pls read this link. Women especially should read it.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/domviolence.htm

Also read this famous case of domestic abuse that became very well known for the extent of battery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissette_Ochoa

I am not listing this site to prove that all men are wife beaters but to show you what could happen in the absence of such laws. Some of you didn't buy the shaaditimes entry by that woman....maybe this woman Lissette's face will be proof enough for you.

The only ammendment that could be effective and beneficial for both parties would be to add a severe punishment for those guilty of making false charges.

#64
FF
July 14, 2007
12:51 PM

Jay.. Your idea of "doing it right the first time" is surely worth its words. But that needs a lot of luck and a tiny bit of shrewdness too.

You said

" Inspite of us being educated if we choose to give the important life altering decision of marriage very little thought what are the dangers we are exposing ourselves to?

The only people who can contribute towards this discussion some more are ones who are in a very happy marriage and tell us their experiences before they took the vows."


How and Why only those who are in a very happy marriage? Aditi, The author I guess has a very happy married life for her, but she did not even know a tiny bit about such laws and issues before she came to DC and was in fact made cognizable of these laws by repeated jolts.


Yes I agree most of us just like Aditi, knew nothing about such laws when we got married. But that does not mean we all married for the fun of it. We understood the need and demands of marriage, saw our future in relationship and only then agreed to it. The need is to make society aware of these atrocious laws and then push the society into either accepting that these laws are pure nuisances or that the society on the whole needs to start accepting live-in relationships as a substitute to marriage.

But again things like pushing for live in relationships are short term and makeshift arrangements because the bigger picture is that society does not care for the plight of man in the first place. It provides a sheath by default to women at the cost of torture of men which is unacceptable in any equitable democracy. 498A is just a manifestation of this distortion that has crept into society. We need to reform society and liberate men in the same manner we pushed for liberation of women. There are so many things beside 498A. Here is a short list.

1. Alimony and maintenance laws.

2. The concept of Dowry and changes to Evidence act 113B.

3. Domestic violence.

4. Ease of divorce for a man.

5. Rape law

6. Abortion laws.

7. Special privileges to women in society which may include the forth coming reservation bill and so on so forth.

#65
FF
July 14, 2007
01:05 PM

Minal.. What you have tried it illustrate through the link is a moot point...

If you want to cater to abuse of the sort that you have shown , you do not need domestic violence laws at all. Every constitution in the world has enough laws to protect people(even when they are not related to each other) from this kind of abuse. You can not use such incidences to push for an abstract law like Domestic violence which is inherently so imprecise and vague.

Moreover I am still willing to accept the current form of Domestic violence law(though reluctantly) if it were to be gender neutral which is not definitely not the case in India atleast. "Gender neutral" is one of those things that can make huge difference to the attitude of people towards such laws.

#66
bharati
URL
July 14, 2007
01:15 PM

In the End Marriage is about living together for good and bad and caring for other. IF that is not happening there are fights , mental uncaring, expectations of money from other side it breaks.

As we know that 75% of divorces in India are filed by women there could obviously two reasons.

1. Men are not fullfilling the expectations of women unstated or otherwise, realistic or otherwise

another example if a owme marries into a joint family it is avary valid expecatation that they will stay in that joint family . To file domestic violence or the Dowry becuase of that reason is nothing but a crime action whether laws regard it as crime or not.

I guess the problem is that the major of new items seem to condemning the husbands without consideration of the facts whcih is why Siffers seem agains the women when they point out the fact

Pooja is case to Point , in many ways similar to IG Radhas case with genders reversed

Jump on Pooja as a heroine without doing a reality check is a problem.

It has come out that she has abused in her child hood has mental problems . It is alove marriage as well.

the independent facts as they are coming out seem to be negative to her while no independent negative facts ( except claimed by pooja) have come out.

Regarding cooking I do not think any man expects te wife to be cook for him after the mariage is over the way women expect her husband to pay for her lifestyle even after the marriage is over

That the feminists of NCW are the first one to come out in the husbands favour we should grant that for all their appearance some of the people of NCW have some reasonableness done.

It is however difficult for us to imagine this could have happened without the pressure placed by SIFF who had initiated their fact finding mission.

I guess the problem of Save Indian family is not marriage or divorce when in reallity the marriage does not exist but to stop the abuse of the men which happens in the process of dissolution of the marriage

#67
kris
July 14, 2007
01:27 PM

#58 - Social ostracism of abusers of fascistic laws should become the norm. I am really heartened by the support the husband's family recieved from their community.

#68
Insider
July 14, 2007
03:12 PM

Bharathi


It is best you do not say anything for one those people who have shamelessly evading any participation in the child's life needs to be boycotted from the society. More so the father who abandoned his child just because the child had some deficiencies needs to get hanged that too on the road live with international news coverage.

#69
Jay
July 14, 2007
03:25 PM

I really want people to look at this foolish rationale in view of important considerations such as alimony/ child support by bharathi #66:

"Regarding cooking I do not think any man expects te wife to be cook for him after the mariage is over the way women expect her husband to pay for her lifestyle even after the marriage is over"

A comparison between a daily chore and a monetary support that is determined by a court of law considering several issues such as mutual assets, allowances for children, number of years that the woman gave up her career for to support children/ household needs. Nobody is asking you to support her lifestyle, but a court is not foolish enuf to ask u to pay for her shopping and beauty parlor costs. They will most likely to ask you to compensate her for something the marriage cost her in terms of a loss in career, provisions, amount her parents spent on the wedding etc.

How does one speak to such people? They reduce every piece of serious discussion to a joke! It is ridiculous. How can you compare cooking to a fair and just division of assets?!!! So was she being paid to cook and clean? Do you have any respect for women? Is that how you view them? And then some of you get all touchy when someone calls you dumb. Is this a very smart thing to say?

This is a window for all people into how some of these people think. This is what causes problems for them.

#70
Sandeep
July 14, 2007
03:53 PM

## 57 @ FF

"we still think it is ok to have women act as wildly like they do, then we have to accept that divorce rates will also escalate"

huhh? now whaz the rational of women acting wildly?? how many women you know are acting wildly? By wildly do u mean to say that they have their own mind and dare to speak it? or is it the education, career and lifestyle they prefer rather than bogging down to the conventional role of women.

Also How does it matter whatz the divorce rate. Should a woman or for that matter even a man, should be tied in bad marriage just to keep the divorce rate low?

Iam not denying the fact the decisions go wrong and marriages can go wrong. my point was has one or rather both the parties involved [ just the couple, not the parents and long list of relatives] had sat together and discussed to ensure that the odds in this game was in their favour??

Its high time we stop looking at marriage as some kind of holy alliance and start looking as a contract between 2 consenting adults. With all possible considerations that a point may [not can] arise where this contract has to be terminated.

Fate of marriage is not decided by law. It is done by 2 people involved it. It is highly stupid to say that marriage broke because of the woman or man. It takes 2 to tango.

Also, laws will be misused, misintrepreted and each and every loophole will be sought till we stop stigmatising the broken marriages.

It is a simple logic that victims [are] cannot be condoned, so both the parties want to play victims. Women [MAY] try to take support of 498a and men try their hand with SIFFER or other anti-feminist organisation.

thaz called truce!!!

#71
Binoy
July 14, 2007
04:13 PM

Here is my story: I was going thru trouble in my marriage. I thought a certain organization (I will not name it) was willing to help me save the marriage (help me save my family). when I approached them and called and spoke to individual members they asked me questions like "Is your wife too friendly with other men?" "Does she have boyfriend before mariage?" "Does she come home late anytime?" and made hints that I should try to portray her as having a bad character. I even told them that I thought I had been harsh on her but they told me notto say something like that in court. I was confused n shocked. I wanted for a voluntary organzn which would help us get counselling. The name was misleading. Thankfully we got counselling thru some other family therapists and have a much better marriage now. Nothing is perfect and it is not fair to force someone to stay married. This process helped me realize that I shouldnt have takne my wife for granted and not to overexpect. I want to warn people that if u feel u have done something wrong during the marriage there is still time. Dont assasinate her character just to escape some charges. Dont fall prey to all organizations: feminist or anti-feminist or some other organizations. They dont care if you are happy in life. They care if they win becoz they had bad experience in life. Everybody, organizan, relations, freinds gives advice do this, speak like that. but nobody can take away loneliness if your true love is gone.

#72
bharati
URL
July 14, 2007
05:27 PM

I think usually women are touchy about maintaining the lifestyle of their husbands post marriage. Where there is a career given up obviously a case is made out. Yet in twentieth century when there is full freedom to persue the career of opportunities of interst for both genders. It is clear that spouses of both gender do persue it. Sactificing career is somethin I do not think is somethinig that is recommended by either spouses. Making adjustment to careers in interests of locations is definitely not the same or seen as sacrificing career.

Just some wifes may end up loosing up theri career when their husbands move in their locations.

but on the other hand the wifes gaina career when they move to USA on the green Cards sponsored by husbands. or just because ofthe fact that husband is in the location where n career opportunities abound . This does not mean that the husbands should be compensated for providing the opportunity to persue he career as ulimately it is her capability which got her career.

However when the wife cause harm to the career of husbands by making the wild accusations dowry then clearly a compensation is defnitely in order

when it is time to separate only if there was any complete washout of career options on a spouse should it entitle a souse to look towards financial assistence otherwise it makes no sense .

In the historical days society prevented women from having careers to support herself and that is why it made sense to seek lifestyle financial assitence . Now off course of the women having access to an independent income do not need any kind of financial assistence exception those who have been out of the job for a very long time.

It has become a standard form to accuse men and sometimes even CEOs of companies of all sort of wrong doings.

The example of Azim Premji is so fresh in the mind where in brazen accusers are being let off scott free.

Untill we a society put a stop to brazen and false accusation of dowry, violence and forget to punish those indulging in that same groups like SIF will exist.

#73
Jay
July 14, 2007
06:32 PM

#72 "Sactificing career is somethin I do not think is somethinig that is recommended by either spouses. Making adjustment to careers in interests of locations is definitely not the same or seen as sacrificing career."

What? What are you talking about? Who's case are you refering to? Or are your extrapolations and personal opinions supposed to apply to all alimony cases? And why are you the judge? How can you make assumptions based on your limited knowledge and then claim that alimony provision is baseless?!!!

How can people take three odd examples and come to a conclusion about everyone and all divorce cases? I thought some of you were against misuse of 498A/ DV laws (which is a good cause). Now slowly it turns out first you are anti-radical feminism (which is also understandable), then you are anti-feminism, then you are anti-divorce, then you are anti-alimony, anti-child support, slowly anti-women maybe? I'm thinking if we follow your drift we will soon reach pro-dowry and pro-physical abuse.

What is your policy precisely? "If a woman is abused it is between husband and wife, she should endure the pain or at least look a little bruised before she makes a complaint. If she asks for legal help on a public site she should not just say problems in marriage, she should detail each punch, each shove/ push or slap, otherwise we will assume she is trying to take "revenge". Becoz that's what women do. If hubby abuses her and she asks for divorce why does she deserve alimony? She asked for divorce not him! He just spanked her a little. There are fights in every marriage!" Is that how you people think?

One of you suggested that feminists should have their own matrimony sites. I recommend that anti-feminists have their own matrimonial websites. Becoz most people who are educated and sane will not support something that reduces women to cooks and baby-carriers. Most people learn to adapt to changing times, careers and accept that if they marry a woman with a job and a solid education, she is going to voice her opinions and disagreements. So when you put your advertisements instead of just saying "Educated, tall, handsome, with good salary" also add "anti-feminist and pro-dowry, inclined to bouts of violence". So the rest of the peaceful world can live in harmony and you all can have your segment of society where marital abuse is just miyan-biwi ki an-ban. Since both miyan and biwi are anti-feminism and anti-DV laws nobody will go to the law for help. When the woman is beaten to death she will be deemed a devi for her courage in enduring abuse quietly and living with pati parmeshwar. This sounds very ideal.

What sucks is that the men out there who truly were victims of the misuse of law look bad becoz of shady representatives like you.

#74
Siffer
July 14, 2007
06:58 PM

If there are "problems" in marriage, a couple can together find ways to resolve it, or if the "problems" are unresolvable it may be better to part ways.

If there is physical abuse, a victim (man or woman) needs protection from the aggressor (man or a woman).

IPC 498A and DV Act are mainly used by women to settle scores and to extort the hefty monetary settlements regardless of the nature of the "problems" in marriage.

Feminists call this justice.

"I recommend that anti-feminists have their own matrimonial websites."

This may be a fantastic idea too because that way you can probably find people who do not think that marriage is slavery for women and that family reduces a woman to cooks and baby-carriers. You can find people who have a healthier attitude towards family.

#75
Anonther anon
July 14, 2007
07:00 PM

Binoy,

Good leaning and that alone saved your marriage. Good for you.

#76
Siffer
July 14, 2007
07:10 PM

Feminists, really working hard to save face post-Pooja Chauhan fiasco, huh? Why worry about us lesser mortals. You have powerful women in big places who can make more and more laws to torture men and their families. Why worry so much when you always get what you want through powerful feminazis?

#77
kris
July 14, 2007
08:47 PM

If this discussion is about stringent laws and marriages, then most commentary is off the mark. Also, before cavalierly dismissing arranged marriages and idolizing love marriages, it would help some authority is cited for the same.

People need to understand love and marriage are not one and the same. Love is what exists or can exist between two people. I do not need to go into long expositions on why men and women are attracted to each other and form enduring relationships. No law can influence existence of such bonds or alters them.

Marriages, however are legal instruments. These instruments are put in place by the societies to formalize the relationships and to enforce certain rights and responsibilities on the couple and the society - may this be about child rearing, property or what have you. Marriage laws are made for the times and are coercively enforced, like any other law.

Unfortunate reality in India is - most of the marriage related laws (in all aspects like divorce, alimony, child custody, adultery etc) were drafted by the British and were made for the colonial times. Elsewhere, one poster stated- the social dynamics have changed. True, but our laws have not kept pace with those changes.

The feminist fraud lies in selectively changing those laws to further exacerbate the imbalances in favor of one section of the society at a great cost to the other. Also, new draconian laws are being put in place using deceptive propaganda. Our clever feminists, using the DV act, have also brought voluntary live in relationships entered into by two consenting adults into the purview of police and judges. Now, no relationship is beyond the big brother's (may I say big sister for the times) watch.

#78
Another siffer
July 14, 2007
09:37 PM

Siffer,

After I read this article and your comments in the previous one, I am glad I am not in your shoes. Was this one a shocker for you? Phewwwwww...you need to be more agressive and learn the lesson Once bitten twice shy...a woman will always be a woman.

#79
Siffer
July 14, 2007
11:31 PM

Nope, it wasn't a shocker at all.

#80
Siffer
July 14, 2007
11:56 PM

India TV Sting Operation on how women entrap husbands and other men in false criminal cases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRe-IPxcY6c

#81
Abused
July 15, 2007
12:11 AM

#71 - Binoy, you really are a pig, no thanks to people who helped, but false allegations.

All things must have been eye opener for you to see, prepare your defense in case of onslaught of the ruthless devlish lady, not only on you, but your whole khandaan. And still you are a thankless creature. Ultimately it is your choice, what you want to do then, atleast you are knowledgeable about the game.

I wish, we were knowing about the sangayabalya, and several other orgs before, and could have nipped the bud of the asshole mentally unbalanced lady.

#82
NUTkarni
July 15, 2007
12:14 AM

Where the hell the author NUTkarni is hiding,
is she ashamed now of her eating her own foot.

Hell of a lady she is.

She had proved that how ugly feminist are, seduction and robbing are their virtues. Talk sweet, eat at our cost and then, kill.

#83
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 15, 2007
12:49 AM

Nutkarni!! That is hilarious, hehehe..,.I have to give it to you, thats by far the best gag name I have EVER been tagged with :D Very creative!

But no I am not ashamed at all of my opinions. After all, I put them up on a public forum and stand by them using my own name and identity. I'm not hiding. I'm right here following how this article gets dissected, sometimes rationally and sometimes in unwanted or crude ways.

It is nice watching this discussion grow though. It gives me insights into how some of you think. I like to observe that. And I honestly cannot contribute anything beyond what I already detailed in #37.

Beyond that if you guys have any specific questions I'll be here to answer. I always appreciate when people try to stick to the gist of the article but I obviously cannot control what you choose to interpret from it: Some of you have covered a healthy range from theories about my own marital status to something as miniscule as who cooks the meals within a couple.

As #62 Jay has summarized the gist of my article and done a wonderful job of doing so, if I may say so. It was to evaluate how marriages would be/ could be/ should be affected due to such laws having come into place. I haven't anywhere in my article condoned any laws or supported their misuse. Inspite of that if you just hate me for being a woman or a feminist, I cannot make you like me, now, can I? :)

#77, Kris just for the record, the arranged marriage observation was based on the 4 videos I saw online. I personally don't favor either. I think a love marriage where the couple doesnt discuss and evaluate proper issues is at as much of a risk of falling apart as an arranged marriage where those issues are neglected. A marriage is a marriage and once you are in wedlock the same legalities, emotional liabilities etc apply to both: those who had an arranged or love marriage.

The bottomline of my article was:

"If marriage is a gamble, shouldn't one do their best in trying to ensure that the odds are in their favor?"

If you notice, its a question. You can answer it, evaluate it, interpret it or ignore it. But as far as I know one can't really disagree with a question.

If there are any questions for me, I'll be more than happy to answer them if I can.

Thanks!

#84
Buzzy
July 15, 2007
02:36 AM

Edited what I posted - do what ever you want. We the Victimised Husbands and our whole families are going to be praying [EDITED - PERSONAL]

#85
Anon
July 15, 2007
04:57 AM

"If marriage is a gamble, shouldn't one do their best in trying to ensure that the odds are in their favor?"

Yes, absolutely. And I think most people do the best that they can...but sometimes their best (at a given time) is not good enough.

#86
kris
July 15, 2007
06:42 AM

Anon - When people talk about marriages here, they are not talking about love. Can anyone say, love is a gamble, as easily as one can say Marriage is a gamble. If two people love each other, neither would do or say anything to hurt the other. When a man loves a woman, he is ready to sacrifice anything for her - we have many monuments that bear witness to a man's love. There are countless other obscure men, too insignificant to be noticed, that have sacrificed thier lives for ages literally and figuratively for their women. If any woman genuinely loves her man, she would not harbor such vengeful feelings to derive satisfaction at the locking up and humiliation of him.

The feminists who support the draconian laws are interested in neither love, nor marriage. They are interested in advancing their insidious agendas and power. The gullible fall for them. But beware, if anyone resists, they will break their furniture, if that doesnt work, shed crocodile tears - a whole lot of them.

#87
smallsquirrel
July 15, 2007
08:47 AM

Kris:
you said- "If two people love each other, neither would do or say anything to hurt the other."

This simple idea is the downfall of most marriages. We have a utopian idea of marriage and expect our spouses to be superhuman. It doesn't work that way. As a matter of fact, when we open our lives to someone else, the opportunity is GREATER that they will inadvertently hurt us. The key to that is the inadvertent part. But we forget that and assume the worst.

Also I do not think that anyone, man or woman, should be ready to sacrifice *anything* for the other. I love my husband completely, but there are things I will not sacrifice for him. And him, me. My dignity is one of them (his also). We ALL must be complete human beings to be useful in a relationship, man or woman.

#88
Anon
July 15, 2007
09:58 AM

"If two people love each other, neither would do or say anything to hurt the other."

This simple idea is the downfall of most marriages."


That's it? That simple idea is the downfall of most marriages? This explanation of failed marriages is as simplistic as Kris' description of love.

#89
smallsquirrel
July 15, 2007
10:11 AM

OK, I will explicate.

If I have this overarching idea that if my spouse loves me enough, he/she will never do anything to hurt me, I am setting myself up for a world of hurt and the other person up for certain failure. We are all human and we're bound to make mistakes even with the best of intentions. We all inadvertently say something stupid, fail to think of the consequences of some kind of action... something will happen even if we do not intend it or mean the action maliciously.

But if we have this idea that the other should be perfect, we will be continually disappointed by them. We will expect that they will behave perfectly, and come to demand it. Which is unrealistic. Next comes petty arguments, then comes a lot of fighting due to built up resentment, and then a total breakdown of communications.

Of course, physically or mentally abusive behavior on either side should not be tolerated.

#90
Anon
July 15, 2007
10:20 AM

Smallsquirrel, I don't disagree with your argument that having fantastic ideas of perfect love or marriage can be detrimental to a relationship. I only disagree that the simplistic idea of love given by Kris is "the reason for the downfall of most marriages".

I think most people do get over their fantastic ideas a little while into marriage no matter how they marry. It is a natural process. The reasons why marriages break can be many.

#91
smallsquirrel
July 15, 2007
11:35 AM

maybe I oversimplified too? :)

#92
Observor
July 15, 2007
12:18 PM

Abused,

Binoy is right, he is not a pig but you guys are loosers. At least he made corrections and decided to dump SIF for its gayly ways and go bak to his wife and save his precious marriage.
What is wrong if a guy realizes his mistake and decides to save his marriage? Is is ungay kinds?

#93
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 15, 2007
12:22 PM

I am happy that people are now finally discussing "love" and "marriage" thanks to Kris#86 (well, first paragraph at least) and smallsquirrel #89.

If you try to search for the word "love" in the whole of my article, you won't find it. That was intentional. Why? Because I don't like the ideas of love projected by society in general. Love is portrayed as a weak emotion that gives in, gives up. Maybe it is age/ maturity/ experience but I am more in favor of emotions such as respect or consideration which uphold or sustain. I detest how love is portrayed in cinema, songs, poetry, newspapers, social discussions. It gives me the exact same sensation that I have experienced while drinking tea with so much sugar that I can no longer taste the rousing tea-leaves :)

I tried my best in this article to bring in some sense of practicality to the concept of marriage and relationships which I think the coming about such laws will force into society. These laws are stringent and unfair but they will force people to think before they say the "I Dos"?

Kris: When a human being, in real life (not in films/ stories) sacrifices something for someone, they subconsciously hold a certain resentment. A woman or a man does this not because they are vengeful but because they are human. If someone takes away, due to obligation or their own need, something that means a lot to you and you were unhappy making that sacrifice, it is unreasonable for us to expect you to be so saintly as to not hold an inward grudge. If a man has to forego his respect, his career or his dignity for the wife, he will resent having to do that. Its not just women, it applies to everyone.

This resentment changes form and haunts the relationship but the person for whom the sacrifice was made doesnt quite understand why other areas of his relationship are suddenly marred.

Hence my article was about considering this approach: instead of burdening your relationship with sacrifices, it may be more helpful to discuss those issues that require later adjustments and see if compatibility lies in those areas.

Otherwise why marry and then suffer the implications of having ignored that incompatibility. The practical decisions are eventually what keep the relationship going.

See, it is true that for every precaution, the end result may still suffer the very damage you were trying so hard to avoid. But that doesnt mean one should stop taking preacautions at all. That would be like exposing yourself to the risks knowingly.

In a love marriage or arranged alliance, it is important for people to speak about their plans, their own needs, dreams before deciding to spend a lifetime together instead of expecting their partners to be willing to sacrifice later out of love. Instead of wondering what your partner would do, think about what you would do if asked to give up something that you don't want to at all.


Some of you will argue, I can almost predict, about how our parents managed without having had all those discussions. See, thats where the whole issue of change comes in. There was a time when women were conditioned to sacrifice and not voice their opinions. Now women have careers, they know what they want and you cannot, against their wishes, expect them to forego those things/ dreams/ plans under the title of "sacrifice out of love". It may work or it may affect your marriage. Ultimately it is a risk. Thats all.

Thanks for all your comments!

#94
manoj rawat
July 15, 2007
01:47 PM

Dear Aditi,

We understand and fully concur with you that it is the incompatibility of the couple, the pressure the women carry on their shoulders because of the career etc which might not enable them to be true to the expectations of the husband, but this would be true of the women who have the career, but what about the women who are not career oriented,not working yet they still do not like to take care of their husband,family and forget about taking care of the in-laws, openly abuse them for no reason.
And as far as the educated and working women are concerned, what prevents them for seeking a divorce if they are not happy in their marriage? If they are so independent, rational, logical, why do they resort to lodging false complaints against the husband and his family instead of divorce? The greed and desire to harm husband and his family is the only objective for lodging such complaints. The truth is a lot of women want complete independence but at the same time want to subjugate their husband completely. In my case, my wife created a scene if I sat and talked to my mother for just ten minutes. How would you justify this behaviour? Its true that men need to give more time for their marriage so shd the women. And forget about increasing the divorce rate in India, there is a need to simplify the divorce laws in India so that at least people can get out of a traumatic marriage and carry on their lives peacefully.

Thanks
MKR

#95
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 15, 2007
02:45 PM

Hi Manoj Rawat (#94)

Thank you for your perspective. You asked me a few questions (I am assuming they were directed to me).

Honestly, I cannot explain the psyche of women who abuse their in-laws just as I cannot explain the psyche of a man who beats his wife. I don't condone either and to me, those are alien concepts because I wouldn't do something like that. As far as those women who don't seek a divorce inspite of being educated and being in an unhappy marriage, I don't know why they act the way they do. Some men do it too, you know. They will refuse to grant a divorce just to make matters difficult or because they are just scared of the social implications of going through with a divorce.

Manoj, my point is very simple: there always are people who act irrationally. This probably makes it all the more necessary for people to think, evaluate and discuss before binding themselves legally into matrimony.

The truth is: I cannot justify your wife's behavior. In fact if I were to make an inference based solely on what you are saying I would call it irrational. Either it is immaturity, insecurity or just a temperamental flaw. I dunno, but what I do know is if a person takes more time in getting hitched they give themselves more time to evaluate the likelihood of such personality quirks or deficiencies. You then make a more informed choice by thinking: "if she continues this behavior will I be able to look past it and make peace with it? do I love her enough to be able to do it? should we discuss this incompatibility or quit trying because the incompatibility is just too severe to handle."

These are decisions that take time and hence my reasoning of "precuation is better than the later hassle".

As I said earlier, it is very much possible that precautions fail and both parties do somehow end up unhappy. But that still should not justify not taking any precautions.

You said: "And forget about increasing the divorce rate in India, there is a need to simplify the divorce laws in India so that at least people can get out of a traumatic marriage and carry on their lives peacefully"

I agree 100%. I am of the opinion that people who say "Oh the nation's divorce rate is increasing we should prevent laws from making divorce an easy way out!" are kidding themselves or others because as I say in my article nobody puts the nations's statistics above their own happiness. Simplifying divorce legalities, trying as a society to reduce the thought process invested in evaluating the stigma of divorce will probably ensure that people go thru less trauma and are less likely to be reasonable when parting ways.

Thank you for your comments!

#96
Anon
URL
July 15, 2007
03:42 PM

#95
----
Too fancy a thought, if only things were as simple as made out, we wouldn't be here loggering our heads with so called intellectuals.

Only that, we find women to be so irrational that they are walk on the street semi-naked to put her in-laws behind the bars.

Only that, we find it so irrational that even when the truth is exposed (pooja chauhan's case) people find it difficult to condemn it.

Only that, people think that misuse of law and jailing of innocents is a party talk with all P's and Q's.

Only that, we find it so irrational that people are stirred most only when they see mothers and sisters are also victimised.

Whats the rationale of the article ? 498 A or marriage ? Fault is in the law or in the decision to marry a potential 498 A girl ?

Rationality of article points to towards the decision to marry the potential 498 A, which is as per us highly irrational.

#97
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 15, 2007
04:01 PM

First of all,I didn't quite understand you.

All the things you listed have really nothing to do with this article. There are a lot among us who find a lot of people's behavior irrational: men or women. There are serail killers and child molesters, who's behavior we find irrational. Ok. So? How does that affect our decisions during or before tying the knot? I don't understand? Don't just say something for the sake of getting into an argument/ debate.

This article deals with the question: is it time to view the concept of marriage differently. Is it now time that we see the legalities that are at the core of a marital bond. Not only is one responsible to society, families or individuals but to a court of law which may at times take a decision that is not entirely in your favor.

I think my #95 is far from being fancy. It deals with the sheer practicality of a bond that has for long been dealt with romantic, flaky and "fancy" ideas. In calling it fancy you have demonstrated that you haven't understood the points. You have not refuted any thus far.

You state: "if only things were as simple as made out, we wouldn't be here loggering our heads with so called intellectuals"

The point I discuss in this article is not simple by any means. Your haste in trying categorize things as black or white (either feminist bitch who is pro-498A abuse or pro-SIF/ anti-feminist) is sadly ignoring the grey areas explored by this article. While you are "loggering heads" with so-called intellectuals, all you need to do is some introspection. We all do. It should be easy enough to just step back and evaluate whether caste, religion, height, body frame, eating habits, beliefs, hobbies are enough to gain an insight into the personality/pysche of someone who we intend to spend our lifetimes with.

Or does this important decision deserve more thought.

Some of you are just fighting me by assuming things like "feminist agenda", "feminist fraud" and killing the discussion by these repeated references to your own cases instead of trying to even understand what the topic of discussion is. We cannot always guage a concept by ur own experiences, can we?

#98
kris
July 15, 2007
05:05 PM

I dont understand why one has to become defensive in a debate on ideas.

If we want to call ourselves a civilized society, the simple rule is - "laws have to be equitable".

That there are more victims of one gender than the other is NO JUSTIFICATION for making the laws deliberately biased.

If there are more victims of one gender, they will get the same justice as the fewer victims of the other gender. I dont know why such a simple, equitable principle is so hard to comprehend for all the so called intellectuals.

The whole establishment (the media, the intelligentia, pseudo-intellectuals, tax payer funded govt agencies etc) have already beaten enough the dead horse of masculine forms of evil.

It is time for the society to start looking into the feminine forms of evil. If one denies that feminine can never be evil, there is no more debate on the issue. It is like a person of jewish descent trying to rationally debate a holocaust denier.

#99
Jay
July 15, 2007
05:51 PM

Kris: NOBODY IS TRYING TO RATIONALIZE STRINGENT LAWS!! So who is your comment #98 directed at?

Have you read ANY of what Aditi has typed out in #93 and prior comments???!! The article isn't even remotely doing what you suggest it is.

Are you trying to have a discussion or just typing out comments that vent your own frustrations? Becoz in case of the later we can all just let you vent and not respond.

The article is about why it is neccessary to evaluate the person and your own goals before getting married. Do you have anything to say in line with the topic of discussion or no?

#100
Another siffer
July 15, 2007
08:20 PM

Jay

You do not get it either. Sheis jsutifying and promoting "It was convenient for many an NRI man to hop on a plane and return with a wife who could cook for him and fill the loneliness of life in a foreign country." --the bad image of NRI men. WTF is that all about.

Guys, if you do not get it and prefer things being sugar coated, so be it.
Each one has a mind of their own, if Kris wants to vent so be it, I am not all interested in commenting or justifying Aditis intentions. Read the first comment of AK and that says it all. Period.

#101
Jay
July 15, 2007
08:44 PM

100 Bad image of Indian men? Touchy arent ya? I am an Indian man. I don't think she is doing anything to my image becoz I have friends who go to India and return with a wife in 5 weeks without taking time to get to know her. She is not promoting any image nor is she criticizing it. According to me she is listing observations that we all know exist.

I have 4 roommates with me who are all desi men and we declare that we do not think she is cramping our style. So I guess its only Siffers who seem bothered. Wonder why. Ever heard the saying "Chor Ki dhaadi mein tinka"??

Besides what is everybody supposed to do? Praise Indian men, ALL THE TIME???

She has also written about women being damsels in distress. You don't see women going all nuts over her criticizing women.

Sandeep, Kannan, Binoy and some of us who have commented here are guys but we admit, some guys do go to India and return with a wife with a quick marriage. If its true it needs to be said. Bad or good. Suck it up. The question isnt whether Aditi is potraying men as good or bad, the question is is it true? Do men or women really do something of the sort and if it is true should it change?

The first comment of AK calls her a Feminazi. Not only is that the opinion of a chauvinistic and insecure man. I'm no feminist nor am I a Siffer and so as an Indian guy I personally think she is a very intelligent, observant, smart woman who honestly shouldnt have to explain herself to any of you dorks who want women to sing bhajans in honor of men all the fkin time.

Being against misuse of a law is one thing but you guys seem more anti-women, pro-men to me now.

Enough!

#102
Anon
July 15, 2007
11:05 PM

"Now women have careers, they know what they want and you cannot, against their wishes, expect them to forego those things/ dreams/ plans under the title of "sacrifice out of love"."

Women do have careers these days, but not all of them know what they want. A lot of them are confused. When they look at everything as a matter of their rights (without evaluating responsibilities at the same time) they start looking at every adjustment in marriage as an unfair sacrifice. It makes marriage even more difficult.

#103
FF
July 16, 2007
04:04 AM

Sandeep in 70...

huhh? now whaz the rational of women acting wildly?? how many women you know are acting wildly? By wildly do u mean to say that they have their own mind and dare to speak it?


Wildly means to act irresponsibly as they do by

1) trying to settle their personal scores by abusing provisions in laws in massive

2) By coupling and offloading the responsibilities which they are ought to undergo in any relation(they do undergo it even when they are at their parental house) to their self-assessed sacrifices.

3) To ignore the change in reality and refuse to share every burden(financial or otherwise) of house in equitable manner. To still expect that husband will be the primary driver(his duty) of house. I bet you ask any women on this forum or otherwise, if their husband insists that his wife ask for her share in parental property from her parents, it will without doubt be considered as dowry demand. It will surely make husband-wife relations bitter? Where as, if wife does the same she is just either reminding husband of his rights or is fighting for her rights(as she is a 50% legal heir of husband). Is not that being women sycophant?

#104
FF
July 16, 2007
06:41 AM

Sandeep in 70...

huhh? now whaz the rational of women acting wildly?? how many women you know are acting wildly? By wildly do u mean to say that they have their own mind and dare to speak it?


Wildly means to act irresponsibly as they do by

1) trying to settle their personal scores by abusing provisions in laws in massive

2) By coupling and offloading the responsibilities which they are ought to undergo in any relation(they do undergo it even when they are at their parental house) to their self-assessed sacrifices.

3) To ignore the change in reality and refuse to share every burden(financial or otherwise) of house in equitable manner. To still expect that husband will be the primary driver(his duty) of house. I bet you ask any women on this forum or otherwise, if their husband insists that his wife ask for her share in parental property from her parents, it will without doubt be considered as dowry demand. It will surely make husband-wife relations bitter? Where as, if wife does the same she is just either reminding husband of his rights or is fighting for her rights(as she is a 50% legal heir of husband). Is not that being women sycophant?

#105
smallsquirrel
July 16, 2007
07:09 AM

anon #102... well, I would say that yes, this probably does happen in some cases. but also I feel that this also is not much different than when some men decide that because they are working outside the house, that they therefore are devoid of any household responsibilities.

This just goes right back to Aditi's point that things should be discussed and worked out beforehand. Not everyone has the same concept of what roles should be in the household (both inside and out), and some are not willing to be flexible. Which is OK if you work that out ahead of time, but not so great if you're blindsided.

Take my own marriage for example. We decided that it made more sense for me to work in the beginning because my husband is studying for medical board exams. So I took on full financial responsibility for the household. Now that the baby is coming, roles will shift and he will have to earn. Then when we go back to the US, for the time being, the main burden will revert back to me again. It is all about what makes sense and who can do what at what time.

But say I married a man who expected that I must be home to do all the household chores and he was unwilling to do any of them. Well, I would have said OK but that means that I cannot work. If he was willing to do some and did not want all of the financial responsibility, then we would have to decide about who works when. If he had been unwilling to accept any of those options (or if I had been), then we would have had a mismatch. But you don't know unless you talk about it BEFOREHAND.

#106
FF
July 16, 2007
07:37 AM

In all sincerity I feel that issues over household chores(however paradoxical they may seem it a naked eye) are not the one which decide future of marriage. To expect that husband and wife share responsibility equally (or atleast balance it out between themselves in a mutually acceptable way) is so very natural. If household chores were indeed issues, why would so many thousands of cases come up where women want to move out of joint family system where as joint family system in fact assist in reducing the total load on any individual?

I think what essentially matters in a marital relation is the expectation one has from life(and consequently from the partner) and a mismatch in expectation is what really triggers the whole episode.

Women have since ages been marrying up and the expectation to move up is so strong in them that it has become a sociably accepted behavior. This is not a recent phenomenon, but has been like that for ages. Just that since divorce was not an option, women were left with only one way, and which was to feel sad, agonised and tied up in a marriage.

There is nothing wrong with that, expect that the way women have grown in last couple of decades they have set an exceptionally high bar for males.

When women fight as strong as men, their is hardly any scope left for men to do better or to take themselves to a higher plane where they can match expectations of women.

#107
smallsquirrel
July 16, 2007
07:43 AM

FF... I used household chores as an example, not as a prime reason why marriages dissolve. everyone has their trigger issues. if the couple cannot agree on that particular issue, all hell ensues.

I am not sure about your final point. are you saying that because women have such high goals for themselves, that men have nothing left to aspire to/provide anymore because the women are doing it on their own?!?!?!?

#108
FF
July 16, 2007
08:02 AM

Binoy in 71...Well Firstly SIF is a movement and not an organization. Ones experience with a few associated members may vary depending on what personal experiences of (approached members and the aggrieved person )have been. There is no one panacea for all the ills.

I am not hear to advertise of any movement but for e.g, In my case , when I talk to SIF volunteers in I was clearly told to consider the option of reconciliation with my ex. Not only that I was indeed explained the hassles in courts and in life and was in a very brotherly manner told by SIF volunteers to reconsider all possible alternatives of making a truce. Some of them also explained how they still want their own wives to come back. Well they did ask me those few questions too but just to verify what exactly was the back ground of my case.

Yes the general expectation is that you have exhausted almost all existing methods of making truce with opposite party when you join SIF. But that has more to do with the fact that most of us arrive at SIF doors very late in the cycle i.e when bamboo is through. But that is again an indicator of the fact that people who arrive at have been trying to avoid legal conflicts all along but were dragged into one by opposite party. As an after thought, if In my case had i approached SIF a long time back(a the time when problem was still brewing up but when my thought that is a minor adjustment problem and nothing more), i would have been benefited greatly by experience of SIF members and would have been safe guarded and shielded from the onslaught that followed.

I however would appreciate that you highlighted a case where some people suggested you a destructive strategy to start with(though it indeed comes necessary in the end game when the other party starts taking you for granted). We will want to improve upon it if it indeed is found true.

#109
FF
July 16, 2007
08:11 AM

Binoy in 71...Well Firstly SIF is a movement and not an organization. Ones experience with a few associated members may vary depending on what personal experiences of (approached members and the aggrieved person )have been. There is no one panacea for all the ills.

I am not here to advertise of any movement but for e.g, In my case , when I talk to SIF volunteers in I was clearly told to consider the option of reconciliation with my ex. Not only that I was indeed explained the hassles in courts and in life . I was in a very brotherly manner told by SIF volunteers to reconsider all possible alternatives of making a truce. Some of them also explained how they still want their own wives to come back. Well they did ask me those few questions too but just to verify what exactly the background of my case was.

Yes the general expectation is that you have exhausted almost all existing methods of making truce with opposite party when you join SIF. But that has more to do with the fact that most of us arrive at SIF doors very late in the cycle i.e when bamboo is through. But that is again an indicator of the fact that people who come to SIF, have been trying to avoid legal conflicts all along and instead were dragged into one by opposite party. As an after thought, if I(in my case) had approached SIF a long time back(a the time when problem was still brewing up, but when I thought that it was a minor adjustment problem and nothing more), I would have been greatly benefited by experience of SIF volunteers and would have been very easily safe guarded and shielded from the onslaught that followed.

I however would appreciate that you highlighted a case where some people suggested you a destructive strategy to start with(though it indeed becomes necessary sometimes in the end game when the other party starts taking you for granted). We will want to improve upon it if it indeed is found true.

#110
Sanam
July 16, 2007
10:29 AM

Call me romantic or whatever, I think if love(pre-marriage or/and post-marriage, compromise, compassion is not the cornerstone of marriage. and you have expressions like, "Talk beforehand", deals used for coming together of two individuals in a marriage then, the institution of marriage is surely collapsing(probably collapsed; in some cases) in India.

IMO Individuals considering marriage should invest time aquainting himself/herself with his/her spouse to be and ensure that the reason for coming together is love and uncompromising love for each other. If one is looking at his/her degrees/salaries/materialistic issues, then sooner or later they are headed to courts.

#111
smallsquirrel
July 16, 2007
10:59 AM

sanam... well, it's all nice to be idealistic, but I will tell you from experience that love does not cover all circumstances. seriously. just because you talk honestly with your future spouse about these things does not mean that you do not love them any less. it means you are being realistic that the warm, fuzzy in love feeling where you think that everything the other person does is "cute" at some point down the line fades. reality sets in. it has nothing to do with uncompromising love and everything to do with the fact that you can love someone immensely and still want to deal with issues in completely different ways! you have to look at these issues or you are fooling yourself completely that just because you think the other person is fabulous that you will resolve every issue well.

#112
Sanam
July 16, 2007
11:32 AM

SS,
You said "just because you talk honestly with your future spouse about these things does not mean that you do not love them any less."

Talk honestly yes, But still when you are deciding about marriage One should be asking himself/herself " Do I really love him/her? " If One is marrying laying undue weightage at the degrees/job/financial strength/looks of the spouse to be, Then thats where things have started to go wrong. One needs to be asking the right questions not only to the other person but also to self. One should be honest to self before they seek honesty from spouse.

#113
Sanam
July 16, 2007
11:32 AM

SS,
You said "just because you talk honestly with your future spouse about these things does not mean that you do not love them any less."

Talk honestly yes, But still when you are deciding about marriage One should be asking himself/herself " Do I really love him/her? " If One is marrying laying undue weightage at the degrees/job/financial strength/looks of the spouse to be, Then thats where things have started to go wrong. One needs to be asking the right questions not only to the other person but also to self. One should be honest to self before they seek honesty from spouse.

#114
smallsquirrel
July 16, 2007
11:56 AM

sanam... people should talk honestly about their issues. and for some people, lack of a degree might be an issue. it's not for me, and probably not for you... but what if the other person feels insecure if you have an MBA and they have no advanced degree. Maybe the woman wants to be able to financially be able to have 3-4 kids and put them through graduate school, and the guy has plans to retire at 40 and focus on, dunno, photography or something. those 2 goals are not compatible and should be worked out ahead of time so no one feels cheated out of what they want from life.

When one is idealistic and thinks love solves everything, it is pretty common to get a rude awakening about 4-5 years (or less) down the road. I am not advocating choosing your spouse on superficial criteria. I am advocating strongly that you talk to the person you already know that you love about what you do when you do not agree on things like abortion, spending habits, dealing with in-laws, taking vacations, work, disciplining children, etc.

#115
Sanam
July 16, 2007
12:11 PM

I have seen another so called practical reason for marriages with NRIs. Citizenship/Green card. Think of it, Can this at all be the primary reason for marriage? Think of where this marriage is headed when they hit a rock in their relationship.

#116
FF
July 16, 2007
12:59 PM

Aditi, thanks to our snail paced judiciary, As per law divorce is to be granted in 6 months, but it still takes years together.

Secondly you can not just make divorce easy without changing other laws, because what happens is that these women who abuse laws and file false cases, they know that the case is fought by state(its is nature of IPC 498A).So then often vanish leaving the boy(and entire family) fighting the case for years and sometimes decades only to be found innocent. They themselves will never appear in court. The entire process is so very crucifying for the victim husband and family. A lot of husbands do not give divorce fearing this as divorce will keep these women tied to courts indirectly. Non giving divorce is one way to fight a false 498a case.

#117
vishnu
July 16, 2007
01:05 PM

//************But frankly, no matter how touched and how affected I am by somebody's testimony, I always like to maintain that there is another side to the story. What I did decide to write about is the one observation I made while watching all the footage. One by one, I watched the cases and lo behold, the one strikingly common factor stood out: arranged marriage.*****//

hmmm...really surprising solution for the problem..if it is the case why don't you think that the dowry harassment and dowry death happend just because of arranged marriages..if all are love marriages then now dowry harassment and dowry deaths..so cancel these laws(498a and DV) and make a law like "ban all arranged marriages and arrange only love marriages".


//*****People seem more worried about what such a law will do to the divorce rates. I honestly want to know how many people really care more about the nation's divorce rates over their own happiness? If you are unhappy with a person, if there are serious incompatibilities, would you choose to live with the person for a lifetime because your nation's divorce rates is escalating? I doubt it. It is somewhat of a ridiculous rationale to prevent domestic violence laws. A more logical approach would've been to ammend the laws and make them gender neutral.**********************//

may be it is a fact no one care about the divorce rate..even all marriages are end in divorce then also..they don't care. But what their feeling is they are taking divorce means they are tortured or suffered by the fabricated cases...due to that divorce men lose their hard earn money and last custody of children...and many times they are rejected to see their own child by his wife..isn't it true..?

If you want logical reasons for the gender neutral and punishment for the misuser's of the law

1)there are so many research held in US that domestic violence is not a gender issue.country is may be different but people mentality is same...and that too lot of things are believed now based on the researches done by US people.

2)even the supreme court of India also declared the 498a provision is the most abused provision in the Indian law.And termed it as a legal terrorism..isn't it enough...?

3)All woman are not equal in India..the living style and the liberty of woman in cities and towns is different from the woman in the rural area..
how can you give the same law provisions for both..even in the reservations also people are seeking creamy layer expulsion.then why don't you treat creamy layer in the woman..nobody asked about it why..?

4)one side woman organizations and all feminist claims that in all areas woman are crossing men... creating new records..it is true then how can you consider woman as the weaker section(especially these woman who are one step forward than men)..

I can write more..but i am stopping here..


//*************A few weeks ago, in one of the angry comments to my article, a guy vehemently declared that men would now think a million times before they get married. Maybe they should. Maybe marriage does deserve a million considerations before the final decision is made.*************//

can you give the guarantee that marriage after thinking the million times won't get these problems..are you sure about it madam..?

I don't know about you but my answer for is, there is no guarantee...

Once feminist gives a statement like all men are rapist(may be it is potential rapists)..but now i am saying that

"every man in India is a possible victim of the 498a and DV act mis use, every man has a threat".


(I respect your views..but i have my views so i kept them here...if anything in my message hurt you personally or any of them treated as personal attack...i am very sorry,i am seeking excuses from you.. i don't have any intention like that.)


#118
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 16, 2007
01:27 PM

#115: Sanam There are many people who marry for reasons solely practical. If you are asking my opinion here, I think any relationship needs a healthy balance of emotional involvement and practical compatibility. So of course marrying either solely for a green card or just for a hefty dowry both are ultimately not going to lead to a healthy relationship.

I don't believe I suggested that people should just marry for practical purposes (that would be dumb:)) BUT that they should have discussions about the practical decisions of life before they take the plunge. Big difference.

Honestly, I don't even know why this suggestion would receive so much criticism when it ultimately should benefit people if all goes well. Why is it so bad to give some thought to a bond that is meant to be for a lifetime? In fact you owe it yourself, your family and the person you love to consider a few things and evaluate them or find probable solutions before you marry.

You cannot have a contract or something for every marriage but a discussion, an understanding of matters? Too much to ask?

#116 FF: I understand that divorce proceedings in India take a while. I also know that there are women who may abuse the laws and leave a guy tangled in a court case while they take off. I have heard about such stuff. Can happen. I won't deny the possibility. But by refusing divorce you are merely either getting back at her for doing this to you or holding the divorce consent as a final trump card for negotiations. Which is fine if you want to play it that way and frankly if a woman chooses to misuse the 498A then she probably deserves it.

The one thing I have noticed is that there are a lot of grey areas in this whole "misuse of law" allegation. I heard from some people (men & women) who described their stories to me. I have an article about case studies coming up soon.

Here's what I found worthy of some thought: Sometimes to my suprise the man would admit in his email to having hurt her and said mean things. He also admitted to having called her names, pushed her a couple of times and having created a scene at her workplace. But he said that wasnt abuse or harassment. His exact words were "Its not like I punched her or beat her, I just used bad words when I was very angry and sometimes pushed her". She filed for harassment and he claimed that was "false allegation" whereas she has emails where he apologized for using bad words etc. While the court views verbal abuse as abuse he thinks twas just a part of the fights and that they always reconciled. The marriage had gone on for 4 years and the woman always saved the marriage inspite of the verbal abuse. The guy wrote to me and asked me if I thought he was guilty and I told him that I personally thought verbal abuse was a form of harassment.

This episode led me to believe that sometimes the guy doesnt even know that he is inflicting mental torture coz you know, he's a guy and he doesnt think she is going to get so mortally hurt. But the abuse does take a toll on people's health. When she files harassment the guy thinks "But we just had a fight!" and claims her allegations are false. In such a situation a court has to intervene to decide whether abuse really did occur.

I think there should be abuse laws for both genders. I have seen men who literally have serious health issues because the wife is too materialistic, too jealous etc. But they cannot approach the law and this bothers me. My thinking is not "We shouldnt have laws for women" but more on the lines of "Where should the men go if they suffer mental abuse/ torture?" This is one of the questions that people should be addressing.

This is my take based on the stuff I gotto read and after speaking to a few people I know. If there are things I don't know about or if I am misinformed pls feel free to correct me. I always appreciate being enlightened.

Thanks!

#119
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 16, 2007
01:35 PM

#117 Vishnu: Please refer to my comment #32 Here's what some of it says.

"I wanted to make quite a few changes, update references: firstly, I wanted to replace the term arranged marriage with a more broader concept of marriages that are not just arranged/ love matches but people take very little time to evaluate issues beyond the romance."

Also:

You said: "can you give the guarantee that marriage after thinking the million times won't get these problems..are you sure about it madam..?"

Please read my article. It has a paragraph right above the one you copied and pasted that clearly states:

"Nobody deserves to be thrown in prison because they invested less time in evaluating a prospective bride. It could very well be that one makes a bad judgement or is cheated. Nonetheless precaution seems like a better option compared to the harrowing struggle that families have to go through once things boil down to the legal bond that marriage is."

This means, I am not providing a protocol that will guarantee a successfull relationship but rather attempting to address the precautions one might take.

I appreciate your taking the time to point out your views. You did not hurt me personally at all! I always appreciate if people take the time to gimme feedback.

Thank you for your comments!

#120
Anon
July 16, 2007
03:55 PM

"While the court views verbal abuse as abuse he thinks twas just a part of the fights and that they always reconciled."

If your partner (man or woman) pushes you or shoves you or yells at you, it makes you feel physically and emotionally hurt. But does that warrant putting the person in jail? I don't think so. What you need is a support system that will help the couple to either have combined counseling to solve the problem or a way for the abused to get out of the abusive situation and stay out of it. If you keep going to court for every push and shove and scream then you will spend your entire life in litigation since everyone else might be trying to do the same.

#121
Aditi Nadkarni
July 16, 2007
04:58 PM

#128 Anon: Honestly, you sound like you are justifying abuse. I cannot comment on that because we obviously belong to different mindset. See for me matters in a civilized healthy relationship should not come to push, shove or extreme verbal abuse.

Besides we cannot all have individual cut-off lines: I could say its abuse when she is subjected to mental torture, you could say its abuse when she has bruises all over her back and a few broken teeth, somebody else could say its abuse if she is almost killed. Thats absurd!

It should be upto the victim to decide where to draw the line. Not you or me. It is easy for the perpetrator to claim that a push and a shove is not abuse but when you are the one going thru the torture, it can be hell.

When you are the one being abused you can say when its enough and when its not. Ok?

Thanks!

#122
Jay
July 16, 2007
05:00 PM

121 This is good. We finally see how you think! So when should a court get involved? When the victim is dead maybe? Please let us know.

#123
Sanam
July 16, 2007
05:13 PM

#121: Aditi :" I could say its abuse when she is subjected to mental torture, you could say its abuse when she has bruises all over her back and a few broken teeth, somebody else could say its abuse if she is almost killed. Thats absurd!"

Are you assuming that the victim is always a woman? I am saying this because it's always a "she" that is the "abused" you refer in your comment above

#124
Sanam
July 16, 2007
05:18 PM

#121.

The law can still be misused(abused), if it is left to the victim to draw the line. For some expectations of expectations of waking up early in the morning( By this mean around 8:00am) is a torture by the in-laws.

#125
Aditi Nadkarni
July 16, 2007
06:10 PM

Sanam:

How observant! That of course was meant to be an example but as I AM SURE you may NOT have noticed, I stated in comment #118 before that very clearly the following:

"I think there should be abuse laws for both genders. I have seen men who literally have serious health issues because the wife is too materialistic, too jealous etc. But they cannot approach the law and this bothers me. My thinking is not "We shouldnt have laws for women" but more on the lines of "Where should the men go if they suffer mental abuse/ torture?" This is one of the questions that people should be addressing"

I do HOPE that in trying to jump on a technicality you did not MISS the point of the comment #121 which was: "We cannot have individual cut-off lines for when to make abuse a legal offense"

You said: "The law can still be misused(abused), if it is left to the victim to draw the line."

No. The law "is" (versus "can still be") abused mainly due to the lack of gender neutral regulations, laws about how to establish offense when a complaint is made, absence of bail/minimum investigation prior to arrest and equally stringent punishments for those are proved to have been misusing/ abusing the law.

As a lay person viewing current cases of misuse, I personally feel that this is a kink in the system/ judicial dealings that evaluate the offense. The law always has to assume that people will find loopholes to use it and hence should have measures preventing such misuse instead of dropping the law altogether.

#126
Anon
July 16, 2007
06:29 PM

"It should be upto the victim to decide where to draw the line."

That is exactly what is happening right now...except that the victim is always a woman. Women are deciding what is abuse (physical, financial, sexual or emotional). And women's orgs are expecting the cases to be treated as such upon the word of the woman.

I am not justifying abuse. I am saying that law cannot solve the problem of domestic abuse. Society has a more important responsibility than sending people to jail for every push and shove. In many real cases of domestic abuse the abused need help and so do abusers. Please read "Prone to Violence" by Erin Pizzey and some more literature by her if you can.

#127
Aditi Nadkarni
July 16, 2007
06:52 PM

"I am saying that law cannot solve the problem of domestic abuse"

This one statement goes against the juidicial sense of over 60 nations! :)

Anon, I am not justifying use of laws to put innocent peple in prison based on somebody's oral testimony either. It is against human rights. Understood.

BUT I like to have solutions to problems instead of making snap judgements like the one you have made in this quote. Very simply because in the complete absence of a domestic violence law don't you think the balance will tip towards the other extreme?

If there are women who abuse/ misuse the law don't you think there will be men who will abuse the absence of such a law?

#128
Anon
July 16, 2007
06:55 PM

Solving the Problem of Domestic Violence
with the Bigger Picture

By Dan Lynch

Speech presented at
Toronto Mensa's Annual Regional Gathering

Novotel North York Hotel
Saturday, October 19, 2002

http://fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.htm

#129
Anon
July 16, 2007
07:13 PM

http://www.ejfi.org/PDF/Police_state_politics.pdf

Politics hinders solutions to domestic violence
Extreme measures, 'police state tactics' called unnecessary

Equal Justice Foundation
Dr. Charles Corry, president
(719) 520-1089
ccorry(at)ejfi.org

#130
Anon
July 16, 2007
07:29 PM

Another article with valuable insights:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34159,00.html

#131
Aditi Nadkarni
July 16, 2007
07:36 PM

#129 Anon,

Quick question: Are you trying to convince me that domestic violence laws shouldn't exist at all? Thats like saying: "Oh many people dial 911 for fun and abuse it so lets not have an emergency call system". Thats absurd, really! The solution should be a proper screening process and a punishment for abusing such a law.

Just the above quote by Charles Cory states extreme measures and police "tactics" are unneccessary, NOT that domestic violence laws are unneccessary".

So whats your point? Are you reading my comments #127?

You know, when people start typing out other people's quotes as rationale, I am inclined to believe that their own has sadly been exhausted.

#132
Anon
July 16, 2007
07:57 PM

The reason why the links were posted was because looking at what people who understand these problems well (by virtue of diligently working on them for several years) have to say sometimes helps to THINK about viable solutions to problems. Laws can be defined any way and they can be enforced. If slapping, pushing or shoving one's partner or child is abuse under law, and there are laws that punish the slapper (husband, wife, mother or father) it really does not help solve the real problem. Law is blind and punitive law rarely helps ease domestic problems.

#133
Aditi Nadkarni
July 16, 2007
08:06 PM

"Law is blind and punitive law rarely helps ease domestic problems"

Agree with you on that one! I think the law comes in only things have progressed to an extent where other means have been exhausted.

There are core issues that need to be resolved at an emotional, psychological and personal level and those don't get alleviated by imprisonment or fines. Those do require counseling and most importantly compliance or willingness.

Appreciate that perspective.

#134
Anon
July 16, 2007
08:07 PM

You can continue to argue for gender neutral laws that punish a person committing domestic abuse (wife, husband, mother or father) and I have no problem with that. But if you would rather put such issues in the hands of the police and judiciary then a well-trained, well-functioning and mature law enforcement system is required to deal with family issues which are more sensitive than random crimes on the street.

Anyway, I think the comment forum allows posting alternative perspectives. I am not sure why you are taking such an aggressive stand in critiquing my posts.

#135
Anon
July 16, 2007
08:09 PM

Aditi, I think you got my point. I appreciate it. Ignore #134.

#136
A.K.Rathor
July 16, 2007
08:15 PM

Has any one including Author heard about a word called 'MISUSE'?

Stopping misuse does not mean removing the law but amending it in the interest of Every Body.

And yes, my definition of Every Body is different from Feminists and it really includes Every One.

#137
Aditi Nadkarni
July 16, 2007
08:17 PM

No problemo! I guess I'm used to having people jump down my throat all the time so I mightve gotten a bit rattled up. Hehe :)

#138
Siffer
July 17, 2007
12:12 AM

When 2 human beings live together there are going to be fights. In that case if a man says a few words to his wife in a fit of rage or abuses her, there is no big deal about it. It happens in every household. My father use to say all kind of things to my mother. My mother never reported it to the police or misused the laws. Generally a woman is not comfortable using bad words like Chut***, MC and BC, that is exactly the point. Man is comfortable, which means the woman has enduring power. I would request Aditi to step inside the rural homes, middle class homes and observe all men use these languages, it is nothing personal. It is said and over with. If a woman cannot take it or does not have tolerance, then it is her problem and that problem of hers leads her to the police and file DV report. Simple fights in the house become a police report. If that is not misuse , then what is?

Two human beings left on an island are bound to abuse each other, push each other, does that become verbal abuse and attract DV laws?

Lets get real, it is time to marry those women who can keep their mouth shut and have tolerance levels. There should be some kind of testing to check if women have this kind of endurance to endure a few MC and BC words during the day instead of running to the police and being number 1 in misusing the laws. Women need to get their own feelings right, sometimes of the month they have hormonal problems, when that is over, then they have other problems, if we men tolerate their nuisances and moods, then it is time they too in return take some words and forget about it.



#139
vishnu
July 17, 2007
12:58 AM

//************I understand that divorce proceedings in India take a while. I also know that there are women who may abuse the laws and leave a guy tangled in a court case while they take off. I have heard about such stuff. Can happen. I won't deny the possibility. But by refusing divorce you are merely either getting back at her for doing this to you or holding the divorce consent as a final trump card for negotiations. Which is fine if you want to play it that way and frankly if a woman chooses to misuse the 498A then she probably deserves it.************//

very sad. I am really depressed after reading this comment... she deserved to misuse 498a!!!!!?????.

1)An arrest at any time...midnight or early morning
2)an arrest of any member in the family(even 3)children and old age people..)
4)an arrest that destroy the families pride and respect.
5)If the man's sister is arrested it clearly affect her marriage chances..
6)An arrest which deny a mother taking care of her ill son in the hospital..
7)an arrest which affect a man's hard earned Visa and job..
8) an arrest which seeks huge amount extortion by black mailing...
9)An arrest which causes years of court trials..to attend that some men lose their jobs..

Ok, we bear all these things if it is a genuine case.. but if it is a false allegation then also we need to bear these...!!!!

See any one i specified above is more than enough to put a man in jail minimum one year if these happen to woman..if all has done and cases are booked then he will spent his entire life in the jail or he lose entire property in the name of fine..

But you are saying if a woman do this..then there is no problem..MAY BE BEING A MAN IS A SIN NOWADAYS..MY KIND REQUEST TO THE FUTURE COUPLES IS DON'T GIVE BIRTH TO A BABY BOY..MAY BE ONE DAY..YOU WILL SENT TO JAIL FOR THIS SIN YOU COMMITTED.

now tell me, "Nobody deserves to be thrown in prison because they invested less time in evaluating a prospective bride", is truly came from your heart..?

if it is came from you heart..the above statement is result of lose of patience after reading the posts which doesn't match with your opinions..

#140
Feminist
July 17, 2007
01:09 AM

Vishnu

Where do you learn all this from?

When you guys who abuse women do not thing.
1) that she is by herself
2) that she has left her family and hopes to be part of urs
3) when you guys hit her
4) when you abuse her
5) when you torture her
6) when you confiscate her salary
7) when she is expected to work 9-6 and come back home and cook
8) after she is abused more for being negligent just in case her food does not taste right
9) constantly threatening her to divorce
10) always asking for more money
11) the wife cannot visit her parents, her sick fahter, mother and her siblings.
12) she cannot help her parents if they have any problems.

Whn you inflict the above on a woman with bad words and abuses, what do you expect? A garland of flowers? all of the above attact DV laws on you and your family.


And you say that most wives file cases to get money extorted from you. LIAR. Kindly do not use big words because you know them. Please tell in which case who got the extortion, name the woman, name the family, whats the harm?

All of you guys have sob sob fake stories of how so called false cases were filed, show us one case where a false case was filed with the intention of extortion and the wife got it? One case, one link with proof.

#141
Siffer
July 17, 2007
02:10 AM

Only Feminists have got the right to stereotype everyone and everything.

It is feminists's birth right to stereotype mothers-in-law, men, society and everything under sun.

But, feminists will burn in anger if someone just stereotypes all feminists into male hating feminazies.

So, one can imagine how feminists will be feeling, when one starts stereotyping all wives as abusive, adulterous, greedy, unscrupulous, who extort money from their husbands.


Only if feminists stop stereotyping......

But, do they even have the common sense to do so?

#142
Siffer
July 17, 2007
02:11 AM

Feminist,

Have you heard of Amrita Singh?

#143
Sumanth
July 17, 2007
02:56 AM

Aditi,

Do you know you are a radical feminist to the core?

In the comments above you have done everything to stereotype men and even justified misuse of laws.

Here are the facts:

1) Women are in general emotionally stronger than men. Why? Because a Patriarchal society suppresses a man's emotions.

So, it is women who often abuse men verbally and emotionally and yet do not think that it is abuse.

This social conditioning is so deep that often children ignore emotional abuse on their father by their mother thinking that men are in any case strong.


2) Society puts so many expectations on men that more than half of men in the world lead lives feeling guilty. They have to take protect and provide for wife, children and elders and at the sametime handle their career.

Moreover, society gives a sensitive ear to women during any conflict.

That makes some men behave in a cranky manner and society makes them take responsibility for that too and feel guilty about it.

I personally know many men who were abused severely by their wives and yet they feel sorry for not living up to her expectations. Such men can often claim that they are not worthy of the female and they have ruined her life. There is no truth in that.

Depressed people often own up the stuff which they have never done just to torture themselves.

3) The videos in the YouTube on 498a are only a small percentage of the overall sample. Please note, many of thse videos have also gone through heavy editing by a media which is 80% biased against men.

4) SIFF is not in favour of joint family where mother-in-law stays with the female. SIFF is also not in favour of any woman cooking. SIFF is not againt divorce as well.

SIFF is against creations of stereotypes in the society. As feminists have indulged in so much of damage, SIFF stereotypes feminists and women so that they realise how damaging stereotyping can be.

That is a method deliberately adopted by SIFF.

5) I accept women face DV and abuse from in-laws.

Will you accept that men face DV and abuse from their in-laws?

Why laws should not be made gender neutral ?

6) Some people supporting you claim that it is men who need to change.

Yes. Men need to change. Thats what is SIFF's lines as well.

Men must not stay with their parents.
Men must not stay with their in-laws as well.

Men must not protect and provide for their mothers, sisters and wives as both genders are equal and both genders are capable of taking care of themselves.

Men and women must share equal expenses in the household.

If both are working, then they employ a cook and a butler in the house so that the work in the house can be out sourced.

Finally, abused men or women must record the abuse faced by their using audio or video recorders.

Following these guidelines, SIFF members record the abuse they face from wives. They also record if any counsellor abused them in a police station.


7) You neglected the cause "consumerism" for breaking of marriages.

8) You neglected the abuse of men by their feminist mothers-in-law. You took info from what is written by feminists in media (that women will no longer adjust to in-laws).

But, most of the marital counselling done by SIFF are not due to incompatibility between wife and husband, but the incompatibility between husband and wife's family.

The wife wants the husband to be modern and her mother wants him to be traditional. It is the mothers of the wife who provoke her. The wife mother (who hates her husband) feels that she compromised her life, and hence she advises her daughter to complete what she herself wanted in her life.

So, even if there are almost no differences between the wife and her husband, wife's mother often convinces the wife that she should separate from her husband. Often fights ensue. But, on a long run the wife gets brainwashed by her mother and gets separated, files 498a.

When she realises what she has done, it becomes too late.

I have seen cases where not only mothers, but also sisters and friends of a girl wreaking her the marriage just by constant brainwashing.

If a woman shares her minor problems in marriage with a sister or friend who is a feminist, then these people will project all interpretations in her mind such that the minor problem becomes a severe one and the marriage totally collapses.

9) It is very difficult for me to believe that women face constant abuse in their life from in-laws and from society (compared to men). Because, when I look at suicide statistics, about 20% more men commit suicide compared to women due to family reasons.

That means in family men get abused more than women.

If the abuse story of women is true, then 5 times women compared to men would have been committing suicide "due to family reasons". But, this is certainly not the case.

source: http://ncrb.nic.in/adsi2005/suicidal05.pdf




#144
FF
July 17, 2007
03:10 AM

Siffer in 138.. I kind of disagree with you because no matter what every person has right to get protected from abuse. Just because women in past endured abuse is no ground that women today should do too. However I agree with you that there is a need to define abuse more precisely.

If you are basing your argument in the premise that every act of abuse will start getting reported as abuse, then that is probably not the case. What essentially happens is that as long as women want to stay in marriage, they will ignore every "so called" abuse just to stay in marriage and ironically at times even more severe form of abuse go unpunished. However when women do not want to stay in marriage then even a minor conflict of interest is classified as abuse. The basic assumption to let abuse get legally defined in terms of aggrieved's statement is flawed.

In all sincerity I want only physical abuse to be included in the preview of law...not because one has no right to protect himself from verbal abuse, but because

1. In almost all cases, before a verbal abuse assumes a draconian form, it invariably involves an accompanying physical abuse.

2. Physical abuse is more easily identifiable and more amenable to be proven or disproven in court of law.

3. Women are more powerful doing "Quid pro quo" when confronted verbally.

#145
Sumanth
July 17, 2007
03:36 AM

Aditi,

---You wrote------
I have always believed that there is an upside to everything and so it was that this brutal onslaught brought on by the SIFF members forced me to wonder what it was that had made them so bitter towards feminism.
---

Have you ever thought of brutal onslaught brought against men and masculinity in media and literature by feminists, who are in no way different from you?

This stereotyping by feminists has resulted in a situation in our society, where every man is judged and condemned as guity.

That is not a nice comfortable feeling for many men who go miles towards being sensitive to women and their needs. There are men who listen to their wives and girl friends for hours patiently as the females pour their real and imaginary sorrows. There are men, who never expect even an ounce from the wife or girl friend.

How appropriate is it to judge men and masculinity in harsh way with false data, rumours and myths?

Aditi, do not you feel that it is very easy to stereotype all men and get away with it?

You may claim that you have seen many men who are not MCPs. But, is that the language used by feminists?

How often feminists put a disclaimer "it is inappropriate to judge all men"?

What I want to hear from you is: "Feminism does not stereotype and judge men"?

What I want to hear from you is:"There is no onslaught on men by feminism and men will gain from feminism".

Then explain me, how and what men can gain from feminism.

#146
Sumanth
July 17, 2007
03:41 AM

Aditi,

You wrote:
------------------
But surely chauvinism wouldn't be motivation enough for these people to be on a public forum ranting like this.
------------------

Are not feminists ranting against men and terming them as MCPs when any man rises any issue related to abuse of laws?

It is disturbing for men as well, when they hear the rants of feminists like all men are criminals or men are trapped in male ego.

See, the distance from my house to your house is same as the distance of your house from my house.


#147
Sumanth
July 17, 2007
03:47 AM

Aditi,

You wrote:
"With changing times, women have careers, they now are conditioned to voice their needs and their preferences. The lack of proper dialogue within a marriage, interference from in-laws, breakdown of communication are all seen as causes of emotional and mental distress. How does a woman deal with this distress?"

Why do you think men do not face interference from in-laws?

How many Career women are looking after their in-laws? Why do not you see that mother-in-law or a mother of a woman may be actually looking after her children and cooks for a career woman?

Emotional distress can happen to both genders. Is not it? Are you open to even discuss about it?

If you are open to discuss about emotional distress of both genders, how often do you think media talks about emotional distress of men in marriage?

Do you think it is healthy for a marriage or a woman if her husband/boyfriend is in emotional distress and he can go no where?

Do you know, men who are in emotional distress for a prolonged period can commit suicide and can severely abuse people who cause that emotional distress (because every man is a hunter and he gets into fight-flight very easily compared to a woman)?

#148
Siffer
July 17, 2007
03:56 AM

Aditi,


You wrote:
----------------
It was convenient for many an NRI man to hop on a plane and return with a wife who could cook for him and fill the loneliness of life in a foreign country.
----------------

Is not this statement highly judgemental and offensive?

A woman married to an NRI can study in an university, can do social work, can get herself integrated to local culture. She can also work once he has a green card. Most NRI men have green cards.

Girls from my family are married to NRIs and they study, do social work or work in companies. Many of them reached the countries as dependents.

So, how appropriate is it to blame everything on the NRI men and stereotype them in Indian media?


#149
Siffer
July 17, 2007
04:00 AM

Aditi,

You wrote:
-----------------
But frankly, no matter how touched and how affected I am by somebody's testimony, I always like to maintain that there is another side to the story.
-----------------

Wlll you accept that there is another side to story for every domestic violence or intimate partner violence accusations?

Does society and feminists accept the male side of the story ever?

Does Govt fund research for even collecting data on domestic violence from the "otherside"?

Are you interested in otherside in general or just because the otherside is the the feminist cause?


#150
vishnu
July 17, 2007
05:51 AM

hi feminist

//*********And you say that most wives file cases to get money extorted from you. LIAR. Kindly do not use big words because you know them. Please tell in which case who got the extortion, name the woman, name the family, whats the harm?**************//

first of all thanks for you comments..giving your valuable time for to reply my comment. I am not saying that men didn't do all the things..you specified in your post.men who are doing such nasty things..must be punished and they need to booked under the 498a and DV act,ok. so please don't get angry on my comments that by assuming your self i am denying these facts.

But what i am saying is irrespective of the gender the person who committed the crime must be punished.And you asked me..

///**** where do you find these...?*****//

huh..go to google, and type 498a mis use, battered husbands... you will find what ever you need.

my dear feminist..what ever you study in the daily news papers is the story of one side,there is another story..which has not told by the news papers..

http://telegraphindia.com/1070104/asp/bengal/story_7218368.asp

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-351520,curpg-6.cms
i can post more links..but the settings not allowing me to post too many urls..so better search the google and youtube with the keywords..

don't you believe see the interview of the renuka choudary's interview with karan thapar..in ibnlive. you will find it in the youtube.com

Did you call me as LIAR,please keep your feminist hand and tongue under control madam.
if you want to call me as liar..first confirm that what ever i told is not true..

you don't know the people who misuse law, that means there are no woman in India that misusing it, how did you came to that opinion.

//*********All of you guys have sob sob fake stories of how so called false cases were filed, show us one case where a false case was filed with the intention of extortion and the wife got it? One case, one link with proof.***********//

yeah..we are liars and story tellers...,don't have work,we are here to waste our time with these stories....uffff..madam please don't say that these are fake stories..because the y are men's huge cry for help in a critical situations...

ok tell me how can we believe that all the statistics shown until now related to violence against woman are genuine..how can you say that they are not fabricated stories..

...why courts declared the 498a is the most abused provision in the law?

...why supreme court declared as 498a became as legal terrorism?

haven't you heard these things...they are also saying stories...when they became story writers, if you know please tell me.

/*********Don't use the BIG WORDS*******//

why should not i use the big words...is feminist took the patent rights for big words..don't you know how many big words that feminist use against men...

some words are shameful and can't use in front of the public..but they used them frequently..do you need proof for this one also...go and read any feminist article..




#151
FF
July 17, 2007
07:15 AM

http://www.rediff.com/getahead/2007/jul/17msg.htm

rediff asks its readers about live-ins.

#152
Aditi Nadkarni
July 17, 2007
10:15 AM

#139: Vishnu:

I am runnin to be somewhere so just very quickly lemme clarify:

"very sad. I am really depressed after reading this comment... she deserved to misuse 498a"

You misunderstood! I did say deserve to misuse 498A I said if she misused section 498A she deserved to have her divorce withheld! I dunno if my sentence was a bit complicated but I wouldn't say that anybody deserved to have section any law misused.

#144 FF: I feel a new found respect for you!

Sumanth: I wish I could've clarified some of your points but when you start telling me that I don't who I am its a bit worrisome.

You said: "Do you know you are a radical feminist to the core?"

Apparently you think so no matter what I think I am. So I cant really have a discussion with you. Thanks for your comments nonetheless.

#153
Aditi Nadkarni
July 17, 2007
10:40 AM

#152: Correction :D

Typo in sentence above:

"I did say deserve to misuse 498A I said if she misused section 498A she deserved to have her divorce withheld!"

It was meant to be :

"I DID NOT say deserve to misuse 498A I said if she misused section 498A she deserved to have her divorce withheld!"

Siffer #148: "A woman married to an NRI can study in an university, can do social work, can get herself integrated to local culture. She can also work once he has a green card. Most NRI men have green cards"

Sure! BUT the ssumption of a green card is a very big one because at least 80 % of the women I have met who came here in that manner were on an H4 dependent visa which doesnt allow a woman to work. You say most NRI men have green cards :) Most NRI men you met had green cards? Becoz most NRI men I've met have had work visas. I agree, the women can do a lot of things once they are here. I'm not sure why you bring that up. The question isnt whether "Do all couples who marry within 5 weeks and return to the US have problems?" THE QUESTION I try to address is "Are they at a greater risk of facing such issues becoz they couldnt take time to get to know each other better?"

If you guys truly wish to protect men/ families from being accused falsely of section 498A or Dv then shouldnt you be advocating a well-thoughtout pre-marriage precautionary process where both parties get to discuss and decide their goals, take time to know each other where personality quirks become more apparent. 5 weeks doesnt seem like enough time.

You also said: "Wlll you accept that there is another side to story for every domestic violence or intimate partner violence accusations?"

Pls refer to comment #125.

*****You guys havent read some of my comments or even the whole article otherwise it wouldve become apparent to you that this article is not pro-women or pro-men it is only pro-discussions and reasonable time for marriage. If you are truly concerned about saving indian family structure you guys should be pro-that issue as well. I wonder why you dont want people to think, plan and take time before marriage? How does it weaken your approach? I hope somebody can explain this to me.*******


I'll be back to answer some of your questions!

Later

#154
Jay
July 17, 2007
10:57 AM

It is sad to watch such a good article being torn apart by oversimplification just for vested agendas.

Siffer 148 says So, how appropriate is it to blame everything on the NRI men and stereotype them in Indian media?

Where has she blamed NRI men for everything? Those are just examples for god's sakes or is that something you cannot see?

She has stated examples of men being victims of abuse in comment 125 but do u see that? Nah. You just take what u want and try n portray her as anti-men/ radical etc when I being a guy, who is neither feminist nor SIFF can see very clearly that she is not a radical person. Her views are very balanced and she is always willing to hear people out eventhough frankly sometimes I wish she would ignore some people.

The article asked a simple question: "Will the emergence of such stringent laws change the face of marriage?"

you guys cudve discussed with good logic and proved your credibility instead some of you go on tangents just so u can prove the author to be radical somehow even if she's not n then claim victory.

Isnt that dumb? Grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#155
Sumanth
July 17, 2007
11:17 AM

Vishnu,

Feminists have got the patent to Lie.

In Lying they will dwarf the Nazi Propaganda Machine by 100 counts.

A complete book is written in US only on the lies propagated by feminists. Feminists there have no answers at all for all the hypocrisy that is exposed.

The book is: "Who Stole Feminism? How women betrayed women" by Christina Hoff Sommers.

People across the world are fed up with their lies and nuisance.

A huge movement started in US to alert people and media when feminists spread a rumour. It is Media RADAR

One of our sisters (a senior member of SIFF) is an editor of Media Radar.

These feminist creatures have fattened themselves with tax payers money worldwide. So, they rant and propagate their lies to sustain the flow of funds.

They also divide themselves into a large number of categories to create excused to evade any questions.

Most feminists are irrational angry women filled with hate towards men and towards society.

So, these women never get satisfied even when Governments and men keep meeting all their demands.

The more their demands are met, the more their demands increase. If you question them, they you are a MCP, anti-feminist dowry murderer.

If they have such noble goals of humanity, then why the have to stoop to such a low that they keep lying?

No meaningful discussion or agreement can ever be reached with feminists. Because, they are fascists to the core with a single point agenda to teach everyone a lesson.

This article itself is a proof of all that hypocrisy, one-sided claims and stereotyping of men, mothers-in-law, NRIs.

Any feminist is very good at sugarcoat a story with humanism and then embed the judgements and stereotypes inside.

So, this is a long battle. As most men are overconfident fools, they keep shallowing all the sugar coated feminist pills. The day, their ass burns with a false "harassment at workplace" or similar case, they come to SIFF being depressed cursing the female, who did all that to him without realising that there is a massive international conspiracy behind it.

The present feminist propaganda is that a woman will be happy, if she gets separated from a husband with whom she has differences. Even feminist NGOs egg on the woman, provoke her to start a showdown even though the differences may be as minor as how to share the car which going to workplace.

Feminists know very well that any separation is often painful and they train the woman to blame the man entirely for the differences, the separation and the resultant pain.

The pain during separation can stop many women from marrying or getting into relationship in future. The patriarchal parents of many women stop asking her for remarriage, if she has a kid.

So, in a way, feminists betray women by misguiding them. When a woman calls a feminist sister or a feminist friend and tells about her husband who has suddenly gone silent, the first thing that comes to a feminist's mind is, he must be having an affair and she puts that how logic into the mind of the innocent women.

So, every feminist is a danger to the society because they have no patience, common sense, honesty or rational thinking. Even when they behave honestly, their aim is to sugar coat something sinister deep inside.

Since last 2 years millions of men and women have woken up to the damage done by feminists. But, feminists are brainwashing young girls at a much faster rate with their lies by controlling media.

So, its a long way to go. But, it is a battle worth fighting as it is the battle against dishonesty and fascism.


#156
Sumanth
July 17, 2007
11:50 AM

Jay,

You asked,
---------------
"Isnt that dumb? Grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
---------------

I Sumant would like to say that I am dumb and I do not want to grow up.

I have seen enough number of grown up people and their misdeeds and hence I do not want to grow up.

Now, do what you want to do.

You know, by being dumb, I achieved more than being grown up. I saved marriages.

If our dumbness can can save innocent elders from jail or unborn children from getting killed, then we will remain dumb.

Because, the grown ups are capable of nothing.

I was a male-feminist. Even today, I am inspired by feminists. I and SIFFer are doing the same things that feminists did always.

But, grown up people like you will not see any concept being screwed up by feminists with constant misrepresenation. You will only get concerned, when someone screws up a feminist's nice article.

I am not religious conservative. But, when Sita and Radha are picturised as lesbians by feminists, then it is freedom of expression.

Why are not you extending the same freedom to us when we picturise this article as biased continuation of stereotyping of NRIs and mothers-in-law?

See, the facts in this article are nothing new in any case. All that Aditi has asked or talked about was written thousand times by feminists in media and literature.

Finally, I reiterate we will remain dumb and we will not grow up.

When the people like Union Ministers, NCW and Parliament members do not want to grow up, whats the point in we a bunch of techies, managers or NRIs growing up?

When grown up smart feminists with Phds can break chairs in a high court, we have lost hope on grown ups.

So, we will not grow up. In yahoogroup saveindianfamily, we have 2310 members as of now. It is the world's biggest Yahoogroup on Divorce.

So, we do not care about half-baked copy-past work by Aditi.

Misleading innocents based on lies and stereotyping is the hobby of feminists. So, we will identify all these feminists in blogosphere and in Media and spray SIFF-DDT on them.

We will do all the things to them which they have done to others. We are just showing them their mirror image.

Once, these 10,000 feminists in blogosphere, media and literature are neutralised, then some sanity will prevail.

#157
Sumanth
July 17, 2007
11:51 AM

Jay,

You asked,
---------------
"Isnt that dumb? Grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
---------------

I Sumant would like to say that I am dumb and I do not want to grow up.

I have seen enough number of grown up people and their misdeeds and hence I do not want to grow up.

Now, do what you want to do.

You know, by being dumb, I achieved more than being grown up. I saved marriages.

If our dumbness can can save innocent elders from jail or unborn children from getting killed, then we will remain dumb.

Because, the grown ups are capable of nothing.

I was a male-feminist. Even today, I am inspired by feminists. I and SIFFer are doing the same things that feminists did always.

But, grown up people like you will not see any concept being screwed up by feminists with constant misrepresenation. You will only get concerned, when someone screws up a feminist's nice article.

I am not religious conservative. But, when Sita and Radha are picturised as lesbians by feminists, then it is freedom of expression.

Why are not you extending the same freedom to us when we picturise this article as biased continuation of stereotyping of NRIs and mothers-in-law?

See, the facts in this article are nothing new in any case. All that Aditi has asked or talked about was written thousand times by feminists in media and literature.

Finally, I reiterate we will remain dumb and we will not grow up.

When the people like Union Ministers, NCW and Parliament members do not want to grow up, whats the point in we a bunch of techies, managers or NRIs growing up?

When grown up smart feminists with Phds can break chairs in a high court, we have lost hope on grown ups.

So, we will not grow up. In yahoogroup saveindianfamily, we have 2310 members as of now. It is the world's biggest Yahoogroup on Divorce.

So, we do not care about half-baked copy-past work by Aditi.

Misleading innocents based on lies and stereotyping is the hobby of feminists. So, we will identify all these feminists in blogosphere and in Media and spray SIFF-DDT on them.

We will do all the things to them which they have done to others. We are just showing them their mirror image.

Once, these 10,000 feminists in blogosphere, media and literature are neutralised, then some sanity will prevail.

#158
SN
July 17, 2007
11:55 AM

By Sumanth: "So, we do not care about half-baked copy-past work by Aditi."
HAHAHAHAHA. Ironic, really! Sumanth is criticizing half-baked copy-paste work by ADITI!!! Hehehehe. This is hilarious.

#159
Jay
July 17, 2007
12:00 PM

157 SUMANTH SAYS: "Finally, I reiterate we will remain dumb and we will not grow up" Wonderful! I think SIF should make this their slogan :D Good luck pal.

#160
FF
July 17, 2007
12:28 PM

Only for "The feminist" in #140...

When you guys who abuse women do not thing.
1) that she is by herself

If you alienate yourself from rest you will always be by yourself and all alone... You got to blame yourself for that...It is not that people in family did not know that you were arriving and that you were going to be part of their family for the rest of life...however there is every chance that you had your mind that you will have your own(self governed setup) in which you would have all teh freedom to do the "Apna Hukum chaloo". Learn to be part of a existing setup and that will help you not only in your married life but also into your professional life.

2) that she has left her family and hopes to be part of urs.
3) when you guys hit her

Do you really think you left your family to join a new family. Think twice err ten times before you make those sweeping statements. If you father or brother was to scold you or punish you one fine day would you go and file a criminal complaint against them too.

4) when you abuse her
5) when you torture her

Oh ho...my dear, you are so innocent you did nothing. You were cinderella. The problem is that all the people around you were mad people and one fine day they thought why not abuse her because that would add flavor to the lunch they will have that day.I see...

6) when you confiscate her salary

They put you on gun point and made you sign a blank cheque. BTW, what do you mean by confiscating. You yourself said you were part of the new family. I have no issues signing a blank cheuqe for my mother, but guess you had serious giving a Rs 1000/- Gift voucher. Why so? Ok i see you are independent woman and that asshole husband is dependent because he gives it to his motehr. Is that the reason that you two behaved differently. See you can talk rationally only if you are not a hypocrite.


7) when she is expected to work 9-6 and come back home and cook

If you are staying alone(say unmarried)...you will still have to cook your entire food after you come from office. You could afford luxury for 5 stars while you are single but not when you have a family. BTW, you were earning handsomely why did not you keep a cook. Arre bhai, is abla nari ka husband yahan kahin hai...Arrey yaar 500 Rupee ki ek naukarani rak deta, why took this headache of courts e.t.c ... Oh God please save me from these damsels in distress...they will effectively convince you why they implicated you in criminal case... Because you did not allow for a Rs 500 bai.


8) after she is abused more for being negligent just in case her food does not taste right

Abused????Ha Ha ha...they beat you black and blue because there was 1 miligram less salt and 1 nano gram more chilli powder in the dal which you and your MIL put on the gas. By the way, i usually point out my mother that this dal is too oily...Gosh i abuse her everyday and my poor mother has to bear all that ABUSE...

9) constantly threatening her to divorce...

Roj Roj ki "chik chik" karogi to kis na kisi din gusey mein koi khe to keh hi dega...


10) always asking for more money

Whew...bhai mere yeh crore patni kahan se utha laya...Inta paise to Raja Kuber ke paas bhi nahin tha...

11) the wife cannot visit her parents, her sick father, mother and her siblings.


Nice imagination...daddy ko "dil ka doora pada" hai, 105 degree ka bukhar bhi hai...aur hubby keh raha hai...chal bartan saf kar...ha na...Aise he hiya that na... Nice script...


12) she cannot help her parents if they have any problems.

What help???...piase dena chahti ho na...Bas yahi to problem hai...Baki sab kuch jo kuch upper likha hai sab bakwas hai...Aasli problem to yahe hai...tum yahan ke paise wahan transfer karna chayati ho...Isliye hi to yeah sab panga hua...

Ab ek baat thandey dimag se batayoo...Please bear cool mind.

See what ever is your husband is your money. You are a 50% legal heir too. Just try to think with some fortitude. Whatever the husband's parent have, one day when they are no more, they surely are not going to donate it to charity(even if they claim they will do so). That money will come to you your husband and your children only. This is very well known to even your husband's parents. They have their "life time savings" and they want to give it back to progeny which includes your husband, you and your children. How do you think can they trust anybody who is laundering that money to elsewhere outside the house. You came to the house and are a member of it. If you start funneling the money out what trust they will have on you to take care of their live time savings. Now if you like adamant feminist tell them that you have your own life and own money and own decisions to make. And then if you start showing strength of what you earn, then do bear in mind that a person who has twice your age has atleast 4 times the money you have...isliya agar us paise ki dhoons dikhaney hai to, nobody will ever want to listen to you...

The only way you can stay happily within family is if you think that you are part of it...You show them you are part of it, they will trust you and then I will bet my yearly salary if they do not love you...You have to realize that they are not interested in collecting money form you but rather want to see how you can preserve what they have earned in their life time and make best use of it, even if you save them a one rupee, the pleasure they will get from it is not that you got some money but the fact that you are so much devoted to house that you will fight for every penny of that house.



See I do not know you, but it looks like if you can see the point I want to make...please get in touch with me, I think we can have this issue sorted between you and your husband and you can start your married life once again.

#161
SN
July 17, 2007
12:46 PM

160 FF But commentator "the feminist" is doing only what you guys are doing: extrapolating personal experiences and converting them into a general image of people. You guys brand every feminist a radical thinker, she has branded every woman, a victim. How are you both different?

Besides some of the things she has stated actually do happen. Its not all make believe. You guys may not have seen some of it but it does happen and as a man I feel responsible/ bad when other guys justify abusive behavior by comparing it to "punishment by a father or brother". I have not seen a 25-25 year old woman being "punished by her father" !!!

We had a couple in the building and the woman worked at the bank while the guy was jobless. He would beat her and we could hear her crying. He would snap at her in front of people for no apparent reason and he wud brag to other people about how he kept his wife in check.

The end product: nobody respected him and his children refuse to care for him after his wife died of a stroke after working and taking his crap for years.

Lets not stamp men or women by our own experiences.

1) So FF just becoz you saw a woman who was being dramatic/ falsely accusing someone doesnt mean all women are like that.

2) Similarly if commentator "the feminist" has seen men who are abusive doesnt mean all men are like that. The prejuidce goes both ways.

#162
Anon
July 17, 2007
01:00 PM

The dumbo duo of 158 and 159 are kicking each other. They think they know all about women in distress.

They know family and marriage is bloody archaic, screwed up social establishment and they always wonder why the hell marriage existed for so long. See, We are educated , scientific, liberal beings who have concluded the truth about how marriage and women empowerment are mutually exclusive and now everybody should toe our line of thinking.

Let us try to analyze their logic...

Marriage was a religious concept from vedic times. Hinduism is a religion. Vedas also belong to hindusism. The concept of caste system and Sati have some semblance to Hinduism which of course we do not know clearly. But, so what?

So Hinduism is bad. Marriage is Bad.
Hence proved...Idiots...

please relieve this society of the burden of your minds. Society is little more complex that class II addition of 2+2.

#163
Vinod
July 17, 2007
01:02 PM

With all the bawling and sniveling by Sumanth I have one thing to say about his claims ie they are all of his spurious tactics.

He says they are devils advocate. Let me put it in simple words. A guy goes to them ,the following questions are asked:

1) Does your wife work?
2) Does she come late from work?
3) Does she have a boyfriend?
4) Does she not cook?
5) Does she have signs of being demented?
6) Does she not share her salary with you?
7) And any other stupid questions? Please feel free to use your imagination.

Also please feel free to call one of the helplines numbers, drop in at one of the meetings and check it out.

He says he does not want to grow up, yes, because he does not want to take responsibility or take onus for his actions.

He says he has 2310 members in his yahoogroup where he is a moderator. Let me tell you readers that half of the members have left the group and the other half are dummy members, and some are members to collect money and some are lawyers who want to make a quick buck by offering legal advices. It is not surprising that he being a member has done no investigation on his own yahoogroup. Maybe he has and does not want to accept facts. And that is a mental problem and that is not to accept truth and construe it as it appeals to him. It is a state of psychosomatic.

He thinks by repeating the same trash again and again and throwing it on people's faces some day it will sound like the truth. But that does not happen. It may happen with his students-the siffers who follow his instructions from all over the world with no brains.



#164
Vinod
July 17, 2007
01:03 PM


His comments in 157 where he wants to spray DDT spray on feminists and neutralize them sound like none other than what the Talibanis have done to women for several decades. Toruture them and kill them if the need be.

feminists in blogosphere, media and literature are neutralised, then some sanity will prevail.
we will identify all these feminists in blogosphere and in Media and spray SIFF-DDT on them.


He wants to create another Taliban..well good luck, that will not happen in this lifetime rest assured.



#165
Vinod
July 17, 2007
01:03 PM

I loathe siffers who are negligent fathers and want to make their minor child commit( in return to be taken care in old age) before paying child support as ruled by Sumanth( in another link). Did the irresponsible fathers first ask the child before bringing him to the world? Conditions galore in relationships huh? Monetary as well.

He invented these statistics out of thin air and is trying forced it down the throat of the whole country.

I hate people who lie.
I hate masculists/ dowry takers/siffers because they lie and publish half truths.
I hate masculists/ dowry takers/siffers because they kill children (unborn children) and leave them to be raised by the wife.
I hate masculists/ dowry takers/siffers, who hate everything feminine.
Murderers and Terrorists must be stopped at any cost.

Life is a Mirror. Hate will produce Hate. Life will come a full circle---wait until the late 30s hits you. No escaping it...in fact a few siffers have already been hit and have committed suicide and tried to commit suicide as well. Check it out. Isolating your offspring when you are in 28 29 30 is possible, easy...but the guilt builds up slowly and hits so hard later on, that suicide is the only option.




#166
FF
July 17, 2007
01:10 PM

But commentator "the feminist" is doing only what you guys are doing: extrapolating personal experiences and converting them into a general image of people

What extrapolation? many husband and families go to jail is hard fact...they spend sleepless haunted nights is also hard fact...Menu suffer and commit more suicides than women in their life is also a documented hard fact...Dowry is a myth is also a hard fact...(Even Madhu keshewar a woman who has worked for the cause of women for 30 years agrees with me)...What is your point?

#167
Anon
July 17, 2007
01:59 PM

"He says they are devils advocate. Let me put it in simple words. A guy goes to them ,the following questions are asked:

1) Does your wife work?
2) Does she come late from work?
3) Does she have a boyfriend?
4) Does she not cook?
5) Does she have signs of being demented?
6) Does she not share her salary with you?
7) And any other stupid questions? Please feel free to use your imagination."

Yeah right!

#168
Vinod
July 17, 2007
02:08 PM

Try it!
The same is even disclosed by Binoy and the rantings of the above are all of the this website by each and every siffer.

Per Sumanth, it is called self-defence strategy. I have NP with that. But quit calling yourselves the saveindianfamily bugs.

What you guys want---
1) Aditi to shut up
2) To spray DDT on Aditi and her likes
3) Shut all feminists up
4) Eradicate all women oriented laws that are actually nothing else but saveindianwomen.

#169
Anon
July 17, 2007
02:12 PM

Why are you so bothered about what Siffers call themselves? Let the world find out on its own what SIF is about and what Siffers want.

#170
Vinod
July 17, 2007
02:27 PM

Why am I bothered? Why are you bothered with what I say? Go get a life Mr Anon --the valueless who likes to butt in with no significant input but carry on petty wiles in a feeble attempt to drive the attention towards the non-existent you.

The entire world knows what happend to the Talibans and in DC we know what is NOW Devil's advocate strategy.

Btw...how many years do you want to prove your point or make changes--50 years, 100 years. Pick one and make it your goal. Please come back tomorrow with updated statistics ( not half baked) with links and proof .

#171
A.K.Rathor
July 17, 2007
02:29 PM

Yesterday, I watched the movie - 'Zewar'.
Its a must see request to every one.
Its a clean movie without any masala.

#172
A.K.Rathor
July 17, 2007
02:33 PM

And this hindi movie is related to the topic of discussion.

#173
Anon
July 17, 2007
02:48 PM

Vinod,

You seem to be too worried about SIF and Siffers. Regardless of what your reasons may be you definitely help spread their word. In any case you do seem to believe (and it must be flattering for Siffers to know) that SIF has the ability to bring changes in the existing laws or stopping any new laws which essentially violate basic human rights of citizens. You really believe that Siffers, who are just common citizens, will be able to undo the damage that well-funded feminists in powerful positions have done so far? I don't think anyone can undo this damage for many decades. If you are worried about introduction of provisions to punish people filing false cases, you can rest assured that it will not happen anytime soon. Siffers definitely draw attention to the feminist fraud, unfair laws and the damages inflicted by feminists on the society, which seems to be bothering you most.

#174
Vinod
July 17, 2007
02:51 PM

I am not amazed that likes of such titles( zewar, paisa, makhan, dowry, money, cash) attract your attention.

Also check out " yeh aag kabb bujegi" produced and directed by Late Sunil Dutt ( actor, politician and MP) . Highly recommended! It was given 5 stars when it was released.

#175
Vinod
July 17, 2007
02:55 PM

Anon--

Pick a goal 50 years or 100 years and work towards it.
DV act was introduced last year when you guys were around too

No I am not bothered but you are definitely. I will not help you in spreading the word. But I do believe the SIF is nothing but a gay group as many of your members have admitted in the past. The only reason they marry is because they wanted to keep their parents happy , bring the dowry via a wife and expect her to shut up. But when the secrets are revealed, it blows out. Which is another aspect that needs urgent attention

#176
Anon
July 17, 2007
03:02 PM

"DV act was introduced last year when you guys were around too"

Yes, the passage of DV Act behind everyone's back without public consensus or discussion indeed proved that the common man cannot stop powerful feminists from trampling on their rights. Exactly my point.

#177
Vinod
July 17, 2007
03:41 PM

Yeah right, absolutely right, totally right, more than right, fully right, 100% right,

...without public consensus Did you fear someone would ask you for statistics again? LOL LOL LOL.
In anycase you still need to provide source for your consensus....to prove your exact point

#178
Anon
July 17, 2007
04:15 PM

Plenty of evidence has already been furnished for the benefit of readers in DC and other forums not just by Siffers but also by others who bothered to understand how the DV Act was formulated and imposed on citizens of India. Anyone who has eyes to look at the truth and a brain to process the truth is already aware of what's going on. The rest might just realize how sharp the bamboo is when the bamboo is through...

#179
SN
July 17, 2007
04:24 PM

FF: "What extrapolation? many husband and families go to jail is hard fact...they spend sleepless haunted nights is also hard fact...Menu suffer and commit more suicides than women in their life is also a documented hard fact...Dowry is a myth is also a hard fact...(Even Madhu keshewar a woman who has worked for the cause of women for 30 years agrees with me)"

Many women suffer abuse becoz they fear the social stigma of divorce and due to children thats a HARD fact. They too must spend sleepless nights, that is a HARD fact. Suicide is not comparable to being tied, have keroscene doused on you and being burnt alive for some money. Thats a HARD fact. Madhu Keshwar in her article DOES NOT say that dowry is a "myth" (that would be ridiculous). She states that the problem of dowry is misunderstood. Why would an entire nation create a myth of people who ask for money from the bride's parents? Why don't such myths exist in other nations....according to you there are feminists there as well. Dowry exists and there are plenty of shameless people who ask for money from the bride's parents. You don't know about these cases becoz u r too busy fixated on your own. THATS A HARD FACT> So HARD that you have trouble accepting it!!


In many villages, rural areas, even in cities people demand a certain amount. I have friends who have sisters and are looking for a groom for them. Educated people ask for dowry/ seed money for business/ house etc. Don't tell me about Madhu Keshwar, my own experiences tell me differently. If I was arguing with Madhu Keshwar I would tell her that too. It might help her research.

Becoz you got accused falsely doesnt mean all other cases are false.

#180
Anon
July 17, 2007
04:32 PM

Yes, men and women perpetrate domestic abuse. Men and women suffer domestic abuse. Hence, men and women need help, support and protection from domestic abuse.

#181
Vinod
July 17, 2007
04:45 PM

The law was not imposed never imposed. It was passed in the parliament by legal voting.

I hope you know India is a free country.


I am the reader of DC and I am Indian. I voted and supported the law as well and many others and thats why the law came into existence.

Get your basics right if you have the eyes, brains.

Not only on this forum but all other forums you all were ridiculed and spanked. Do you want links?

The rest who ask for dowry or abuse deserve the bamboo in jail and by everyone, that too hardly. Serves you right! You have no evidence to support any of your claims, none, zilch, nothing and never will. Beucase ppl like you who are on the run never can provide any evidence leave alone their name. Your numbers, statistics come out from your mouth anytime, anywhere and it is the scenario of foot in the mouth.

#182
Vinod
July 17, 2007
04:56 PM

SN,

You got almost everything right. None of them are falsely accused. I strongly believe that none of them were falsely implicated. The language of innocent is not the above. All of them are women haters and even hate the brothers of these women. Time and again they have justified taking dowry and think it is a norm. Time and again , they have justified not paying child support. Most of them are have red alert notices on them . They are wanted crimnials in India. Why do not they go back and fight their case. Why did they indulge in NRI fradulant marriages which is such a big racket? Why do they demand things and think it is their right? An innocent man never looses his humbleness and does not turn into a woman hater.

From post to post their story changes and they love the loose number games with no accurate references or evidence. After all money-money is their fav topic and then they have their bamboo time, it hurts them, they scream.

#183
Vinod
July 17, 2007
05:02 PM


Even the talibans knew how to justify their cause and called it 'upliftment of women" and called themselves " the protectors of women" . Talk about irony and hypocrisy! Being a man myself I can totally comprehend their insecurities, anxieties and fears. Plus, I have the personal experience of interacting with them and quite a few stories on them. It is all about the avaricious power game--which is dangerous. Example Hitler, OBL and Saddam



#184
Siffer
July 17, 2007
05:05 PM

Caution: Feminists at work (desperately trying to save face post-Pooja Chauhan fiasco).

#185
DesiMenReadingDC
July 17, 2007
05:39 PM

Dear SIFFERS,

I am not pro-498A/ DV laws etc. I am a man and I have sisters and a mom. I also think that laws sometimes are unjust and can be abused. So dont go attacking me immediately. Let me explain something. Pls read the following points:

1) The problem with you is that you guys see "feminist agenda" in EVERYTHING (movie/book reviews, religious discussion, personal history and GOD HELP US even fiction!!!). And then you swoop down on discussions ruining all logic with your indiscrimate criticism of anything remotely FEMALE.

2) I know several people who read DC articles and they all find your presence here EXTREMELY distracting, non-informative, belligerent and disruptive. Frankly, you are somewhat of a joke.

If one of us gets angry without reason we call him a SIFFER. Its sad actually. Why? Becoz:

3) This not only is bad for you but for all those other men who may have been falsely accused of these laws and need you all to represent their issue better.

4) We are educated people, men, women both, who can stick to the topic of discussion and bring our own perspectives which this author Aditi has never refused to see even if they go against her own. You still tag her as "radical" So in our mind, YOU are the radical ones. Not her. She DOES NOT fight with you, DOES NOT return your offenses.

5) As far as I can tell this article is NOT about Pooja Chauhan, feminism, anti-male, radical sexism and ALL THE OTHER STUFF YOU KEEP BRINGING UP. The author is asking if people should give plenty thought and discussion before marriage. So the questions are:

a) Do you guys think people should jump into matrimony without discussions and thinking?

b) If so pls tell us and justify your thinking if possible.

But FOR THE SAKE OF SOME GOOD, HEALTHY DISCUSSIONS don't just kick up a fit over things NOBODY else except u can see. YOU ARE RUINING DISCUSSIONS!

THIS IS A SINCERE REQUEST: PLEASE DO US ALL A FAVOR AND FORGIVE THE HUMAN RACE FOR THE TROUBLE YOU FACED DUE TO ABUSED LAWS AND TRY TO ADHERE TO THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. WE KNOW ITS DIFFICULT FOR YOU, BUT TRY!!!

#186
Kumar
July 17, 2007
06:09 PM

Siffer

If you call Pooja Chauhan a fiasco it speaks volumes of your narrow minded ruthless perceptive. There is another link for her on this website, go there and face the truth. Currently dragging her into this link is a sign of defeat when you have fallen short of statistics, evidences and no face to face the reality a zillionth time out here--which is a routine now. So tell me
what kind of red alert notice do you have on yourself,
how much dowry did you take,
what was your rate as an NRI man,
did you also lie to your wife while marrying her in India that she can work here and conveniently forgot to tell her that she will be on a h4 visa( and its limitations),
that she had to sacrifice her career,
sit at home and cook for you,
be at your mercy,
watch TV all day long,
well well since you forgot, now you have an arrest warrant on you right? I have seen how guys who come on h1 visa, first try their best to lure green card holder girls, ABDC girls and these girls do not give them time and attention. After being rejected several times, these h1 guys go to India and throw their h1 status around, misuse it and misrepresent it. Everyone knows who are responsible for Nri fraudulent marriages racket here in usa. Even now the siffers take the cake , credit away You guys have given such a bad name to the rest of us. When I go India, I make sure I take my wife with me lest people assume that I have trapped her up in the big house here.



#187
Siffer
July 17, 2007
06:17 PM

"things NOBODY else except u can see."

Yes, DesiMenReadingD, it is because a lot of people are unable to see what we are seeing that it will take a long time to combat the problems we are talking about.

#188
Siffer
July 17, 2007
06:38 PM

Also, please try to take it in your stride when you think discussions are getting ruined. It definitely cannot be harder than people's lives getting ruined because of misuse of laws. You can always post a message to put the discussion back on track.

Until the day there is enough public uproar that the ruling powers will be forced to change the status quo and ensure justice to men and women equally you can probably tolerate your fellow Indian brothers and sisters troubling you this way.

#189
Josse( desi pundit)
July 17, 2007
07:15 PM

..tolerate your fellow Indian brothers and sisters troubling you this way.

Please refrain from calling me your brother. I have no such intentions to call criminals like you my brother whatsoever.
My logic is simple, one who mistreated his wife, beat his wife and only cares for monetary gains is not deemed fit to be anyones brother.
I am rich guy, next you know you might kill me to gain my property.
Spare me...


#190
Josse( desi pundit)
July 17, 2007
07:18 PM

Kindly note:

There is public uproar already but not againt the laws , AGAINST you siffers--the wanted ones!

#191
ravi
July 17, 2007
10:47 PM

vinode

#163
I hate people who lie.
I hate masculists/ dowry takers/siffers because they lie and publish half truths.
I hate masculists/ dowry takers/siffers because they kill children (unborn children) and leave them to be raised by the wife.
I hate masculists/ dowry takers/siffers, who hate everything feminine.
Murderers and Terrorists must be stopped at any cost.

hi vinode good story lines man go and try in bollywood...you will definitely honoured..

nobody here told that they hate females but you are the person told that you hate musculites/dowry takers/siffers...no problem, keep hating.

we least bother about you...
and you call them half knoledge person..tell me
what is the full knoledge, do you have full knolede..? really..? are you sure..? lock kiya jaye..?

#163 Life is a Mirror. Hate will produce Hate.

you are write vinode..that's why these femininst like you..geeting it reverse..

#163
And murders and terrorists stop at any cost..

these family murderers who use 498a to murder the family's pride further total family..

and the legal terrorists who mis use it must be stopped..

you said right.


#192
charan
July 17, 2007
10:58 PM

vinode
#163 He thinks by repeating the same trash again and again and throwing it on people's faces some day it will sound like the truth. But that does not happen. It may happen with his students-the siffers who follow his instructions from all over the world with no brains.

what are you thinking, if you people call a truth as trash repeatedly then it will become trash..?, truth is the truth. how many times you ask, that many times you will get the same because it is truth. Every one listen the truth and find themselves it is truth except the people like you..

#193
charan
July 17, 2007
11:06 PM

vinode
#164 he want to create another taliban.

talibans are treated as evils because they impose the laws on woman...but what happened in india those type of laws are used on men and these feminists praising it as a good law..Oh my god.



#194
Vinod
July 17, 2007
11:09 PM

Charan,

What are you trying to say. Please do not get excited. Call one of your helpline numbers, relax and then come back.

I am sorry I upset you

#195
ravi
July 17, 2007
11:23 PM

vinode
#163
in fact a few siffers have already been hit and have committed suicide and tried to commit suicide as well. Check it out. Isolating your offspring when you are in 28 29 30 is possible, easy...but the guilt builds up slowly and hits so hard later on, that suicide is the only option.

A few siffers...!!!!!!!!!!???????????


Over 52 thousand married Indian men forced to commit suicide in 2005

Suicide Statistics by NCRB India

Married MALE Suicide = 52483
Married FEMALE Suicide = 28188

on 498a mis use...

According to Centre of Social Research Out of Every 100 cases where arrests of family members of Husbands (Including mother father and even pregnant sisters in some cases) only 2 cases are found genuine rest are either motivated or fabricated or not sufficient enough to prove. that is only 2/100 cases are true 98/100 are not proven as per the charges.

Data from Right to Information Act (2005) for year 2004:
Nos of Cases registered: 58,319
Nos of Cases Dismissed at chargesheet level: 10,491 (18%)
Nos of Cases Chargesheeted on face value of complain: 47,828 (82%)
Nos of Cases Where the accused were not guilty(Acquitted): 24,127 (41%)
Nos of cases where the charges were genuine(Convicted): 5739 (9.8%)
rest of the cases are going on...and this happens every year.

people like you are firing on us, show the statistics...these are enough..or you want more..

ANY FEMINIST OR ANY PRO-FEMINIST OR ANY ONE PROVE THESE ARE NOT FACTS AND JUST FABRICATED STORIES...

THEN SURE MY FRIENDS..I WILL MAKE MY APOLOGY ON THIS BOARD PUBLICLY BY WRITING A BLOG..HOW I AM MIS GUIDED WITH THESE RESULTS....

AND I JOIN WITH YOU TO FIGHT AGAINST WITH THESE PEOPLE WHO SAID THESE TO ME..

NOW BALL IS IN YOUR COURT PROOVE IT...


#196
Gaurav
July 18, 2007
12:03 AM

Mr Ravi/Charan --same person--who spells Vinode like this
(their helplessness is so evident)

For every male suicide a woman is not responsible

and vice versa

For every women suicide a man is not responsible

There goes your statistics in the gutter. What a brainless logic anyways.

--------------------------------

There are many men who die in India due
**to cheap drugs overdose
**poisonous alcohol
**road side brawls
**accidents when traveling(esp trains and buses)

Do check your local municipal hospitals that when a human being( MAN) who comes in an unconscious state and doctors figure that he is no longer alive and the reason his cheap drug overdose or poisonous alcohol--these deaths are termed as suicide( coz the intake was in a conscious mind). Do personally check and come back.

Accidents---for rash driving be it moter bikes, trucks, cycles, cars or hanging from the local trains dangerously . In India there are more men behind the wheel than women.

Murders----Gang wars, night brawls and many more. It is more men involved in these crimes than woman.

How can you blame women for all of these?

Mere statistics are no bases to judge the authenticity of any allegation

Kindly do not cut copy paste some statistics from orkut, your personal emails and those places.

Prove your statistics with evidences, links.

--------------------------------------------

You guys have your youtube videos of so called false cases which are still pending in court

Name at least 98 names of guys who were dismissed and acquitted.

Just per your insane logic that 98 cases were not proven does not mean the accused was innocent. So was in the case of Jessica Lal where the accused was set free .


98% women are victims of dowry, torture, harassment, misuse of religious laws, verbal abuse, mental abuse, physical abuse in India but these cases never get recorded. We have to spread more awareness. These cases go unreported, to this extent the law is UNDER USED

The supreme court has mentioned that the law "might" be misused but has NOT POINTED ANY ERRORS OR FLAWS IN THE LAW.


My own kin has been a victim of dowry harassment in an upper middle class family and I speak this from personal experience




#197
ravi
July 18, 2007
12:08 AM

vinode

please igonere the #191..

i should not fire on you like that..after all you said you openion....

And concider the #195..

I am very depressed with these statistics, if anybody prove those are wrong i am very thankful to them.

#198
ravi
July 18, 2007
12:50 AM

thnq gaurav

!!!!!There are many men who die in India due
**to cheap drugs overdose
**poisonous alcohol
**road side brawls
**accidents when traveling(esp trains and buses)!!!!!!

what is this, i am talking about suicides not about poison alcohol can you prove that these are termed as suicides...

!!!!!!Do check your local municipal hospitals that when a human being( MAN) who comes in an unconscious state and doctors figure that he is no longer alive and the reason his cheap drug overdose or poisonous alcohol--these deaths are termed as suicide( coz the intake was in a conscious mind). Do personally check and come back.!!!!!!!

thanks for this information..i will check it.

!!!!!!Accidents---for rash driving be it moter bikes, trucks, cycles, cars or hanging from the local trains dangerously . In India there are more men behind the wheel than women.

Murders----Gang wars, night brawls and many more. It is more men involved in these crimes than woman.


There are many men who die in India due
**to cheap drugs overdose
**poisonous alcohol
**road side brawls
**accidents when traveling(esp trains and buses)
!!!!!

did you mean these are also termed as suicides...? stop man..doctors or polices are not fools...to term these are suicides.

i don't want to blame woman for all these. but i am just showing the statistics.that i came to threw some communities..

!!!!!!1For every male suicide a woman is not responsible

and vice versa

For every women suicide a man is not responsible
!!!!!!!

yeah, you are right..i will agree but my question is
why there is a law which states that "if a married woman die in 7 years after marriage the must must prove that he has is not guilty? and they want it for life long period. what these want ?they want to men suffer? according to your theory it should not be there..or it must be applicable to both men and woman?


!!!!!!!!98% women are victims of dowry, torture, harassment, misuse of religious laws, verbal abuse, mental abuse, physical abuse in India but these cases never get recorded. We have to spread more awareness. These cases go unreported, to this extent the law is UNDER USED!!!!!!!

where is the link, where is the proof, pls show me the 98% cases.

you are saying these are under used, may be they are under used, who ever used it, most of the times they misused it.(these statistics shows that)

And you don't want to believe this statistics given by the authority..i can't help.

!!!!!The supreme court has mentioned that the law "might" be misused but has NOT POINTED ANY ERRORS OR FLAWS IN THE LAW.!!!!!

and also the supreme court stated that, make amendments to protect people from this misuse don't you know that..?

and courts termed it as legal terrorism and most abused provision..then isn't it government duty to see these should not be misused?








#199
Gaurav
July 18, 2007
01:17 AM

Both Charan and Ravi..You are depressed (as quoted by you), see a Doctor.

A depressed man can never speak facts or say facts. His power to think is fully over.

Provide proof to your statistics, with evidences and links. Were your statistics validated?

And you cannot fire me on the internet, though I am very sure you fired your wife and she put you in jail for that. Good for you

Data from Right to Information Act (2005) for year 2004:(THIS IS 2007)
Nos of Cases registered: 58,319(ONLY)
Nos of Cases Dismissed at chargesheet level: 10,491 (18%)(HOW MANY COPS WERE BRIBED BY YOU)
Nos of Cases Chargesheeted on face value of complain: 47,828 (82%)(SOME MADE IT)
Nos of Cases Where the accused were not guilty(Acquitted): 24,127 (41%)(LIKE JESSICA MURDER CASE--VERY COMMON IN INDIA)
Nos of cases where the charges were genuine(Convicted): 5739 (9.8%)(WHICH DOES NOT MEANS THE VICTIM COULD NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF)

AND provide links to these above statistcs
AND provide links to these above statistcs
AND provide links to these above statistcs


there...now am sure you are depressed to the core to the point where you will die.

NOW NOW NOW

you provide me with 98 names of SIFFERS who were acquited. or Otherwise apologise!

I don't want to blame woman for all these. but i am just showing the statistics.

Good you agree, but that is still not an apology.
And dont just show statistics, show them with links.

#200
ravi
July 18, 2007
01:37 AM

gaurav

!!!!!!you provide me with 98 names of SIFFERS who were acquited. or Otherwise apologise!!!!!!

show the profs and links for
98% women are victims of dowry, torture, harassment, misuse of religious laws, verbal abuse, mental abuse, physical abuse in India but these cases never get recorded. We have to spread more awareness. These cases go unreported, to this extent the law is UNDER USED.

if these were never recorded how did you came to know these..?

first prove this 98% story. if you don't believe this leave it.why are you feeling much of it.if these are false or right let people decide this. And really want to know there is a ACT, right to information(RTI) go ask them is it false or true..they said that it is false..
THEN I WILL DEFINITELY APOLOGY TO YOU...(NOT ONLY TO YOU FOR ALL PEOPLE PUBLICLY, I ALREADY SAID THIS)
where i attacked you personally tell me..?

!!!!!if you are depressed go and meet a doctor!!!!

oh! thanq very much for the advice.

#201
ravi
July 18, 2007
01:42 AM

!!!!!!and you cannot fire me on the internet, though I am very sure you fired your wife and she put you in jail for that!!!!!!

yeah...i never want to fire on you...you told your views and i told my views.

where is the question of firing?
if it is firing you also fired on me on the internet..isn't it?

about my wife...dude do you know jyothish shasthr.how did you know that i am firing on my wife..

#202
FF
July 18, 2007
02:00 AM

Gaurav The Nut, suicides have been classified into more than 22 ways,

http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI2005/suicidal05.pdf

Page 9 of 21.

--------------------------------------
the 22nd being "Other causes"...
the 9th being "Drug Abuse/Addiction"...
------------------------------
The nincompoop like you consider brawls and fights as suicides. For your pea sized brain let me tell you they are MURDERS and which are listed totally separately here

http://ncrb.nic.in/crime2005/cii-2005/table3.htm



The accidental deaths that you cliam are also listed separately here..

http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI2005/accident05.pdf


even if you compare suicides due to family reasons...men die more than women. I think you need to get your eye and brain operated(if you have one).

I do not know why the hell i see you shouting at the top of your voice with such superfluous inane arguments. Please graduate out.You have been failing too many times in your school.

#203
FF
July 18, 2007
02:02 AM

Gaurav The Nut, suicides have been classified into more than 22 ways,

http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI2005/suicidal05.pdf

Page 9 of 21.

--------------------------------------
the 22nd being "Other causes"...
the 9th being "Drug Abuse/Addiction"...
------------------------------
The nincompoops like you consider brawls and fights as suicides. For your pea sized brain let me tell you they are MURDERS and which are listed totally separately here

http://ncrb.nic.in/crime2005/cii-2005/table3.htm



The accidental deaths that you cliam are also listed separately here..

http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI2005/accident05.pdf


even if you compare suicides due to family reasons...men die more than women. I think you need to get your eye and brain operated (if you have one).

I do not know why the hell i see you shouting at the top of your voice with such superfluous inane arguments. Please graduate out. You have been failing too many times in your school.

#204
FF
July 18, 2007
02:14 AM

SN in 179.. See even my comment in 160, I but a disclaimer "Only for "The feminist" in #140...".

I have neither the patience nor the willingness to argue with you. I know even if I spend 10 years making you understand the things you will not. You can convince a person only if he/she is willing to get convinced. So let us stop there.

#205
Siffer
July 18, 2007
03:48 AM

Aditi,

SIFF is not there for saving marriages.

SIFF is all about saving families from "Legal Terrorism" propagated by feminists.

SIFF is against biased laws.

SIFF is for gender equality.

It is feminists who do not want gender equality.

We are small fishes. Why will we keep saving marriages which feminists and media are so eager to break?

We are only interested in opposing fascism propagated by feminazi propaganda machine.

We are winning. Because, the misuse of laws and femnazism in inflicting a large sections of the society.

Only a bunch of libertarians fools who just mimic what NDTV says are talking about meaningful discussion.

Most Indian bloggers and libertarians are actually dumb people who know good english.

It is off no interest to us whether people marry, do not marry, live-in or do one-night stands.

We are against one sided laws and hypocrisy by feminists.

Aditi, you yourself made a claim that 45% women face DV in India. You did not care to see that any statistic is unscientific unless you give data from both sides. You could have given data on DV on men or at least come with an estimate.

This kind of one-sided half truths create false impressions in the society.

Today, 498a is considered to be the most abused law in the Nation in last 60 years. It is SIFF which created this awareness.

All the sane, rational, idiots who talk about discussions only helped propagate myths and lies.

-----------
Indian Blogosphere is full of sucky people who scratch each others back. The more mundane you write, the more hits you get. The more people agree with you, the more popular you are.

So, most popular bloggers contribute nothing to the nation as their goal is to write what people like and no what is truth.
-----------

Aditi, it is feminism which is at cross roads and not SIFF. You should have more concern for feminism than SIFF.

SIFF members are hardened to handle any situation including jails. But, we will make sure all those who planted the poison tree of feminism pay for their sins.

Are not feminists responsible for 498a, biased DV act and false statistics in media?

If yes, then why are you trying to preach us?


------
If dowry is not eliminated in the society, it is just because of feminism. They ate all the funds meant for awareness programs against dowry and made the law with such loop holes that real dowry takers never get punished.
------

#206
Siffer
July 18, 2007
04:59 AM

No debate will help. Enough of debating done with dumb bloggers.

Only action will work.

20 lac people (in 5 lac families) under threat of 498a will come to SIFF every year. Till now, 20,000 people (5000 families) have come to us.

So, it is SIFF, which has got the potential to grow. People wont mind so far as they get free legal ideas and emotional support. Even women are coming to SIFF now as they can not trust Feminist NGOs.

Once, we start opening our helplines for both genders, both abused women and abused men will come to masculists for guidance to lead a better life (in marriage or for divorce).

If 20 lac are potential people to reach SIFF, then in 5 years it will become 1 crore.

The war in blogosphere is only meant to prepare, improve and review SIFF arguments. Each battle gives us additional insights.

-----
Note: There are some guys like Vinod who are trying to use SIFF techniques on SIFF without realising that these techniques work only when there is an asymmetry in the forces pitted against each other. So, these people only end up giving more publicity to SIFF.
-----

There are 2 kinds of feminists in the world.

1) Equity Feminists
2) Gender Feminists

Unfortunately almost all feminists in India are gender feminists who do not want any gender equality, but are hell bent on vicious approaches to social problems.

#207
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
09:42 AM

206 SIFFER "No debate will help. Enough of debating done with dumb bloggers.Only action will work."

Good. So please don't come here and ruin other people's debates and go do your "action". You wont convince anybody here becoz nobody can relate to your blind hatred of women or feminists. We just want to have debates and discussions about fruitful topics and not want to fight with you guys or answer to you guys if we try to make a point. So if you dont think debate will help and if you think that all of us are radical feminists, why are you here? You should be on the SIF blog where you will find some 20,000 other "falsely" accused to agree with you and not question you. Right? Why come here? To troll and ruin other people's discussions?

#208
FF
July 18, 2007
11:12 AM

DesiMen..what are your questions...Do you think there is a rocket science required to acknowledge the your oft repeated question

"Will the emergence of such stringent laws like 498A change the face of marriage?"


Who is the nut who says laws like 498A will not change the face of marriage. You are exposing your tomfoolery by telling people around that face of marriage will change with advent of laws like 498A. Whosoever has ever heard of 498A and related laws(from a street toddler to president knows that it will affect relationships). I am not sure why you pride yourself ate being called an educated man.

The real investigation lies in why 498A came in first place, who brought them, what were their motives and how people have been mislead about 498A being a healthy law. SIF has done investigations and made educated(?) people like you aware that 498A is a brain child of feminists. It has exposed double standards of feminists and make the public known on how they have used sugar coated words to spread mass hatred and bias.

Ignorance about laws is one thing; failure to acknowledge the double standards of feminist movement is another. Former reflects lack of information, while the later is symbol of stupidity. To what extent you acknowledge open facts, depends on your stubbornness to accept reality.

For people like you "Biased Laws are the only way feminists have attacked society" but for us we know that "Laws are just one of the ways feminists have ransacked our society".

#209
Gaurav
July 18, 2007
12:09 PM

...and the battles of the morons countinue with no goals, Guys, do see a shrink. Maybe he might save you.

Please provide links to your statistics.

I am SOOOO glad you dimwits know the differnce between murders and suicides. Coz you blame women for the murders too.

NOW provide links or names to 98 men who were acquitted, it not 98 then at least 10 names.

#210
FF
July 18, 2007
12:24 PM

Coz you blame women for the murders too.

Gaurav...Please do not spill you imaginations, it may reduce your brain size...

#211
FF
July 18, 2007
12:41 PM

NOW provide links or names to 98 men who were acquitted, it not 98 then at least 10 names...

Name one person in the world who has not committed the crime of Domestic violence as stated in DV Act 2006.

P.S: To commit a crime and to get prosecuted(or get FIR registered) are two different things.

#212
Ravi
July 18, 2007
12:49 PM

FYI:

There are love marriages and net marriages where boy and girl have chosen each other first and then came family (inter cast) also that have been in 498a shadow. I have seen it in the SIF meetings.

so it is basically the loop hole that is causing the problem of misuse.

#213
ravi
July 18, 2007
12:56 PM

!!!!!!!Name one person in the world who has not committed the crime of Domestic violence as stated in DV Act 2006.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MR. FF used the word PERSON, so men and woman both comes...

I am also very interested to know that persons name..who didn't committed domestic violence..according to the definition of DV(please apply it for both men and woman at least here.)

#207 gaurav

!!!!!!you blame women for the murders too.!!!!
gaurav you always asks other people to show link, show link... but you don't show the damn links for what you say. tell me in which post did you find people accusing woman for murders also..?



#214
Bengali
July 18, 2007
01:24 PM

If you would have been in our position, then you would have never written this. When you are not ready to stay with someone, then go for divorce, why to use 498A to put the Man into a Criminal offence. 498A is used as an commodity by the woman rather using it for good.

May be you will understand when your son gets into this situation.

regards,
Bengali

#215
A.K.Rathor
July 18, 2007
01:45 PM

Am I putting my point in front of a bunch of Idiots?

I'm only talking about plugging the loop holes and stopping the misuse which will help every one.
The genuine cases will get more of the court's attention.

Instead of dragging the argument in your line of convenience, why don't you all just agree or disagree to this simple point

STOP MISUSE!!! GET JUSTICE IN TIME!!!

#216
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
01:51 PM

The problem is this: You guys say that NOBODY will understand you coz they havent been thru this situation. You say debate wont help. You say you don't anybody's mercy, help, cooperation and you will fight it on your own. You also tell us repeatedly that whoever tries to say something even remotely different from your line of thinking or opinions they are radical feminists.

SO WHY ARE YOU HERE?

This is not an SIF forum. Some of us believe in liberal feminism. We are not the politicians who made those laws/ passed the acts. We are not the police who arrested you. We are not the women who filed a complaint against you and MOST IMPORTANTLY since according to you we wont understand your position as we havent been thru it. So why tell us about it?

Do you see the article above these comments. We are discussing that article. If you guys think that article is radical, "tom foolery", "nutty" etc, please leave. You werent invited into this discussion and are here only to create drama becoz that gives your pathetic lives some motive.

NOBODY cares about what you have to say because as you said only those who have faced 498A accusations will understand it and those people r already on SIF.

WE ARE FED-UP OF YOUR FIGHTING, ARGUING OVER IIRELEVANT POINTS ETC.

#217
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
01:57 PM

Mr.A.K Rathor

You say: "STOP MISUSE!!! GET JUSTICE IN TIME!!!"

BUT HOW? You haven't told us HOW??? BY FIGHTING FEMALE AUTHORS ON DC YOU WILL GET JUSTICE??? HOW TO PLUG THE LOOPHOLES RATHOD???? WHERE do we put the plug. Show us we will put it.


If so you guys should change your name from Save Indian Family Foundation (which btw is horrendously misleading) To

Save Indian Fools From Feminism (because these fools don't know what feminism is beyond the lil crap they know about Girija Vyas and Renuka Choudhary)

#218
FF
July 18, 2007
02:16 PM

We are not the politicians who made those laws/ passed the acts. We are not the police who arrested you. We are not the women who filed a complaint against you and MOST IMPORTANTLY since according to you we wont understand your position as we havent been thru it

Politicians are not the problem!(they will do everything which will fetch them votes), Police is not the problem!!(if you do not go to them they do not come to you either), women who filed cases against are not problem!!!(when a person wants revenge he/she will do anything viable to avenge it and laws are pretty handy so why will not she use it)...it is those who spread mass propaganda and bias are ones who are problematic identities.

And the tactics they used(and are using) for spreading that mass propaganda are "IDENTICAL" to the ones we are using...When did you last object or questioned a feminist(both on DC or outside) who indulge in this propaganda.

#219
Gaurav
July 18, 2007
02:35 PM

Go check your boss sumanths comments on other links where he has made those allegations. Are you not following instructions or your pea size brain does not get it?

#220
Gaurav
July 18, 2007
02:37 PM

FF and ravi/charn(the depressed guys),

Go check your boss sumanths comments on other links where he has made those allegations. Are you not following instructions or your pea size brain does not get it?


( also note depressed guys never make sense, cannot see sense, and are on the verge of suicide anytime)

#221
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
02:49 PM

Mr.FF

With all due respect I have yet to see Aditi going to Sumanth's article or to your SIF articles and fighting with you claiming all men are a-holes and that men and their families should be locked up without reason. In fact we mostly see her writing back and trying to understand your points. I have not seen or observed any propaganda from her or even other female authors but you guys always attack them for no apparent reason. Like goondas on the streets who just attack n bully people becoz they know they can.

Politicians are not the problem, women who lodge complaints are not the problem but a liberal minded feminist writer on DC who never fights with you or claims atht only women r good and men are bad is a problem!!!!! How come??? It doesnt sound quite right.

YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK IS THE REAL REASON: It seems more like "Lets fight the ones we can because those others we cannot fight. We cannot fight politicians, if we hit the woman who accused us again then we are in for more jail time and who can fight the police? But these authors on DC what can they do to us? So they r easy targets. Let us fight with them and get our frustration and anger out"

Did your therapist suggest this approach?

Am I right Mr.FF? Admit it. Come on.

You asked: "When did you last object or questioned a feminist(both on DC or outside) who indulge in this propaganda."

Show me a radical feminist article on DC or an article that justifies section 498A misuse and I will answer this question.

#222
Vinod
July 18, 2007
03:20 PM

DesiMEN

Whoaaaaa, where did that come from? Perfect timing?
You know what I actually saw 13 siffers run inside their rat holes to discuss strategies and to launch their attack on you :)

But you it boomerangs on them always, as usual and they fall like flies all over who have been sprayed with baygon :)

#223
Anon
July 18, 2007
03:38 PM

"We are not the politicians who made those laws/ passed the acts. We are not the police who arrested you. We are not the women who filed a complaint against you"

Very good justification for looking away from the problems.

Siffers ruining your "fruitful" debates bothers you. People with your kind of mindset have ruined the country by looking away from what powerful feminist leaders have done and are still doing.

#224
Anon
July 18, 2007
03:46 PM

"Some of us believe in liberal feminism."

And exactly what does believing in "liberal feminism" involve? Writing sugar-coated articles containing statements which are biased against men, and which emphasize female victimhood?

It looks like anyone can write on the comments forum. It is up to you to involve in discussion and who you want to specifically respond to. When jokers like Vinod don't bother you, why bother about Siffers?

#225
Gaurav
July 18, 2007
03:53 PM

Anon Beta( you seem tooooo scared of powerful feminists)

No powerful feminist can ruin your life if you had not taken dowry.

Be strong, drink bournvita.

Rather , do not give another human being the right to ruin your life. Be a MAN, have control over you life. Power lies with you and you only. Power to you, Siffer, Charna, Ravi, Sumanth and all the otehr siffers who are sobbing etc etc etc.

#226
Anon
July 18, 2007
03:59 PM

"No powerful feminist can ruin your life if you had not taken dowry."

Yeah, that is kind of what Renuka Chaudhary said when Domestic Violence Act was introduced, and DV Act is already being misused. Pretty soon, the bamboo will be up yours too in one form or another. Until then happy philosophizing!


#227
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:02 PM

Source: Hindustan Times Delhi ePaper edition Feb 27, 2007

"Provisions under this (Domestic Violence) Act should not go the IPC's section 498 A's way (anti-dowry law), which, to our view, is the most abused provision. Courts have to play an important role in separating fact from fiction in cases booked under the Act" - Delhi High Court

EXPRESSING SERIOUS concern over the flagrant abuse of the Domestic Violence Act for the first time, the Delhi High Court has threatened to slap "exemplary costs" on an NRI businesswoman for harassing her husband by misusing the recently-enacted law. Zuleikha Karnik had moved a magistrate's court, accusing her estranged husband, Omesh Karnik, of committing offences punishable under the Act.

http://www.savefamily.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1:latest-news&id=75:Delhi%20Court%20says%20by%20dismiss%20a%20DV%20act%20interim%20Protection%20order:%20as%20the%20complainant%20has%20left%20the%20home%20with%20her%20own%20free%20will%20therefore%20I%20do%20not%20find%20any%20ground%20for%20restoration%20of%20possession%20in%20her%20matrimonial%20home.&Itemid=50

Delhi Court says by dismiss a DV act interim Protection order: as the complainant has left the home with her own free will therefore I do not find any ground for restoration of possession in her matrimonial home.

#228
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:14 PM

NRI woman faces HC ire for misusing law

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NRI_woman_faces_HC_ire_for_misusing_law/articleshow/1755432.cms

Trupti Nigam versus Gaurav Nigam and Azim Premji

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6180224.stm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Was_Wipro_staffer_beaten_by_wife/articleshow/576413.cms

#229
A.K.Rathor
July 18, 2007
04:15 PM

#217 - Happy to note that you asked how to Stop the Misuse and How in turn it will help genuine cases.
Lets stop discussing who I'm and who you are and come to the point straight:

1>If the case is quashed in HC or by any court termed as a False case, the complainant should be punished for the same Term.

2>Act must be made bailable as if the accused are at fault, they will not be spared but if they were innocent, there is nothing the court or the country can do to repay the pain and humiliation the aggrieved party goes through.

And how will this help the genuine cases:

If the false cases stop reaching to the overburdened court, all the court's time, energy and resources will be utilized in dealing with genuine cases. We can expect decisions in a year instead of a decade.

Please comment...

#230
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
04:18 PM

#227 Thanks for that info. So the courts ARE already gender neutral. They DO punish false accusers. Then why are you guys still so upset? Justice will be served eventually.

See, the problem isnt that we think your suffering is not relevant. We are sure it is. But we want to know how this discussion/ this article has anything to do with it? Is it becoz the author is female? Is it becoz she doesnt fight with you n so u think she is an easy target compared to male writers who might add to the existing bamboo up your a** or the women who mightve stood up to your abuse? Are u taking advantage of people's deccency of allowing you guys to participate in a discussion?

So far none of you have answered such simple questions. You also have ignored #220? What happened? No response????

#231
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:24 PM

DesiMen,

Courts do not punish false accusers in 498a or DV cases. There have been one or two instances so far where it was done. But the rest of the people who file false cases go unpunished. In the meantime people who have been arrested without due process and put through court litigation for 5-7 years have lost a lot even if they are eventually acquitted. That is the reason they Rathor is saying that 498A should be made bailable (no arrests without investigation) and that false accusers should be punished. When these two changes are made false cases will go down and the duration of genuine cases will reduce too.

#232
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
04:26 PM

229 Mr.Rathor!!!!! But how can we or this author do any of what you are suggesting???? We are not approving laws or giving verdicts no???? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???? Why r u telling us to do all this....we are not politicians/ lawyers etc!!

ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW IS THIS ARTICLE RELEVANT TO YOUR ISSUES??????? HOW??????????????

Now go back to your head and ask him how to answer these questions.

#233
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:27 PM

Also, just wanted to point out that different people jump into the discussion at different points and pick up from anywhere, disregarding the author's comments and clarifications. This happens in all threads. Most people are responding to some other commentator and the discussion goes into many directions.

#234
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:31 PM

"But how can we or this author do any of what you are suggesting????"

Very good question. As citizens of India you can voice your opinion against the blatant violation of human rights done because of "legal terrorism"...especially since you are liberal feminists who believe in equality between the sexes.

#235
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:38 PM

Demand that punishment should be crime based...not based on gender.

Demand that men and their families should not be arrested without investigation of facts.

Demand that the basic tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" be upheld in the case of 498a and DV Act and other anti-male laws.

Demand that individuals misusing 498a, DV Act and other highly stringent laws just to harass families be punished.

These laws affect everyone even if they have not touched many of you yet. So, it is important to do something until more damage is done.

#236
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:42 PM

Oppose sexist statements that paint all men as oppressors, and all women as victims.

Keep a watchful eye so that more anti-male laws are not passed behind your back under the guise of women protection laws.

Understand that domestic abuse is not gender-specific, and that men and women suffering in abusive relationships need help.

#237
A.K.Rathor
July 18, 2007
04:44 PM

Right now the Perjury laws (punishing people giving false evidence or lying in court under oath) through which SC punished Jahira Sheikh, is not mandatory and lower or High courts never use this Power. Their argument is, get the law amended to make it compulsory for us to invoke Perjury laws in case of MISUSE of Laws.

The only option left with us is to mobilize the masses and make them understand that plugging the loop-holes and stopping the misuse does not means scrapping the law but it actually sharpens it.

All of us including higher authorities are well aware of the MISUSE.

Its we with the help of Print, News Channels, Web Media can generate the necessary demand and put forcefully in front of our Parliament.

#238
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:46 PM

FYI...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

It also states, "men and women,..., are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

It declares that "all are equal before the law, and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

Most importantly, it proclaims that "everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

All the above mentioned rights of thousands of innocent Indian men and women are being violated everyday under the guise of women-protection laws.

#239
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
04:52 PM

234 "Very good question. As citizens of India you can voice your opinion against the blatant violation of human rights done because of "legal terrorism"...especially since you are liberal feminists who believe in equality between the sexes."

Voice it to whom? Demand it from whom???? The editor of DC? Aditi? DC authors??? Whom????

The problem is you guys dont know what your objectives are. Every movement has to have clear objectives. In your case you are just a bunch of people pissed off becoz u were falsely arrested and now you are running helter and skelter verbally bashing up everybody who is a) a woman b) a feminist c) an author who writes about social issues.

BUT whats the fckin point?????

Get a well-written petition, put it on a website and have people sign their names under the petition and mail it to their local politician to get attention towards the cause.

Becoz ultimately after you are done murdering, insulting, harassing every feminist on the planet, if you cannot get a law to be passed what will you do???

ASK YOUR LEADER THIS BEFORE HE SENDS YOU OUT RUNNING AGAIN.

You bloody want people to support your cause but you antagonize everybody and offend everyone. Several months go by before anybody even realizes that you guys are not trolls and actually represent some such issue.

What kind of a movement are you???

It is like having a bunch of people attacking a schoolbus to prevent pollution from automobile fumes. There is no logic, no systematic approach whatsoever and you guys know it.

Find a viable solution, find a viable means to get to that solution, find a medium to help you VOICE YOUR CONCERNS TO the RIGHT people who can actually do something about it.

#240
Anon
July 18, 2007
04:58 PM

"Voice it to whom? Demand it from whom???? The editor of DC? Aditi? DC authors??? Whom????"

Who are you and other desicritics voicing all your opinions on DC to?

"You bloody want people to support your cause but you antagonize everybody and offend everyone."

By voicing your opinion you are not supporting someone else's cause. By raising your voice you will fight against the violation of human rights and for ensuring equality of men and women under law. I have heard many liberal feminists say that they are "humanists"...in that context I guess this is your cause.

#241
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
05:30 PM

240 "Who are you and other desicritics voicing all your opinions on DC to?"

Please, PLEASE tell me you are joking. Because we are going around in circles here. We are not just generally voicing our opinions becoz we can like you all. We are trying to discuss the topic of the article under which your disconnected comments are typed out. You see that article up there? THAT is the topic of discussion. If a guy were to suddenly come to this article and voice his opinions on say "Too much sex in Hindi films" we would've asked him what the f*** was wrong w/ him. Similarly your comments are not in line with the article's topic of discussion.

If you REALLY wanted to voice opinions cohesively, we would've seen an article from you guys about your own issue on DC. We haven't!!!!

Not only do you guys lack the intelligence to write up your own thoughts about an issue, you ruin other people's discussions.

Here are some facts about SIF for increasing people's awareness:

1. SIF thinks dowry is a myth...they also think that the Earth is flat
2. SIF doesnt mean SAve Indian Family. It means Save Indian Families From Being Arrested Irrespective of Whether They Are Guilty
3. SIFF also stands for SOME IRRATIONALS FIGHTING FEMINISM
4. SIF has not formed an organization and prefers to call itself a "movement" becoz they dont want to be held legally liable in any way, say if a woman gets killed or defamed becoz of their propaganda
5. SIF members go around on the cyber world attacking people and women because they got arrested for doing that in the real world (while some of them were falsely accused, some of them are ducking under the "false accusation" cover with the help of statistics like 98% etc)
6. SIF members's solution to a marital discord is "Lets together prove that your wife has a bad character and she is abusive and you are really the victim. Let us blow the fact that she had a boyfriend before marriage out of proportion whereas you may have slept around or dated quite a bit before marriage. But who cares? You are a man!"
7. NOW MOST IMPORTANTLY: SIF members claim that they want to prevent false arrests but PLEASE NOTE!!!!! they r opposing an article whose subject is to decrease men/ women from being duped later in the marriage by giving more time for evaluation of bride/ groom. (God alone knows why!)

#242
A.K.Rathor
July 18, 2007
05:44 PM

Please Comment on #237...

#243
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
06:14 PM

242 Pls comment to 232...that came before 237 and is very important to address before I can even think about the stuff in 237

#244
A.K.Rathor
July 18, 2007
06:24 PM

#243 - I put a equation 2 + 2 = 4 in comments 229 and 237.
Even then if you do not agree, that menas you want the outcome other than 4. But at the same time you do not want to disclose that as you know that's wrong.

How much strenght it takes to say 2 + 2 = 4 ?
And please do not divert the discussion and comment straight considering 229 and 237.

#245
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
07:02 PM

#245 is very personal and needs to be edited and chided!!!Please speak up against such offensive comments. Due to such language SIFFERS are not encouraged and are eventually kicked off from other platforms. This is the kind of offensive verbal abuse that probably got you guys in trouble and this is why we are asking you to leave this discussion. It is for decent people. BTW this SIFFER has a particularly foul mouth and loves the word "shameless"...have seen their comments on other articles as well (Shanti, SS, Mani, we recognize you now!). If you think this editor/ authors are thugs than dont mooch off their website and articles to get publicity like parasites.

#246
Vinod
July 18, 2007
07:08 PM

Anon baby

Have you made your goals 50 years or 100 years?
What is your status today, what progress?
Do you have any links, eveidences, names , judgement orders etc?
Please show your progress.

And please, I have already told you before, the bamboo will not get to me, because I have total control over my life, love the opp gender, know how to live in harmony, and MOST law abiding citizen. So take a hike and get a life.

#247
Siffer--senior activist in NJ, USA
July 18, 2007
07:11 PM

Anon and Rathor,

enough, you are making a fool of yourself and putting our coause to shame.
and Anon who are you?

#248
Vinod
July 18, 2007
07:16 PM

SIF has not formed an organization and prefers to call itself a "movement" becoz they dont want to be held legally liable in any way, say if a woman gets killed or defamed becoz of their propaganda


THAT WAS AN EYE OPENOR, REALLY!

SIF members's solution to a marital discord is "Lets together prove that your wife has a bad character and she is abusive and you are really the victim. Let us blow the fact that she had a boyfriend before marriage out of proportion whereas you may have slept around or dated quite a bit before marriage. But who cares? You are a man!"

I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, COZ I CALLED THEM ONCE AS A VICTIM BOTH IN INDIA AND USA AND THATS WHAT THEY ASK---PATHETIC

#249
Vinod
July 18, 2007
10:08 PM

Aditi,

The comments 253 and 255 are not by me. I hope you know that!

#250
Anti-SIF
July 18, 2007
10:15 PM

SIFFERS are getting DESPERATE!!! Good they are exposing their own lack of decency and true motives. Let everybody see what they are about and what kind of people make up this organization.

#251
A-Fan
July 18, 2007
11:08 PM

Aditi, we read some of the bad comments to your article that were edited. When I saw some of those I was scared and I realized that it must take great courage for you as a woman to write and voice your opinions no matter what the outcome. You show tremendous restrain in the face of such nastiness.Thank you for giving us the courage to do the same. We women need role models.

#252
ravi
July 18, 2007
11:31 PM

DesiMen
#246
!!!!!!!This is the kind of offensive verbal abuse that probably got you guys in trouble and this is why we are asking you to leave this discussion.!!!!!!

you said right.they will considered as verbal abuse if you complaint.

I am asking a question,because you recognizes these are verbal abuse, did you ever study feminist books, feminist columns...what about MCP, the common word they use, what about lot of words( if you want proves, i can post but not in English i read them in the my mother tongue).

at that time nobody considered them as the abuse...and somebody supported them shamelessly.
i am not asking you to bear these words silently,but i am asking you to where ever a feminist use these type of language oppose it, then definitely lot of people change their mind sent.

(please think about it in men's perspective, not women's perspective because after all men also human beings..thinking in their perspective is not a crime).


#253
DesiMen
July 18, 2007
11:59 PM

253 ravi

We ARE Indian men. All of us. Roommates. We think like men do. I am not sure if you just read some of the earlier comments that the editors were kind enough to remove but believe me you could not compare "MCP" to that kind of disturbing verbal abuse. Don't tell me about "feminist books". Some of us here form our ideas and views based on life experience and not just books and columns. None of this author's articles have said anything offensive to any of you. And believe it or not when you attack someone who has NEVER attacked you it makes people wonder what kind of human beings you are.

You attack and verbally abuse a woman on a PUBLIC forum with such intensity and desperation. It is worth a thought what you may have done in the privacy of a relationship. In fact, plenty people who had the misfortune of reading some of those very ugly comments and offensive words are thinking just that. So the comparison is just ridiculous.

We ARE thinking from a man's perspectives. We see a woman's honor being harmed in front of us on a public forum and our instincts tell us we should speak up. But you won't understand that.

#254
Reader
July 19, 2007
12:13 AM

I read those vulgar comments by Rathod, Siffer and SS

#255
Aaman
URL
July 19, 2007
12:41 AM

Please note most of those comments were from a single IP address, and the ISP for that IP address has been notified of possible violations of their terms of service. You can report any comments that potentially violate our comment policy to us by e-mail.

Play clean and safe, children.

#256
FF
July 19, 2007
02:49 AM

Desimen....
...Show me a radical feminist article on DC.

A mere "Pooja C Fiasco itself created 3(or more) such articles at DC. They painted all husbands and MILs bad in less than 48 hrs of Pooja crying hoarse. None of them even bothered to check how this stereotyping is damaging our society. None of them knew the facts of case like thousands of other cases but the jumped on the bandwagon of painting husband and families are cruel creatures and all women as innocent victims.

What are you telling...Please go and check out.


As for Aditi, I have "not" castigated author's view on this post. So how can to blame me for it. All the while, I had only been objecting to inane pro-eminists commentators.

Why do you think Sumnath is the boss, I have never seem Sumanth, never met him, have never sent or received any personal communication from him. What makes you think we work together behind the scene. We respond and share information openly. If you have problem or disagreement with Sumanth respond to him in person, do not go on making useless inane sweeping statements about all men and families and that is where my objection is.

#257
ravi
July 19, 2007
02:52 AM

#254
Desimen

thanks for the comment.

!!!!!!!!You attack and verbally abuse a woman on a PUBLIC forum with such intensity and desperation!!!!!!!!!!!

pls show me where i attacked a WOMAN member. i am ready to say apology to her.if protesting woman who mis use the law is also considered as attack, then please excuse me, it is my mistake that i thought like weather it is a man or woman mistake is mistake every one need to protest it.(because this article about 498a and marriage institution)

One more thing probably, i it is my mistake that i didn't explain well enough. i am not equating MCP with the deleted words by editor.i just asked you people to consider these one also offensive and wherever you find it please oppose it.

and i attacked one person, but immediately i requested him "please ignore that".After that i am under attack, some person called me as pea sized brain...but i didn't
comment on him on that issue, let him think like that, i don't have any problem.
I posted something which lot of people disagree.But in that one also i didn't attack woman verbally..please all my comments once.let me notice my mistake..

#258
FF
July 19, 2007
03:02 AM

It seems more like "Lets fight the ones we can because those others we cannot fight. We cannot fight politicians, if we hit the woman who accused us again then we are in for more jail time and who can fight the police? But these authors on DC what can they do to us? So they r easy targets

Did I fight with Aditi on this post? However, I will object to every person who wrote stupid generalizations. I will fight every person who creates stereotypes.

I do not want to fight politicians, police or for that matter women because they are mere consequences. I want to fight the roots of this problem. What is wrong in that?

You know what feminists have done, the have elevated minor problems women ever faced into major hoax calls because politicians and police will not look into it as they too once knew and still know) that these are trivial issues. They carried out the mass propaganda using tax payer's money to amass power because they were controlling media all along.

People have hit them right where it hurts them the most. People have busted their powerhouses which generated half truths and myths. So what is wrong in there?

#259
Fundoo
July 19, 2007
06:31 AM

If you really want to know the fears , trepidations and double standards of feminists, I am giving you a recent example. On 9th July, in THE TELEGRAPH, CHANDRIMA .S.BHATTACHARYA, came out with an article "MOODY MEN, SEXY MEN" where she expressed her acute discomfort over Amitabh Bachchan's PONT TAIL in the movie Cheeni Kum.
She hemmed and hawed over the matter and was reluctant to come out very openly and aggressively about the growing sexual coolness among men but feminists are not very happy over the overt display of sexuality by today's men.
It is strange that while it is women who have introduced this era of rampant promiscuity in our society but they feel threatened if men are exhibiting sexuality in their mannerisms and dress. They want children to have sex openly and want to divorce morality from sexuality but at the same time feel acutely dismayed if grown up sexually matured men have pony tails and flaunt their sexuality. Then they want to straight jacket their own men into psychologically assuring behavioral patterns

#260
smallsquirrel
July 19, 2007
06:45 AM

fundoo... OK, you've finally gone too far. you can call me all the names you want, suggest I have done all matter of heinous things.. whatever. but when you suggest that as a woman I am threatened by sexuality because of Amitabh's skeevy 80's rat tail hairdo in some terribly bad movie, you've gone over the line.

(falls on ground laughing hysterically)

#261
Siffer
July 19, 2007
07:00 AM

Husband Abuse Study in Canada:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/husbandenglish.pdf

I perfectly agree that no woman should tolerate abuse by spouse.

Should husbands, who get kicked, slapped, scratched, beaten, threatened by wife or her parents tolerate all that to safeguard Indian marriage?

Most husbands face severe abuse by wife and her family members (and goons, rowdies) before getting into 498a and jailed.

Domestic Violence(mental and physical) against husbands in India (especially in the younger age groups) is in no way less than the DV against women.

The problem with you is that you are too judgemental and want to push your views without understanding the depth of any issue.

If 36% women face DV in India, then at least 25% of men face domestic violence from wife, mothers and other women.

But, feminists are completely against any law to protect male victims of DV.

Now, why the hell men have to be nice to feminists?

#262
Fundoo
July 19, 2007
07:19 AM

Small squirrel, what about Amitabh displaying a squirrel's tail instead of a pony's tail? May be it will make you laugh a lot more. I also died of laughter when I went through Chandrima Bhattacharya's article.
Any way, it is a reality that feminists are refusing to allow grown up men, husbands and boyfriends to explore and experiment with their own sexuality while these media feminists paint the media red talking about being sexually aware, exploring one's sexuality and to strip morality from sexuality.
Suddenly you find feminists being scared and read articles about what men should do and behave and that they should conform to the norms liked by women which in other words mean that men should not dress, behave and exhibit themselves sexually. It frightens women.It is the sole domain of women to be sexually provacative.

#263
Hardy
July 19, 2007
07:40 AM

Siffer...you may not be correct..factually speaking only about 11% women in India face Domestic abuse(Physical) annually.

#264
Siffer
July 19, 2007
07:46 AM

Desimen,

All the feminists articles which propagate sweeping generalisations, will find us protesting.

This article promote sweeping generalisations on NRIs, men and mothers-in-law.

Due to massive propaganda by feminists (in literature, in media) the issue of "498a Misuse" has not reached to masses.

The Radical feminists write books, articles and people like Aditi propagate the stereotypes created by the radical feminists.

Aditi markets feminism and this article is an extension of her previous articles. So, people like Aditi will be stopped from writing sweeping generalisations.

If we stop 10,000 such bloggers, writters and journalists, then the feminist propaganda will get curtailed.

We have already reduced the feminist articles in blogosphere by a factor of 20. Type dowry in google blogsearch and find the truth.

Any feminist, who reads these articles loses all her strong, opinionated tracks and gets defanged.

We are doing the same with journalists with great success.

Soon SIFF will start an anti-dowry helpline for women and then starts encroaching ground from feminists. Then the real fun will begin.

In this article, Aditi specially invited SIFF members (read first few lines), and hence she got strong opinionated men in this article.

So, you are nobody to tell us not to protest or criticise here.

So far as language is concerned, it has been ugly from both sides.


Indian sex starved men will go up to any extent to protect a female. That is the basic instinct.

Looks like someone is triggering that basic instinct in some men who are desparate to protect a female as they feel all women are weak and need protection.

Some such MCP even appreciates the courage of author. WTF?

Any person who writes a blog or article on a critical issue is bound to be courageous. May be that MCP is surprised by the author as he himself may not have seen powerful, strong, opinionated women in his own life or family.

#265
Sujit Das
July 19, 2007
07:51 AM

For feminists, sexuality is deemed to be her power as she controls men by her sexuality. She knows that she can control men as she has the power to either give or deny men sexual gratification .This is the crux of the sexual liberation by feminists.
But what they have not really bargained for is that men too will display their sexual charms and women will fall for it.With the growing promiscuity brought about by women themselves, this is bound to happen. Women are sexually lusting for men. Carnal desire in women is increasing and it is not linked with any emotion or love. It is just plain and simple desperate desire to fornicate with a sexually attractive man.
Hence , today men are also seeing lust dripping from the eyes of women at the sight of a sexually attractive man and he too knows that he too controls the sexual desire of women and exercises power over women. Hence, naturally he will display his sexual poweress and control over women and will behave and dress accordingly. Whether women feel threatened by it is of no consequence. This is what women themselves have ushered into the society and they should be matured enough to accept it.

#266
Fundoo
July 19, 2007
08:02 AM

Women want to be in control. They feel assured and powerful that men will run after them for sex. But the reality is slowly changing.Women too are craving for animal sex from men. They want to have casual sex, group sex and even hire male prostitutes. They too are lusting for men and men are gradually realising that women are perceving them sexually and that they too are having the power to control women by controlling her sexual desires.
While the modern woman wants to be sexually free, she does not want to let go the advantage of being the sexual controller. But that cannot be any longer. The so called modern liberated woman is refusing to accept the altered position and wants men to be put in the earlier straight jacket and feel threatened if men are being sexually provocative and are exhibiting their sexuality.

#267
smallsquirrel
July 19, 2007
08:49 AM

siffer... make no mistake. we're not "defanged"... we're just not listening to you.

#268
Sanam
July 19, 2007
09:31 AM

@ #268. In very very lighter vein, I wonder how come can you pick up an expression from Siffer's psot when you are not reading the posts from likes of him. Again Please do no t construe this as a negative comment, its is just in humor.

#269
smallsquirrel
July 19, 2007
09:41 AM

sanam.. no offense taken.. just checked back in and read it is all. sometimes I read this stuff for humor if I have free time, sometimes not. never said I did not ever read it, just that I don't *listen*... as in I don't take anything said by them personally or as anything but a rant.

See, if you look in other places, you'll see that for a while I tried hard to engage in civil discussion and maybe start a dialog... create understanding. But then I learned that all they wanna do is rant. So be it. Sometimes I need a laugh so I check in, that's all. Mostly I stop by other more productive threads.

#270
DesiMen
July 19, 2007
11:07 AM

265 "Aditi markets feminism and this article is an extension of her previous articles. So, people like Aditi will be stopped from writing sweeping generalisations."

She hasnt marketted the brand of feminism that you guys are opposing. Moreover, till date you have proved that you have NOT stopped her (and I HOPE WON"T EVER STOP HER) from writing anything. She writes what she thinks and some of us like reading such honest and simple thoughts. Intelligent and educated people like us dont take generalizations and immediately buy them. We have the ability to think and analyze.

Besides practically all the examples she states in this particular article are true. Leave her, I am a man and I am telling you I know Indians who go to India marry in 5 weeks and return without taking time to know the girl! Whats the bid deal? Its true, its true!

If her statements were untrue and false, I could understand your anger. But these things do happen. She is just stating observations.

You cannot by your bullying stop people from thinking/ writing or doing what they want just like you guys do what you want. And even if you kill someone or insult thm or slap them or punch them, you CANNOT TAKE THEIR IDEAS OR BELIEFS AWAY.

"In this article, Aditi specially invited SIFF members (read first few lines), and hence she got strong opinionated men in this article.So, you are nobody to tell us not to protest or criticise here."

I hope Aditi speaks up soon but I honestly don't think thats an invitation. In fact she documents the kind of verbal abuse and offensive comments your members unleashed on her when she had NO clue what you guys were discussing and was trying to understand your views.

ALSO I am not protesting/ criticizing your being on this forum. I am stating my discomfort at your taking the discussion towards irrelevant areas, using curse words, personal comments, illogical statements, statements that don't discuss any of what this article is about. NONE OF you so far have even broached the subject of marriage which is at the core of the DV/ 498A laws. You don't even WANT to discuss it. Why? Its beyond our understanding.

So when a guy approaches you and tells you that his marriage is on the rocks, is this the advice you feed him instead of trying to help him save the marriage? You guys should consider changing your name or at least adding to it. Because you are not Saving Indian Families at all. You are just saving Indian Families from being arrested no matter whether the case is true or false.

BTW if a woman had a pre-marital affair DOES NOT mean she WAS NOT suffering dowry harassment.

See, you guys declared Aditi, Amrita and a few others radical feminists. But when we read the comments/ the articles we notice that you are attacking women who don't attack you and are JUST NOT radical. You come across as a group of bullies trying to get a woman to shut up and we act like any civilized man would. We jump in to defend the woman.

If I saw a man in the middle of the road trying to bully a woman I would do the same thing.

#271
Siffer
July 19, 2007
11:11 AM

Aditi writes:
"My articles received harsh responses from most SIF members and sometimes offensive comments."

Offensive and one-sided articles making sweeping generalisations marketing an evil ideology will certainly lead to harsh responses.

When people are called "dowry takers" by some of Aditi's supporters left and right, is not that offensive?

In India, only a very small percentage of marriages are love marriages. Most marriages are arranged (even women prefer them).

So, Aditi concluded only women trapped in arranged marriages use 498a or threat of 498a.

Because, she is a woman and that too a feminist everyone has to agree to her sweeping generalisations even when the sample size is just 4.

Calling any man questioning some aspects of feminism as "Male Chauvinist" is as harsh as calling someone a feminazi.


When Ms.Aditi can think of some critics as "Chauvinists", then why she should crib so much if someone termed her as a probable feminazi.

Most of the feminists and also liberal media terms men's rights as opposite of feminism and same as chauvinism. Is not that offensive?

Feminists including Aditi use offensive language and start raising a hue and cry when the same language is given back to them once in a while.

Lot of feminist bloggers used very offensive language on Shashi Taroor for his views on why women should wear Saree.

Why the same feminists do not learnt to tolerate similar treatment when they get caught with with false statistics, lies and generalisatons?

-------
The conclusion: Feminists are well versed in using very harsh langauge on everyone, who questions them. But, they get terribly upset when someone else gives them the same medicine.
-------

#272
DesiMen
July 19, 2007
11:31 AM

272

"Offensive and one-sided articles making sweeping generalisations marketing an evil ideology will certainly lead to harsh responses."

Point us out one "evil" and "one sided" "generalization" that this article or any of Aditi makes that is UNTRUE. The generalizations are actually observations she has made and they are not one-sided. She is states that men could be conned because they couldnt take enuf time to get to know the girl.

"So, Aditi concluded only women trapped in arranged marriages use 498a or threat of 498a."

read her comments #37 and #118. She sides with those who were accused, she brings attention to MEN's issues and speaks of how these laws should be made gender neutral. Aditi has not concluded what you state and neither have people rteading this article. ITS YOU GUYS WHO HAVE COME TO THAT CONCLUSION without reading anything!!!!


"When Ms.Aditi can think of some critics as "Chauvinists", then why she should crib so much if someone termed her as a probable feminazi."

Because she changed her mind and tried to at least see what your point was. You guys don't. You just jump down everybody's throats as if you have been trained to attack at the word "feminism"

"Feminists including Aditi use offensive language and start raising a hue and cry when the same language is given back to them once in a while."

Point out one JUST ONE Offensive word Aditi has used. JUST ONE word that is personal/ verbal abuse.

"The conclusion: Feminists are well versed in using very harsh langauge on everyone, who questions them. But, they get terribly upset when someone else gives them the same medicine."

This still does NOT explain why you are discussing things irrelevant to the article and attacking a woman who has not attacked you at all!!!!

OUR Conclusion: We are the readers. We see the exchanges and we make our conclusions. We see you attacking Aditi and other female authors, not radical feminism or Renuka Choudhary. We don't see you guys doing anything that will help change the laws. We don't see a petition. We don't see any spread of awareness. We just see bullying, goondagiri, ranting.

#273
DesiMen
July 19, 2007
11:31 AM

272

"Offensive and one-sided articles making sweeping generalisations marketing an evil ideology will certainly lead to harsh responses."

Point us out one "evil" and "one sided" "generalization" that this article or any of Aditi makes that is UNTRUE. The generalizations are actually observations she has made and they are not one-sided. She is states that men could be conned because they couldnt take enuf time to get to know the girl.

"So, Aditi concluded only women trapped in arranged marriages use 498a or threat of 498a."

read her comments #37 and #118. She sides with those who were accused, she brings attention to MEN's issues and speaks of how these laws should be made gender neutral. Aditi has not concluded what you state and neither have people rteading this article. ITS YOU GUYS WHO HAVE COME TO THAT CONCLUSION without reading anything!!!!


"When Ms.Aditi can think of some critics as "Chauvinists", then why she should crib so much if someone termed her as a probable feminazi."

Because she changed her mind and tried to at least see what your point was. You guys don't. You just jump down everybody's throats as if you have been trained to attack at the word "feminism"

"Feminists including Aditi use offensive language and start raising a hue and cry when the same language is given back to them once in a while."

Point out one JUST ONE Offensive word Aditi has used. JUST ONE word that is personal/ verbal abuse.

"The conclusion: Feminists are well versed in using very harsh langauge on everyone, who questions them. But, they get terribly upset when someone else gives them the same medicine."

This still does NOT explain why you are discussing things irrelevant to the article and attacking a woman who has not attacked you at all!!!!

OUR Conclusion: We are the readers. We see the exchanges and we make our conclusions. We see you attacking Aditi and other female authors, not radical feminism or Renuka Choudhary. We don't see you guys doing anything that will help change the laws. We don't see a petition. We don't see any spread of awareness. We just see bullying, goondagiri, ranting.

#274
Siffer
July 19, 2007
12:02 PM

Desiman, we oppose not only feminists, but men like you, who are eager to protect women at at cost. Why can not you digest a woman facing harsh criticism?

It is a hardwired patriarchal instinct of men to jump in to protect women. We want all men to stop protecting and providing for women as we believe in gender equality and we feel women are very much capable of protecting and providing for themselves.

Men are not liberated, till they get out of their conditioning to protect and provide for women.


You wrote:

"You come across as a group of bullies trying to get a woman to shut up and we act like any civilized man would. We jump in to defend the woman. If I saw a man in the middle of the road trying to bully a woman I would do the same thing."

Biased one-sided Section 498a was created by the same kind of men, who feel women need protection as they felt women are weak and they will remain weak forever.

You are jumping in to protect/defend a woman not out of any civilised behaviour, but because of your brain is hardwired and your mind is conditioned for years to "protect and provide".


SIFF's stand,: men stop protecting and providing for mothers, sisters and wives as it is the era of Gender Equality.

If men keep protecting and providing for women, women will never get empowered and will keep getting conditioned to act weak just to get approval from men.

----------
We knew it is patriarchal chauvinists who have the biggest soft corner for radical feminists. One sample case: Biill Cliinton
----------


Desiman: there are many men like you, who are pissed off with SIFF because SIFF members question the traditional male role of "Protecting and Providing" for women. But, we believe, there will never be any gender equality or women's empowerment till the time men do not shed this traditional male role.

#275
Gaurav
July 19, 2007
12:41 PM

SIFF's stand,: men stop protecting and providing for mothers, sisters and wives as it is the era of Gender Equality

I am even protective of my friends because I love them. If you people stop protecting your mothers, sisters etc etc which means you are harboring hatred and irresponsible attitude and that is exactly what you siffers are for.
You have your gender equality equation all messed up.
Were there is love, there is family, belonging and providing and protecting comes naturally.


And Hardy,

You said maybe 11% women are victims of DV. Where did you get your evidence from? Did you recently not read how a gay(no offence meant buddy) made a sexual advancement towards Sonu Nigam? It is not 11% but 98% women are victims of DV, Sexual harassment, eve teasing, verbal abuse and mental abuse. Subash Jha ( a gay) maybe you know him did not even spare Sonu Nigam and now is after his life. These days gays are not even sparing men such is the rise in crime.

Probably SIFF should stand for ; men protecting men, loving men , helping men only only only only.


#276
Gaurav
July 19, 2007
12:46 PM

FF

Thanks for denying that he is not your boss and his comments do not reflect siffers anyway. Just shows the strenght of your unity. Better for us.

#277
Siffer
July 19, 2007
01:55 PM

Desiman,

How did you know that no petitions or PILs are filed for amending Section 498a? How did you know that SIFF is not creating awareness?

Hundreds of petitions are filed and finally Supreme Court of India raised its hands showing its helplessness and urged the Legislature to amend the law which otherwise could lead to "legal terrorism".

Even supreme court judges have to take care while they pronounce anything as they are not supposed to insult the parliament. So, they used all the necessary words with a decent tone giving the room the parliament.

Now, Parliament went to NCW asking its opinion. NCW being confident of massive feminist lobbies (in media and in literature) ordered the Govt not to amend the law.

So, the ball is at NCW.

Things will change only when each single marketing agent of Feminism is made to stick to truth in stead of indulging in oversimplifications and generalisations.

Our supporters in media are taking on feminists in media. Thats why Govt got such a bad publicity after it passed the biased DV act.

Let WCD and NCW pass the biased workplace harassment law, they will again lose the credibility.

Feminists are bullies every where. One can see that easily in every TV debate. Till now, men ignored these bullies thinking them as a bunch of rowdy women. Now, the days of ignoring them are over.

Younger feminists in age group of 20 to 30 are called kid Feminazies. These have half knowledge and driven by all kinds of anger even though society may have given them more than what it gives to an average man if that age. It is these kid feminazies who propagate thousands of stories shifting the responsibility of any problem on men.

For example, if an arranged marriage fails, they will promptly put the blame on the man for not spending enough time before marrying the female. If the female could not adjust to US/Canada, then the blame is promptly shifted to the man. If the female could not adjust Delhi or Bangalore, then they will blame it on IT lifestyle and traditional men.

It is like a massive honeycomb of swarming insects spreading the venum everywhere. If one of their friend has any minor problem, these females will lose no opportunity to ill-advise her.

Times of India's city supplements are completely feminist tabloids where the young feminists propagate all generalisations, stereotypes calling for Rohit Barkar or some Party animal's opinion. They also do some imaginary surveys to push some of their agendas.

When feminists can bully around at will, why should they have any problem when someone else does the same?

Feminists bully everyone. Feminists bully and threaten perfectly innocent people in CAW cells or in counselling centers. Feminists never think if the person whom they are threatening is a MCP, Chauvinist or abused husband or a decent intellectual. They threaten at will.

When feminists threaten and bully people at will, why should any feminist bother when someone else does the same to feminists?

No one is supporting dowry and no one is asking for total elimination of 498a. We are only asking feminists not to bully, threaten and lie in CAW cells, Vanitha Sahayavanis or in Counselling centers.

If they do not care and people like Aditi make it their hobby to market feminism from NCW and others, what should we do?

Should we buy Cymbals and Mridangam and do Hare Rama hare Krishna?

No blogger will write on any topic which is politically incorrect. That includes Aditi. Because, politically incorrect writings are annoying to people.

So, it is foolish for SIFF, if we are hoping any support from Aditi or other bloggers. The only thing they can do is it give lip service and carry on marketing feminism and create more followers for Renuka Choudhury, Girija Vyas and Ranjana Kumari.

Here Aditi maintains a clear line that there is an otherside, which is arranged marriage and oppression inside family. She completely ignored the issue of abusive women, who abuse the husband, if he earns less than her sister's husband and if he fails to buy expensive gifts which her sister's fiance can afford.

Abuse of men and any punishment to abusive women is a complete non-issue for reasonable and sane Aditi. But, if abused husband stays in a paying guest accommodation running away from home and to get even refuses divorce, then according to her he deserves 498a.

The whole ideology is that, "men are abusers and women are victims. If you agree then you are progressive and sane and if you disagree then you are MCP, dowry takers and your mother is a witch".

We will keep doing sane discussions, while feminists spread lies to millions of people within hours in a day via mass media.

In the end of the sane discussion what do we get. Some apologies and justification of madness of some bipolar adulterous females, whose lifestyle demands could not be met by a equity oriented husband. Then we all will be told, there can not be smoke without fire and for a greater social good and noble cause(feminism), it is okay to ruin your careers, lose jobs, lose parents, lose children, spend time in jail and lose social respect and get bankrupt to help the extortionists.

If CIA can fund money to Indian media to topple communist Govt in 60s in Kerala, then what the guarrentee that it is not doing the same to destroy the Indian family system by bribing media or by giving scholarships at US Universities to Indian feminist students?


------------------
SIFF is a Registered Trust
All its partner NGOs are also registered with concerned Registrars.
-------------------

#278
Hardy
July 19, 2007
01:55 PM

NFHS II data.

See http://www.measuredhs.com/

The sample size = 89,199 women.


You have to register as student to get access to data. NFHS(Govt organization) also uses this site to
fetch data and findings.

#279
DesiMen
July 19, 2007
02:05 PM

Siffer 275: "Desiman, we oppose not only feminists, but men like you, who are eager to protect women at at cost. Why can not you digest a woman facing harsh criticism?"

You oppose anyone who has an opinion. Thats what you do. You think you can throw out a few insults, a few harsh words here and there and you can change the way people think. As I said: You cannot change how people think by bullying them, cursing them, offending them or even beating them up.

I am not bothered because the criticism is harsh or because the recipient is female. I am bothered because your criticism is IRRELEVANT, a word which I have been constantly using HOPING DESPERATELY that you will leave this thread alone and let us breathe some life into the dying discussion with something that is related remotely to the topic of discussion.

"Men are not liberated, till they get out of their conditioning to protect and provide for women."

NO, men are liberated, TRULY liberated, when they stop acheiving their sense of accomplishment from badgering a female author on a public forum. No greater proof of cowardice.

"You are jumping in to protect/defend a woman not out of any civilised behaviour, but because of your brain is hardwired and your mind is conditioned for years to "protect and provide"."

I am assuming that if you see a woman (or a man or a child) being harassed in the middle of the street you wouldnt stop and speak up or act. I am not protecting/ providing for Aditi (frankly I dont think she needs me to). I am merely seeing unfairnes and speaking up for my own beliefs.

"We knew it is patriarchal chauvinists who have the biggest soft corner for radical feminists. One sample case: Biill Cliinton"

I have yet to hear a more assinine statement and this probably explains why Mr.Clinton is a former President and you are typing out dumb comments on a public forum under the cover of the "Siffer" title.

Truth is you guys have twisted the meaning of patriarchal to something that in society is defined as courtesy, decency, civilized behavior. You think men who are nice to women are a-holes and those who see a woman being abused and let her fend for herself are liberated. Screwed up logic.

Truth is you guys/ gals are a bunch of people who got arrested (falsely/ with reason, I dunno) but instead of making it a productive mission you are going around insulting random people just to vent your frustrations coz nobody gives a damn.

Sadly we cannot have a sane discussion becoz of your disconnected thinking.

#280
Siffer
July 19, 2007
02:10 PM

Desiman,

How did you know that no petitions or PILs are filed for amending Section 498a? How did you know that SIFF is not creating awareness?

Hundreds of petitions are filed and finally Supreme Court of India raised its hands showing its helplessness and urged the Legislature to amend the law which otherwise could lead to "legal terrorism".

Even supreme court judges have to take care while they pronounce anything as they are not supposed to insult the parliament. So, they used all the necessary words with a decent tone giving the room the parliament.

Now, Parliament went to NCW asking its opinion. NCW being confident of massive feminist lobbies (in media and in literature) ordered the Govt not to amend the law.

So, the ball is at NCW.

Things will change only when each single marketing agent of Feminism is made to stick to truth in stead of indulging in oversimplifications and generalisations.

Our supporters in media are taking on feminists in media. Thats why Govt got such a bad publicity after it passed the biased DV act.

Let WCD and NCW pass the biased workplace harassment law, they will again lose the credibility.

Feminists are bullies every where. One can see that easily in every TV debate. Till now, men ignored these bullies thinking them as a bunch of rowdy women. Now, the days of ignoring them are over.

Younger feminists in age group of 20 to 30 are called kid Feminazies. These have half knowledge and driven by all kinds of anger even though society may have given them more than what it gives to an average man if that age. It is these kid feminazies who propagate thousands of stories shifting the responsibility of any problem on men.

For example, if an arranged marriage fails, they will promptly put the blame on the man for not spending enough time before marrying the female. If the female could not adjust to US/Canada, then the blame is promptly shifted to the man. If the female could not adjust Delhi or Bangalore, then they will blame it on IT lifestyle and traditional men.

It is like a massive honeycomb of swarming insects spreading the venum everywhere. If one of their friend has any minor problem, these females will lose no opportunity to ill-advise her.

Times of India's city supplements are completely feminist tabloids where the young feminists propagate all generalisations, stereotypes calling for Rohit Barkar or some Party animal's opinion. They also do some imaginary surveys to push some of their agendas.

When feminists can bully around at will, why should they have any problem when someone else does the same?

Feminists bully everyone. Feminists bully and threaten perfectly innocent people in CAW cells or in counselling centers. Feminists never think if the person whom they are threatening is a MCP, Chauvinist or abused husband or a decent intellectual. They threaten at will.

When feminists threaten and bully people at will, why should any feminist bother when someone else does the same to feminists?

No one is supporting dowry and no one is asking for total elimination of 498a. We are only asking feminists not to bully, threaten and lie in CAW cells, Vanitha Sahayavanis or in Counselling centers.

If they do not care and people like Aditi make it their hobby to market feminism from NCW and others, what should we do?

Should we buy Cymbals and Mridangam and do Hare Rama hare Krishna?

No blogger will write on any topic which is politically incorrect. That includes Aditi. Because, politically incorrect writings are annoying to people.

So, it is foolish for SIFF, if we are hoping any support from Aditi or other bloggers. The only thing they can do is it give lip service and carry on marketing feminism and create more followers for Renuka Choudhury, Girija Vyas and Ranjana Kumari.

Here Aditi maintains a clear line that there is an otherside, which is arranged marriage and oppression inside family. She completely ignored the issue of abusive women, who abuse the husband, if he earns less than her sister's husband and if he fails to buy expensive gifts which her sister's fiance can afford.

Abuse of men and any punishment to abusive women is a complete non-issue for reasonable and sane Aditi. But, if abused husband stays in a paying guest accommodation running away from home and to get even refuses divorce, then according to her he deserves 498a.

The whole ideology is that, "men are abusers and women are victims. If you agree then you are progressive and sane and if you disagree then you are MCP, dowry takers and your mother is a witch".

We will keep doing sane discussions, while feminists spread lies to millions of people within hours in a day via mass media.

In the end of the sane discussion what do we get. Some apologies and justification of madness of some bipolar adulterous females, whose lifestyle demands could not be met by a equity oriented husband. Then we all will be told, there can not be smoke without fire and for a greater social good and noble cause(feminism), it is okay to ruin your careers, lose jobs, lose parents, lose children, spend time in jail and lose social respect and get bankrupt to help the extortionists.

If CIA can fund money to Indian media to topple communist Govt in 60s in Kerala, then what the guarrentee that it is not doing the same to destroy the Indian family system by bribing media or by giving scholarships at US Universities to Indian feminist students?


------------------
SIFF is a Registered Trust
All its partner NGOs are also registered with concerned Registrars.
-------------------

#281
DesiMen
July 19, 2007
02:40 PM

278:

This entire paragraph in Aditi's article deals with men's issues and how both parties could be guilty/ made victims:

"People narrated how the alliance had been recommended by an aquaintance and how problems began when the girl insisted that he leave his parents and set up a house with her. Some of the men also described how they found out about their wife's pre-marital affair almost a year into the marriage. Oddly money issues were prominent. The men claimed that the woman had demanded money or had complaints about his finances. Some men narrated that their wife's family had been insulting and they had suffered humiliation. Some of the relatives who had been arrested stated their confusion over even having been included on the accused list."

PLEASE ALSO READ HER COMMENT #118

"I think there should be abuse laws for both genders. I have seen men who literally have serious health issues because the wife is too materialistic, too jealous etc. But they cannot approach the law and this bothers me. My thinking is not "We shouldnt have laws for women" but more on the lines of "Where should the men go if they suffer mental abuse/ torture?" This is one of the questions that people should be addressing"

Do YOU SEE THAT???? NOW DO YOU REALIZE AFTER READING HER COMMENTS AND THEN READING YOURS HOW DUMB YOU GUYS SEEM TO READERS FOR YOUR BASELESS ACCUSATIONS????


YOU GUYS SEE a bias because you WANT to see one. Readers who dont view it with any agenda dont see any bias. We are not pro-feminism, pro-SIF, Pro-498A. We are just readers. She is not taking side, just listing observations in a very neutral tone. If she addreses women's issues its only becoz as (she stated earlier in one of the comments)she being a woman can relate to women. Not becoz she thinks women are helpless victims!!

PAY ATTENTION TO THIS, PLEASE:

I have read 4 articles by her: In Shrek, Feminism & Men's Issues she very clearly DENOUNCES the portrayal of women as victims and men as saviors. She also brings to the forefront THE PROBLEMS MEN FACE as a result of social expectations. In fact, she is doing very articulately IN FAVOR OF YOUR AGENDAS things you guys HAVE NOT been able to do with all your bullying.

I HOPE READERS NOTICE THIS IRONY.

#282
DesiMen
July 19, 2007
02:42 PM

278:

This entire paragraph in Aditi's article deals with men's issues and how both parties could be guilty/ made victims:

"People narrated how the alliance had been recommended by an aquaintance and how problems began when the girl insisted that he leave his parents and set up a house with her. Some of the men also described how they found out about their wife's pre-marital affair almost a year into the marriage. Oddly money issues were prominent. The men claimed that the woman had demanded money or had complaints about his finances. Some men narrated that their wife's family had been insulting and they had suffered humiliation. Some of the relatives who had been arrested stated their confusion over even having been included on the accused list."

PLEASE ALSO READ HER COMMENT #118

"I think there should be abuse laws for both genders. I have seen men who literally have serious health issues because the wife is too materialistic, too jealous etc. But they cannot approach the law and this bothers me. My thinking is not "We shouldnt have laws for women" but more on the lines of "Where should the men go if they suffer mental abuse/ torture?" This is one of the questions that people should be addressing"

Do YOU SEE THAT???? NOW DO YOU REALIZE AFTER READING HER COMMENTS AND THEN READING YOURS HOW DUMB YOU GUYS SEEM TO READERS FOR YOUR BASELESS ACCUSATIONS????


YOU GUYS SEE a bias because you WANT to see one. Readers who dont view it with any agenda dont see any bias. We are not pro-feminism, pro-SIF, Pro-498A. We are just readers. She is not taking side, just listing observations in a very neutral tone. If she addreses women's issues its only becoz as (she stated earlier in one of the comments)she being a woman can relate to women. Not becoz she thinks women are helpless victims!!

PAY ATTENTION TO THIS, PLEASE:

I have read 4 articles by her: In Shrek, Feminism & Men's Issues she very clearly DENOUNCES the portrayal of women as victims and men as saviors. She also brings to the forefront THE PROBLEMS MEN FACE as a result of social expectations. In fact, she is doing very articulately IN FAVOR OF YOUR AGENDAS things you guys HAVE NOT been able to do with all your bullying.

I HOPE READERS NOTICE THIS IRONY.

#283
Anon
URL
July 19, 2007
03:06 PM

"The interviews with family members who were accused of dowry harassment is what interested me most. Why? Because they were women. They were mothers, sisters who had not lived with the couple, at times not even in the same country and they had been listed as accused."

Just to show all the liberal pricks in support of Aditi, who believe she understands what we are talking about.

If women were not victims of misuse of this law, what would her level of interest be ?

#284
Gaurav
July 19, 2007
03:12 PM

Anon

Were you not the one who abused us yesterday, you and your pals? What kind of filthy language was that?

#285
DesiMen
July 19, 2007
03:13 PM

284 "If women were not victims of misuse of this law, what would her level of interest be?"

If women protection laws are harming women more then isnt it worth the author's interest? In fact, it is a point you guys should be addressing. She isnt siding with anybody in that statement merely drawing the reader's interest to a point worth thinking over.

Can somebody explain what SIF is about: Are you guys anti-women? (in which case, you have quite a battle, you will have to destroy a lot of women!!!) or anti-misuse of 498A????

Decide among yourselves and let us know.

#286
Siffer
July 19, 2007
03:16 PM

It is only men, who are supposed to protect and provide for women. They also have to protect and provide for elders.

They also have to work as rescue workers and fire fighters to climb the WTC towers to rescue people knowing very well that towers will collapse.

It is only men who are supposed to be responsible and hence they must not be allowed to cry or express their emotions or share their feelings.

Men are only supposed to take responsibility. If they fail due to some bad luck or disease, then men are supposed to take all the guilt and blame,"I could not do justice to my wife and children and elderly parents". Then like so many farmers they are free to commit suicide so that some politicians can milk the issue and get votes.

There is no need to study any of men's problems as it is a man's world. It is a male dominated society and hence every rickshaw puller, a peon and every male kid working in a restaurent is a powerful person.

Everyday is a man's day. It is men, who did not allow women to plough land and do Coolie work at railway stations. It is men, who did not allow women to pull carts with 2 tonnes of load. It is men who did not allow women to fight with wild animals and hunt in cave ages. Women have not forgotten that discrimination even today.

For all these crimes of not allowing women to pull carts, rickshaws and ploughing in the fields, feminists need to take revenge on present generation of men, who help them in their workplace, in their family and everywhere.

The present generation of men, who bring billions as foreign exchange to the country, must be screwed so that feminists can free women from homes and give freedom to women to work as fire fighters, rickshaw pullers, traffic police women, soldiers, farmers and coolies.

Masculinity is a social evil and feminism is divine.

-------------------
Only the dumb libertarians bloggers understand how dangerous men are to the society. Only they know how biased sane discussions can be conducted after all they have learnt it from NDTV.
-------------------

#287
Siffer
July 19, 2007
04:05 PM

Desiman.

Laws meant to protect women are harming women!!

People are considered guilty till proven innocent.

Is not it a massive scam orchastrated by feminists?

Feminists like Aditi are just taking a defensive line as the truth is hiting them in YouTube and in Blogosphere.

Otherwise, do you know what was their stand?

There is no data on jailing of innocents.

What Aditi has done in all her articles is to give lip service and carry on with her agenda or marketing feminism to get more recruits for Renuka Chodry and co.

Aditi never said, female criminals who drive husbands to suicide be punished. She has never said, the females who are abusing the law must be give strick punishment.

She changed her tone only after interaction with SIFF members and started acting receptive.

It is known worldwide that feminists hate men and indulge in male bashing. Naomi Wolf a prominent Feminist at US herself acknowledged this mistake.

Desiman, how many times have you requested any feminist to stop her anti-male utterances?

If you have never done it, then why the hell you are accusing us being anti-women?

Today, in India men have no justice in family courts because of feminists like Aditi and their generalisation with sob stories.

In every program in TV, people are reminded that we are living in a male dominated society, where women who are second class citizens get oppressed daily.

What is the result?

The entire society hates men without considering whether a man is an MCP, an abused husband or a innocent intellectual.

Do you think people will forgive these feminists when they see and read their one-sides half truths in TV and in Blogs?

Aditi just like Goebbels stuck with half truths.
Every feminist propagates half truths.

They will claim that every 13 minutes a woman commits suicide in India.

But, they will never mention alongwith that a man commits suicide in every 7 minutes in India.

The same they will do with every bit of statistics and then immediately create stereotypes.

Even Aditi herself made a claim that 45% of women face DV in India without giving any data (even estimated) on DV faced by men. So, a reader concludes the 45% of women and 0% men in India face DV.

So, what should we do when people indulge in such hypocrisy?

We could see the feminist hypocrisy because we found that feminists have done exactly the same in US.(thanks to Christina Hoff Sommers).

These feminists get funds from corporates (we give them the funds), funds from Govt for gender studies departments and scholarships and what do they give us in return?

Hate. Lose of our Jobs, Lose of life, lose of prestige and get jailed and our sisters are threatened of false cases of prostution.

Even after 2 years of supreme court judgement, why the only fascist parliament of the world has not amended the law?

Because, people are still trusting the prime minister, the president, the MPs, the judiciary. Because, feminists like Aditi are writing innocent but biased articles on newspapers everyday.

If men are chauvinistic, then females can show better path. No.

No. Feminists today want to do everything that chauvinistic men used to do.

When they face the music, then they want sympathy.

Today men get screwed if they are chauvinistic or if they are equity oriented.

It is a sin to be a man. All this is due to feminist hate propaganda in media and in literature.

If the man do not take care of his mother she will curse him to face hell after death and if he takes care of her then his wife will puts 498a.

If a man does not escort female colleagues in office in their cabs then the office will screw him, and if he escorts the females then his wife will put 498a.

It has been a hobby of many females to slap, kick, hit husbands, threaten 498a just because he is not giving her a credit card and then write a email to Wipro or other software companies to sack the guy. We have got many such emails.

What will that guy do?

Love feminists?

Even when a female tells her husband in wedding night that she wants to marry her lover, her parents claim 3 lacs from the innocent murga husband and threaten 498a. The guy tolerates the female for next 6 months and coughs up the money finally as the female goes to marry her lover.

Will Ms.Aditi even consider such scenarios? For her it is all about evil in-laws. For her the parents of a girl are saints.

In love marriages, the female wants the man to work and stay at her parent's house in Mumbai to protect and provide for her parents. If he disobeys after 6 years of obeying her dictates, then all the love goes out of window and 498a is filed.

Every day I get 3 phone calls.

I do not know any anti-dowry helpline getting that many calls in a day.

It is the feminists, who themselves attend exgtravagant dowry marriages and hence they kept loop holes in the law.

Today, men are carrying voice recorders with them to protect themselves. Every single feminist story will backfire the way Pooja Chauhan (allegedly a prostitute)'s story backfired on NCW and NHRC.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/wipro-man-says-he-was-whipped-by-wife/27029-7.html

I counselled Gaurav Nigam whose wife accused Azim Premji of Domestic Violence after she got his parents jailed for 3 days in a kanpur Jail.


#288
DesiMen
July 19, 2007
04:16 PM

287: What is wrong with you people? You make the two genders sound like they were in some kind of war. Two genders have to live in peace. We cannot just take sides and pretend that men are brave and women are victims or that men are victims and women are bitches. IT just won't work.

Besides Siffer: Wake up!!!! we are in the 21st century. Women are in the army, they do work in hazardous occupations. There are female truck drivers in India and female police officers too. Have you seen women picki up those heavy loads in the sun at construction sites? Dunno what world you live in dude.

Read this paragraph from Aditi's article here:

http://desicritics.org/2007/05/25/004510.php

"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."

She addresses THE SAME points you do in the comment above (EXCEPT WITHOUT SARCASM) and you still blindly attack her and make a fool of yourself. Why? Because she is an independent woman capable of placing her opinions here and doesnt get bothered by your verbal abuse? And that threatens you.

#289
Anon
URL
July 19, 2007
04:24 PM

#284
------

Are you trying to fool yourself or us ?

You have copy-pasted the narration of what she saw, without any opinion of hers. Didn't you notice how, the topic shifted to NRI marriage.

It took #117 comments to come up with comment#118. I would give a pat on the back of SIF then, their onslaught did have an effect.

The bottomline is, these sugar coated feminists are one of the worst form of propogators. Their articles and comments would always have riders like "law is unfair", "we know there are some women who misuse the law" ,"I can sympathise with abused men" etc. and then they quickly jump to the plight of women echoing the media fed stories.

There are different layers of matrices being created to mislead the society and people. The sugar coated ones trap sex-starved, so-called liberal men, who would go to any length to support them.

Gaurav,
Not that it matter to me,but just to let u know, I have come back after a long break.

#290
Anon
URL
July 19, 2007
04:24 PM

#284
------

Are you trying to fool yourself or us ?

You have copy-pasted the narration of what she saw, without any opinion of hers. Didn't you notice how, the topic shifted to NRI marriage.

It took #117 comments to come up with comment#118. I would give a pat on the back of SIF then, their onslaught did have an effect.

The bottomline is, these sugar coated feminists are one of the worst form of propogators. Their articles and comments would always have riders like "law is unfair", "we know there are some women who misuse the law" ,"I can sympathise with abused men" etc. and then they quickly jump to the plight of women echoing the media fed stories.

There are different layers of matrices being created to mislead the society and people. The sugar coated ones trap sex-starved, so-called liberal men, who would go to any length to support them.

Gaurav,
Not that it matter to me,but just to let u know, I have come back after a long break.

#291
AnObserver
July 19, 2007
04:48 PM

SIFFERS:

Please read my comment becoz there is a very important message at the end.

You people seem to think that educated, civilized people change their line of thinking and suddenly become receptive because you use verbal abuse and intimidate them on public forums online. That is absolutely not true.

Truth is that people who have the ability to see somebody else's perspective do so no matter what. Sometimes people are not aware of certain things and once they know about it they think about the issues surrounding that cause. The start taking time to listen not because you are forcing them to but becoz they themselves have the patience and the concern to.

Thats what Aditi's article tells me. She wasnt aware of this section misuse. Once she found out she tried to listen. You guys still harassed her and so she found better ways to get info and wrote about an issue of marriage that is central to dowry/ domestic violence.

You guys have decided to label her a radical feminist, NOT becoz it is productive or even true but becoz it helps you vent your frustrations. It suits your own agendas and it gives you a platform to call women, feminist leaders etc all kinds of names.

You use words like sugar-coated, shameless, fraud, propaganda, liberal minded etc. Your limited vocabulary and limited intelligence both are very obvious for readers. You see a bias where there is no bias. You see some political agenda where there is none. You see it becoz you are guilty.

But you know what, the ability to influence people thru one's writing is a rare gift. We will see whose words have more influence ultimatley: your irrational ranting or Aditi's article that raises many important questions.

#292
Anon
URL
July 19, 2007
04:55 PM

Desiman,

The war was not started by us. It was started by feminists. They believed that only way woman can enjoy an improved and empowered status in the society is by displacing men.

They saw men as their competition and not an ally.

They forgot it was men like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chand helped in emancipation of women.

They saw men as a threat to them, so, the best route that suited them was through political will rather than self-reliance.

Voice against abuse of 498 A is being raised from atleast 15 years. What have they done ? Have they listened ? They have kept on blaming men for all the evils. They have captured the media to spread all lies and misconceptions.

They have converted the people like authors to believe that NRI men marry to bring their wife to the foreign land to cook and clean.

They have converted women to think that all men at home are terrorists.

The war was started by them, this is how they want to play it, so be it.

You are only echoing the same crap what Ranjana Kumari and her ilks do "men are getting threatened because women are becoming independent". You call yourself a liberal, then what is the difference between you and radicals? Do you now know why we believe there is no difference between the two classes.

What is an opinion of an independent women ? That she gets more worried that 'women' are actually victims of misuse of law?

What is an opinion of an independent women ? Pooja Chauhan does a roadshow, and some independent thinking woman writes an article glorifying her courage without giving a thought what the truth is ? Or that all women are victims, if she has done a semi-nude show, she has to be victim ? This is what you call the opinion of independent thinking women.

Desiman, we are not threatened by these opinions, we are worried. We are worried that these women have different forms to spread lies and deciet. We can't let innocent men to suffer further.

#293
Gaurav
July 19, 2007
05:09 PM

Sure you came back from a long break, I thought I [EDITED], who cares, whether you or your siffers, the language you use is a sign of defeat defeat all the way. [EDITED]

Btw....I visited India last month, things have changed, how long have you been absconding????

#294
Sanam
July 19, 2007
05:15 PM

#294: Gaurav, " Btw....I visited India last month, things have changed"

In what ways, Has India changed? Please enlighten.

#295
Sanam's Father
July 19, 2007
05:26 PM

Beta, you ran away from home with other strangers, come back to India, I will show you how. Please refrain from moving, sitting and eating with convicts.

#296
Anon
URL
July 19, 2007
05:26 PM

Another Observer,

Aditi's article is full of confusion. It is the result of conflict between her heart and mind.

The article is the result of the onslaught at other posts. She wanted to write something on 498A to establish that she is not a radical. The article is a very poor outcome of it.

She wants to talk about 498A (the mind at work) but cannot help sympathising with women, both victims of misuse of law and those in bad marriages (the heart at work, where her true beliefs lie).

She could not shed any light how the law is damaging innocent men, but in fact ended up, puting an onus on decision to marry as chief cause for 498 A.

Finally the message I get from the article is that 498A is ok, if one wants to escape its wrath then one should concentrate on how to get married rather on the ill-design of the law.

We are least bothered how you get married (as far as 498A is concerned) because bad marriages can hit anyone while you can have a highly successful marriage even without meeting the prospective bride/groom.

And unfortunately, this is rather a very grim scenario, because, if nothing happens to this law, we would prefer men not to marry.

Don't worry about who can influence whom, we are least bothered about it. We know, if people can be woken up, this is the only way, otherwise they can never be.

#297
Sanam
July 19, 2007
05:47 PM

@#296,,,,Ohhh I'm so scared now. (ROTFL) Some people are just so funny.

#298
Sanam's Father
July 19, 2007
06:07 PM

At least I have a sense of humor, my comments are not deleted neither are abusive. And I am no con artist.

#299
A.K.Rathor
July 19, 2007
07:51 PM

Anon,

who is this Reader #255 claiming I have made vulgar comments...

Can you please take care...

#300
A.K.Rathor
July 19, 2007
07:52 PM

Anon,

who is this Reader #255 claiming I have made vulgar comments...

Can you please take care...

#301
AnObserver
July 19, 2007
08:23 PM

297: Readers please see how dumb and funny this sounds :D

"And unfortunately, this is rather a very grim scenario, because, if nothing happens to this law, we would prefer men not to marry.'

Prefer men notto marry!!!! HAHAHAHA. As if these guys are the arbitrary decision makers of whether desi men all over the world should marry or not. Hehehehehe. Whatta grim scenario!

"Finally the message I get from the article is that 498A is ok, if one wants to escape its wrath then one should concentrate on how to get married rather on the ill-design of the law"

OH, Is that the message!!!! HOW VERY SMART OF YOU to analyze everything from the author's potential pysche, to her confusion, to her motives but then you forgot to analyze the article! Wouldntve expected too much analysis from you anyways. Quite a convenient conclusion.

"We are least bothered how you get married (as far as 498A is concerned)..."

Yeah, because SIF doesnt care whether you took time before getting married or not all they care about is if your wife came home late at night, if she had a boyfriend before marriage...that will help them ruin a woman's character. These people dont think twice before ruining the character of their child's mother just to escape prison. Let their children grow up...they will have their own movement against these Siffers. Hypocrites.

#302
Reader
July 19, 2007
11:59 PM

Rahor,

Anon will take care of you....yeah right! Even you boss is having a bad couple of days.

#303
Reader
July 20, 2007
12:00 AM

And Rahod,

Why do not you ask siffer , anon and SS what those comments were?

#304
Reader
July 20, 2007
12:02 AM

And what dont you ask 256 who deleted those comments and let me know then okay

#305
Siffer
July 20, 2007
02:04 AM

No where Aditi asked, how the hell feminists could support such a fascist law.

No where Aditi asked, if feminism is in the danger of getting discredited for propagating lies and supporting such laws.

For her feminism has got no responsibility towards society. If fascist laws are enacted due to pressure by feminists, then the MPs are responsible.

This this article she has shown how nicely all the blame can be shifted from feminism to the husband and his family.

If 498a is in this current state, then it is the feminists and NCW, who are responsible.

No where Aditi took that responsibility of behalf of any feminist. She only evaded the responsibility by confusing the readers with stereotypes and oversimplified generalisations.

If someone is marketing a product and if the product has chances of being hazardous, the sales person has to take responsibility first.

Is not feminism hazardous for girls as any young girl wont be knowing, which variant of feminism she has bought. Because, no feminist writes about the variant that she is selling.

It is feminists, who drag feminism into each and every issue. If its children's issue feminists will hijack it to get funds. If it is issue of mentally challenged or Tsunami, feminists will hijack it to further their agenda.

It is feminists who are talking about usage cloning to eliminate men and some MCPs jump in to protect the "Abla Nari".

For every feminist, the husband's family is rich, famous and influential and wife's family is poor, powerless and helpless (even when we hear the story of Nitish Katara).

The gender war is started by feminists.

GENDWAAR.gen.in

------
ID: BIG17_60_en

TITLE: Gendwaar

ISSUE AREAS: Women

KEYWORDS: Gender

URL: http://gendwaar.gen.in/index.htm

TYPE: Learning Library

LANGUAGES: English en

FORMAT: HTML

DESCRIPTION: This is the homepage for Gendwaar. The site seeks to enhance access to gender studies information for the South Asian region by making available catalogues, indexes, bibliographies and directories with a focus on gender studies.

RELATED RESOURCE: Centre for Women's Development Studies http://www.cwds.org/

CREATOR: Centre for Women's Development StudiesSNDT Women's University

ORGANIZATION: Centre for Women's Development StudiesSNDT Women's University

LOCATION: India

ORGANIZATION TYPE: NGO/CSO

SUMMARY: Promoted jointly by SNDT Women's University Library (Mumbai) and Centre for Women's Development Studies (New Delhi), Gendwaar is financially supported by the Harvard School of Public Health, University of Harvard. It welcomes collaboration from other organizations working on gender issues in the region.

Date: 27 Jun 2006, 14:28
---------


Now, one can understand who is funding GenderWaar.

The overconfident foolish male chauvinists want to protect and provide for anti-national Feminists who have started a GenderWaar.


#306
SS
July 20, 2007
05:13 AM

[EDITED - IRRELEVANT]

#307
Anon
July 20, 2007
08:42 AM

Dowry case slapped on two minor siblings: Court Issues NBW against eight and four year olds, concelament of age causes goof up. - Akhilesh Kumar Singh TNN (The Times of India, Hyderabad. Thursday, July 19, 2007; Times Nation pg. 13)

Kanpur: In an age when the life for little ones is all play and fun, four year-old Vishal is hiding at an unknown place since June 29, evading his arrest. Reason: He and his brother Ajay (8) are facing a non-bailable warrant (NBW) in a dowry harassment case.

Under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the district court had asked the police to register a case against Ramesh Kuriel, a resident of Darshadev village near Gujaini in Kanpur Dehat district, his wife Shanti and their sons Abhinay (24), Vishal (4) and Ajay (8). The court issued the directive on a complaint lodged by Abhinay's wife Deepa, who had alleged that her in-laws, husband and two minor brothers-in-law tired to set her ablaze on December 2, 2006 when her family refused to pay a dowry demand of Rs.50,000, besides a bike. The two kids have been accused of helping the family in pouring kerosene on Deepa during the unsuccessful bid to set her ablaze.

While the police in a bid to comply with the court order continued raiding possible hideouts of the kids, the complainants advocate Arun Srivastava explained that as Deepa had not disclosed the age of the accused persons, this goof up took place. "We are rectifying the lapse," he added. Although Ramesh Kuriel and his wife were granted bail on Tuesday, their three sons are yet to seek it and come out of hiding. "Deepa has implicated my entire family after her husband and my son Abhinay refused to leave us and stay separately," Ramesh alleged.

The case has, however, added to the swelling number of the frivolous anti-dowry cases in which the criminal justice system is used as a tool to settle personal scores. This is happening despite several higher court orders in the past asking lower courts to avoid entertaining flimsy use of anti-dowry law. The latest such direction had come from the Delhi High Court on March 13 last.

"The trial court must take into account the entirety of the case, all documents which are brought to its notice and thereafter decide whether there was a case made out or the court was being used as a tool," Justice SN Dhingra had observed in his order.

The court gave the opinion after hearing a plea by one Sangeeta Kalra to quash a criminal complaint filed by her father in June 1999, accusing her husband and in-laws of harassing her for dowry.

#308
Sanam
July 20, 2007
08:47 AM

@ Aditi,

Just a dose of humor early morning for you. Your name aditi is trapped in Tradition( Tra-ADITI on) and yet you write about freedom.

#309
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 20, 2007
10:34 AM

Hello people...

Looks like this debate has gone on quite a bit without me (and without logic as well, if I may so).

First, I want to thank those of you who wrote to me and told me of your own experiences. I realize it is never easy to reveal such personal episodes and I am glad you shared some of that information with me.

Interestingly one of the people who wrote to me upon reading the article was a young Indian guy who said he had changed his mind about going thru with the plans of his finding a girl and getting married within a month on his coming India trip. He stated that after reading the article he had decided to take some more time before he took the vows.

THAT is what this article was about!!!

If the stereotypes infuriated some of you, it only means that some introspection should be on the to-do list. Denial of existing scenarios by branding them as "negative stereotypes" is like turning a blind eye, willingly and callously to truth.

While some of you have concluded that this article was "supposed" to (for whatever reason!) voice YOUR line of thinking about the evils of feminism and how section 498A is wrong, this was simply a representation of MY observations and MY thoughts on the subject.

Therefore #306, you will have to look for another article that does all the things you found lacking in mine, or better yet, write one!

This article was NOT about what feminism is, what section 498A is or what the people who were falsely accused should have done. I believe those topics are covered by the SIFF website?

This article was about a simple issue: is precaution better than the later hassle? Hence this question was NOT addressed to those of you who have already faced the false accusations BUT to those who are now contemplating marriage.

It was NOT meant for SIFF to analyze whether it is an effective way to counter false accusations...that was NOT what the article was about at all! You guys are NOT the authority on matters concerning section 498A. Other people do retain the right to voice their own opinions on the subject. Some of us do get to wonder if the marriage protocol should change in the presence of laws that can be abused.

Anyways, I realize that some of these discussions are marred seriously by a difference in mentalities and thinking.

Also, not to dignify the lousy joke in any way but Sanam #309 : only when someone is trapped do they crave freedom.

Thanks!

#310
Siffer
July 20, 2007
10:42 AM

"You guys are NOT the authority on matters concerning section 498A."

You are highly mistaken about this, Aditi.

"Other people do retain the right to voice their own opinions on the subject."

About this you are right and your opinions evoke different kinds of responses as we have already seen.

#311
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 20, 2007
11:19 AM

#311: Believe me, I do not make statements on the fly. I am not mistaken as you will eventually find out. Sometimes trying to spread awareness online has a downside: you never know who it is you are preaching to and what the outcome will be and where the effects will be seen.

Clarification: Any "movement" that is NOT an "organization" cannot assume authority. Just as I cannot force another woman to believe in the same philosophies of feminism, you cannot immediately/ forcibly pull the 498A accused under your wings unless they approach you. That does not make SIFF an authority since as many of the members have repeatedly stated on a public forum, SIFF has no heirarchy within its system. Right?

As for the responses: I believe my article itself evoked fewer responses than the existing prejudice of some people. The protests were more a manifestation of existing frustrations that just needed to be vented and found a convenient though inappropriate platform. And the verbal abuse, that was a just manifestation of defeat in the face of logic.

Thank you for your comments!

#312
Siffer
July 20, 2007
11:30 AM

Your statement was "You guys are NOT the authority on matters concerning section 498A". It was not about methods SIF uses for spreading awareness or anything else.

If you don't consider the vast majority of comments as responses to your article that is fine. Commentators argue amongst themselves too all the time in all threads.

#313
SS
July 20, 2007
12:09 PM

#246, Da-Men, your missy had sent you to write a copy and paste joke. Good joke!!! You are a good joker no doubt to amuse and entertain your feminine bosses.
Feminists had gone crazy with people understanding their publicity of filth, hatred and destruction, and real agenda of adultery and sex-liberation.
Siffer had threadbared this article, and your every move to act chivalrous. So go partying, dancing, swinging with your babies.
Also can you tell what feminists mean when they say 'fuckers', if you know what it mean.
After you find it out, I will give you the further list.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#314
Rajesh
July 20, 2007
12:27 PM

# 315,

Well said, lets us ask what these feminists mean for this high class words, destroy families and reveal thier body. What they want by this.

#315
DesiMen
July 20, 2007
12:34 PM

Rajesh: "Let us ask what these feminists mean for this high class words, destroy families and reveal thier body."

Let us first ask if Rajesh 315 and SS #314 are the same people?

Not only is their English similar, they have identical views on feminism (revealing bodies and such!)

SS: Just becoz YOU have a boss dictating when to unleash your foul mouth doesn't mean I do too.

#316
SS
July 20, 2007
12:44 PM

#316, Good one, Keep coming with your jokes, what else your bosses are teaching you. Did they taught you the meaning of words.

-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#317
Anon
URL
July 20, 2007
01:13 PM

Aditi, you wrote"

"Denial of existing scenarios by branding them as "negative stereotypes" is like turning a blind eye, willingly and callously to truth."

What "existing scenarios" and "truth" you are talking about. Pls be explicit. What are we denying?

"This article was about a simple issue: is precaution better than the later hassle? Hence this question was NOT addressed to those of you who have already faced the false accusations BUT to those who are now contemplating marriage."

Should I then understand that, the best way to avoid 498A (for those not married yet)is to spend as much time as possible and get to know as much as possible the prospective bride, before marrying. That means, love marriages should be least vulnerable to misuse of these laws.

What is the basis of this assumption?

#318
Siffer
July 20, 2007
03:24 PM

Aditi,

You wrote:

"Clarification: Any "movement" that is NOT an "organization" cannot assume authority."

SIFF is a registered organisation (a trust) and so are other partner NGOs. So, according to your logic can SIFF assume authority now?

"That does not make SIFF an authority since as many of the members have repeatedly stated on a public forum, SIFF has no heirarchy within its system. Right?"

From where did you get that crap that only hierarchichal organisations have authority in any subject?

Okay. Fine. SIFF is not an authority in any subject. It is only you who has the authorty on the the new marriage and matchmaking processes.

Only you know the logic and all others are ignorant fools venting out their frustrations.

"Is it fair for men to want an educated woman, who has a brilliant career, an education to match his, a modern sense of thinking and still wants to live in a cramped house with his parents and siblings?"

So, men are the criminals whose only job is to curtail the brilliant careers and modern thinking of women.

So, all the NRIs and techies are living in cramped houses with their parents and siblings?


Finally, it is the NRIs, who take planes (like Russian prostitutes) and arrive in India, marry a female in a month and then make her stay in a cramped house in US with their parents and siblings.

What an analysis!!

It is an enoromous torture on the parents and siblings staying thousands of miles away if the wife is a 498a female. Now, men are asking their parents to legally disown them so that the chance of parents getting bail increases a bit.

The problem with feminists is that they assume themselves to be authorities in the subject of family (though they are anti-family by default).

It is very difficult for young women to digest criticism especially from men. That is true even for women, who create negative stereotypes of men.

#319
Aditi Nadkarni
July 20, 2007
04:41 PM

318: You guys are viewing this article as some sort of a "Avoid 498A charges" handbook. Its not!! It is a discussion and evaluation of one of the factors. Is this so hard for you to grasp, such a simple thing?

319 Siffer: A trust is either a charitable organization or a service provider. In either case it cannot hold authority over anyone and is NOT a governing body. People who have been falsely accused of 498A can choose not to approach you guys. They can choose other means and approach other organizations if they were available. In fact, I did my best to avoid mentioning this but now I will:

I received 3 emails from guys who were afraid that their estranged spouses were going to file DV charges and didn't know whatta do. Two of them said they were too scared of your approaches after having read comments by your members while one said he had contacted your offices but was not in favor of the extreme approaches recommended by your members.

"It is only you who has the authorty on the the new marriage and matchmaking processes"

I am not claiming any authority over anything and if you were to stop turning this into a fight you would understand that this is just a discussion about a factor that could potentially affect the status of a relationship.

In businesses, if you don't know somebody and you get into a contractual relationship with them, you are more likely to get cheated. Similarly in relationships you don't know someone well you may find out things later that could bother you or be a problem, lead to an incompatibility. Its plain logic!

I don't even know why you guys are fighting something that is so logical! It just surprises me. Usually I take time to answer questions or critique but this is just very petty.

You are pulling out examples out of my article and exaggerating each one of them. What do I do with people who are hell-bent on proving that I am a radical feminist trying to create negative stereotypes for Indian men!

Go ahead and believe what you want to.

My article evaluates the current marriage protocol and enlists my own take on its effect and the kind of discussions that could avoid potential incompatibilities from cropping up later.

If you disagree with it, I don't mind. If you advocate getting married in a hurry, I don't mind either.

****It is kinda boring to get into a debate with people who already know they are right and are absolutely unwilling to even reconsider an alternative stance.****

#320
Siffer
July 20, 2007
04:54 PM

There are several meanings to the word authority. SIFF is definitely an authority on Section 498A. There is no doubt about it.

Very sorry that your friends found approaches suggested by the SIFF members they contacted extreme. Extreme problems sometimes require extreme measures. It depends on the case. We have people who are aggressive about cases, and those that have moderate approaches. But we never expect anyone to follow our approaches...people have to eventually figure out what they are comfortable doing after learning about all the possibilities. Anyway, hopefully you can guide them better so that they don't fall prey to some lawyer who will talk nice but suck the blood out of them.

#321
Sandeep
July 20, 2007
07:10 PM

>>> Y A W N <<<<


Hey Aditi,
its high time for new article now.
If you see last 200 responses, they have nothing to do with the article but mere- "you said", "I said"stuff and bunch of copy pasted articles which no one cares to read.

Some of the respondents make me feel like we are playing a game of "Head or tails" and they are hellbent on seeing only side of the coin. totally forgetting and ignoring that each coin has 2 sides. This really amuses me.

Remember once not so long back, u said that u r open for all sorts of praises and bashes, comments & arguements and that this makes an enriching experience for you. I agree and appreciate your stand.

But looking at few of the responses I have started wondering are others open enough for an experince? or do u make a good punching bag to vent out that locked frustration?? ... just a thought.

Keep writing & Best wishes. !!!!

#322
Anon
July 20, 2007
09:42 PM

"bunch of copy pasted articles which no one cares to read."

People who did care to read at least one of them would've definitely learned something. I guess that is too much to ask for from some people as they will not learn until they experience the bamboo first-hand. Keep yawning.

And yes, it is time for a new article. Hopefully something that is well-researched and something that does not get accidentally posted before it is completed.

#323
Anindita Sengupta
URL
July 20, 2007
10:45 PM

Great post. I know what you mean -- I have seen some arranged marriages up close and invariably they are motivated by a desire to abolish loneliness but people rarely seem to think about the fact that living with someone you don't love or get along with can be even lonelier.

It's all very well to worry about the 'breakdown' of society but sometimes I think individual happiness has no value in our country. A person can live their whole lives in misery but as long as they preserve the pretences, we'll applaud them and say they've done well.

#324
SS
July 21, 2007
12:01 AM

"It's all very well to worry about the 'breakdown' of society but sometimes I think individual happiness has no value in our country"

Imported feminists while reading the filth and garbage of west, forgot to read,
Aristotle and many many others, who says, "Man is a social animal. Without society he is nothing but animal."

It seems they forgot to say, WOMAN, which was always never doubtlessly implied and included,

but FEMINISTS are hell bent on proving him right.

FEMINISTS woman are nothing but ANIMAL.


-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#325
SS
July 21, 2007
12:27 AM

#320 - I received 3 emails from guys who were afraid that their estranged spouses were going to file DV charges and didn't know whatta do.

Feminists won't help them as per their business ethics, they can only counsel and weaponize their wives, they can go to the psychiatrist in #322, who is >>>>YAWNING<<<<<.
-----------------------------------------------
Mothers, Sisters and Daughters against Feminism
-----------------------------------------------

#326
Anon
URL
July 21, 2007
12:56 AM

"****It is kinda boring to get into a debate with people who already know they are right and are absolutely unwilling to even reconsider an alternative stance.****"

The same can be said for you.
You seem to be the only one here with logic, all other logics not conforming with u are illogical and unintelligent.

#327
Against Dowry takers
July 21, 2007
01:16 AM

Aditi,

How can "Anon" ever have logic, the name itself is non-existent.

Only a set of dimwits have something against you and even the majority of men have supported this article because they understand the true essence and meaning behind it.


Good job!

#328
Against Dowry takers
July 21, 2007
01:17 AM

Anon,

You said one thing correctly, Aditi is the only one here with a logical mind. It took one article and 327 comments for you to get that , nevertheless you made it. Congratulations!

The case is not rested.

#329
Sandeep
July 21, 2007
02:06 AM

# 323 @ ANON

"I guess that is too much to ask for from some people as they will not learn until they experience the bamboo first-hand."
- was just wondering the enlightenment that dawned on you was it because of the copy pasted articles or was it a first hand bamboo???? neverthless, not interested in knowing whatsoever. ;-)

Keep rolling the copy pasted articles, if that helps ur cause(??). I am sure it helps you.

Best wishes for whatever that you do.

#330
Siffer
July 21, 2007
03:59 AM

Aditi,
You wrote:
"It is kinda boring to get into a debate with people who already know they are right and are absolutely unwilling to even reconsider an alternative stance."

Are not the feminists the same? Are not feminists claiming that they knowly know the truth and they are only right?

See, it is feminists who have propagated and are propagating memes of stereotypes, false information, false data and false conclusions. In this article, you repeated some of them.

A Half truth or stereotype can be very logical. But, half truths are dangerous, so are sweeping generalisations and hasty conclusions.

Men have to yet woken up to the conspiracy against them by Patriarchy and also feminists.

Patriarchy makes them suppress emotions, stop crying and keep thinking always about protecting and providing for family, wife, elders and even the neighbourhood and society.

With feminism and talk about gender equality, men will also start counting their chickens.

Most men sleep walk through their whole life without understanding how the society disposes them after using.





#331
Siffer
July 21, 2007
04:41 AM

Grave human rights violations keep happening in India due to obsession with political correctness and progressivism.

Amnesty International has sympathy for Haneef, but it supports jailing of innocent children under 498a.

It is SIF which integrated all the local movements against these human rights violations sponsered by Indian Parliament and created a national front against lobbies which harbour such terrorism on common people.

Our vocal approach has worked. And this also underlines the fact that any social transformation can happen only when people get vocal about it.

India did not get freedom from British with discussions.

We block, bug the communication channels of the Feminists who support legal terrorism.







#332
vishnu
July 21, 2007
08:57 AM

ADITI

The moral of your article is " don't marry blindly, think many times before marry, and spend some time with the bride and with her family and understand each other well and
Term your conditions and listen her conditions and then marry...isn't it?

And love marriage are better because in love marriage above all takes place...(my assumption because you told that "the one strikingly common factor stood out: arranged marriages").After that you introduced "broader concept of marriages that are not just arranged/ love matches but people take very little time to evaluate issues beyond the romance. I like to give a name BROADER CONCEPT MARRIAGE to this for convenience"

(If this is not the aim of your article please ignore remaining. excuse me for my poor understanding skills. If it is true BE WITH PATIENCE AND READ ALL THE ARGUMENTS. Please don't disappoint me.)

MY ARGUMENT:

You said that "lot misuses has taken place in arranged marriages...but you see lot of successful marriages in India even after introducing the 498a, are arranged marriages. We can say this directly because in India 90% marriages are arranged marriages. In them lot of marriages are successful. So I don't think I need to produce a proof for this.

: And came to broader concept marriage:

Most of the love marriages satisfy most of the characters (may be not all characters) you specified. So love marriages are can be come under the category of broader concept. So love marriages must have the high rate of marriage satisfaction. But the reality is different you can find it in any essays or articles that was written on this issue.

But the proof I am giving is: In western countries arranged marriage are very low, the broader concept/ love marriage are very high. Are they happy...
See the divorce rate of these western countries...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/
peo_div_per_100_mar-people-divorces
-per-100-marriages

Paste this totally and see the latest divorce rate of these countries...divorce rate per 100 marriages is 50 in some countries...

See the same site and with little patience search that webpage you will find the option "divorce rate for 1000 people" in that also you will find these western countries has more divorce rate.

CONTINUED.....

#333
vishnu
July 21, 2007
08:58 AM

part 2 of post #333
to ADITI


So marriages with broader concept /love marriage are not that much efficient that we think. And some analyst said like "the marriage between two completely unknown people has more success rate". I am not providing proof here for this, if you have some patience in balance after reading this, please search in google on the concept arranged marriages Vs love marriages...you will find this statement.


COMING TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND MISUSE

http://www.fathers.ca/references_showing.htm

Here you will find some links for domestic violence related articles which states that domestic violence is not a gender issue. Both men and woman are abusers.

http://www.batteredmen.com/batrcan.htm

Women 3%, men 2%; U.S. 1.3% to 0.9%' Britain both 4.2%.(this is for small period) you find this statistics in this site.(full and detailed)

We can assume that in domestic violence against men misuse also takes place. these are the statistics of harassed husbands.

CONTINUED....

#334
vishnu
July 21, 2007
08:59 AM

part 3 of post #333
to ADITI


Now see the statistics of feminists:

http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html

you find lot of points here and one thing is 64% of woman are facing DV in many forms(see the site for complete report)


let us believe men's site first. It is true then there is lot of violence and misuse of laws even though maximum no of marriages are love marriages/ broader concept marriages.

Let us believe the feminist site. If it is true there is lot of violence in the home. Even though marriages are love/broader concept.


So we can easily assume that the violence or misuse is not lacking of the understanding or broader concept or love. It is matter of their animal nature, Ego, selfishness. All of this are trampling the love and understanding between them. Isn't it?

The concept you specify in your article won't work. We can't experiment on people.
As a writer you have some responsibility. You can easily encourage a person to do something. So do some research work on your opinion or what ever else you want to write on popular public forums (this is not an order, this is my humble request to you).


And more over you argument matches with this scenario, there is a weapon, which can through missiles on enemies, but it has no idea where the enemy is. instead attacking the enemy most of the times it throw missiles on innocent people.

May be aim of the weapon is good. But used in bad way. So you have to protect the innocent from that. You can't hide some where to escape that. So you have to modify that, "it should not attack innocent". Instead some people brutally saying (I am not saying about you) it is common, and some people saying some of us also get injured and some people say like we have attacked by our enemies so these must be there you should not even touch it.

So people like you should have to concentrate on misuse of this law. Try to protect the innocent. Don't consider the ill treatment of woman of centuries (some people saying like this) because we are not the culprits for the centuries of abuse against woman.

CONTINUED.....

#335
vishnu
July 21, 2007
08:59 AM

part 4 of post #333
to ADITI.

AND ONE MORE ARGUMENT :( Don't worry, Last One):

"Is it fair for men to want an educated woman, who has a brilliant career, an education to match his, a modern sense of thinking and still wants to live in a cramped house with his parents and siblings? Or is it an issue to be addressed between couples before the "I dos"."

Is it fair for a woman ,who is educated, and ask like this. Doesn't she know that caring the parents in their old age or taking responsibility of his siblings, if it is necessary, is the responsibility of a man?

How can she ask a man to escape from his duties, can a man also ask her escape her duties, then what people call him?

One side, you people call a man as heartless and demon for deserting their parents and not doing his duties and other side asks this type of question. How it is fair ADITI?
I don't think it is a addressable issue before the "I dos". You have to understand that it is mandatory for men to look after their parents. (Of course there is a law, which meant to punish the men, who desert their parents).


Finally what I am asking you is, you already accept that GENDER NEUTRAL LAWS should be there. So can you join with us for fighting for gender neutral laws? Can you convince your feminist friends for this gender neutral laws? Can you write and article opposite to these GENDER BIASED LAWS and MEDIA?

Thanks for reading my all argument with patience...please read it well and understand, because it may not be well written due to the limits of my English skills. Please and please...... reply for this as soon as possible.


Vishnu.

#336
Indian Husbands
July 21, 2007
02:03 PM

Vishnu

Very badly explained

#337
Siffer
July 21, 2007
02:20 PM

What precautions men must take??

If the article is all about the best way to have a good married life, then doing R&D on the bride for months or years will never help.

In fact, the guy can always marry the female in one month time hopping on a plane from US, provided.......

......provided he has done R&D on behaviour of the girl's mother.

More than 90% of the cases are filed by those girls whose mothers are feminists/female chauvinists or who feel unhappy about the capability/competence/character of their husbands. This is also applicable to situations where the girl's mother in short tempered egoistic female where as her father in henpecked manipulative type.

If the girl's mother is of above type, the chances of 498a increase many folds. Often it does not matter if the wife/girl is nice, considerate or understanding. Because, her mother will ultimately prevail and force her to put 498a. Such mothers want to take revenge on their husbands, but as it is too late, they make their daughters do that.

So, it is simple for men.

Do not marry girls whose mothers are short tempered egoistic types,who call all the shots at home. This should be used as a rule even if the girl is nice, considerate and understanding.

Most men ignore this,thinking that they are marrying the daughter not the mother-in-law. They realise after paying a heavy price in terms of 498a.

#338
A.K.Rathor
July 21, 2007
02:54 PM

On the lighter vein -
Its High time to match the 'Janam Kundali' of the Groom with his mother-in-law first before matching it with the Girl.
Even if only the first criteria matches, chances for success is high :-))

#339
DesiMen
July 21, 2007
03:11 PM

338: Siffer: I truly appreciate your enlightened view! It provided a great source of weekend entertainment for me and some of my friends. Just as we thought it was yet another boring Saturday afternoon, we read your comment and it put a big grin on our faces. So from all of us here, thank you! :D

On that cheerful note, a question: What happens if a "feminist" woman has a son? Would this ten-headed, fanged beast of a "feminist" want to venge her son (becoz he is is a man) or the daughter-in-law? We are all very curious to hear your thoughts on the subject if you would be so kind as to elaborate.

Also could you please for our ignorant sakes describe how your mom was. Because we would like to know what kind of an upbringing nurtures and cultivates the very formidable Siffer mentality.

#340
Anon1
July 22, 2007
05:25 PM

You yourself said that there is another side to every story. It is advisable not to be so quick to take sides. To be married to someone like you would be utter hell and misery. Pompus asses.

#341
Sandeep
July 23, 2007
01:44 PM

# 340, Hey Desiman,
I cant differ there, u just said it all.
hahahahah

I guess now its not the wife but her mother to be punished for all "wrong" doings.
This is getting better and better.

@ Aditi,
better compile this and get it copywrited, the material here can make one hell of book.

@ Anon, # 341
Trust me, the feeling is surely mutual

#342
Sandeep
July 23, 2007
02:05 PM

# 336, Vishnu,

"Is it fair for a woman ,who is educated, and ask like this. Doesn't she know that caring the parents in their old age or taking responsibility of his siblings, if it is necessary, is the responsibility of a man?"

[ I never knew responsibility is also gender biased]

Ok now that u agree that is is man's responsibility to care and take responsibility of parents. Let me ask you one thing, does it also mean that you will taking care and responsibility of yours wife's parents too?
If your wife can leave her parents and stay with your family as per "YOUR EXPECTATION" to take care and responsibility of your old parents, ARE YOU ready to show the same kind of committment to her and stay with her parents ?? are you ready to support her siblings the way you expect her to treat your siblings??

You would argue that her brother should take care of them?? why, isnt she their kid?? also what happens she happens to be a single child or has a sister??
please take a moment and think.

It is always easy and convinent for us to assume and expect that in a relationship our partner should and will make all compromises. well the door swings both the ways here !!!


#343
vishnu
July 23, 2007
11:57 PM

Sandeep

#343.

Mr. sandeep you are mistaken. It doesn't mean responsibility is also gender biased.It never happens like that.Generally man need to take responsibility of his old aged parents.it's a tradition. same thing apply for woman also, if they are Dependant on her..

nowadays all formulas has been changed.so both men and woman can take responsibility if they are capable.here capability is important.If any woman want to take responsibility of her parents..i will appreciate it.It's really a nice decision.And you asked that can you support them....yes.
recently i heard that one woman conditioned like "my parents should stay with me.I am the only daughter". the response to her is positive.really a good decision by her and my appreciation goes to the husband, no need to mention his parents are also living with them.
please let us spread this type of attitude in men and woman. not the attitude aditi specified in her article.it's not fair.


and about the sibling responsibility.I think you are not aware of situations where son-in-law take some responsibilities(if his wife is elder daughter of her parents)like marriage and studies.... when his wife family is dependent on her.

I can understand your intention of asking this question. Men always ask her wife to take responsibilities and they don't like take the responsibilities of his wife family.

it's just because of the idea that her brother will take care of that. if she is the only daughter search in the world, you will definitely find at least some responsibilities that son-in-law has taken.If he doesn't take care of them...then ask for it.

if she is modern independent woman, who are good career and financial support, no one can stop her to take the responsibilities of her parents.(you remember aditi mentioned this kind of woman).

And yes, i am also saying that, let the door swing in both ways.it is a good sign.











#344
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
July 24, 2007
12:23 AM

Vishnu:

I have to admit I did not take the trouble of reading your comments 333-336 since I am very tired of justifying myself to people who have already made assumptions and inferences about me and are no longer open to input.

However judging from your comment above, you seem to have somehow concluded that I am "spreading" an "attitude" whereby dutybound men should not take care of their parents. This is completely untrue and a premature assumption.

While readers are allowed to come to the conclusions that most suits their frame of mind, I as the author, reserve the right to state that this article merely touches on the various aspects that should be among the important points that a couple discusses before marriage...so that they don't have to argue about it after the wedding. Meaning: If a guy wants to live in the same house with his parents, he should probably mention that and ask the girl's views about that decision before the vows are taken rather than just expecting her to "adjust" as is common practice.

If men are so aware of their duties then isn't it only fair that they be honest about them when talking about a lifetime bond?

Your very benevolent suggestion of "girls can do the same for their parents" unfortunately gets crushed by vehement declarations of "culture, tradition" and such other weighty issues which our society for very long has been slave to. So, although it sounds very attractive and near perfect in theory on a public forum, it does NOT quite a work that way in real life.

Lastly, if people decide that I am issuing some kind of a memorandum for public behavior, they

If some people lack the maturity to see the very simple and logical point that this article attempts to make, I cannot help it.

The point was NOT about HOW people should live their marital lives BUT about what KIND of issues they should DISCUSS before getting married.

This will be my final word on this topic.

#345
vishnu
July 24, 2007
12:59 AM

thanks for your final word.

i also don't want to comment on it further.

i never said that, you are responsible for spreading this kind of attitude.any how you got this impression after reading my comment,i hope this explanation resolve that mis interpretations. I just told if woman think like the way specified in your comment, it is not good and it is common that men need to look after their duties. and i make a suggestion that let us stop this attitude and spread the new attitude.possible or not...who are we to decide?

about the maturity, let us leave it to readers.

#346
Reader of DC
July 24, 2007
01:36 AM

I think the bunch of siffers are the most imatured ppl around. No statistics, no data, only expectations expectations, be it money, dowry or making the woman dance

#347
Siffer
July 24, 2007
05:58 AM

Reader, Only male hating furniture breaking hypocrite feminists are the most matured people around.

Only feminists are rational people who are interested in saving families, preventing abortions (child killing) and developing society and economy.

Only feminists have valid statistics.

Using all the statistics, men must be picked at random and thrown in jails because men oppressed and raped women for ages.

Now, that there is a female president and a female chief of ruling party, all the women be declared as first class citizens, all animals be declared as second class citizens and all men be declared as third class criminals who deserved to be jailed.

Are you happy now?



#348
temporal
URL
July 24, 2007
06:19 AM

von siffers:

'The remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".' - Mark Twain


(that it was wrongly attributed by Mark Twain to Disraeli is another issue:))


to bring more clarity

section 498A of the IPC is directly or indirectly responsible for:

* the armenian genocide
* the resurgence in suicide bombers
* traffic deaths in shanghai
* global warming

and (drum roll)

* the indian women (and men) who speak out for justice subverted and denied

#349
Siffer
July 24, 2007
07:34 AM

Temporal,

I don't remember anyone saying the above. I guess you are being "humorous" at the cost of trivializing IPC 498a. Good for you, since that's the best you can do.

#350
Siffer
July 24, 2007
08:02 AM

Temporal,

'The remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".' - Mark Twain

Here are lies, damned lies, statistics:

1) 70% of Indian Women face DV. (Lie)
2) 25,000 women are burnt for dowry. (Lie)
3) 8 out of 10 men are wife beaters - Shabana Azmi. (Damned Lie)
4) "Adulterous women are victims" - Girija Vyas.
(Delusion)

5) In each 77 minutes a woman is killed for dowry. (Statistics)
6) In every 10 minutes a false dowry case is filed. (Fact)



#351
FF
July 24, 2007
08:03 AM

Hey that Temporal guy in 349...

Statistically speaking English speaking and writing Indians are more educated and sane than the non english speaking ones. And you read and write better english than me too...

Oh Shit I forgot what you just said ..."There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Yeah...you got a point!!!.

#352
Siffer
July 24, 2007
09:26 AM

Temporal,

A Prostitute is paid some money, and given a baseball bat and new set of undergarmets to do a roadshow.

The whole International Media calls her a Crusador, a victim and calls for jailing of her husband and mother-in-law suffering from TB.


Conclusion: Big media houses, editors and feminists have an exclusive license to publish articles when they suffer from delusion of grandeur.

By the way, do you know most poets suffer from delusion?

#353
temporal
URL
July 24, 2007
09:38 AM

i agree with you sir (#349)

all ills emanate from 498a ipc

stop whining and elect a majority to rewrite the constitution

#354
Siffer
July 24, 2007
10:09 AM

Temporal,

Looks like there is something more than 498a ipc.

A great Feminist says to Indian women:
"Do not trust Indian Men."

So, here comes the new Brand!!

http://mynation.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/buy-renuka-brand-condoms-only/

#355
temporal
URL
July 24, 2007
10:18 AM

but as a prelude you guys need to find a willing partner










no?

#356
Reader
July 24, 2007
04:22 PM

Whoooooaaaa Temporal

You drove those siffer up the walls

Good job, you speak so little and manage to drive them crazy. Do you have a secret baygon spray?

#357
A.K.Rathor
July 24, 2007
04:43 PM

Correction: All the walls are occupied by Feminists.

#358
A.K.Rathor
July 24, 2007
04:44 PM

And not only Those, these too.

#359
reader
July 24, 2007
07:26 PM

Rathod

I meant the sif walls that you guys HIDE behind. Got it boy!

Do not try to make corrections in my comments.
Stick to yours and providing valid arguments

#360
A.K.Rathor
July 24, 2007
07:46 PM

There is no existing law which can stop me from correcting you.

First go a get one drafted from your bosses then come back to me.

BTW, SIFF uses all walls to nail Feminists.

#361
ConcernedDoctor
July 24, 2007
08:12 PM

#355 In response to your dumb, tastless and misleading link, please also read this link...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4260314.stm

Also read this...

http://www.commed.uchc.edu/cichs/research/womensrisk.htm

While the world contemplates about how to deal with India's AIDS epidemic, ignorant SIFFERS use disconnected pieces of floating news for their own agendas to make such obscene, senseless and unintelligent posts such as the one on the link posted by SIFFER 355.

If the SIF's agenda is to fight 498A/ DV act misuse they should show some seriousness rather than posting obscene and stupid messages on their blogs that trivializes other major issues. Think logically: Is there a big red light area where men are sold and bought? No, right? Even if there may be a few giggolos in socialite circles there number of female prostitutes is MUCH higher. That is why innocent women who are at home, unaware of their husband's behavior need to protect themselves. If you guys don't understand such an issue, don't make fun of it.

Please read the following excerpt from above article:

"While neither love nor arranged marriages are guarantors of success, the predominance of arranged marriages in the urban slum communities of northeast Mumbai, mean that most wives and husbands come together as virtual strangers. This emotional distance can be exacerbated by the fact that many men migrate from rural areas, leaving wives in the husbands' parental homes, and until they finally settle in Mumbai, seeing them only during periodic visits back to the rural village. For women that either migrate to or are born in the slum communities, the opportunities for increased intimacy with their husbands are limited by the structure and organization of the "joint family" including the presence of husband's parents, children and other family members in extremely limited residential space. A significant number of women report a lifestyle that is highly restricted; women show limited exposure to mass media and report only limited access to friends, relatives or neighbors.

Men's risky sexual behavior may begin prior to marriage with male-to-male sexuality, with female sex workers, or with "love" relationships. If migration separates husbands and wives, married urban migrants living in Mumbai without their wives have higher drug risk scores and higher sex risk scores compared to single men and married men living with wives. Preliminary research has shown that there is a significant association between men with sexual health problems, STI-like symptoms, and a risky lifestyle that included current involvement with CSWs and other extramarital sexuality."

#362
Gope Lalwani
July 24, 2007
09:33 PM

[EDITED - COPY-PASTE, IRRELEVANT]

#363
FF
July 25, 2007
02:40 AM

temporal in 354...

Eureka!!!, temporal you seem to have bestowed your marvelous intelligence on poor souls...Do you think we here are burning 'your'(feminist) asses for free ;).

We are here to plug leaking HOLES before we ask those politicians to clean the muck feminists had littered all over.

Nevermind, some blase boast that being 'anticipation challenged' is challenging.


Hey Rathore in 361...Man u nailed a few more with that comment...

Reader everywhere...FYI, This temporal guy seems to be yearning for a bit more than your spineless, ratty cheer leading...Camera, Lights off and Obligation...I hope you got it ;).

#364
Reader
July 25, 2007
02:54 AM

Rahtod and FF

jealousy....ohhhhhh. Good for you both.

Rahtod,

and please tell me with evidence, statistics and proof which feminist have you nailed, where and when? Simple question and give a simple answer.

And when you say SIF which sif the movement or what or the one that has no accountabilty

And when did I say there was a law that forbid corrections on my comments? Point it out now, which comment and with the link? Okay

Once again 2 questions:
1) Name a feminist that siff has nailed on the walls
2) Point a comment where I said there was a law that forbid corrections on my comments.

And FF champ you can help Rahod also. If you can provide answers to my questions then you are nailed and bambooed totally including FF who is cheerleading you like a side kick.

And FF, please tell me where and in which comment is temporal yearning for my attention, with links and evidences.Okay.

#365
Reader
July 25, 2007
02:59 AM

And Rahtod who is soooooo confused

Incidently in # 358 you mentioned that all walls are occupied by feminists....oh baby :)

and then in 361, you said something totally opposite.

Did you have a fall from the wall in the name of red alert notice or an arrest warrant waiting for you in India? hehehheeeeee.

you can change your statements and/or go into hiding as well. Bye

FF...I can so see your laugh fading away :)

#366
FF
July 25, 2007
03:24 AM

where and in which comment is temporal yearning for my attention

A perfect example of being 'anticipation challenged'. Need I say more...Anyway I got to go and fill my I-Tax return form. Catch you later, on some other post.

#367
temporal
URL
July 25, 2007
03:36 AM

to be read with # 349 and 354:

von siffers et all were hinted to stop flogging a dead horse and advised to do something positive viz. work to elect a majority in the parliament to overturn what they perceive as unjust laws

of course the other alternative route not mentioned earlier would be to take law into their hands a la naxalites...i have serious doubts on two counts for that possibility:

1: it needs real volleys not cyber volleys

and more importantly

2: the naxalites respect their women members and treat them as equals

#368
Reader
July 25, 2007
03:59 AM

Good saying Temporal...I loved it. ( someone is jealous)

And ya FF..you ran away awwwww..you paying taxes....half of that goes to women funds, feminist orgs etc. I know u know that.

Listen to temji's advise, do something to elect ur own govt, why dont you all siffers do a mass demonstration to protest and dont pay taxes until and unless ur hard earned money is not funded to feminist orgs---which actully doles out laws to upset u guys? Ooopss...i forgot...u guys cant do that kinda demonstration because half of you are hiding behind the feminist walls and other half in USA UK.

Do something...just dont sit there!

#369
Siffer
July 25, 2007
09:46 AM

Reader,

"Listen to temji's advise, do something to elect ur own govt, why dont you all siffers do a mass demonstration to protest."

Is not that what we are doing here?
There are 10 crore Indians who are directly or indirectly connected to Internet. So, we take up protests in Internet.

It is working...



#370
Siffer
July 25, 2007
09:53 AM

Temporal,

"but as a prelude you guys need to find a willing partner..."

Masculists are in high demand as the supply is so less. Most Females are bored with male chauvinists, metrosexuals and libertarians.

Even most liberals are chivalrous chauvinists deep inside.

Come to our meetings or press conferences and find the truth.

Females are trusting masculists more then the feminists. It is female journalists who have given maximum coverage to masculists in SIFF.

#371
temporal
URL
July 25, 2007
10:19 AM

but of course;)

#372
A.K.Rathor
July 25, 2007
12:52 PM

How Amazing...
Nailed Feminists on the Wall asking for statistics and evidence as to how many and where...

#373
AAAAAA
July 25, 2007
12:56 PM

Why dont you have it?

Name the comment , links and everything you have.

Otherwise you would be termed as a LUNATIC

#374
A.K.Rathor
July 25, 2007
01:10 PM

Look at yourself...Its the first proof.
Then look around and will find many nailed like you...

#375
Reader
July 25, 2007
02:03 PM

Hello Rahod


Whats so funny in asking that? If you have nailed anyone, say the name then, with evidence. Don't pin point back on me when you are left speechless coz you are making a fool of yourself and a laughing stock and your lunacy is at an all time high.. But at least you are useful in that arena and of some feeble use out here. It shows you helplessness and vulnerability which is so good to toy with, poke fun at and enjoy.

I can clearly tell you who all have been nailed by us powerful feminists--who are action seekers. All the siffers inside the sif group. Please go and check them out

And me....nnaaaa how do you know I have been nailed? Nailing me is impossible. Infact I have managed to nail one siffer full and final.I believe you were nailed too and also have a red alert notice and arrest warrnt wairng for you baby.

Btw.....since the link is almost dead now and with siffers hiding behind feminist walls ( I guess I prefer to stick to your original comment 358--love it) and therefore you have the relief where you do not have to provide me with an answer about my second question to you &#61514;

I would suggest you go to India, spend a few days in jail and get out and see if the US laws allow you to come back to USA . Have the guts? Sorry for the openness. After all this is an open forum.

byeeeeee for now...hey i see wall number 375 is vacant...go hide there. COnsider this your lucky day that some is even responding to your comments otherwise you are always ignored. I had a good time playing with you...

#376
Reader
July 25, 2007
02:07 PM

Btw.....FF

thanks for paying the taxes, it will help us nail some more like siffers.

Also the tax money is even paid to the cops who issue red alert notices and get the Abc of rathods fixed

I am so thankful you paid the taxes that fund feminist orgs.

Thank you

#377
A.K.Rathor
July 25, 2007
02:16 PM

'how do you know I have been nailed?'

by your reactive comments baby...

#378
A.K.Rathor
July 25, 2007
02:37 PM

Specially when in #374 your name cried 'AAAAA...'

#379
Reader
July 25, 2007
02:45 PM

Moaning, grousing , whining and complaining is proof of that. All time 100%

So do you have any names....:) qith links and evidences huh?
Hey did you find that law that you were harping on? Just curious. I know i let you off the hook but was curious.

Do you know who our new President is? Even our prime minster is a puppet to another woman. Do you know? Hehheeeeeee

And that aaaaaaa...was actually when I nailed another person. He is joining sif soon.

#380
A.K.Rathor
July 25, 2007
04:13 PM

Com'n...why are you becoming so defensive as if I'm accusing you all the time.

I just said 'I nailed ya!'...

#381
A.K.Rathor
July 25, 2007
04:30 PM

I have to accept, I enjoyed conversing with u...
No hard feelings...
see u in another thread...

#382
Reader
July 25, 2007
05:46 PM

Defensive...hahahaaaa once again you trying hard. Keep trying and you gays will never suceed.

Kiddo...get your defensives ready.

Meet you at another thread....ya what else...you gays are everywhere...like criminals left loose.

#383
A.K.Rathor
July 25, 2007
05:59 PM

Best Comment - See #379.

#384
Reader
July 25, 2007
06:04 PM

Seems like your brains were nailed too. Dont loose your mind kiddo.

You are the best commentator ever and the award goes to your comment in 379. Clap Clap clap...btw....what was the validation for the best comment ever? Was there public voting? Okay aokay okay...do not cry...carry on ..and there I spare you...now RUN RUN RUN

#385
Gope Lalwani
July 25, 2007
07:38 PM

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition. He says:

Pratibha Patil has just been "elected" President of India by votes cast by national lawmakers and state legislators. Patil, was hand-picked by Congressional Parliamentary leader Sonia Ghandi, a powerful feminist who rode into power on the back of Nehru-Ghandi family, and who has been the woman jiggling knobs behind the curtain of the Prime Minister's office for many years.

How Patil could have passed the "smell test" points to the nature of corrupt politics in India. Patil has a legacy of financing radical feminist initiatives and lining the pockets of relatives, financed by the failure of her bank which she founded in 1973, which actually managed to achieve a negative net worth.

Patil is also implicated in a cover-up of a murder involving her brother, which has never been investigated. Congress explained it all away over the objections of the BJP: Spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad said "There has been a persistent attempt to prevent a fair investigation into such a high-profile murder. Therefore, it is important that Patil must herself respond to these disturbing questions as these facts relate to her as also the resultant questions".

She is in trouble for making a rather hefty feminist prevarication -- claiming that the Indian tradition of Purdah (covering the body) was created to "protect women from Mughai invaders" , as justification for ending the practice.

Indian bloggers have collected a fair amount of information on the corruption that led to this rubber-stamp appointment.

Patil's "election" is already being questioned by Indian pundits and the Wall Street Journal , and with massive justification. Young, educated Indians who supported another candidate are tremendously displeased. One activist said, "We, the youth of India, feel cheated by the political establishment"

India, a nation featuring a world-reknowned marriage culture, was perhaps even strengthened by illegalization of the dowry system in 1961. Yet, despite what radical feminists say, dowry is rarely practiced in India today. Like their American teachers, Indian feminists pretend dowry abuses are hiding under every other rock because it scares politicians into doing their bidding.

When mixed with Indian dowry laws, which extend liability to the husband's family and assets, the accused has the burden to prove that the alleged act did not occur. It is widely known that Section 498 is widely abused , yet no-one in the legislature has lifted a finger to do anything about it (neither has the U.S. Congress addressed the widespread abuses of VAWA).

Under 498a, suicide or unnatural death of a woman during the first seven years of marriage is deemed a dowry death. Any complaint of violence can send the husband and his entire family to jail for years while the case is heard. Materialistic women and their families use these laws to extort monies from the husband and his family. Upon their release, a divorce ensues.

These laws also make accepting wedding gifts from the bride's family dangerous. In the West, families often give gifts of property or cash to the wedding couple. In India, acceptance of any gift from the bride's family can easily be a set-up for a con game demanding a large "reverse dowry" subsequently extorted from the husbands family.

As in America (where there are no federal protections against abuse of domestic violence laws), provisions requiring punishment of those who give dowry are not enforced against the bride's family.

Like American feminists, who pretend that America is still living in a pre-19th-amendment era, India's feminists pretend that today's highly educated women are seen as "burdens", thus justifying enactment and rigid enforcement of radical laws permitting feminist financial and social predation.

Indian feminists are now attempting to "reserve" 1/3 of all legislative seats for women on the theory that women make better representatives. We have yet to see a woman legislator in India who goes beyond destroying marriage in India. A fine example of this is the 498a domestic violence law passed in 1983, featuring mandatory arrest without investigation, and prosecution without bail.

These are the products of Nehru-Ghandi feminism. Pratibha Patil is a very dangerous woman. Women's groups are already lining up to meet with her.

Recent changes in India strongly predict it will suffer similar consequences the United States experienced after "going feminist" in the 1960's. Feminism is always followed by rapid increases in divorce, social violence, crime, child abuse and neglect, and an economy sandbagged by tremendous social expenditures.

India, which is not as rich as America or as politically stable, cannot withstand the consequences which are presently bringing America to its political knees.

Like the political elite in America, Indian politicians insist on pursuing a highly destructive path of faux patriarchy without regard for the tremendous human wreckage and economic destruction that always follows in the wake of feminism.

But the consequences in India may be far more severe: young Muslim men driven out of society in India are perhaps more likely to end up terrorists than simple drug dealers or street criminals.

Those who wish to end terrorism need to be working to end the reign of world feminism as their highest priority. Feminism has clearly stated its intent to destroy marriage and place men in peonage to feminist government. This is the primary driver of hate of western culture by hard-right muslims and their conscripts.

I am not saying that America is responsible for terrorism. I am pointing out that an unnecessary situation of tremendous polarity exists between hyper-feminist societies and hyper-patriarchal cultures. The collision of values has resulted in an expanding "world warm war" we all know is tremendously expensive and perhaps impossible to fight at any cost because it is simply impossible to secure every square inch of the planet.

Both the West and East are wrong. It is our responsibility to end the feminist war on marriage and religion - now over forty five years old. We must reform laws in America, restore marriage values, end no-fault divorce, reform the Violence Against Women Act, and require shared parenting when divorce is necessary. When we have accomplished these tasks, much of the reason driving Muslim fanaticism will evaporate.

Clearly, world peace cannot possibly occur so long as we continue exporting radical feminism in the name of "Democracy".



#386
suresha
July 27, 2007
07:02 AM

Wheather the 498a law is misused even against the sister in law or mother in law or children in a very large scale is the question?

A law enacted 23 years ago only to PROTCCT the WIFE and not all women cannot be regarded as pro women.(infact discrimination amongst women)

498a AND RAPE LAWS ARE THE MOST ABUSED AND MISUSED LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY

Only when the misusers are punished according to law the really harrrassed WIFE will have protection

#387
Rajeev
September 1, 2007
01:29 PM

Dear Nandini,
Women, women women all just talking that. Do men exist or have the right to do so or not. Men are also not objects; ( though they speak less) that they should not have any right to legal reprieve. The "feminist chauvanist lizards" talk about equality which seems lesser and lesser to them each day as they totally bend the law their way.

Discrimination starts against a man today at the age of 4 when he goes for school admission. read Ganguly 's law. No one says injustice.

Boys are paraded nude in schools , they too feel as embarassed as much as girls but cant say and it goes on.

If a boy is sodomised there is no public outcry as when we find when a teacher is guilty of trying to indulge in flesh trade. No girl victims are found . this shows alraedy the society's over protection to girls.

Crimes against men are not recorded. Only data of crimes against women is there which is exaggeratedly shown but never proved.

There are lesser seats for boys than girls in Delhi university. There are many girls colleges and the rest are co-ed. even in the co-ed the girls are given a relaxation in percentage. No one calls it injustice. No hue and cry.

It is a matter of common experience that employer today prefer a woman to a man even when they are equally eligible. then men are paid lesser and made to work for longer work hours. Also abused in work .women do comfortable work and leave at sharp their time. Besides they may sleep with someone and take a collegues legitimate right or slam harrasment as the case may be. This make it a double mouthed sword. No hue and cry.

Man are required to pay jazia for being man and have to pay more tax. In the tax paying bracket both men and women are the alleviated sections of the society. then what does equal work equal pay mean. No hue and cry.

In any conflict in workplace women can easily harrass men by slapping any charges. Why should their statement itself be proof, leaving the man defenceless.

Women may touch a man any where without permission or consent and it is a compulsion for men to like it. But someone whistle from a distance can result in his arrest. Have'nt you seen groin kick as a rising trend among girls and boys have no options but to laugh at themselves while writhing in pain. Can they complain, even if they risk being a laughing stock and complain, the girl will slam so many cases on him that he will be in trouble.

If men dont have any right over girl sides dowry why do women have any right over his house -DV act.Dv act justifies dowry.Any comments.

If the wife is an abuser husband cant complain even to his parents.forgrt the law. you call it equality? You have to be a man to see one of your mother or wife crying each day over something and be emotionally torn after coming from work. Is it not emotional torture as can be described in DV act.
Why is it not that once the relationship has reached that level girl should go to her house and the man to his. As such, after such a scuffle the realationship will not work. Then why this tool for harrassment and what purpose will it solve. Only women need to be educated not to take any voilence and saperate the moment voilence occurs, same for men.
(Note women are entitled to equal share of ancestral property then why are they required to harrass men.)

When men are humiliated in general by the likes of ms renuka, women try to justify it.
If army chief says that women are not as suitable for army he is blown out. Why.

Adultry for women is not cognizible, for men it is. Did you ever care to say gender bias.

Not only you but we also feel emotionally broken at the breakup of a relationship - only we dont weep. Many men finish themselves in alcohol after divorce death of their wives. But it is portrayed as if men enjoy divorce.

Every woman is psyched up by the feminists that something unfair is happening to them and they have thus been made overconscious. the result is male hatred. With that in mind they fail to have love and respect for their husbands. Sadistioc feminists with their own houses broken are trying to make it a custom for every house robbing it of all it's innocent happiness. Every house had a distinct leadership and it was also socially accepted. Therefore Women did'nt mind it and they held the home front while the men worked outside .There was much much more calm and happiness than there is tody in the society.
Man have their own vices and women their own . While I understand women's concern for protection but biased laws will not help. In absence of legal reprieve men will be compelled to take law into their hands and do till death of both makes the meaning of equality clear.Family bond was the most effecive tool for us us indians to take the kinds of stress we manage. West would not be able to face such abject conditions and stress.
Have you ever cared what stress is on man to keep earning. while women have choice to sit at home. I think this itself is a privledge. Whether they can or not, are happy or not, men keep slogging while most women work just for self esteem and the extra income. The pressure is so immense that many take to crimes and what not. Mostly it is for the family. Any one conducting a study on the condition of men in india the shit they are in and what they require to come out of it. They need more education, more compassion and above all some platform to vent out their feelings. But media too just represents women. Remember- "If in a society women need to be happy, men need to be happy too" or else no one will have a soulmate when the kids are gone and the oldage insecurity will haunt. What depression will it be for both men and women. I repeat men too have emotions, insecurities, weak bodies, and fears, - to compound the problem they cant express it.

If even 10 % men were adulterous and slept witn atleast 5 women it would mean 50 % women are adulterous or the population of prostitutes is alarmingly high and beyond the expectations of the government of india . Giving such women the rights of a Devi as if what she says are the words of bible is opposed and rightly so.


If some men are wrong enough women are also. But women want extra protection unconditional, without proof, extra facilities and all that they can getand men are today totally vulnerable any prostitute can get them arrested anytime just over a statement. Is it justice. In india where even murderers are not punished unless it is proved that they committed murder,
Women need to accept that if they cant attain equality within equal laws then they are not equals. We are with you only till the path of equality and strict equality, period. beyond that we are not ready to be sidelined like dogs which again have a better legal status than us (because animal lover may come to their help.)That too without the society's consent or more specifically mens consent. After that they are humiliated also as one womens organisation said " man are animals".if women themselves dont uphold that "equality is the golden rule, we too would be compelled to say - hell with equality, hell with women, kalidas was right.

With all due respect to sensible gender neutral women and men.


Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/5749)

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






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!