Us "Bra-Burning Harridans"

Anindita, men who treat women like sex objects deserve to be treated like limitless bank accounts. And there are people who are perfectly happy with the above equation;)

Life is all about choices and for more so for the well educated Indian women. When I see the plight of women in the neighboring countries I find that the Indian urban society has given ample opportunities to the Indian women to leave their mark in the 'man's world' and we have done so.

Feminism needs to work at the village level but there one cannot tout the 'Western' concepts of equality and alienate people. One has to work within the prevailing system by promoting literacy and financial independence.

Alvin Toffler, the famous futurist once said,

"Nuclear family is dysfunctional, when there is no nucleus inside."

Feminists want children to grow up in such nucleus less families and pass the burden on men.

----

Why not feminists join with men and create Osho's Commune sort of model, where there is a family of 100 or so adults who have full freedom and the whole commune takes care of the children.


The commune will certainly look like a massive molecule capable of taking care of children.


From Bra burning to Naked Parade in the street, feminism is stuck at the same place even after 30 years.

Or worse, say that women shouldn't wear revealing clothes lest they get raped on city streets.

Men who are objecting to women wearing revealing clothes are not judging or suggesting women in any way...they are asking women to respect their(men's) objection and are asserting their rights not be get sexually diverted(and exploited) by demeanor of such hyper-sexual women.

Anindita: You bring up some very interesting points! The insecurities that lie at the bottom of every conservative society eventually are the rate-limiting factors in any positive social reform.

I think packing theories, beliefs and various (sometimes conflicting) visions under one broad title ensures that there are always people who will find a way to misconstrue it or misunderstand it. The word "feminism" suffers from such a malady.

While all kinds of beliefs are associated with feminism, only the radicals have generated more of a hue and cry and may explain the glaze that comes over men's faces when you say "women's rights". They immediately picture your right hand holding up a banner in protest and your left one handing them a mop. The several misrepresentations rather than the word itself, I feel, may be responsible for the way people (men and even some women) react.

It surprises me when the most liberal of my male friends decide against asking a girl out because she made too many references to "feminism". "Nah, I don't want the "activist" type" they chuckle uncomfortably and I cringe. Activism? What about the women who believe in the kind of basic human rights such as voting, freedom of speech, education etc?

You know what I believe the problem is: One word represents such a gamut of issues with two extremities at either end: 1) the rural areas where a woman is "property" and 2) the suburbs and cities where modern feminism is defined not by a woman's right to make her choices but by her ability to diss men and change boyfriends. So while feminism is non-existent in the former, it has been misconstrued in the latter. As a result one will find men who will vehemently oppose feminism or men who have no clue what it is about.

I am starting to wonder if maybe it takes a little bit of a merrier tune to get the world to see and understand what feminism is about rather than the drum banging :) Hehe.

BTW I think the two comments 2 and 3 validate your points :)

anindita... yeah, it's amazing that we're still getting blamed for rape and being told to cover up. Men still do not seem to understand that rape is not about sex, otherwise these depraved people would not rape babies and old women... it is about power.

anyway, Deepti raises good points about what will/will not work at the village level... and it applies to the middle class in cities too. my neighbor's husband mentally abuses her. It would not do her any good if I counseled her the same way I would in the US... she does not have the same resources here. But she can learn how to up her self-esteem, which is the very first step.

"male friends decide against asking a girl out because she made too many references to "feminism". "Nah, I don't want the "activist" type" they chuckle uncomfortably and I cringe. Activism? What about the women who believe in the kind of basic human rights such as voting, freedom of speech, education etc?"

I think these male friends are afraid of the type of women who, in spite of having basic human rights like voting, freedom of speech, education and several privileges, still keep ranting about their rights.

#6; Ever considered that maybe they "rant" about it not for themselves but so that it through words, discussions and actions it seeps to the grass root levels where reform has yet not reached, where women are denied those basic human rights? You may not have those women reading on the internet but the ocassional posts about this issue ensures that the movement does not die a premature death before the reform has reached the areas where its effects are most needed.

And why should these male friends be worried about someone else when they treat their female relatives and friends just fine?

#8: Quick question: Did you read my comment and understand its contents? Or are you just trying to pick a debate? Just checking coz a lot of that happens here and I don't have the energy to fight pointless battles.

Do you understand what label versus application means?

A person who is very liberal in thoughts and action can be bothered by the mere label of "feminism" because of the way some people have unfortunately and foolishly misconstrued/ misrepresented its connotations.

It is not the fault of the male friends that they are not dissecting out the "intricacies" of feminism that you think are important. The feminism that is in every one's face is radical and unfair. You can't blame anyone but feminists for that.

FYI you basically repeated (while oversimplifying the issue) exactly what I said in my comment :D Read the 3rd paragraph of my comment 4 again. It'll come to you eventually. Or at least I can hope it will.

It was not an oversimplification. I was just emphasizing that feminists are to be blamed for their own disrepute. Radical feminists wreak havoc in the society with their hate-filled agendas, liberal feminists sit on the sidelines and vociferously engage in debates defending their particular shade of feminism and women's rights. The people who actually work for the betterment of conditions of women do not care about these labels and intricacies (although they get labeled as one thing or another eventually by feminists). These people do recognize that problems of men, women and children are intertwined and that a wholistic approach is needed to solve them.

Aditi in 7...

Do you really believe that, in those villages (where according to you women have no constitutional rights) men have all the rights you claim a average urban citizen has?

I think the crux of the issue is that some people just can not compare people in the same context and on same plane.

Their goal is to equate a rights (read comforts) of a village woman to that of the best man they can imagine around. That obviously is never going to happen and so your movement will continue to exist for ad-infinitum.

By the way, Do you really think that such a huge gap between a typical urban rich and a typical rural poor is even comparable to that between any man and woman sharing same the roof. I doubt!!!

#12 anon: you said: " liberal feminists sit on the sidelines and vociferously engage in debates defending their particular shade of feminism and women's rights"

The term "liberal" when attached to any belief comes with a certain onus that is very difficult to carry...the one of tolerance. We can only defend our own line of thinking and cannot dictate control that of others (thats hwat makes us liberal). So we do what liberal people do: tolerate other people's views, no matter how extreme but stand by our own which are not radical or extremist in any way. Protesting somebody else's views is far less effective than taking a stand on your own.

#13 FF: You asked :"Do you really believe that, in those villages (where according to you women have no constitutional rights) men have all the rights you claim a average urban citizen has?"

Good question! But the comparison has to be between the genders if the equality has to be between genders, don't you think? Compare the fundamental rights of a rural man with that of a rural woman and you might find your answer.

"By the way, Do you really think that such a huge gap between a typical urban rich and a typical rural poor is even comparable to that between any man and woman sharing same the roof. I doubt!!!"

I don't know even know why you would be comparing the two?!

Why would you compare "feminism" which attempts to ensure equal fundamental rights for women no matter where they are located with a personal incompatibility between two human beings under the same roof? Apples to oranges, no?

Or maybe I didn't understand the question?

Hi SS,
In many ways, I consider myself a feminist and my wife is one too. But there is one aspect where I happen to disagree with you: rape.
I think the assertion that "rape is not about sex, otherwise these depraved people would not rape babies and old women... it is about power." sets up a false and counterproductive dichotomy, viz sexual lust vs power. The two things are far from mutually exclusive in the human brain. Ignoring sex may get in the way of addressing rape. (Deborah Blum's Sex On the Brain talks abt this, I'd strongly recommend it)
But more importantly, how women dress should not, IMHO, be affected by what causes rape. That already gives male sexuality a say in a woman's dress code (the purdah being it's extreme example). What a woman wants to wear is her business, period.

#12 - The people who actually work for the betterment of conditions of women do not care about these labels and intricacies (although they get labeled as one thing or another eventually by feminists). These people do recognize that problems of men, women and children are intertwined and that a wholistic approach is needed to solve them.

You summarized the whole deal,
then what will happen to the dollars and loot of tax money for kitty parties.

If there is no disease who will go to the doctor,
spread (uncontrolled sex and) AIDS and promote (uncontrolled liberation and) disharmony,
my business keep happening.

These same FEMINISTS who are on this board must be having a maid servant to clean their houses, they will not teach her independence and liberation.

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

First, I get treated to Aaman's take on feminism in his post and then PH lends us his evolved views on feminism. I finally get to see some intelligent discussions about feminism where men are putting forth their takes. Yay! Itsa good day.

...now only if you guys could've saved me from the havoc on my threads! :) Sigh.

#1 - Since last 50 years, all niche talk about rural welfare.

Ask your BANDWAGON of hooligans to divert dollars to first buy BRA for them, so they can start burning them and thier families.

PH.... I assume you meant me, and not the "other" SS...

I appreciate your comments. I broke that thought way down, down to it's most simple components. I agree with you that it is probably TOO simplistic but the real point that people have to understand about rape is that it is not about sexual attraction. It is about using sex to control and overpower. But it is not about the sex act itself. Men do not become so horny that they become rapists if they do not release the urge. Men do not see a tantalizing women and then are tempted to rape. There is a whole psychological profile of men who rape, and they will do it if you are wearing trackpants, a baggy t-shirt and have not washed in a week if they are so inclined.

It is also why castration will not stop a rapist. If you take away his penis or his testicles or both, he will still rape with anything he can get his hands on. That is why chemical castration of repeat sexual offenders in the US was discontinued long ago... it simply doesn't work.

I am really aware of the causes of rape. Was a rape crisis counselor and have studied the causes in depth.

"I believe that a huge part of the problem is this lack of willingness to engage on the part of men."

Blame Canada for everything, modern day men, women and children biggest problem is you, The FEMINIST who want to disrupt and destruct the peace and harmony (busting your lungs as WMD), without a better solution. In your big head, it never occur, family is a unit of society.

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

smallsquirrel,
I did mean you, of course:) Read your response, and I think we're on the same page. That must've been some experience-being a rape crisis counselor, I mean.

Aditi,
I have stakes in feminism, I'm married to one;-)

PH, yep... I figured we were, just wanted to spell out what I had not before. The experience of being a rape crisis counselor was both empowering and depressing. you would not believe how many times I saw the same men in court, like a revolving door... how many times I worked to get a woman to testify only to have the dude walk on a technicality (then see him back in there on the same charge 2 months later). UGH.

Thanks for being a sane voice in this discussion! YAY!

Compare the fundamental rights of a rural man with that of a rural woman and you might find your answer...

Pardon for my limited rural knowledge. Fundamental rights..Like for e.g???

---> Just like young rural women do not get enough chance to mix up with young men, but so do young men do not get chance to mix up with women.

----> Employment...In rural areas there is no concept of nuclear family. and there are no divorces...so their is generally no concept "individual" income and most people work in fields or shops...

----> Share in property...Well there is this widespread concept of dowry in which fathers give daughter's new family a huge amount and by the assumption that the girl moves to new family once and for ever(which becomes her new family) it is fair on part of father to have given away what he is supposed to have given otherwise...

----> Why should girl move to boy's house and not vice versa...Well I guess it is more of tradition than anything else(reasons for which are yet to be explored). I will however give you a benefit of doubt and admit that it indeed goes in boys' favor to an extent.

----> Education...Most rural males have limited or no education. The concept of education is more linked with job prospects under the assumption that most jobs are manual or technical unlike urban jobs of management, IT, doctors, call centers, secretary e.t.c. It is very logical to assume that in those manual/technical jobs which involve either substantial muscular power or technical learning skills boys outperform girls in terms of flexibility of body and mind.

----> Exploring sex...well it takes two to tango...so by law of averages as many men as women have sex outside of socially prescribed limits... Or are you saying that all men avail services of prostitutes not available otherwise to women...BTW, i will appreciate if you could share some reliable statistical data indicator of how widespread extra marital/premarital sex is in rural areas.

----> Role and responsibilities...Call them specialized units or specially carved out roles...people in rural areas(most of them live in joint family system) have specialized roles for everybody depending on who performs it the best...Mothers can best take care of children and household and so do they...Men are muscularly more powerful so they work in fields...

----> Right to express opinion...Yes, but What kind of opinion, when and where is the question...I look forward to am example where you think a rural man's right to express opinion has made a huge difference.

---> Women raped(right to dignity) Vs men murdered(right to life)....Do I need to compare numbers here?


I made the comparison between rich and poor because wherever i go i just get references to poor rural women...as if poor and rural is what makes all the difference and no doubt to a large degree (call is socialist phenomenon or anything else) the word "poor" is what makes all the difference...

Anindita - I think I'm more or less on the same page as Deepti... gender rights and equality aren't all the same across the board. It should be, and perhaps it will be in a time yet to come but that time isnt now.

We did a tag a while back on the topic of feminism in india and what emerged were some highly individualized takes that sort of ran the spectrum in reactions (I really should do a roundup). Feminism in India is constantly defined by other people - either its critics or the people who try to legislate it and so it just sort of ends up as neither fish nor fowl.

Aditi brought up the issue of liberalism and thats interesting coz liberalism has that same problem associated with it - it's always defined by extremists, be it critics or practitioners. But in actual practice, more people are involved in it than are actively opposed to it.

PS, Aditi - I can't believe you're still engaging with those folks. If i had a hat i'd take it off :D

Well I myself am having difficult time, putting forth the following argument. Nevertheless I will put it forward just for the sake of the argument ... pinning my hope on the fact that a further dissection of argument will help me analyze more clearly on how I may be incorrect in my interpretation.

PH said... That already gives male sexuality a say in a woman's dress code...

I am not sure if you are talking about zillions of those women who wear so that they can sexually seduce males, forcing them(males) to alter their perceptions about them(for good or for bad is another question).

By the way, Do not you think as a man I have the right not to be sexually exploited by female wearing low waist jeans or skin clad clothes. Those clothes were worn with primary motive of visually promoting sexual content of their body and hence to sexually overpower males in the vicinity.

If I am in public place, I think I have the liberty to get offended and every right to protect myself from being offended or sexually exploited.

The fact that I get mentally offended(because I am mentally aroused) at this sexually revealing content is very natural and the reason for my getting offended is not arbitrary too. This is for the simple reason that most men(apart from few unnatural beings) in my position would feel mentally abused/offended(i.e aroused).


If the motive was not to arouse men the dress definitely would have been different. The assumption that women do not know whether a given dress is sexually revealing is plain unacceptable.

Thus since the motive is clearly identified is not it a clear violation of my rights to live an fee/dignified and un-offended life.

How different is it from the fact that I am in a park and another person thrusts open a playboy right in front of me in the anticipation that i might buy it. In my case, I may essentially get offended as a consequence.

Just because it is not easy to draw a line on what exactly offends a person, is no reason to ignore/deny offense committed on a person. At best you could keep a rough bar of "most majority" to decide upon the behavior, but to ignore the existence of such bar or the offense is definitely an infringement on the fundamental right of a person.

For e.g I could understand that a case of offense is not at par with merit,if a woman claims being offended on seeing a semi clad woman for the simple reason that it is not natural for her to feel sexually aroused(and hence mentally offended) of obvious natural reasons.

#1 : "Anindita, men who treat women like sex objects deserve to be treated like limitless bank accounts."

[EDITED - COPY-PASTE]
"And there are people who are perfectly happy with the above equation;)"

Are you one of them, or all happy married FEMINISTS are into them.

Amrita...Eureka!!! Super!!, brilliant!, for having invented that third front.

You will be invited later...We will let you know.

My Questions to author...

I might be on the women's page still if I hadn't unexpectedly been offered a job as social affairs editor at the BBC

1. Do you think most women get jobs unexpectedly!!!.

2. Give me a live example of pure gender bias(treating women II class citizens) in any job.

3. If woman is not suitable enough for reasons more important to the firm or company, Do you still call it gender bias.

4. Do you think the fact that women have to bear a child is a gender bias of nature?

5. Do you deny the fact that just like women are more suitable for some particular jobs, men too are more suitable for some particular jobs. Do do you believe that "one shoe fits all" knows no gender boundaries too.

Here is the truth: Sex with a feminist gives a man homosexual experience.

The feminists have so much masculinity plus the hatred that only sex starved men can think of dating them.

Most men are better listeners than any average feminist. Most men have better unstanding capability than feminists.

"male friends decide against asking a girl out because she made too many references to "feminism". "Nah, I don't want the "activist" type" they chuckle uncomfortably and I cringe."

These men are not chauvinistic pigs. Most feminists start abusing men after getting closer to them and push them away. Then they blame it on men. A man who experiences it once or twice learns the lesson and maintains a distance.

It is a pity that even after 30 years of feminism, feminists themselves do not know what they are and expect men to help them even when they have literally nothing except abuse to offer in return.

In west, life expectency of men is 5 to 7 years less than women. In US, 85% of consumer spendings are by women. So, why the hell men will give a damn about feminists.

With Misuse of VAWA in US, denial of child custody/visitation and misuse of 498a/DV act, men will maintain distance of a mile from any feminist.

Feminism is nothing but hipocracy:

Feminists say that stereotypes are wrong except the ones that they make.

Feminists say feminism is about 'equal rights'. However, they only talk about rights of women versus everything else in the society.

Feminists say women should be treated as equals of men but they expect the government/society to provide them with special privileges and protections as if women are incapable of managing their lives without special treatment. Even after providing special privileges they continue to find new forms of alleged "inequality" and "abuse", and demand more concessions.

Feminists talk about choice, but they find fault with men and women who choose to stay away from feminists. So, choice is only a privilege that feminists are supposed to enjoy.

#24 Amrita: "Feminism in India is constantly defined by other people - either its critics or the people who try to legislate it and so it just sort of ends up as neither fish nor fowl"

Love that sentence. So true! I hate having my views defined by what is popular or just more obvious.

As for engaging with some of these guys: I kept hoping that maybe this time the discussion won't be shot to hell. But having seen the bloodbath on my threads I think the time has come for me to stop being such an optimist. Sigh. So leave the hat on :D

And do the round-up if you can of the tag. It'll be interesting.

Feminism is the biggest fraud still unearthed.

Lot of money from diff. NGOs comes to the 3rd world countries in the name of women and child care.

That money is spent in 5 star hotels.

This scam is bigger than Animal Husbandry.

Feminists raise money in the name of equality and use that money for doing exactly opposite...

Yours is the old story Ma'm and it does not sell now.

Write on something new.

Check this out...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283-1,00.html

This publication of a rough draft of the chimp genome in the journal Nature immediately led scientists to several important conclusions.

First they learned that overall, the sequences of base pairs that make up both species' [i.e., humans and chimps] genomes differ by 1.23% - a ringing confirmation of the 1970 estimates -- AND THAT THE MOST STRIKING DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THEM OCCURS, INTRIGUINGLY, IN THE Y CHROMOSOME PRESENT ONLY IN MALES.

There it is in black and white girls. Men are more evolved than women. Women are more like chimps than men are.

Ever wondered women are weak because of this myth of suppression or that they were genetically less evolved.

Maybe THAT is the reason for the stereotype that women are indeed inferior. Because genetically speaking - THEY ARE.

What does this mean for feminism?

Hey anon...what was that crap? Are those genuine conclusions...I strongly doubt!!!.

Deepti, SS, PH, Aditi: Thanks for your thoughts! Some very interesting points -- that 'feminism' is a broad and oft-misunderstood term is true. And singing a merrier tune is probably the answer. How? How? How?

But while I agree that interventions are required at the village level and they should not be expounded with a 'Western' mindset, I don't think the urban woman has exactly 'arrived'. Even the educated one. I know enough people who have faced sexual harassment and we all know that domestic violence is still very common. Rape exists everywhere and you only have to step into the streets to realize that India's euphemistic 'eve-teasing' is rampant. Plus, according to stats, girl babies are being killed off more commonly by educated, affluent families.

Just wanted to make this point because too often there is the misconception that these things happen to 'other' people -- the poor, the villagers, the Dalit etc -- when this is not strictly true. Women at the bottom of the scale have always been hit hardest because they have to face multiple battles. That doesn't mean everyone else is having a peachy time. And one person's (worse) problems doesn't make another's unimportant.

Secondly, I am in touch with a lot of organisations that work at the grass roots level and most of them very clearly identify themselves as 'feminist'. They have no problems with the label, simply because sometimes a definition clarifies things - ideas, beliefs, stands. In fact, because they see the problems up close, they are horrified when people say there is no need for feminism. Probably, their understanding of the word is clear and this is the reason. It's not about brandishing flags. It's about having a world where less people will subscribe to some of the putrid views expressed here.

As Margaret Atwood said: "Does feminist mean large unpleasant person who'll shout at you or someone who believes women are human beings. To me it's the latter, so I sign up."

And Aditi, really, hats off to you!

"PS, Aditi - I can't believe you're still engaging with those folks. If i had a hat i'd take it off :D"

You can take something else off, if you have it on you.

instead of squirming on your [EDITOR] seat, with your [EDIT]

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

That doesn't mean everyone else is having a peachy time. And one person's (worse) problems doesn't make another's unimportant.

People with narrow band of thinking that women having problem and men having problem are two different things. They think women getting eve teased and raped and men getting beaten, bullied and murdered are two different phenomenon.

Where as both are result of lawlessness(and failure on part of of law enforcement agencies) in our society and those who view it through gender filter are doing so with the ulterior motive of promoting gender divide. This myopic approach of viewing society through a gender filter if called reductionism.

[EDITED - PERSONAL]

Aditi, Amrita,

#24 Amrita: "Feminism in India is constantly defined by other people - either its critics or the people who try to legislate it and so it just sort of ends up as neither fish nor fowl"

Aditi:"Love that sentence. So true! I hate having my views defined by what is popular or just more obvious."


You copied all the concepts of feminism from US without creating an unique brand of Indian Feminism.

Because, you have no originality to design an entire social movement on your own. It is easy to piggyback on something available else where.

In stead of doing any soul searching, you are inventing excuses now.

Is Feminism all about arresting innocent elder and putting them in jail?

If no, then why the hell you have allowed some feminists to do that?

If you allow criminals and terrorists to define what feminism is, then you are responsible for it.

It is a miracle that people in India are still marrying feminists.

#39 Siffer: Ha! That sure is funny coming from a group that is forever quoting stuff off of Fathers For Life.

When you guys aren't cracking me up, you baffle me. You know, one tries to take you seriously but you just don't give people reason to.

We (Amrita/me) have yet to quote other people and copy-paste other people's ideas/ articles etc as our own "comments". So who would you say is more likely to "copy" concepts?

You asked: "How did you allow some feminists to do that?"

Who do you think we are "the feminist police" or something? :) Get a grip.

Aditi,

You are not feminist police.

You are Feminist Marketing agents, who sell radical feminism just the way some Islamic charities marketed terrorism under the guise of social service.

You said no one takes us seriously. This article is all about men not taking feminism seriously.

Whatever you are, you see it in others.

Indian Feminism is against men, against family, is in favour of unborn child killing(abortion), is all about lies, is all about marrying up as size does matter, paying money to do naked dance in streets, breaking furniture at courts, hating men, throwing innocent widowed women to street, pre-marital sex workshops, getting pregant women jailed, running brothels in the names of shelters and uploading evidences of female sexual liberation in Internet.

At evening feminist doctors abort girl childs, spray their body parts and in the day raise a hue and cry about female foeticide.

One such criminal feminist doctor conduced conferences, chaired conferences on female foeticide, and then got caught on Star News Sting operation as she agreed to perform an abortion to kill a girl child. Renuka Choudhury just buried the story in 24 hours.

I still can not forget the video of that sting operation.

How can we ever trust feminists?

More and more men are carrying voice recorders to record the abuse that they face from feminist wives or coworkers. A simple voice recorder now records for more than 10 hours. We have records of threats for extortion in feminist counselling centers at police stations in various metro cities.

We have done sting with news channels to nail the doctors who give false certificates of injury to feminists.

It is the women who do these sting operations and bear the pain of injury marks made on their bodies by the unscrupulous doctors. Why?

Because, they do not want to be associated with feminists and want to expose their misdeeds.

#41: What is radical about my ideas? I have asked your members this question before but they never answered.

And "marketing agents"?!! Feminism (just like chauvinism) is not a "trust/ foundation/ organization" unlike SIFF. It is a way of life, inculcation of beliefs and attitudes.

If you guys don't understand that nobody can help it, right?

Keep fighting the wrong people and no change will happen.

Comon Aditi


DO give them some discount on copying and pasting. They are sill learning the art of writing and calulating. :) Chill...if nothing else their rationale comments do offer us some light moments.

I will call it a day...goodnight guys...see ya tomorrow

Temporal

Come on chat...