Feminism: Let's Not Blow Ourselves Up!

diya:

extremism in any form or shape is bad and i hope desperation does not make women blow themselves up

calm contemplation (as you said) with legal measures to safeguard rights is the way toward equality and justice

"one day we might all just decide to go blow ourselves up."


Amazing how successful islam has been at popularizing the the idea of blowing yourself up.

Thanks islam! Yet another gift from the religion of peace. Or should i say, the 'religion of blowing yourself to pieces'.

Diya, I don't doubt the sincerity of your post and your underlying message is a worthy one, but words are powerful. please think carefully about invoking the idea of suicide bombing.


No matter how hard islam promotes 'blowing yourself up' i will never hear these words without being offended.

Your use of this phrase legitimizes and promotes suicide bombing. You are making it more acceptable.

believe it or not, there was a time when suicide bombing was utterly shocking, unthinkable and unfathomable.

you suggesting, even in jest, that we might one day 'blow ourselves up' is just as offensive as you saying 'one day we all might go out and sexually molest children.'

its a bizarre and offensive statement.

what happened to our society that we have allowed this vile practice to become normalized and acceptable?


a question for you diya. Who has benefited most from the concept of suicide bombing becoming acceptable?

mapad:

hijacking?

;)

very funny temporal.

temporal:
i really do hope that day doesn't come....
MAPAD:
i don't think u understood what i was sayin..
and please, before u start complainin about Islam, i really thnk YOU should choose ur wrds carefully... u make it sound as if the whole of islam religion is the culprit...

bra burning feminists bite dust! mwuahahah! another beautiful piece of work diya ...ur definately needed in LT...hehehe...and puhleez lets not turn this into a anti-muslim thing or this implies that thing...the issue is feminism not terrorism...and ur article hits the nail exactly where it has to.well done! lets get this one published too wat say :D

hehe! thnx kapila!

PS- the post is not really only about feminism...

legal measures to safeguard rights is the way toward equality and justice

ah? I hope you do not mean "Legalize terrorism".

nope

;)

you have brought up quite a sensible point diya! rathe i think,at times in so called'fire' of passion..people forget their main motive ,crossing all bars and limits ..i wonder what they try to prove because by that time the main cause for which they fight..has actually faded away! and i think...once humanity lost..everyother cause seems hollow.

Good article.

"If one speaks about women welfare, that person can be termed as an 'irrational, heartless and a selfish man-hater'. The term "feminist" nowadays evokes that extreme passion within the hearts of many-a-man and makes them detest women from depth of their hearts"

Ever contemplated how such perceptions evolved ?

@SFF_India,
why don't you throw some light on that urself:)
@drishti
words of wisdom girl!:)

Heard of women welfare activists Girija Vyas, Ranjana Kumari, Indira Jai Singh, Brinda Karat, Subhashni Ali, Shabana Azmi etc.....leaders of women welfare activism .....understand their idea of women welfare...the answer lies there.

BTW, whats your take ?

14 SFF_India: Ever contemplated how the perceptions of women such as ones you've listed evolved?

Its all a vicious cycle.

If people had read history, Indian Civilization is the oldest and yet existing, about 5-10,000 yrs old, and no time, anybody thought about women. What a shame on our ancestors, they could not discover feminism!!!

1000 yrs back, there was no communalism or secularism, what a shame, did not discover that either.

As a modern indian, i am proud of McCaulay trash and waste.

diya
!!!!!!!!!!But the sad reality is that now days feminism too has been perceived to have taken the path of extremism.!!!!!!!!

thanks for accepting the truth.

And no one call a woman as heartless just because of she is fighting for their rights.A woman called heartless if and only if, she denied to notice the pain that she has given to others(man/woman).

Diya,

Do you really want to know how some radical feminists called gender feminists hijacked the movement?

Women's rights and women's empowerment are important for any society. But, if you replace the words men by blacks, jews in feminist literature then you will find that text to be extremely racist.

Renuka Choudhury says, "Do not trust Indian Men."

Let me replace the word men by the word Muslims.
The sentence becomes:

"Do not trust Indian Muslims".

Just think how it sounds. What do you call a person who makes above statement.

Take another sentence,

70% of Indian men torture their wives.

If I replace the words with whites and blacks of US, then it will sound as:

70% of American whites torture blacks.

I agree there is violence and discrimination against women by men and by society.

But, is hate the way out?

Just like Islam, it is the extremists who have more power than the moderates in Feminism. It is the feminist extremists who have unleashed terror on men using DV laws like VAWA in US and Section 498a in India.

Now come to reason, why there is extremism in feminism?

Patriarchal men support extremist feminists more than moderate feminists. These men feel, feminism is a way to eliminate competition from individualistic men who want to transform the society.

Please read, "Who Stole Feminism: How women betrayed women" by Christina Hoff Sommers and you can find how extremists took over feminism in US.

Indian Feminism is just a copied version of feminism in US.

Ideally, a movement is supposed to go moderate as it grows in size and starts winning victories. Feminism seems to follow the reverse trend. The extremism is increasing when they are getting victories (as so many biased laws are passed).

I have done a rigorous study on feminist literature in last 3 years. I could see that most of the extremism emanates from academic feminism where lot of biased studies are conducted.

Sociological problems are quite complex. One can not jump into any conclusion based on data in two or three dimensions.

Today, Feminism is like a religion with its own belief system. No reason works with people who are deeply entreched in beliefs.

Most feminists work inside such a belief system. Whenever a man questions some of their beliefs they can get outraged just like some religious fanatics and term them as chauvinists (equivalent to Kaffir or sinners in religious language).

Many feminists like Girija Vyas or Shabana Azmi are very famous people. Whatever they say in media, people people believe them without verifying whether the statements are true or false.

So, how can one handle people who are work within a rigid belief system and use media to propagate biased stories?

For example, even now media is representing Pooja Chauhan as a dowry victim where as it is proved beyond doubt that she is a sex worker and her husband or TB patient mother-in-law never tortured her.

Even now, NDTV is publishing reports that according to UN 60% of Indian wome face domestic violence. UN never conducted any studyin which these statistics are published.

It is easy to represent divorce as indicator for women's liberation and empowerment. But, how true is it in reality?

In any society women's issues can not be studied in isolation to children's issues, elder's issue or men's issues.

I personally feel, debates are not possible if people (say feminists) stick to their belief system. The only way to engage them is to create a counter belief system and create a headon clash.

That way, there is a chance the people including feminists start questioning their own beliefs as most clashes are uncomfortable which lead no where. So, that situation drives a person to question basic beliefs.

In India, more than 50% of children are abused. Boys are abused slightly more than girls.

But, very little media coverage is done on this issue. This issue does not even get 10% of the coverage that feminist issues get.

How can one create a progressive society when more than 50% of boys and girls face abuse in their childhood? Please note, it is the parents who perpetrate most of this abuse.

I am sorry to say, but Indian blogosphere is also full of people who write from their beliefs which may not have anything to do with reality. At best, they copy certain memes from media and keep repeating arguments around these memes.

So, how do one break these memes?
One has to create shock waves.

As I belong to SIFF, I know the background of most of the guys. They are IIT/IIM guys, Chartered accountants, corporate executives, doctors, IT guys, Phds etc etc. Internet gives them the freedom to express themselves.

These guys are trained for years to see into data, work on statistics, understand system dynamics and manage complex systems.

So, a journalist working in NDTV is no match for this bunch of geeks. in late 20s or early 30s.

On one hand, the country enjoys all the economic progress brought by the hardwork of these guys(via foreign exchange). On the other hand, the goverment and media nicely screw them by promoting marital problems just because some fool thinks that divorce gives peace and happiness.

The reality is, 80% of people who want divorce do not get it. 80% of divorces are messy and create huge misery for families.

Times of India city supplements are simply feminist tabloids, which show men in poor light and write stuff which is extremely racist if the word men is replaced by jews or blacks.

But, no one questions them as they write all this biased stuff in good 'rational' english.

Arjun Singh is accused of dowry harassment by his grand daughter-in-law.

If it had been someone else, NCW and Renuka Choudhury would have talked about jailing the accused because dowry is leading to female foeticide.

In case of Arjun Singh, Renuka Choudhury says, he is innocent. NCW is completely silent.

No feminist including left party or Brinda Karat has openned their mouth.

Where as they people never accept that dowry laws are misused.

Poeple in SIFF are fed up with all this hypocrisy in media and by social activists and feminists.

When some people have lost trust on media, feminists, judiciary, police, parliament and democracy, tell me what these people are most likely to do?

Feminism will not change. Because, it will remain anti-male for a long time to come.

In the meanwhile, families will break. Elders will die in streets, children will get aborted, foeticide will rise, sex ratio will get skewed, AIDs will spread, crimes will increase, mentally sick will increase and we will declare ourselves as a super power.

Please read, "Myth of male power" by Warren Farrell.

Most Men are as powerless in this world as most women. Only 1% of all men dominate all other men who sacrifice their lives for the sake of their family and children. But, feminists call it a male dominated society and make all of us overlook the powerlessness of 90% of males.

But, feminism will not change as it is the belief system which works in the minds of most feminists. Beliefs are not easy to change in a time when feminism is propagated so powerfully in media and in Internet.

SFF_india,
There are types of feminisms..there can de liberal feminists and there can be radical ones...
if you want to know what i thnk about feminism than ill tell you this... for me feminism connotes equality and working for the welfare for the helpless..
but thn there are many,who motivated by various reasons, propagate a kind of mindset that demarcate between men and women...they create a divide...
why should we all suffer for the misdeeds of few..shouldn't we instead work to change such mindset????
@siffer...
u make it sound as if every thing is black and white.. women get support from the media..so they are bad..
men don't..so they are angels...
right?

Diya: Your articles and even some of your comments are giving me deja vu (anybody else gettin that feelin'?!) :) If you have the time you should read my articles, the comments by some SIFF members and my responses. In fact, I think the siffers are going pretty easy on you for some reason, hehe. I'm jealous :D

Nice post by the way. Here are some that I wrote a while a ago on similar lines:

http://desicritics.org/2007/05/17/003434.php
http://desicritics.org/2007/05/18/015116.php
http://desicritics.org/2007/05/25/004510.php

Some of the comments are pretty entertaining. Most offensive ones were edited. But you can still see the immaturity and lack of logic.

It will help you gain some insight into how logic falls apart when trying to ge thru to certain people.

siffer - thank you for bringing some real knowledge, insight and original thinking to the thread.

wow aditi! i loved d articles!!!
n my o my! ur 1st articles actually throws more clarity on what i am trying to say!!

NCW: 70% Women in India Suffer DV.
X-Question: M'am, where did u get the data from?
NCW: From UN.

X-Q to UN - Do u know 70% Women in India Suffer DV?

UN - Yes!!!

X-Q - where did u get the data from?

UN - NCW, India.

This fact(lie) made the basis for getting DV act passed in Parliament.

What else do we talk about?

KALYUG is the Past and now its all FEM-YUG.

mr. rathor:

chasing tails?

;)

statistics?

even if the rights of 10 women (in a million or in a thousand or in a hundred) are abused they have every right to stand up for their rights by all legals means necessary

And Mr. Temporal, why there is no entry for Men's right and Protection to Men against abuse and misuse in your dictionary?

I believe the numbers there too are more than 10.

Thats why I call it a FEM-YUG!!!

Diya,

You wrote:

why should we all suffer for the misdeeds of few(read feminists).....shouldn't we instead work to change such mindset????

Exactly...

Why should men suffer because of misdeeds of few??


Masculists in SIFF also want equality irrespective of gender, caste, creed or religion and they wont mind some minor preferential treatment to women.

So, if you believe in the brand of equity feminism then we have no issues with you.

We do not believe feminists in media or in TOI supplements. As I wrote already, most of their articles are in now way less than racist and sexist.

Media is a big culprit in this whole game. We are fighting in Internet, just because of media bias.

Even now, 80% of Indian media is under the control of radical feminists.

So, why should men or their innocent old and sick elders suffer just because crimes of a few?

to the von siffers including those here:

please do not insult your own intelligence:)

what i wrote in #24 relates to women but is is in no way restricted to women only

any group (and that includes von siffers) can stand up for their rights by any and all legal means necessary

i have no compunction in reiterating this on your board should you write an article here

shanti

Aditi,

You have not yet forgiven people whom you do not like.

As a reflection, these people do not forgive you.

Keep playing the tennis game.

You feel these people are bad. And they also think the same of you.

You somehow want to score points hoping that somehow or other you will defeat them. You really enjoy that process.

It takes two hands to clap.

As most feminists are willing partners to indulge in mudslinging, SIFF members always find such feminists. Tomorrow, you vanish, they will find some more.

They are doing the same not only with you, but also with another 1000 other feminists everyday.

It is like marking a forward players in a football match.

SIFF members mark femininists, track them and engage them.

They believe that by doing so, they will contribute positively to the society on a long run. So, they are highly inspired and never get tired.

Just like feminist belief system, SIFF members and men's rights around the world also have belief systems. They also feel their beliefs are true and think it their duty to engage feminists where ever they find them.

There are many brands of feminism. Same way, there are many brands of religion. So, why so many people are writing against specific religions in DC.

Why should a whole religion pay the price for misdeeds of a few.

Feminists lie. You can not argue logically with people who lie or tell half truths.

Now, these feminists will teach the whole world the basics of logic.


Feminism is all about equality.

Yes, It is about equality in the areas where women are underdogs.

But, when it comes to areas where men have disadvantages, no feminist wants equality there.

Feminism is a sugar coated hate movement.

Feminism can only create misery for all.

It is a myth that feminism is all about equality.

Temporal,

Women's Rights:

Right to jail anybody at will.

Right to kill children.

Right to tell lies.

Right to drive people to suicide.

Right to property of in-laws.

Yes. All women have rights to fight for their rights. All fascists have a right to fight for putting people in concentration camps.

All Romans have a right to organise watch Gladiator Matches.


----
Right to kill someone.
Right to jail someone.
----

Under what logic these things can be rights?

Yes. Right to self defense is a right.
Right to food is a right.
Right to have a shelter can a right.

But, not right to kill someone or put someone in jail.

von siffer:

stop insulting your intelligence

you are not THAT comprehension challenged

;)

Here is the problem with any feminist:

Step 1: Every feminist starts with noble intentions to create a better society (especially for women/girls).

Step 2: She goes through feminist literature and one sided data. She digests it even though sometimes her blood boils.

Step 3: She now starts developing selective filters and selective listening.

When it is a story of women's plight, she will get attentive and when it is story of children or elder's plight, then she will ignore.

(My mom is a feminist and so I know it well.)

Step 4: As she looks towards problems of women, she will get more such cases and finally she concludes that only women suffer from 90% of the world's problems. Elders, Men and children suffering from rest 10% of the problems in the society.

A class 12 boy was beaten to death bya female teacher in Udaipur and yet she will ignore it as it is not related to her specialisation. Her domain is men beating women and not women beating men/boys.

Step 5: She innocently and passionately starts writing for women and their problems. She believes that what she is doing is noble and will transform the society.

Step 6: Then, she discovers some people talking about plight of elders, children or men.

She feels insecure. She feels that women issues will get diluted as more and more these outsiders claim themselves as victims.

She feels only women are victims and they only deserve the status of victims. (It is just like Gujjars demanding SC/ST status).

Step 7: She will tell and write how women and girls have very misearable lives in this world.

Listening to this, some people start eliminating girls.

(Now the circle is complete)

Step 8: She gets deeply disconnected from people, society and reality. For her every problem in the society is due to men. The war is due to men, the famine is due to men, the crime is due to men and the accidents on the road are due to men.

Step 9: She feels men are the cause of all problems. They need to be eliminated somehow. Then she reads about the cloning technology and the fragile male cromosome.

She says, Eureka and jumps into the street in skin-tight low waist jeans showing her backside to all. After all, she found the way to eliminate men.


Step 10: Some men start calling her feminazi. Then suddenly she thinks whats wrong with these men. Why they are behaving differently?

Step 11: She concludes these men are chauvinists. What kind of men are they who can not take care of their wives? After all, I started with a noble goals and I did not go wrong anywhere.

Now, she finds the whole world beyond logic. She finds Taj Mahal defy logic, she also finds music defy logic. She finds planes flying in the air defy logic.

She concludes all man made things defy logic. Men are illogical.

Men in her life tolerate her. They tell her she is great as she is not capable of listening or tolerating anything else.

She feels these men in my life are so nice and tolerating to me and my tantrums, so they all must be feminist.

Then she claims, my father is a feminist. My husband is feminist, my brother is a feminist.

regurgitating?

;)

Siffer and SFF_India,

Very well said!

But the sad reality is that now days feminism too has been perceived to have taken the path of extremism.

Correction:

The sad reality is that now days feminism too has taken the path of extremism. It just needs to be acknowledged.

#28 Siffer:

I don't have to forgive you for anything, you haven't done anything that bothered me so much that I would hold it against you.

The only people who I hope forgive you are the ones you represent. They are the ones earning a bad name because of your overtly aggressive strategies.

I have always said this and will continue to believe that by holding online battles with a few female authors who speak of liberal feminism, you are not doing anything for your cause.

The people who make such laws do so NOT for feminism but for other political agendas. You won't find those people on DC unfortunately. You want to fool yourselves and vent your frustrations in an online discussion, do it.

#31: You have quite an imagination! :) Step 4 onwards it pretty much falls apart. Tsk tsk.

I could sum up your strategy in just 2 steps:

1. You arrive on public forums having sought only the word feminism, don't bother to read the article that follows. You come here only to engage in battle and not in exchange of ideas.

2. Then your friends arrive and say things like "Well-said!" "Point well made" and such things :)

******
If there are radical feminists out there, some of you guys are no less. They are prejudiced, so are you, they are over aggressive, so are you, they are irrational, so are you, they go after innocent men believing all men are abusers, you go after all feminists, believing they are radicals. How are you any different?!

******

# 31
-------
STUPENDOUS AND MINDBLOWING !!!!

#20
--------
Aditi,
This is a well written article where author is concerned about strong emotions engulfing passion which in turn is highly self destructive. I find her concern about feminism (and its perception) also justifiable, without any bias.

We, at SIFF, are strongly driven by passion but know quite well not to get carried away by emotion (the main reason why I liked the article so much).

If we had done so, we would have blown ourselves out by now. But, in fact, we have channelised our emotions and passions into a strong fight (on line as well as field). It would be really foohardy to assume that our approach here is borne out of isolated personal experiences. Our experiences and research has helped us to see the crude truth behind the mask of portrayed reality and its our passion to unmask the hypocricy without blowing ourself up.

If we had not known the dividing line between passion and emotion, some us may have crossed the legal the limits to carry the fight.

#19
----
Your understanding of feminism realy doesn't answer your own concern of why feminism is compared with extremism.

#37:SFF_India: I am glad to see that at least one feminist has gotten through to you...I hope this will lead to some productive exchange and may even build bridges where there has been so much contempt for so long.

BTW, legal limits are not the only ones defining society: there are ethical and moral ones too which includes personal attacks and blatant verbal abuse (even if it is under the shrouds of online anonymity). So one wonders if the passion did get to you at some point?

Nonetheless I am very glad to see that you guys found at least one feminist perspective identifiable.

Quite an accomplishment Diya! Kudos :)

#38
----

Ah ! don't get carried away, its a response to what is written rather than who has written.

You are again repeating the same mistake, assuming too soon, based on one comment. You may be right or you may be wrong.

And, a good article is a good article, no matter who has written.

BTW, I find the author to fall under the brand of feminist described in Comment#31. I am willing to correct myself if I am wrong.

"The people who make such laws do so NOT for feminism but for other political agendas. You won't find those people on DC unfortunately."

People on DC may not be responsible for the oppressive laws but quite of few DCs have tried to perpetrate the same lies as radical feminists do, which is why siffers fight them.

"Step 4 onwards it pretty much falls apart."

So, does that mean steps 1-3 describe most of DC feminists well? Good to know.

Step 1: Every feminist starts with noble intentions to create a better society (especially for women/girls).

Step 2: She goes through feminist literature and one sided data. She digests it even though sometimes her blood boils.

Step 3: She now starts developing selective filters and selective listening.

When it is a story of women's plight, she will get attentive and when it is story of children or elder's plight, then she will ignore.

(My mom is a feminist and so I know it well.)

Alot of truth in what you're saying Siffer.

Yes, Siffer, wonderful! So well-said! Point made in a very nice manner. SO MUCH truth in your words...etc, etc, etc.

God, you guys are hilarious :D

Ever heard of "chamchagiri"? Hehehe. At least be discrete!

#41: You guys just love to pounce on something and then do a victory dance, don't you? Makes you seem petty and silly.

you know what ur problem is siffer? you stereotype people to their hilt!
what makes you think u know how i'll turn up?? u an astrologer or smthng??
me being a feminist is a part of my personality...not my entire being! just because i am a feminist, doesn't mean i am not be a humanist-ie. those who care about human kind as a whole...

u know what! i have been thinking about all the comments u have made so far and i have come to the conclution that u have a maaaaaaajor prob. with the wrd "feminism".. whn u hear this wrd..a very negetive picture conjures up and thus ur passion gets flaired..u cant thnk straight and u come up with all sorts of mysoginistic nonsense u can think of!
so i have now decided to give it a new name-
does the term "arbitrators of female equality and welfare" appeal to you???;)

and another controversy raises its head...diyaaaaa wrote something non conrtoversial dude!lol...but sexy writing none the less...keep it up

Call it a cut n paste but if you wish you can always go through the article:


Torture

[edited]

please refrain from such tactics in future

"Female equality"??? What feminists typically mean by "female equality" is that women need special status regardless of their personal antecedents. They fail to understand that men and women suffer oppression of various kids depending on their life circumstances. If someone is just interested in equality then they would not get too excited about feminism, and get all riled up when men stand up against oppression and injustice faced by them or when they highlight feminist lies.

Diya, Siffer is not one person, and every Siffer may not be addressing you. So, if you are a person who believes in true equality, you don't need to get very defensive.

von siffers:

... Siffer is not one person...

:)

neither was goebbels;)

Great joke, temporal. Hope that made your day.

"But when I say that I am a feminist, does that mean that I am only preoccupied only with the worries of womanhood and wouldn't like to help others apart from them? Don't I realize that life is a crisis where everyone suffers? Yes I do."

If this were the philosophy of feminists, then many problems would have been eliminated. Someone like Madhu Kishwar, who felt this way was sidelined because, god forbid, she might be successful in negotiating balanced solutions to women's issues at the policy level. http://www.tehelka.com/story_main15.asp?filename=hub123105inthechair_6.asp

Siffer(51)...The link is awesome.

temporal(49)...How far was that from Godwin's law ;).

#49 Temporal, the Goebbels ref was funny :D Hehe.

As Siffers would say: a lot of truth in what you say (see 42) or stupendous and mindblowing (see 36), very well-said (see 33) etc :) Hehe.

#43 Jay: the "chamchagiri" thing does seem to have truth to it.

#52 FF: "Godwin's Law does not question whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate"

hehe

one aspect of born-again self righteous attitude is believing one's mis-statements as gospels or as held beliefs ....er...lies

;)

classic delusional behaviour

53...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law#Corollaries_and_usage

sorry temporal, but your debating style on this board is disingenous and intellectually dishonest so i going to have to expose you. :)


"one aspect of born-again self righteous attitude is believing one's mis-statements as gospels or as held beliefs ....er...lies"


You are indulging in 'Genetic Fallacy'. This means you are stating that because someone is born-again then their arguments must be wrong.

Your inference is that the actual details of their argument can be overlooked, since correctness can be decided without any need to listen or think.


Why don't you just demonstrate to us why a persons argument is wrong instead of taking 'clever' little potshots from the sidelines? :)

what arguments mapad?

in the short while i have read you....you are regurgitating the same-same

re: born again...their righteous indignation borne inflexibility sans compromise is a matter of record as is their inability to comprehend contrarian view points

"in the short while i have read you....you are regurgitating the same-same"


yes, temporal. its called having a consistent argument. maybe you think me having a consistent position discredits me?

if you disagree with any of my statements then go ahead and make your case! I'm all ears! :)

just try to comprehend chandra

he has (very) effectively and eloquently deconstructed and rebutted you

"he has (very) effectively and eloquently deconstructed and rebutted you"


yes! this must be true because you say it!

i comprehend chandra perfectly which is why i can see that he didn't rebut my arguments.

Aditi, hehehe...giggle. Hope you also read the interview. It will make you giggle more.

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main15.asp?filename=hub123105inthechair_6.asp

"Passion is needed; the extreme of it is not. If we look around, we will find ample of examples where moderation of it is very much the need of the hour."

I agree. Hence, we should make sure feminist extremism is checked. Feminist extremism is bound to lead to other forms of extremism.

"One goes to a public place and blows themselves up. They die, along with many others. Why, you ask? Perhaps it was the passionate love for his or her religion or country that made him/her take such a drastic step."

Probably not always. It could also be because someone blew up his whole family when he was a child in front of his own eye, and there is no one to assuage his pain.

"If one speaks about women welfare, that person can be termed as an 'irrational, heartless and a selfish man-hater'."

Feminist claims are usually irrational, heartless, and smack of anti-male sentiment. They are based on presumptions of female victimhood.

"The term "feminist" nowadays evokes that extreme passion within the hearts of many-a-man and makes them detest women from depth of their hearts."

As Madhu Kishwar points out "The women's movement is so fascist minded, the need to fall in line is so intense, I feel choked. You can't speak the truth: they want lies. I say a large part of feminist reports are half lies and exaggerated falsifications." ..."Feminism is inviting such disdain and backlash in India because it lacks both fighting power and integrity. "

SIFF members know the weaknesses of feminists well. When I say, feminists I mean all categories of feminists including moderate, humanist feminist, lesbian feminists, radical feminists, feminazis.

Their weaknesses are non-acceptance, intolerance, anger and hate.

This is like a head full of gun powder.

SIFF also has its weaknesses. They are small number compared to feminists and very little positional power compared to feminists.

So, SIFF members happily ignite the hatred (gun powder) already existing in feminists's heads.

When it happens to feminists, they react. They write articles to discuss the issue, to defend themselves, to prove others wrong. The feminists in Media react viciously, when SIFF activists happily send them nice mails.

Reactive people are powerless. Reacting to any situation is major weakness of feminists.

SIFF members are trained not to react and not to get angry. If DV Act is passed, he are happy.

If biased WorkPlace Harassment law is passed, then we are happy.

SIFF members are always happy and they know how to make other people react with anger and non-acceptance.

Reactive people can never win. Reactive people can not choose their battles. It is their opponents who will choose their battles.

We changed the structure of the game and feminists play according to our terms.

Even Renuka Choudhury and NCW plays games according to our terms and keep reacting and repeating the same mistakes again and again.

The damage to feminism will not show up immediately. It will show up in next 4 to 5 years.

We know many feminists do not want them to be termed man-haters. So, we will do all the things that feminists do not like.

In fact, our only goal is to find what feminists do not like (or what they hate) and do it all "legally". DC and other places are not experiment grounds where we study the minds of various categories of feminists.

Now, I have openned a major strategy outside SIFF.

I challenge the feminists to come out with a counter strategy. It is difficult for them because there is a power imbalance between feminists and masculists. The masculists are too few and have little positional power.

The large size of feminist Armada will also be a weakness for them.

Who cares about what is reputation of SIFF? We will close it tomorrow and start "Happy Indian Family Foundation"(HIFF). Is it a big deal?

Because SIFF is in a state where it has nothing to lose. We can build a brand, we can kill our own brand. We have no attachment to anyone or anything.

#64: Siffer: Madhu Kishwar belongs to the ranks of women who avoids the hackles raised by the word "feminism" by dodging only the word or the title. It is a very diplomatic and clever marketing strategy. But if you care to read some of her articles and her interviews you will notice that she speaks in favor of the very things that liberal feminists do...she just doesn't use the word "feminism" in order to gain the favor of a few like yourself. Not only do you fall for it, you even end up using her quotes. The problem is not with the word "feminism" as you may hopefully some day realize, it is with the application that some radicals have found for this word.

If you look up the word alone in the dictionary : it is defined as follows:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

****Logically you shouldn't be fighting the word but instead those women who have misrepresented the word.****

Note: Anhilating a word entirely is far difficult than redefining its concepts to fit what is fair and justified in society.

By fighting liberal feminists you are actually harming your own agendas. Becoz the only people who can refute or offer rebuttals to radical feminists are the liberals.

#63: I hope you aren't attempting to justify terrorism. Victims of Bombay blasts, Sep.11th attacks, Kashmir attacks etc will probably not want to insult the memory of their loved ones by killing others. This statement in comment 63 reflects very badly on the opinions subscribed by the SIFF. You guys have repeatedly and blatantly through your comments justified acts of violence and provided explanations for why the victim supposedly "deserved" to be beaten up or be killed.

a public service announcement for the von-siffers


[Origin: (def. 1) sp(iced) + (h)am; (other defs.) 1990-95; referring to a comedy routine on Monty Python's Flying Circus, Brit. TV series]


;)

Bravo Aditi! It's good to see someone standing up to the attitudes that sponsor terrorism.


"#63: I hope you aren't attempting to justify terrorism. Victims of Bombay blasts, Sep.11th attacks, Kashmir attacks etc will probably not want to insult the memory of their loved ones by killing others. This statement in comment 63 reflects very badly on the opinions subscribed by the SIFF. You guys have repeatedly and blatantly through your comments justified acts of violence and provided explanations for why the victim supposedly "deserved" to be beaten up or be killed. "

Aditi 66...

SIFF has "NO" issues with causes what Madhu keshwar pursues. There is no clash of ideas between SIFF and what Madhu keshwar supports. Any overlap between feminists and Madhu keshwar is pure incidental and is just because wives also happen to be women in a way.

SIFF(or for that matter Madhu keshwar) is Pro-women.

Feminist movement is mostly pro-wife. Why?

You need to demonstrate the acumen to distinguish between a pro-wife and a pro-women movement.

You need to introspect and then tell us, Why it is always wives who cry hoarse and hardly ever do mothers, sisters or daughters.

Perhaps, the problem is with wives trying to control husbands all the time. Perhaps, feminism is hollow from within.

I usually don't pay any attention to siffies but this caught my eye:

wives also happen to be women in a way.
AHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!

"****Logically you shouldn't be fighting the word but instead those women who have misrepresented the word.****"

No, Aditi! It is YOU who needs to be fighting against those who misrepresent the word "feminism" since you like the word so much.

We know what Madhu Kishwar does. You may want to learn more about her thoughts and activities. She is probably one of the more open-minded people who cared to re-examine her thoughts and evolve over time unlike most of the feminists who are evolutionary fossils.

Comment#63 only said, "Probably not always. It could also be because someone blew up his whole family when he was a child in front of his own eye, and there is no one to assuage his pain."

This is just a possibility other than the one offered by the author and there could be many others. Aditi, you are the one who is very keen on reading too much into it.

"By fighting liberal feminists you are actually harming your own agendas. Becoz the only people who can refute or offer rebuttals to radical feminists are the liberals."

Right! And we will ask everyone in the world to hold their breath until then.

Liberal feminists like you are no use when it comes to fighting radical feminists. It is not like writing a rebuttal to some newspaper article. Give it a try before you talk. If you can change the world with your liberal crap we will all be more than happy. Please do it.

Amrita: That was funny! :) Lol.

Siffer: Once the word "fighting" comes into play, the essence of all liberal thinking is shot to hell. You cannot be a liberal thinker and "fight". You can inspire or influence through your writing, oratory, actions etc. But if one is bullied into accepting or denouncing a maxim, the effects are very short-lived.

I have said this once and I will say it again: You CANNOT bully people into buying your theories. You can beat them up, launch personal attacks, kill them, wipe them out but you will never be able to affect the way they think by force.

Just like you believe what you do due to your own experiences, you will find equally convincing arguments from those who have their own empirically proven convictions.

Hence "fighting" cannot be a logical solution! It will lead only to a deadlock.

If possible could we also rephrase the word "crap" which dismisses rational alternative approaches without giving them a chance?

BTW, pls believe me when I say, I know what Madhu Kishwar means, says or has said :)

#61: Siffer: Please do not make a fool of yourself. You guys fail to read the links you post and hence it ends up contradicting your ideas. People, please read the first sentence of Ms.Kishwar's interview that Siffer has posted:

"The funny thing is my views have not become different. When I started Manushi, the people who now express outrage at my supposed non-feminist stands attacked me then for being a feminist and for being anti-men."

This is exactly what I stated was her strategy. She just changed the title of "feminism" to avoid conflicts, and believes the same stuff that she did when she was called a feminist. Check your facts before pasting them pls.

But you were right, it did make me laugh. It always does whenever you guys end up proving somebody's else's point inadvertently.

******

I think the essence of Diya's article has been proven repeatedly by some of the SIFF's comments: It takes a lot more than just passion and frustration to stand up and rally for a cause.

*******

"You guys have repeatedly and blatantly through your comments justified acts of violence and provided explanations for why the victim supposedly "deserved" to be beaten up or be killed. ""

You are mistaken. On the contrary it was feminists like you who justified acts of violence by women on men, saying that a woman would only have acted in retaliation and that the male victim deserved to be beaten up or killed.

"I have said this once and I will say it again: You CANNOT bully people into buying your theories. You can beat them up, launch personal attacks, kill them, wipe them out but you will never be able to affect the way they think by force."

This is more appropriate for feminists. Siffers are not that powerful to bully anyone, kill or wipe anyone out. Personal attacks are quite common between Siffers and other DCs. There is nothing as dramatic as you make it sound.

Siffer: "On the contrary it was feminists LIKE YOU who justified acts of violence by women on men, saying that a woman would only have acted in retaliation and that the male victim deserved to be beaten up or killed."

Feminists like ME?

Ok, go ahead. Prove it.

Show me one sentence...not 2 articles, not five paragraphs, just ONE SENTENCE from any one of my articles where I do what you accuse me of doing: "justifying acts of violence by women on men"

Aditi, we know how much you know about feminism and feminists other than your liberal DCs. The lesser said the better.

There is nothing to elaborate about your liberal crap...the one word sums it up.

But please do indulge in dialogue with the radicals and lead the way. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody will say just because Siffers are not diplomatic we are going to make sure injustice done to innocent citizens will continue unchecked. If you can "inspire" everyone enough to bring about changes in policy and stop oppression of men and unfair arrests of ordinary citizens, then all the victims of 498a, DV Act etc. will be forever indebted to you.

hi Aditi!
I too read the intreview and fully agree wth ur analysis..
"I've been very averse to label warfare. I found my freedom by saying I'm not a feminist. I'm not any 'ist'. Isms work like an aids virus on your brain."
What Mrs. Kishwar is trying to say, dear siffers, is that to fight for womans right, one need not stick to one staunch set of ideals... but if u thnk she is against "feminism as a whole" thnk again...

Aditi: Siffer says "Aditi, we know how much you know about feminism"

This coming from the Siffers whose views on feminism are restricted to Indian laws and Renuka Chowdhary/ Girija Vyas etc!! It is pretty funny, don't you think? :D

A frog seems to think that the one puddle in which he leaps about for a monsoon, is the whole world. He knows everything about the muck in that puddle and he knows how shallow it is. So no matter how many fishes tell him of the great wide ocean, he will take great satisfaction in knowing everything about the world as he sees it. Self-complacence must be all consuming.

Aditi,
There is a reason that feminism is being associated with filth. The word has been hijacked by the morons in power like Ranjana Kumari, Girija Vyas and what ever.
You may want to read this: http://tinyurl.com/38r5l6,
to understand why the term 'feminism' is being derided by all. Its been hijacked by radical feminists and if you attack the liberal feminists, then you are playing the role of the 'useful idiot'.

"This coming from the Siffers whose views on feminism are restricted to Indian laws and Renuka Chowdhary/ Girija Vyas etc!! It is pretty funny, don't you think? :D"

Not at all, my friend. You really do have a long way to go.

"A frog seems to think that the one puddle in which he leaps about for a monsoon, is the whole world...."

This is more apt for feminists...especially the ones on DC.

Arjun: Thank you for the article. It is quite well-written and while it makes a very good point about gender harmony versus special status, it does not use a very effective example. This of course is my opinion. Ms.Bedi has not demanded special status for being a woman but in fact brought attention to the fact that several deserving women have been passed for a male candidate instead. This is being viewed as a "gender discrimination" issue but frankly it should probably be viewed as a "is the right person being given the post" question.

The author seems well-informed having been a former member of the police academy but then not all traditionalists choose a pioneer in the lead, do they? He fails to mention that Dhadwal is actually two years junior to Ms.Bedi and was still given the post without just cause.

He asks in his article: "Are we to surmise from this assertion that whenever a woman candidate is in the reckoning for any top job, it must necessarily be given to her?"

:)

Obvious answer: If she is the one best fit for the job in terms of seniority, elligibility and other credentials, then yes! As would be true for a male candidate.

How does he provide a fair comparison of the candidates and then arrive at the conclusion that Ms.Bedi is demanding special status, I honestly don't know and couldnt quite fathom.

******

As for people who have trouble digesting the word "feminism", I don't blame them. I agree, the term has been misrepresented and long abused by those with vested agendas but the only way to overthrow that strategy is to redefine the concept of feminism. I am not suggesting anything very complicated or dumb...it is in fact a very logical way of countering misrepresentation by radical feminists.

Think about it: If a definition has been hijacked by wrong concepts, what would be easier and more effective? Anihilating the word itself? Or attempting to change the popular definition to increase awareness and prevent further misuse?

******

I do appreciate the insight you provided.

Here we are all talking about efforts to redifine feminism but how many feminists or their male croonies themselves believe in such redefination. Misguided feminism is still rampant and strong and as a result it evokes strong response from many men. I am giving a recent example of the intense bias against men and blatant attempt to promote female chauvinism in the media.
In the 5th August issue of GRAPHTTI, a magazine of THE TELEGRAPH, in the advice column "survival strategies" run by MR SUHEL SETH, a young boy of 21 years has sought advice as to how to handle a sticky mess where his 22 year old female neighbour is desperate to have sex with him and is threatening to blackmail him if he refuses to satiate her sexual urge. The boy very clearly states that he had succumbed to her only once but feels guilty about it since their is no emotional bond and he wants to find a way out of the mess.
MR SUHEL SETH, in all his sagacity as an adviser scathingly castigates the boy of being a "moral wimp".He further states " Do not give me this moral nonsense.No man has ever felt this way, and what emotional bond are you talking about? Go on with the flow ...."
As seen earlier, SUHEL SETH has earlier too taken and advocated feminist stance in his columns which we all had severely criticised.The arguments given by SUHEL SETH is a typically feminist tirade which I have encoun- tered earlier on.Lets analyse what feminists and their male croonies have to say and why we men get terrible upset when we see such opinions coming out in the media:-

a)Feminists refuse to accept that women too can be sexual predators. With the fast changing attitudes, sexual lust is common among women and they too are not only lusting for men but want to force men of their choice to sexually satisfy them even if the man is unwilling. But feminists refuse to accept this growing reality.
b) So what propaganda do feminists indulge in? They start claiming that it is the fault of the man who is refusing to have sex with the woman.Feminists start accusing the man or being a "wimp" or a "moral wimp".
c) So according to feminist thinking, a man does not have the right to decide as to when, with whom and how much to have sex .He should be ever willing to drop his pants, have an errection and start fornicating when ever a woman asks him to. If he does not he is a MORAL WIMP!!!!!
d) Will we ever in the open media ever castigate a woman of being a wimp if she refuses to have sex with any man who wants to have sex with her? But feminits openly accuse men of being so.They simply cannot accept a man sexually rejecting a woman.
e)A woman has the right to deny to have sex and she is often glorified as a "respectable" woman if she is not promiscous, but a man refusing a woman is ridiculed and humiliated by feminists.
f)A woman can complain of sexual harrasement but if a man turns down a sexual proposal from a woman, he is accused of "not flowing with times".

Divya, I hope you will appreciate as to how devious, cunning and evil feminists are and they keep on displaying it openly in the media and that is why we,men, utterly hate them.

and why the tail-chasing never ends:)

I hope you will appreciate as to how devious, cunning and evil feminists are and they keep on displaying it openly in the media and that is why we,men, utterly hate them.

Men's Rights and Anti-feminist organisations have started mushrooming all over India now. Now, Men will stay 100 metres away from feminists.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/04men.htm

Ajay is absolutely right as he is always. I have managed to obtain a copy of the Graphtti of the Telegraph.Mr Suhel Seth has in the past exhibited a totally feminist and anti-male attitude while advising men in his columns.We have severely criticised him in the past and we will do it now too.
The arguments that Sh Seth gives is typically feminist-speak.We have heard these arguments surfacing before, especially in the West, where instances of men facing sexual harassment from women is on the rise and we are seeing Mr Suhel Seth uttering them now.
It is appalling that feminists do not deem that men have the right to decide as to when and with whom to have sex.They demand it as a matter of right that men should be perpetually prepared with their zips down and with a perpetual state of errection that as soon as any woman demands to be sexually satiated, the man irrespective of his wish, choice and likings , should immediately start fornicating with her.
If he refuses,then he is openly in the media ridiculed as a wimp and accused to be clinging to morals which feminists claim do not exist. Then men are not deemed to claim to be sexually harassed.
But on the other hand, amazingly, we are seeing growing demands by feminists to stop sexual harassment of women and even staring at a sexually provocative woman is today deemed to be harassment. The female chauvinism by feminists is totally repulsive and repugnant.

Even so called Liberal Feminists in India do not want men to shed their traditional roles.

Men have to do their traditional roles.

Feminists, media, sociologist around the world do not allow men to question their traditional roles.

Men supported feminism because they thought that women's liberation will free them from their traditional roles.

Thats where all feminists (liberal and extreme) betrayed men.

The result is rising suicides of men and rising rising gap in life expectency between women and men.

It has been a completely feminists win and men lose game.

So, some men have started playing the game, we win feminists lose.

The net result would be: Lose-Lose.
That is, both men and women will lose.


If men have more to lose and less gain from feminism, then why the hell they support feminism?

I and Madhu Kishwar talked for 15 minutes. She was concerned about backlash against women's movement. She also took at dig at couple of radical feminists. I also see her taking on radical feminists like Indira Jaisingh or Ranjana Kumari.
-----------------------

Mens situation in India is worse than men is US. No where in the world elders, grandparents, bedridden sick people are jailed, made run go to courts. I know people where a bed ridden old person was taken to a magistrate for bail.

And, media never reports it. Thats why many girls trust the radical feminists blindly.

Media would have never reported all this if SIFF has not started the aggressive activism.


It is important for Feminists stop to playing win-lose games against men.

Otherwise, all women will pay the price. Men will also pay the price. Society will also pay the price.

The war has started.

If feminists want a ceasefire, then must stop arresting old elders and sisters of men immediatly.

Till that time, we will picturise every feminist as a dangerous feminazi. Now, society is hating men, soon it will start hating feminists as well.

We will advertise in Internet in a big way. We spend more than a lac on advertisements in Internet every month.

When each of our member lose average 10 lacs, collectively 6000 members lost Rs.600 crores. They also faced abused, violence and jailing.

If it is a loss of 600 crores for SIFF members, then we can always spend 6 crores on advertisement in every year to malign feminism.

This will continue till women leaders remove all radical feminism.

We call the shots. We pull the Strings.

We do not mind 498a. Deny fathers the child custody and visitation, we will defame feminism.

We will defame feminism in the name of SIFF or HIFF or HISS. We do not want any good name or any prestige or any attention or any praise from any moron in this fascist country.

Feminists have a brand which every feminist wants to protect. It is on decline in US. In India, it will fall before it peaks.

regurgitating again?

;)

The root of the problem is that women are refusing to accept that they too are capable of sexually harassing men.Today the differences between men and women have blurred and both of them are expressing their sexual desires openly.Sexual lust is the order of the modern times. In such a situation, women too are getting sexually aroused at the sight of a sexually attractive man and are demanding him to have sex with them and are even blackmailing him to submit to their lust.
This is the changing reality brought in by women themselves and they have to accept it.Dispite the promiscuity all around us,will a woman be willing to have sex with any man who proposes to her? Absolutely no!She reserves her right and choice.If she is forced to submit , she cries rape or sexual harassment.She may even feel that she will have physical relation with a man only if he is committed to her or she is emotionally close to him. Will in such a case she be ridiculed as a moral wimp? Then how do we accuse a man as such? How is SUHEL SETH demeaning a man in this degrading manner and is mouthing feminist jargons?
And if we hate feminists, then we are placated by being told to be sober!!What utter nonsense!!We know what feminists are and what their mental set up is.

I was a feminist. My family believed in feminist ideals. Our famous leader Swarup used participate in protests in front of houses of dowry takers when he was in school.

Feminists betrayed me and us all. I, my family or SIFF families have no trust on any variant of feminism.

Now, why should I burn my fingers in trying to help feminism reinventing (or redefining) itself?

What is the guarantee that feminism will not betray us again?

Please note, no feminist is saying that feminism will not betray us all agains.

If men do not remain traditional, then the courts and society screw him and if man is traditional then feminists screw him.

Enough is enough. In such situation there is no room to think or consider anything but to keep maligning entire feminism.

more monologues?

;)

"Because if that remains the case, one day we might all just decide to go blow ourselves up."

Feminists, with their aggressive policies, have already blown up many families and are blowing up many more every day.

The case pointed out by Ajay deserves merit.Today a prostitute,who sells sex and does not link morals with the act of sex and is generally sexually available,cannot be forced to have sex . It is held by courts that a forced act of sex even on a prostitute constitutes sexual harassment or rape, as the case may be.
But on the other hand a man , who is hounded by a woman for sex and is being blackmailed into consenting even if he is refusing,is accused and ridiculed of being a wimp,a moralist ( as if having morals is like having leprosy) and not "flowing with the times".
This is feminism for all of us to experience and we are seeing such opinions coming out in respectable dailies like the Telegraph.And if we protest, we are handed lollipops by sweet young things who ask us innocently as to why we hate feminists so much!

I would like to know if a woman, who is being sexually harassed by her neighbour, who is hell bent to have sex with her and who is using all possible means and blackmail to force the woman to satisfy his lust and if such a woman seeks guidance and help, what would our self appointed adviser, Mr Suhel Seth advice her? Will he advice her to "flow with the times" and have sex with man and ridicule her of being a moral wimp and a moral outcast since she is not succumbing to the man's sexual demands? Mr Seth will never dare to do so.Most probably he will advice her to bring the matter to the notice of the authorities and to punish and humiliate the sex crazed man.
Mr Suhel Seth is an intellectual fraud who has in the past also has come out with such suggestions which are feminists oriented and totally demeaning of men in general.How is The Telegraph allowing such a stupid moron to "advice" all and sundry?

In case people are wondering why in the world Suhel Seth is being mentioned in this thread there is a simple explanation. Have you seen men who take a leak on highways or bushes because they couldn't control it and just had to do it somewhere? Similarly SIFF members find a forum where they can type out the frustration they feel over somebody else's articles but since the Telegraph probably won't post their comments and SIF website only has SIFF readers, they post it here hoping their disconnected ideas will find some readers.

The SIFF's biggest challenge thus far is not fighting misused laws but trying to stay on topic at DC.

siffer,
i see that u have thoroughly dissected my article..for all the wrong reasons alas!;)

Why some SIFF members argue at DC?

I took on some guys in Fullhyd.com message board for 4 months 2004 december onwards to study the minds of the our possible opponents.

That study was used to design our communication methods (especially our tone).

We constantly review our methods and choose weaknesses in opponents. Some of our members practice their arguments at DC. We also find the weaknesses of opponents to our cause.

Interestingly we always find willing people to indulge in mud slinging.

The data is rich when there is a turbulence. A systems behaviour can only be understood during turbulence.

It is along battle. The battle is not just for 498a, but also for child custody and also for gender equal laws.

delusional rant will win you converts?

dream on

;)

Temporal,

Who wants converts?

If even 10% of all the victims of these laws find us every year, that is more than enough for us to do everything.

Why the hell we have to convert mentally challenged liberals and feminists, when we can always get loads of conservatives to support us?

We have enough people do work against misuse of laws. We do not need converts. We only have to get more and more effective in tackling hypocrites.

When we started, we never thought anyone will ever support us. Even now, we do not expect anyone to support us. So, the question of looking for converts do not arise.

We only question the actions of feminists. If they want to continue, then it is their choice.

Arjun Singh and co carried on with their activities for so many years. They never thought about any biased laws. Now, the poison created by them is haunting them. The same is happening to many feminists. Otherwise, why do you think Madhu Kishwar has changed her colours?

Diya,

It definitely must be hard to see your article dissected. Saying that it was done for the "wrong reasons" may be the only way for you to feel good and reassured about what you wrote and the feminism you so dearly embrace.

SIFF does not convert people. People who are in deep sleep tend to wake up on their own when they experience the bamboo first hand.

#97 Siffer: So you are the one person responsible for the way in which Siffers (mis)communicate?!! Good, at least they have one person to blame for their belligerent strategies. I find some comfort in knowing that they might not be doing all this ranting becoz they are bad people who love to fight but becoz YOU designed their "communication methods" (or lack thereof) :)

If you don't want converts, you don't want help, you don't want suggestions, you don't want support...why are you guys here? It is extremely hard to believe that halting "feminist propoganda" on DC is going to change DV/ 498A laws!!

BTW this bamboo analogy never gets any less funnier :)

Now is that part of this "communication strategy" Siffer #97 designed? Was it like one of the most effective analogies you guys could come up with like through an online survey or something?

"Why the hell we have to convert mentally challenged liberals and feminists, when we can always get loads of conservatives to support us?"

Ha. This should've been Bush's election slogan for 2006 :D

The topic is about why men are men getting passionate when feminism is being discussed.By Suhel Seth's comments, which is a very recent one, we just gave an example of the intense male hatred and female chauvinism that is still being promoted in the media in the garb of feminism. As long as such mindless male bashing and female chauvinism continues, our anger about feminism will continue unabated. We are only proving our point. Why are women getting perturbed?

What Mr Seth has commented only shows how deep rooted the malice of distorted feminism has spread that even educated men are mouthing feminist jargons which are totally demeaning towards men and are intensely female chauvinistic.Men have been brow beaten into internalising such ideas as they feel that they will be male chauvinists if they do not mouth what feminists say.
I am not able to understand as to how this is not linked to the topic in question. We are talking about why are men getting so passionate when it comen to feminism . Hence, we are only exposing the mind sets of feminists which is responsible for such a reaction among a growing number of men. Where are we wrong?
You can compare it with men taking a leak in the bushes, but the fact remains that most women are not willing to accept the male back lash and they start getting foul mouthed when male back lash is discussed.
Any way, we will continue with our comments