Are Men Becoming Victims of Dowry Abuse?

In India, 2200 women commit suicide by fire.

In fact, one of the most prefered form of suicide by women in India
is by fire. Feminists club these alongwith kitchen accidents to
create bride burning stories.

They say, the man, his family members poured Kerosene and ignited. A
person who is one fire can clutch anyone in sight and also
contribute to spreading of fire in the whole house.

"Bride Burning" is Technically impossible.

More investigation is needed to nail feminists here.

We must also ask National Crime Bureau (through RTI) to give a
category wise break up of "Dowry Deaths" ( 6900 in year 2005). That
will help nail the feminists in the topic of Bride Burning.

this articl provides no data to back up its central claim - please cite your sources and references.

In my books anyone who falsely charges a spouse of a crime he did not commit lacks moral character. And as a feminist I think these kind of women give us a bad name. It isn't being devilishly clever its being a felon!

Morality sells for less than a penny these days.

Husband and families have to depend on morality of a disgruntled woman to escape years of physical and mental torture.That is justice and fairness for you in this woman's era.

There is no doubt that dowry abuse and bride burning has existed in India. But for women to abuse the laws available to protect them only hurts and hinders the women who are really victims of this crime. In reality they are punishing the women who really are suffering. This is nothing to be "tickled" about. This is exactly why women in real abuse situations cannot get justice... convenient abuse of the system.

[EDITED - PERSONAL ATTACK] she is a blot on the tribe of feminists.
Deepti the fact that this person finds such acts amusing and devilishly clever is in itself degrading.

For centuries, India's brides have been subjected to the humiliation of having a husband bought for them. And then, in some cases (rare, of course) there is abuse and even death if the dowry falls short of expectations or does not materialize as promised. My book is built around one extreme case of dowry abuse.

It certainly looks like all the "research" the author did to produce this work of fiction somehow missed Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime by Prof Veena Oldenburg.

Dr Oldenburg debunks several myths including some admitted by the author of this article. She shows that dowry itself has a history i.e. challenges those who assume these practices are timeless. As the colonial economy was commoditized, rationalized and masculinized by the British, women were left without legal entitlements. So dowry by the 1850's went from being a wonderful, practical way of showing the appreciation a family had for their daughter to becoming an economic demand.

Going beyond theoretical social models, Dr. Oldenburg also engages with contemporary women's groups, with feminist women and draws on interviews she conducted during that time to show that a very small number of the "dowry deaths" have anything to do with dowry at all.

!!!Are Men Becoming Victims of Dowry Abuse?!!!

any doubt.It is the going plight of men in this country.No one can stop this right now.

Ms.Bantwal:

You said "Perhaps more such cases will eliminate the evil practice of dowry from the social and cultural fabric of India."

I disagree with you. I think that more such cases will lead to discontent among people who will be worried that such a law can be misused. It will eventually put pressure on the government to amend the law or mute it. Politicians looking for votes and public bias will eventually yield to growing public demands for this law to be altered.

This is not a scare tactic. It is a flaw in the legal system.

You are taking into consideration the misuse of the law as a factor that will eliminate the practice of dowry? How? If the ones ones that were charged or accused were not the ones who had committed the crime, it means that the ones who have been asking for and accepting dowry are going scot free.

My understanding is that while women in the city may find this law accessible or handy, the women in the rural areas where the dowry practice as well as domestic abuse are more prevalent don't know about this law and even if they do, won't use it. They are probably raised to believe that if they get beaten, slapped about a bit, it is acceptable. They fear the social stigma that comes from filing a suit against your husband and in-laws. Unfortunately they are the ones who need this law the most.

I think that our nation is far from protecting women and women' rights like it should be. We have laws and rules that are all very good in theory but in application they fall shamefully short.

Women who turn up at a police station having taken a beating get told by paan-chewing police officers that it is ok and they shouldn't make a police report out of a "miya-biwi an-ban". "Niptalo ghar jaake" is what they tell the woman. And this is in cosmopolitan cities like Bombay so one can imagine what it must be like in the rural areas.

Even if the FIR gets filed, the case is stuck in smaller courts and once it is heard by a judge, there is lack of evidence. In India the police rarely go out of their way to take pictures and document the proof of abuse.

During this time the accused have already filed an anticipatory bail and are out.

People think that once the accused are acquitted means that the accusations were false. That is not the case. It just means that the accusations could not be proven in a court of law due to lack of evidence. This is primarily a law enforcement issue. They should have been the ones responsible for finding evidence and adding information/ details to the case once a report was filed.

Now coming to the cases that are false. These cases are lodged because the accusers have no fear of legal repurcussions. If there were a hefty fine for those who bring baseless accusations then people would be less likely to misuse it. But guess what: the whole law enforcment scenario that I described in the above paragraph makes it difficult to decide if the case if false or was made weak due to lack of evidence against the accused.

It is a vicious cycle that has its roots in corruption and unless we own up to the flaws in the system, we will have equal amount of both: dowry abuse and abuse of law. Nothing will change no matter how good the laws look on paper.

Meanwhile, a woman's empowerment has to come from within the self. As long as women themselves don't walk out of abusive marriages and refuse to enter relationships based on a hefty dowry, things won't change. As long as there is a stigma attached to divorce and people crow on about increasing divorce rates instead of the escalating poverty/ HIV infected/ malnutrition rates, women will never find the courage to step out of an abusive relationship.

Society as a whole needs to change before the political/ legal scenario changes. After all the people in power (the politicians, the police officers etc) were raised in the very society where a hard slap is considered like one of the SIFF members had once said "behavioral action". If this kind of thinking does not change with the times we will likely not see in any difference in the way the law is applied...no matter how stringent the law is.

*****

On a separate note: I've had this question for a while but does anybody on this forum know of a woman's shelter where abused/ battered women or victims of domestic abuse are housed in India?

aditi... I think there are a few. I googled it a long time ago and got some hits. but there are not nearly enough of them. There are government-run facilities in places like Haryana, but it is also suspected that men can pay bribes to police and find their wives there.

Dear Ms.Shobhan Bantwal,

I came to know a few days back about your book and its reviews. I planned to read that book.

It is not me, but a fan of mine, who wrote my exact wordings in a message board.

Here are the flaws in this article and may be in your thinking:

1) Dowry law is biting men. (True)

2) Dowry Law is biting innocent women (innocent mothers and sisters of man).

I know one case where the mother-in-law of the woman committed suicide by burning herself.

3) Misuse of dowry law is not new. It is happening since last 20 years. But, media never tried to report it. When media got highly vocal and provocative mails, it openned its eyes and ears.

4) As Aditi mentioned, the backlash has already started. Indian Law ministry is so annoyed by misuse of Dowry and DV laws that it has put the sexual harassment law on hold. It is also reviewing both laws being directed by Supreme Court of India.

Do not believe it?

Read the judgement for the PIL by SIF activist and an elder, Sushil Kumar Sharma heard by Suprme Court Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice H.K.Seema.

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=29439


5) Men and their mothers, sisters and elders face threats and abuse for months or years before getting jailed in false cases. In one occassion, a 4-year and 8-year old boys were accused of setting a woman on fire and nonbailable warrents were issued. Many feminists said, even 4-year olds are scheming to burn women in India.

6) Bride Burning is a myth. Ask any doctor who specialises forensic science. I do not deny that there can be some men who throw acid on women or try to set a woman on fire. But, it is too much when it is claimed that mother-in-law held the woman, the sister-in-law poured kerosene, the father-in-law stuffed her mouth and the husband lit the matchstick.

7) If there are 6800 "alleged" dowry deaths, break it up into suicides, poisoning, stabbing, hitting. There are total 7900 homicides of women in India. This even includes women killed in terrorist bomb blasts. IN US, homicides of women are 3150 and murder of women by intimate partners is about 1500 per year. India has 4 times more population compared to US.

8) The bride burning story and the the DV myth (that 70% women face DV) where as UN says "19%" are creation of over enthusiastic, foolish feminists.

9) Even if dowry is eliminated, still 7900 women will get murdered because all intimate partner murders of Indian women are "showcased" as dowry deaths. Dowry angle is dragged to make the courts give higher priority to intimate partner homicide cases.

10)There are few occassions where the whole family of man get jailed being accused of causing dowry death, the so called dead woman lives happily ever after with a paramour or in her native villege.

When will dowry vanish in India?
--------------------------------
1) What people do not understand is that our society believes that only 20% of men are good natured and others are villains. So, women's families and women try to lure these so called 20% by "investment". Misandry has to end.

2) Indian women want to go with our great social value, where one has to always think about money, social status etc. In short, even educated women tend to marry up. This creates an imbalance.

3) Feminists in India are opposing any law, which restricts the extravagant spendings in marriages saying that "people know what is right and wrong and they have a right to choice." Is not dowry giving also a choice?


-------------
Others in DC: I being a founder of SIFF would certainly like to talk rationally. But, I do not see that same amount of rationality in most feminists. Finally, it is quite tiring to explain rationally to each single feminist (there are millions of them). The easier method is to provoke them and trigger their anger.
--------

Dowry Law misuse, DV law misuse, Workplace harassment law misuse, will provide constant supply of "victims" to masculists who have positioned in all big cities in India, US, UK, Canada. Just the way, you are writing books, soon it will be economically profitable for masculists also to write books.

Aditi,

Some people disguise themselves as SIFF members and write patriarchal stuff to defame SIFF.

You can choose to look at the "feminist mindset", which comes from a point of view that:

1) If "some innocent" men suffer, then that is a positive development.

2) Collateral damage for a good cause is justified.

3) In last 3000 years, men had a good time, where as women had a bad time as they were either oppressed or they were constrained. (A highly disputable claim).

4) What feminists do not see is that, just the way one Mathura case led to a massive feminist movement in India, the cases of abuse of old and sick elders, will provoke many men to become die hard single track anti-feminists. If there men are in right positions in corporate, judiciary or other important places, they will make sure to do everything to subvert the "feminist processes". Soon, the backlash will set it.

5) Feminism is no civil liberties movement. Even today, men work harder and contribute equally, if not more to the society and family. Most importantly men do not complain. Even today, men put themselves in front of danger to save women, children and elders.

The day, men start saying "sorry, its not my job to protect and provide" to all woman(wives, sisters and even mothers), the game will be up.

Feminism can give women jobs.
Will feminism give women "PEACE"?

point nicely made sumanth.
i agree with you on the abuse of senior citizens,its usually the women doing it.
where do i sign up for siff ?

Kela,

Find it below.

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Romance___Relationships/Relationships/Divorce

Warning: You will get 900 mails per week unless you set your options as "web only".

#12: Sumanth:

You said: "Some people disguise themselves as SIFF members and write patriarchal stuff to defame SIFF"

Yeah, I kinda see that possibility.

As I have clarified plenty of times before, I do not consider ill-treatment of men as a feminist mindset.

Misuse of any law is a crime and should be. Any law abiding citizen can understand that. In my comment I have merely pointed out the deficiencies in the law that are detrimental to women, men and families. The problem is that the law does not allow a clear distinction. It is vague in its wording and hence paves way for misuse. Similarly, since it fails at the application stage it does not do much for the ones who may truly have a case.

It is not just the law that deserves attention and scrutiny but also its application that matters.

In the end you say:

"Feminism can give women jobs but can they give women peace"

I am not sure if feminism in the traditional sense gives women jobs...I do know that it gives them a choice. They can choose what they want, what their prerogatives are. If their peace is in finding a job then they will find peace too.

Selling Dowry Death myth is a big business not only for Individual Authors/Directors but Feminist Groups and NGOs too who do not hesitate defame India as a country of dowry death to get BIG money as donation.

If un-earthed, it will prove to be the biggest scandal. No one is accountable for where the money goes.

Even MNCs try to market women used products, cosmetics in the same line of misery vs. empowerment.

Every one else wins in the game except the women and her family!!!

sumanth:

Some people disguise themselves as SIFF members and write patriarchal stuff to defame SIFF.

then as an active commentator and interactor here it is your job to point them out

failure to do so sounds like a cop-out

!!!!Perhaps more such cases will eliminate the evil practice of dowry from the social and cultural fabric of India. One can only hope.!!!!!

why men hate feminism? anybody need good example, more than the author's statement i pasted above. I am not blaming only her for these type of dangerous feelings.Because many feminists i met online has these type of feelings, And they are effectively spreading these with their books,and articles, and communities.

They only know how nasty it is, when they are also booked under the false dowry case and sent to jail at least one or two months, after that they paid heavy money as extortion to the legal terrorist.Because 498a will be misused against anyone. there is know exception for feminists. then other person like author say to them, misuses like this useful to eradicate dowry in society.OMG.

I know one Doctor with a speciality and making bundles of money. He drives new cars every year
but his wife drives a junk car. I can't ask him
why he is treating his wife likewise, but that poor lady
found a job and bought a nicer car. If the earning member of the family, whether husband or
wife is not showing a concern for his mate in
every aspect, that relationship will not last
solid for a longer time. Whenever I visit their
home, they fight without any regard for the guests. At that point, the wife has the right to
get whatever she can from her husband based on
the law of the land.

If some other people are fighting to grab more
from their mate without legitimate reasons,
that can't be justified. We are now living in an
age of total materialism which can't satisfy us
totally, but the want for materialism and
unforgiving nature can lead to catastrophe in
any relationship.

There are many other categories of abuse in society, which needs to be addressed immediately.

For example, elder abuse, child abuse etc.

But, feminists have almost convinced the society that 90% of all abuse happens to women and the abuse on others (elders and children) is a peripheral issue.

I do not think feminists like to anyone's sufferings (even sufferings of children or elders). It is purely an angry alarmist movement. For every bit of negative news, the first reaction of any feminist is anger and outrage.

Times of India City supplements have a male to female journalist ratio of 1:6. It writes anti-male stuff every single day. In some states in US, the male to female ratio is schools is 1:5.

Men, elders, children and families risk to lose everything due to feminism. Men will lose children. Children will lose fathers. Elders will lose shelter, care and grandchildren.

Every single day, feminists in media work hard to promote hate between spouses so that divorces will increase. The whole society believes their lies propagated for last 30 years.

Aditi,

You wrote:
"I am not sure if feminism in the traditional sense gives women jobs...I do know that it gives them a choice."

Do not you think that everyone in this world needs a choice? Do you think Indian men have a choice to stop "protecting and providing" women, children and elders?

Indian men do not even have a choice to CRY.
Because, it is the women, who suppress the crying of their sons.

Did men had a choice from fighting against a brutal violent nature for ages?

Feminism sounds like only women should have a choice, freedom and authority without any "responsibility" to family or society.

Laws are the way they are because of feminist propaganda and feminist blackmail to politicians. Do you know Mamata Banerjee, a MP in India dragged another male MP by Collar in the middle of Parliament to throw him out as he opposed "reservation to women" in parliament.

I have nothing against giving 50% seats to women provided they only make policies for women. But, a woman can get away abusing a man that too an MP in front of camera. No one must open their mouth.

Feminism could have contributed a lot to the world, if it had stuck to "equity". Today, it is only for favoritism and selfishness. The only goal feminists today have is to take revenge on all men of this generation for any imaginary attrocities committed by some men in centuries back.

Aditi,

You wrote:

"The problem is that the law does not allow a clear distinction. It is vague in its wording and hence paves way for misuse."

No. The law is very clear. The accused persons(men, women, children and elders) are to be considered "Guilty till proven innocent".

It is feminists who campaigned for mandatory arrests of accused.

When misuse of this law was pointed out more than 10 years back, feminists claimed it as a design by "male chauvinists" with statements like "how can Indian woman break her family".

Even today, feminists are bashing up anyone who says that the law is misused. Feminists in Orissa got irked when they came to know that Chairperson of Orissa State Women's commission is counselling men who are abused by women or are fearing false dowry cases.

Even today, thouands of women, who drive husbands to suicide get sympthy in stead of getting arrested.

If women can be scientists, engineers, doctors, soldiers and astronauts, why can not they also be thieves and murderers as well?

Patriarchal society always showed sympathy to criminal women. Here the author, a feminist supports jailing of innocent old and sick elders in false cases and looks for its proliferation.

When the law proliferates, India will become Ukrain and Indian women will be travelling around the world earning money from sex.

In what way does it harm a woman if the husband and his parents are given bail?

#21 Sumanth:

As usual you are ranting. When I said "vague" I meant the terminology defining abuse is vague.

The list that you provided includes "Men, women and children". It shouldn't matter whether the accused is elderly or not. There have been cases where elderly women were found guilty of having burnt their daughters-in-law. The law cannot discriminate against or for people due to age/ gender etc. However I feel that the major flaws in this act are in two areas:

1. the way it has been phrased making the definition of abuse very vague and ill-understood (even a common yelling can be considered abuse)

2. the way it is applied (while it is far from being protective for women since it fails at the application level, it also paves way for misuse due to point #1).

Also, one more thing Sumanth:

I like to engage in dialogue/ discussion. Unfortunately due to your personal involvement in this issue, you tend to take off on tangents such as "feminism" which has nothing to do with the major problems in this law. The women's commissions in India have screwed up ideas about feminism, that not the fault of the term feminism.

You say things like

"If women can be scientists, engineers, doctors, soldiers and astronauts, why can not they also be thieves and murderers as well?"

...and I'm thinking: "Sure, they can be but that is not feminism...that is a choice they make for which there are laws" Even men can be criminals or murderers. So?

They will do jail time if they are caught in a criminal act BUT what is the point you are trying to make with this comment. I don't know.

Anyways, I just want you to know that every time I speak out about this law, please don't feel obliged to "educate" me. I can read about it online and your comments don't make sense to me at all. It is probably because your ideas of feminism are something completely different from mine.


As I have said a million times before: To me feminism is about giving women a choice. If they make a bad choice then that is because they are bad people and not because they are feminists.

If a man rapes or beats up a woman, is he doing that cause he is a "masculist"? No. He's doing it because he's an a-hole. Very simple.

aditi

!!!!As I have said a million times before: To me feminism is about giving women a choice. If they make a bad choice then that is because they are bad people and not because they are feminists.!!!!

ok, aditi, I think some time that you are right.Then tell me what is your place in the feminist world of current days, in which many of the people believe like the author of this article.Isn't it true that feminists like you and many other woman in this forum became minorities in feminism?.

According to me,what actual feminism says is not an important thing. What the feminists now following is important,because any "ism" is not just a philosophy, it also includes the people who are following it.

just look, the Hindu religion, nowadays many Hindus are not following what Hinduism says actually, then can we say that these are not Hindus?

according to science pure water is colorless tasteless and something something..then can we say that colorful and tasteful water is not at all water?

can you say that, "for me water is just that which doesn't have color or taste".

may be these are not the best examples but i thought that they are relevant.

Ravi: "Isn't it true that feminists like you and many other woman in this forum became minorities in feminism?"

To me truth is not defined by popularity. Sane people with a reasonable amount of intelligence should be able to do and choose what is right...not because the ambassador or representative of that idea is famous, politically relevant, the leader of a vast majority or a big influential personality but because it is the right thing to do.

My own place in "feminism" is that as a woman with my ideas and my own actions I influence those who are subjected to my own perception of feminism.

...and the first step towards not being a minority is conversion :)

Aditi,

You wrote:

!!!!As I have said a million times before: To me feminism is about giving women a choice. If they make a bad choice then that is because they are bad people and not because they are feminists.!!!!

Let me replace a few words of your text:
-------------

!!!!As I have said a million times before: To me Taliban is about educating oneself. If they are ill-educated then that is because they are bad people and not because they are talibans!!!!

One's perception what an "ism" is based on what most of its adherants say or do. The word "Taliban" means "student". Same way, feminism can have basic meaning, but people can always have a different perception based on what they do or say.

Your individual opinions do not matter.

I have nothing against NCW.

"Feminists lie". Who told this to me?

I read it all in Christiana Hoff Sommer's book "Who stole feminism: How women betrayed women?"

I learnt their pattern of behaviour and how they misrepresent facts and propagate half truths in US. Then I looked case studies in India. Strangely, I found exactly the same patterns.

That simplified my work. Now, I know all the major patterns of "Feminist activists" and I know where to look for flaws.

I did look at underlying motivations and interaction between patriarchy and feminism, which sometimes get "cooperative".

I hate one thing about feminism is that it is reductionistic (that is it always works on piecewise model and piecewise research). There are too many integration problems in the designs in feminist approaches.

No discussion or dialogue with any feminist will work. Because, feminists are not at all interested in sufferings of men since ages and how it impacts(or impacted) women. They are not just interested in that.

On top of that there is too much of biased research with very little masculist research.

Most feminists cringe, when they hear about support or shelters for abused men or International Men's Day.

There is nothing common and hence they can never be a dialogue. Feminism will not change. It will keep working for maximising women's position without any consideration for men (in life expectency and in suicide rates).

Tell me, what can you offer to reduce suicide rate of men or boys? What can you offer to reduce the gap in life expectency between men and women around the world (including Germany Sweden and US)?

Nothing. Most probably you will say that is men's problem and men must deal with it. Thats what we are doing now. Either there is no gap between life expectency or men live a good life if they have a short life.

Sumanth: Maybe I gave you too much credit by responding. My bad.

adi:

yes!

his words There is nothing common and hence they can never be a dialogue.

but let us not spoil his party;)

he would still come and engage unsuspecting 'victims'

#22

"The women's commissions in India have screwed up ideas about feminism".

And we are Just trying to un-screw it. You can always help to set it right !!!

It's the Authors version of feminism which is every where starting Parliament to books to Films to TV.

Your softer version stays only in books and I have nothing against that.

[EDITED: PERSONAL INFORMATION]

[EDITED:PERSONAL INFORMATION]

Men are becoming victims of dowry abuse specially in urban India.Women are more aware of their rights with more education,exposure and liberal envoirnment.Girls are at times capitalizing on situations sometimes in the knowhow of their parents sometimes aspiring for a Green card,they marry boys go abroad ,give the guy a kick ,leave him after taking a big fat alimony.
GROOM SHOPPING is sometimes a creation of rich parents where the girl, her capabilties are of no consequence, what is important is what she is bringing with her. At times parents in their desperation give factories cars diamonds etc which are accepted with gusto .the guys keep these wives tucked in the house and go for companions and mistresses while the wife is busy with a paramour or lover.In this case we have no body to blame but themselves in pushing their daughters into such an alliance.the girls in accepting such deals are harming themselves.
Many a time parents of girls manipulate with horoscopes to get their daughters accepted.
Why blame the man always.
Many young men are running away from marriage seeking the safer way of live in relationships all over urban India,a concept which girls are getting into men feel safer and many want a pre nuptial if marriage is on the cards.Times have changed its men who are scared,afraid of ending up in a lock up along with their mothers ---thats conjugal bliss in todays day and age .

Asha, I think your scenario is applicable to the business class people only. The middle class barely has enough to get their kids educated and get them married - diamonds, industries etc is way beyond their means.

Also, if there is no trust before the marriage then that relationship is doomed from the beginning.

Its better for such paranoid people not to get married or be with people who expect conjugal bliss at the end of a live in relationship.

Looks like the SIFF propaganda is working

Well here are my views. I will try to be nice and in stead would
like to tell truth about women (both good women and bad women).

1) Good women will not support misuse of 498a.

But,

2) Most Good women also do not want men to have shared parenting or
50% of child custody.

3) Good women do support Sonia Gandhi, Renuka Choudhury, Shabana
Azmi, Hema Malini, Arundhoti Roy, Hillary Clinton and all feminists
(good or bad). Otherwise Sonia would not have been so sure about
votes from all women when she proclaimed that "Congress is a
prowoman party".

4) Good wome sympathise with female crminals like Preeti jain or
Monika Bedi.

5) Good and nice women also suppress emotions and crying of their
male kids.

6) Good women use men and also small boys as unpaid body guards.

7) Good women do read all the magazines which spread anti-male
hatred.

8) Good women want men to get married again with the excuse that all
women are not bad. But, they will never like a man to be free from
protection and providing to women and family and elders.

9) Good women do want to "marry up". They like to marry a man who is
above them educationally, economically or socially.

10) Most good women will support maintenace to women.

11) Most good women want their brothers and sons to forget their
children in case of divorce and separation and get married again to
a nice and considerate girl (a myth in modern times).

12) Feminists could not have sustained the vicious attack against
all of us without "tacit support" of all good women.

13) Most good women also convince their children that their husbands
are abusive and controlling. They also teach their children to
undermine the father's role and contribution. It happens a 70% of
times in India. They also make the children get closer to cousins on
mother's side and try to cut the children off from the cousins on
father's side.

14) Please note, all these laws are passed by women, who are in 50s
or 60s. They all are good women if you ask their family members.

15) There are feminists and male haters lurking in everyone's family
and relatives. These feminists are surviving because the good women
are considerate to them.

16) Good women teach children that mother is a God/Godess, but they
never extend that previlege to fathers.

17) In US, 4 times more boys and men commit suicide compared to
girls and boys. Men have 9% more chance to get prostrate cancer than
women getting breast cancer. No good women will ever consider this
as most good women do subconsciously believe that men are disposable.


Without involvement of all women, the present frankenstein monster
would not have come into existence. So, it is duty of every women to
isolate feminists and oppose feminism. How many are doing it? Only a
handful.

Sumanth, here are the things good women never suffer from- mental and physical abuse from men, marital rape, isolation from their own family after marriage, suffer under patriarchal hegemony, they do not suffer the husbands second wife even though its illegal, they do not feel the pressure to produce sons, they are not pestered to bring in more money from their own family after they are married right?

Only men are the victims, rest is all excuses and mass hallucination.

You wrote an article about lady suffering from sexual harassment at work place - do you deny that women suffer at the hands of men at work places and even at home and are denied justice?

Will SIFF be ready to listen to a lady who accuses a SIFF member of abuse or would she be showed the door?

anadiya

only woman are the domestic violence victims.Only men are punishable in adultery,If man kills his wife he is criminal, if woman kills her husband, she is just a victim of domestic violence. In media woman names should not be published only men names should be published.

If men bashed by feminists it is the process of getting equality, if men do the same it is male chauvinism.If men say we are doing better than woman it is male chauvinism, if woman says woman better managers than men, woman are performing much better than men in all areas then it is equality....

Don't you agree that men are suffering from the biased laws?.Isn't it true that woman are misusing these laws?

Any feminist organization, or woman organization ever taken care of harassed husbands or they are ready to here the men's problems?

Anadiya,

Siff will never be ready to listen to a woman who suffers. (remember it is always her fault).
Not now, but in the next few weeks you can contact siff as (sting operation) a wife who is a victim. They will ask you all the details, then will contact your husband try to get the details from him and will secretly ask him to apply for anticipatory bail where they all to gether will thrash your character ...and the saga begins.

However, since you might not have a husband you can ask one of you male friends to pretend.

However, this is only a suggestion and anyone can try it out.

Good Luck!

"Any feminist organization, or woman organization ever taken care of harassed husbands or they are ready to here the men's problems"

Why are you at the mercy of women organisations? Be a man and fight your own battles. Create your own organisation whose foundation is family harmony and fighting for the truth and protecting the victims. Like NCW.

How many years do you need to create yours? 25 years, 30 years or 50 years. If you cannot then stop your unnecessary cries and whines.

"""Why are you at the mercy of women organizations?Be a man and fight your own battles. Create your own organization """

that's what we are doing now.I just asked that question as an answer to another question.

"""How many years do you need to create yours? 25 years, 30 years or 50 years. If you cannot then stop your unnecessary cries and whines."""

first of all it's not a cry. It's The ROAR. coming to no.of years...well, it already started i can say only this now.because i am not an authorized person to give statements on behalf of any organization, so i am restricting my self here.

I recognize gender abuse is a two way street but SIFF does not. Can one SIFF member come out and say that women like men are abused?

Only their mothers and sisters are nice women - but wives are immoral women forgetting that their mother or sister are wives too.

It isn't as if women have not been wronged by men but in the SIFF world men can do no wrong.

Which is why they lose ground in public and are disliked despite their supposed achievements against 498a.

The Roar is a hypocritical meow!

anadiya:

me too recognized that gender abuse is a two way street. And i am trying to make spread it all. But what i am feeling is punishment is not the two way street and it's true.

!!!in the SIFF world men can do no wrong.!!!

I don't agree with you..Most of the times they said, Domestic violence is not a gender issue.that means they accepting that both are facing DV.

""""The Roar is a hypocritical meow"""

it just your feeling which is not true, and you too know it.

ravi:

are you the mouse to sumanth's cat?

meow;)

#33 Me thinks Sumanth has taken all his prejudices about women/ feminists and just added the word "good" in front of it
:D resulting in almost 17 very comical and nonsensical points.

"So, it is duty of every women to isolate feminists and oppose feminism"

We need to isolate ignorant people who refuse to educate themselves about key concepts and use their limited experience to form preconceived/ half-baked notions. Let us first oppose that kind of rigid and unyielding ignorance, shall we?

temporal

I thought, you are a master in giving statements that i can't understand.

You once again proved it. But one thing i can say, I have my own opinions, if sumanth or any siffer here say something which is related to that i support him, not only him, every one who say related to my opinion.

And I support only those points which are near to my opinions not all, may be they are given by sumanth or others.

May be this answer is not related to you post #42,because i don't know the meaning of that post.

ravi:

you convey Greek in English;)

!!!you convey Greek in English;)!!!

But not intentional :)

perhaps!

but the gist is not conveyed thus the intent and the meaning of the post is not bedazzled but dazzled, dozzled, drizzled, embezzled, fizzled, frazzled and muzzled

Why will SIFF help abused wives when there are agencies who collect billions of tax payer dollars for the same job and evade their responsibility?

There are billions spent on Abused women and more than half of that money is eaten by feminists.

Abused women can got to NCW.

Abuse women can go to women's helplines.

Abuse women can go to Lawyers collective, Vimochana, Indira Jaisingh, Ranjana Kumari, Girija Vyas, UNICEF, UN. All these agencies eat billions of Taxpayer's dollars and rupees with the excuse that they will help innocent female victims.

SIFF considers all laws have to be gender equal. Till Section 498a is not gender equal and a population is denies its access to justice, SIFF will blindly give legal and moral support to all those, who are accessed under this gender biased law.

At present, women and their families, who harass and drive husbands to suicide are not charged under section 498a. Take case of Rizwanur's death at Kolkatta? Why 498a is not filed against female's parents who "alegedly" harassed Rizwanur? Because, he is a man and his biggest crime is, he is a man.

Anticipatory bail is a right of any citizen of India. SIFF does not give any person any anticipatory bails. If SIFF has helped a person get anticipatory bail from a competent court of land, then SIFF has followed the law of the land.

Every accused has "rights" and every accused has to be considered innocent till the trial is completed and judgement is delivered. Asking for denial of "constitutional rights" of an accused by some fellow bloggers in comments is an insult to Indian judiciary and is a contempt of Indian legal system.

It is disgusting, when our opponent lament that SIFF is helping the accused get bails with severe contempt to the Indian Courts and judges. It is judges, who go through a bail application and grant bails. If anyone considers this as illegal or unethical, then it is contempt of the judge's order.

No one has a right to criticise the anticipatory bail granted according to CRPCs following constitution of India.

SIFF considers all accused to be innocent till proven guilty and SIFF will stand for all the innocent old and sick people, who are denies their constitutional right to justice when threatened and abused.

Abused women have to utilise services of competent "well funded" organisations in India. If they do not get support from these organisations, then they can accuse them just the way Archana Pandey did.

SIFF is non-funded organisations and SIFF's capabilities are very limited. At present, we are simply unable to support any abused women who are denied support from NCW, SCWs or State Legal Services Authorities. We appologize for that.

SIFF is also not a trial court that it will it will hear both parties and decide whom to support. It is illegal if we do that. In stead, we support all those who are denied access to law, under existing legal frame work in India.

temporal

!!!bedazzled but dazzled, dozzled, drizzled, embezzled, fizzled, frazzled and muzzled!!!!

nice vocabulary.:)

sumanth

....In stead, we support all those who are denied access to law, under existing legal frame work in India.

you skipped one word!

....In stead, we support all those men who are denied access to law, under existing legal frame work in India.

;)

Temporal,

I understand you are allergic to people who stand for those men who face abuse from women.

But, we support not only men, but also innocent sisters, mothers, grandmothers of men who face abuse from the wives of men. Indian legal system denies justice to these women.

In India, an abused mother-in-law (say like the one mother-in-law role Shabana Azmi played in movie Avtar) is not allowed to file a complaint of domestic violence and economic abuse against daughter-in-law.

If mother-in-law is driven to suicide by daughter-in-law, even then the daughter-in-law can roam freely.

Your innocent sisters, pregnant sisters, mothers are the first ones that need to be prosecuted. They are a stigma on womenhood. So what if your sister is pregnant...while demanding dowry and harassing the newly wed wife she had no qualms!!

NCW and the competent laws of India treat everyone equally irrespective of gender, caste, creed and age.

Therefore after 498a is filed , the sinful mothers and sisters are also not spared either.

Unlike in your sif, that claims to be save indian family only looks out for the interest of men. Rather you should rename it save indian man/gays

Poonam,

Your language shows that you are not a woman, but a man and you have no respect for basic human rights.

India is a terrorist state as it considers people "Guilty till proven innocent" and trial takes 5 years. You support the legal terrorists and toture of innocents.

If NCW is so great, then why it did not arresting Indian Union Minister Arjun Singh and all the females members of his house, when the grand-daughter-in-law filed a dowry harassment case against him and 7 members of his family?

Why Sonia is tolerating a person, who is accused of demanding money and Mercedez car by a young grand daughter-in-law? Why Sonia is so afraid of getting her son Rahul married?

Only other's mothers and pregnant sisters are sinners. Right?

Soon, we will make Anti-Legal Terrorist Squad(ALTS) and then show the door of justice to those, who harbour legal terrorists and support imprisonment of innocents without investigation and without evidence in India.

People take up arms and law into their hands, when justice is denied for long. The time is running out for the terrorist Government at New Delhi, which conveniently hides a Minister accused of demanding dowry.

Indian Government has not learnt any lessons even after facing Punjab, Kashmir and Maoists, and keeps torturing the innocents and denies access to justice for majority of people.

The initial reaction of feminists to torture of innocents by Indian anti-dowry laws is "sadistic pleasure".

This got clearly captured in last few sentences of this post as the author never knew the backlash she will face in this website and hence too no care to hide her true feelings unlike many other seasoned feminists in DC.

So, the author unsuspectingly failed to put any disclaimers and told her mind and proved that for feminists what matters is revenge on men.

That vindicates the SIFF stand that all feminists are the same. When we started in 2004, most feminists used to write and think like Shoban Bantwal. Once, they got couple of good doses, they started to talk with disclaimers,"No, we do not support abuse of innocent men, but you know so many woman are burnt for dowry and women were oppressed by men for so long, you know.....blah....blah...."

sumanth #51:

when i mentioned your tunnel vision it was for a reason!

your all those (in #48) is arbitrary, selective and highly partisan

that is why you appear to live in la-la land

;)

Temporal,

Only you know what reasons are.

You do not even understand that everyone has a right to their views and perspectives.

I find you to be arbitrary, partisan. But, that is my view and that need not be truth. I do not see you criticise women when they write, "Men are beasts anyway.....".

In fact, no one has a right to claim "truth" in this world.

sumanth:

i am ONLY mirroring YOUR words...sorry if it makes you uncomfortable!

(only quacks can claim to corner TRUTH)

;)

A fiery feminist has retorted earlier in this discussion at # 4, "Morality sells for less than a penny these days"
These same feminist move around with a begging bowl in their hands seeking moral alms when they "expect" the society and men to be "sympathetic" towards their cause. What are these "expectations"? They are nothing else but the same outdated morals which paints women only as victims and men only the perpetuators.
These same women then flood the media with endless list of demands and "wants" that men are supposed to fulfill for women.Then they shamelessly expect their men to be totally subservient to the whims and desires of women and demand him to submerge his own wants and to live only to cater to the wants of women.
And what are these wants of women that men are supposed to keep on pampering to? These are again the same morals and values, which are not sold for a penny, that are dumped by the same feminists on men to abide by and conform to. Then strangely these same feminists do not tolerate their own men to behave as their hormones want them to and allow them to behave as he wants to.They want men to blindly keep on adhering to the moral behavioral yardsticks which are drawn up for men by these same moral hating feminists
Feminists are sick.

Rahul is right. Feminists speak haughtily that morals are not sold for a penny these days but these same feminists expect the society to have enough of these outdated morals so that women are given more than their due share and are treated with "sympathy" even if women are wrong. They encourage extra-marital affairs but refuse their own boyfriends and husbands to freely fornicate around. Then they accuse him of inflicting mental cruelty and walk out on him.
Feminists dump morals but keep on heaping the same on men and come out with endless lists in the media about what men should do, how they should behave , dress, walk , talk and have sex etc. Men are simply not supposed to be as they are, be proud of themselves and do what their hormones tell them to but are only to be minutely scrutinized by all kinds of moral standards by women at every turn while women themselves treat morals with utter scorn!!!
Is it not strange that these same feminists impose all kinds of vicious moral judgments on men and evaluate men with the same deplorable morals and say how ugly men are and how better women are!!

this is downright entertaining. it seems that not only these trolls are delusional, but they also cannot read! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Only women must have a right to choice in life. Where as Men must live according to Feminists. It is NCW which will frame laws related to men.

A woman has a choice to work or to be a home maker.

Does a man has the similar choices?

Men do not even have the choice to Cry.

I have seen men pulling tonnes in carts barefoot in hot Indian roads. Do these men have a choice?

Choices are only meant for "women"?

Even Animals have to be treated ethically.

When as if men ask to be treated as human beings, it is a big problem for feminists.

Feminism and support it received from men like me for decades has given women access to traditional male domains.

But, Feminism has a problem when men ask access to feminine domains (for example parenting or home making). Feminism has a problem, when men ask for shared parenting.

In hot fields of Tamil Nadu I have seen women working alongside their male folks under the baking sun. We all have seen female laborers working on buildings along with their husbands while the newborns lie under a tree wailing and neglected.

Sumanth, feminism is a foreign notion to these women, all they know is if they don't work alongside their husbands their children will go hungry.

Say what you have to about women with money but when it comes to those suffering from poverty their lives are way different from yours and mine.

Why are we, men, allowing such men hating feminist to evaluate us? What right do they have to keep on judging us when feminists themselves are rooting for a valueless society and why should men listen to such trash which keeps on appearing in the media? How do these women expect that men should keep on conforming to their disoriented ranting aimed at men? How do they take men for granted?Do we depend on women? All most all men are economically independent. And sex? Well, homosexuality is on the rise! That is the answer. It is sex which counts and not with whom you are having it.
Why should we listen to men hating feminists at all and not go on with our lives as we want to and as our hormones tell us to? Feminists openly say that men are so ugly that it repels them but at the same breath they demand these same ugly men to fulfill all their desires, whims and fancies and men are not supposed to question but cater to them. Men are not supposed to have any sense of self respect or minds of their own, if feminism is to be believed.
Some how feminists have managed to convince themselves and men too that feminists are the moral watch dogs of men and have the right to decide what masculinity is and how men should behave. The definition of masculinity keeps on changing in the media every few days like the sensex. Who are defining masculinity ? Not men definitely but a bunch of men hating feminists who want to twist and distort male attitude to serve their own ends and in the manner in which it suits them. On the top of it, they demand men to conform to what ever never ending and ever changing moral standards of behavior that feminists are imposing on men while they come out and state that morals are demeaning and are not worth a penny these days! This is stupefying!!!

What sumanth has said at #61 is very correct. It is a global phenomenon. When ever men speak out, feminists start having problems. Feminists expect men to be "broad minded" and that the society should "change" to accommodate their views. In the past 3 decades we have seen the society undergoing massive changes in view of feminists demands.
But these same feminists get terribly agitated when today men are speaking out and feminists are not willing to accept the fact men have the right to express themselves. Feminists feel threatened and shaken at the very concept of men challenging some utterly female chauvinistic attitudes of feminists or pointing out glaring mistakes and sexiest attitudes in feminist points of view. Instead feminists, world wide, are displaying foul and vile language and are resorting to calling names to who so ever who challenges them.
Feminists demand the society and men to change but they themselves are unwilling to change their own out dated mind sets. As a result feminists are fast loosing their credibility.

rahul, you said: Feminists feel threatened and shaken at the very concept of men challenging some utterly female chauvinistic attitudes of feminists or pointing out glaring mistakes and sexiest attitudes in feminist points of view.

and the answer is no, no we don't. we think you're all a bit silly, quite frankly, with the ranting and the hyperbole. we're not agitated at all. you all just tell yourself that so you think you're getting somewhere.

Deepti,

Workplace was always accessible to women in India. Those who wanted to work, did get the work.

Indian Feminism and talk about equality was there more than 100 years back in India before the birth of Andrea Dowrkin, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and others.

Indian Feminists sold out to western ones and followed them blindly without working a wholistic equality movement within Indian cultural, religious and ethnic framework.

It is not at all surprising as most of the funds and support for Indian feminists came from west (they being rich) and this stunted an indigeneous feminist movement.

Now, what we have got in nothing but crap, hatred and intolerance.

The only women's activist, who seems to realise this a bit is Madhu Poornima Kishwar.

I have no problems at all with Anti-Dowry Laws, anti-sexual harassment laws or prevention of Domestic Violence Laws.

But, I do have a problem, when hate against men and family system is propagated systematically by feminists in Media and bloggers in Internet using false statistics and twisted facts.
----------------

In human life, everyone suffers. 53% children are abused and a similar percentage of elders are abused. Men do most hazardous jobs. But, feminists want the society to focus only on "wife's issues and wife's welfare" and keep using all kinds of provocative lanuague in Media and in Internet.

In the end, it harms everyone including women. The real problems do not get solved and we create more serious problems by promoting intolerance in family.

I have come across situations, where the wife and husband have no problems at all between them, but the father and brothers of the girl want her to get divorced because they no longer trust men. The girl has literally no choice there as the father and brothers abuse the guy and his family members and finally create hell for the girl.

Feminists themselves attend dowry marriages. For so long, women had no rights of property of their parents. Even today, feminists do not want to oppose extravagant marriages.

There are occassions when girls demand lifestyle from husband, saying that they made a mistake marrying him, if they had married someone else then they would have got a car, a Villa and diamond necklaces. In one occassion, I say a letter written by a woman to her husband which says, "Dear Husband, I have seen a diamong necklace costing Rs.60,000. Please send me Rs.60,000 immediately, otherwise please understand my dear husband, I will file a false dowry case and police will put you in jail. Then I will take huge alimony." The girl's father says, "My daughter is unhappy because of you. She is crying on phone. "Maa-ch** ke Rakh Dunga". Now, she is a second hand item. Bring her back the way you have taken the Doli. Behen-ch** ke Rakh Dunga."

The guy recorded all this abuse in his mobile phone, came to my house and got it converted to MP3 and sent it to police commissioners in 3 different states.

Needless to say, this woman and family did file the dowry case just a month back.

When people do not get justice they may take law into their hands and take on the supporters of dowry law abuse first. For example, breaking a person's bone or teeth is a bailable offence, compared to dowry law, which is non-bailable. In any case the trial will take 5 years. Are not we making people think that crimes can be affordable. Is not how Punjab and Kashmir problems are created?

Are not we creating criminals by denying millions the access to justice?

It is important to note that many people may not tolerate support to abuse of innocent by misuse of dowry law. People, who blindly support such abuse may face consequences, if the people choose to take the law into their hands. There are occassions, when Vimochana( a feminist org) office in Bangalore was attacked, which made them tone down their language.

If an innocent husband's sister gets sexually abused in a jail after getting arrested under dowry law and that man finds a feminist supporting misuse of dowry law openly, will he keep quite or will he think of teaching the feminist or her family a lesson.

When a feminist editor of Hindu, Kalpana Sharma wrote in support of all these biased laws defending collateral damage, she got enough mails where people said, they pray to God that her own family, ger brothers, sisters, parents and relatives face the same.

People are praying for misery for feminists now. If innocents are attacked viciously by feminists, will the victims keep quite? Many People celebrated, when Betty Friedan died.

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/01/28/stories/2007012800090300.htm

This is what Kalpana Sharma got:

--------------
And Buzzy Blore adds: "I and my family will sincerely pray that you're (sic) Brothers, Sons and Daughters (if you are a women and have any of them to prove your womanhood) are tortured and victimised by the very same wrong laws that you are supporting even after knowing that its wrong and that you helplessly watch them being destroyed and your dreams shattering and you being a cause of it."
----------------

Men are not supposed to decide what should constitute feminity, then who are these feminists to decide as to what should constitute masculinity? Today masculinity is not what men want to be or what their hormones tell them to be.It is what feminists want men to do for women.
If you go through the definitions of masculinity that is cropping up at regular intervals in the media, it is only aimed at twisting the male attitude so that he goes on to cater to feminine demands, whims and fancies.He is not supposed to be himself, live for himself and do what his mind and body tells him to do.
This is totally ridiculous and one feels that one would die of laughter at the antics of feminists who demand men to blindly and totally conform to their wishes but at the same time splash the media as to how ugly men are and how much they hate and despise men.

Feminists in Media, in Zoom TV, in NDTV Goodtimes, in Times of Indian City Suplements, Rohit Barbar, Rajat Kapoor and Prasad Biddapa have a right to define what Masculinity is.

Who gave them that right?

It has been found that marital problems increase consumer spending. When one is stressed due to a troubled marriage, what the most likely thing a person will do? Go for shopping or Drink Kingfisher beer.

So, capitalists are making money from other's misery. So, they promote all the disharmony and intolerance and prove that family is the most unhealthy institution humans ever created.

Breaking family is one area, where both capitalists and communists cooperate each other.

Feminists in media even today lament, "Divorce rates are below 1% even today in India.". They deliberately do not consider the dysfunctional marriages where people live separately, but one spouse does not agree for divorce and these cases do not get into stats.

What is happening in KPMG is very interesting. More and more CEOs and top executives will face all kinds of bullshit and jail, when a female claims outrage of her modesty, if she is given poor ratings in appraisal.

NCW may be misguided. But, what about thousands of feminists in Media and the political language used by them? Are they sane and reasonable? Do not they hate men?

These feminists write,"Men do one job where as women do 2 jobs."

Why do women do 2 jobs? Either they can do the job or they can have children.

If they have such a big problem, they can do a job and go for live in relationships than marrying a man.

Today, women want big salaries, a great career and at the same time want to have children. They want men to look after the children, while they are against men quiting their jobs. On top of that they will take 30 to 60 lacs of loan for 20 years to have lifestyle. The result is an overworked, overstressed, money minded restless population facing heart attacks, diabetes and all other diseases even in early 30s.

The root of the problem is people trying to do too many things being inside marriage.

Feminists have the control now on family system. It is they who are controlling the family laws and family dynamics. So, if there are health problems in family, then feminists have to take responsibility to solve them. How often do you see feminists working to reduce stress in family?

What they want is hedonism with excuse of "Choice". "NDTV Good Times" VJ reprimands a 20 year old because she is not comfortable using "make up". He conveniently forgot that this woman also has a choice. So far as make up is concerned, women must not have a choice.

1 Hour IBN 7 program on SIFF Delhi:

Video:

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=H0Z7PT3V

Video in IBNLive:

http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/51728/zindagi-live-accused-of-taking-dowry.html

Sumanth

What makes you think you can come here and advertise and paste links of your bogus sloppy group? You claim to have 15000000 members and infinite sites, why don't you go trash the above links out there? When we have time, we will come and visit those sites.

How much do the mens orgs pay you to spread this false information and propaganda?

Dowry Law misuse has led to integration of Men's Rights organisation all over India. The Kerala's Mens Rights organisation joins SIFF and demands National Commission for Men.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1132057

With this, SIFF has presence in all states except MP, J&K and North East. All these local organisations coordinate and work together.

Thanks to dowry law misuse, the men's rights movement got from no where to a full fledged force in just 3 years.

Today, most men do not trust feminism or its so called nobled intentions. The government is so scared of backlash that the Law Ministry has kept the "Harassment at workplace Law" on hold.

Feminists have proven themselves to be highly irresponsible and losing their credibility fast.

There will be a call to young Indian men to have a "marriage strike" in month of July in 2008.

Its time feminists realise their irresponsible self destructive behaviour and start building some principles in their movement. Otherwise, no one will date or marry them. Once Indian men realise that institution of marriage is dysfunctional, they will remain miles away from feminists.

blowing your own horn again?

;)

I feel the article is written by some female sadist who has no empathy towards her own sex ,who are the victim of this law in form of mother in law /unmarried or married sister in law in some distant land.
Anyhow the article is not supported by any true statistical data to give any value to the above bullshit.

Anyhow till in India women's wants to be a like a typical amoeba & they will never be like their western friends since they western friends are not very greedy for others money as Indian bitches

The frothingly sadistic author has run away from the scene, the commentors are fighting against each other.

This article is a good example of what kinda girls misuse laws concerning families/women-protection, while genuine victims(irrespective of gender) suffer.

Once again proves that its easy to throw stones at others sitting on glass castles, until one stone comes back!.

Dear Sumanth,

Understand your frustration regarding feminism. I am not a feminist, but believe in women's rights. I believe in a woman's right to raise her children and cherish her husband. I believe in a woman's right to say "no!" to fornication before marriage. I believe in a woman's right to homeschool her children if financially able.

I had to learn the hard way, but realized that feminists have been lying to women for many years about "women's rights". Why is it a right for women to execute their innocent unborn children as a birth control? Statistics prove that most pregnancies are unintended due to irresponsible behavior on both parties. Why is it a woman's right to raise a child without a father? You hear of women conceiving thru sperm banks, one-night stands, or whatever methods. Why is it a woman's right to wear prostitute-like clothes and demand men to restrain themselves?

Feminists like Gloria Steinem and others have dug a hole for themselves and trying to pull the rest of us down with them. It is very hard to be a woman today--not because of men, but because of unstable, irrational, women of the feminist movement.

gee gowri, I see you are making as much sense here as you are on the conversion thread.

(shakes head and laughs)

you forgot that you believe in a woman's right to wait on her husband hand and foot, her right to subjugate herself, and her right to have no identity outside a marriage. it's not the feminists who lied to you gowri, you lied to yourself! you're not a friend to women and you have no idea what feminism is about.

Gowri:

""I believe in a woman's right to say "no!" to fornication before marriage."'

cool palinesque here! what about a man or a moose's right to say yes to fornication before marriage? or even after marriage, but with somebody he is not married to?

notice how she does not believe in a woman's right to say no! to fornication AFTER marrige.

SS,

You are one angry chick. Did a man abuse you or what? Okay, so what is feminism about?

Commonsense,

Sex outside of marriage is called adultery. When a man or a woman have numerous partners, then they have given a piece of themselves away, leaving nothing for their future spouse. The union between a husband and wife is God-designed union and considered to be sacred in Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and others.

Okay, so what is feminism about?

For me, sex with women, with no strings attached, though some velvet ropes are fine. ;)
Feminism is the best thing that has happened to men - we get to have our cake and eat it too. :)

no actually I am not an angry chick. but thanks for labelling me without knowing me at all.

feminism is simply about a woman's ability to make an informed choice about what she wants. this does not mean simply doing whatever she wants on a whim. it means THOUGHTFUL action. it means a great responsibility. it is not, as kaffir implies, about having a lot of sex, or having abortions, or wearing skimpy clothing. it is about defining yourself thoughtfully instead of letting others define you.

this ability to make decisions scares all kinds of people and makes them tell lies. like that we endorse abortion as birth control. and we do not. we think that women should have the right to choose if they think an abortion is right for them. if premarital sex is right for them. if working is right for them. if none of them is right for them, then feminism is also about being a stay-at-home, monogamous mom and loving and embracing that, too.

again, this is way to scary for most men, and some women, so they tell lies. we are baby-eating, child-sexing maniacs who lure men into orgies and wear skirts so short you can always see our asses. it is all a lie. most of us are happily monogamous women with happy kids... some of us work and some of us do not. some of us had premarital sex and some did not. but we all CHOSE our lives instead of fitting some mindless dictated role.

SS,

Thanks for clarifying. I guess I am a conservative feminist. I saved myself for my husband and he as well for me. Both of us cherish each other and our beautiful children. As a family we pray together every day for God's blessing on our relatives, friends, and neighbors. We are not a perfect family by any means, but we depend on each other and completely dependent on Yeshua our Messiah.

gowri:

""When a man or a woman have numerous partners, then they have given a piece of themselves away"'

just giving away a piece (btw it does sound vulgar) should not spoil the whole cake, should it?

Thats all ok, but are men and their families getting victimised by misuse of women-protection laws, thats the subject :)

Before anyone wants to jump the gun, let me remind that in the last 4 years 1,20,645 women(YES WOMEN) were arrested without investigation or any kind of evidence by under IPC 498a(just one of the misuse-prone women-protection laws).

Now u can jump the gun pls.

it is not, as kaffir implies, about having a lot of sex, or having abortions, or wearing skimpy clothing. it is about defining yourself thoughtfully instead of letting others define you.

I think it's best left to the individual woman to define what feminism means for her. What you're implying is that if a woman chooses to wear a skimpy skirt or have sex without strings attached, that is somehow thoughtless. To borrow a phrase from CS, are you the thekedaarni for feminism? :)
Just because your understanding of feminism expresses itself differently from how some other women express theirs (by wearing skimpy clothes or having sex without strings attached), does not mean your understanding is the only correct and "thoughtful" one. Your version works for you just as others' version works for them. Shades of "my god is the only true god" here? ;)

no kaffir, learn to read please. you've managed to twist my words all out of shape to suit yourself. nobody is buying it since most others here know what I stand for.

but since you seem too hell-bent on your own bent agenda to really understand the point, the point is that that those things are not what feminism is ABOUT. that is not what DEFINES feminists. if a feminist chooses to do those things, so be it. that is the choice left up to the individual. who am I to judge. I wear short skirts and was nowhere close to being a virgin when I got married. and my husbands knows and acccepts that because of how I carry myself and the respect I have for myself.

now stop frothing and twisting my words and go back under your rock. you're just throwing stones for the sake of it, and it's really juvenile.

also, gowri... about the "giving parts of yourself"...uh, I happily gave those parts. those relationships I had prior to marriage made me into the person I am today. they allowed me to grow and mature, they allowed me to learn and understand myself and others. and if you are a conservative feminist, so be it. welcome! I find it hard to believe, though, that you so badly misjudged Steinem and the like and were full of such negativity towards, well, us, and all it took were a few words from me to convince you otherwise. what made you think that feminism was anything more than it really is?

and hey, I am sure there are dowry-law abuses. but they PALE in comparison to the evils women suffer daily in India. two wrongs do not make a right, but according to siffers, one wrong negates the existance of the other. revisionist history at its finest (not).

Dear shobantwal,

You seem to be claiming that the abuse of dowry laws is somehow "clever" and will somehow "eliminate" the demand for dowry. HAVE YOU COMPLETELY LOST YOUR MARBLES? The only people who see false dowry threat accusations as a good thing are those who are against dowry laws, for it lends tremendous support to their case that such laws will be widely abused by what you call "shrewd" women. Either you are not a true feminist, or you're a really confused one. It's like claiming that falsely crying wolf is good for flock defence. No feminist would support such a blatant promotion of legal sabotage, especially when feminists are still politically weak in India. All you seem to care about is getting in a hit-and-run plug for your book.

Oh SS. If it makes you feel good about yourself to assume that I'm frothing and living under a rock, please be my guest. :)

if a feminist chooses to do those things, so be it. that is the choice left up to the individual.

And how is this different from what I said, unless you want to split hairs?

again kaffir LEARN HOW TO EFFING READ!

it is not different than what you said, which was what I said in the first place! you twisted my words, I clarified.

nice attempt at redirect from your gaffe, but it didn't work.

SS, your words:
"feminism is simply about a woman's ability to make an informed choice about what she wants. this does not mean simply doing whatever she wants on a whim. it means THOUGHTFUL action. it means a great responsibility. it is not, as kaffir implies, about having a lot of sex, or having abortions, or wearing skimpy clothing."

First of all, I didn't even mention "abortions" or "skimpy clothing" - not sure why you'd bring that in, or what relevance it had to my original comment.

Second, "feminism", "thoughtful" and "great responsibility" followed by "it is not, as kaffir implies, about having lot of sex" can only imply one thing - that if a woman chooses to have lots of sex on her own terms, she is not thoughtful or somehow irresponsible, or doesn't know what feminism is all about. As if "more sex" can't be done thoughtfully and responsibly. Such prudishness!!

How about learning to write first? ;)
I have nothing more to add to this conversation.

dude, you had nothing to add to begin with. LOL!

and I have to laugh because calling me a prude is about the funniest fucking thing I have read in a long, long time.

you clearly do not know me at all. anyone who does care to correct this guy?

Definition of true feminism is written down in the Book of Proverbs 31.

I had my career as an Electrical Engineer and now I am a stay-at-home homeschooling mom. My husband and I both came to that decision together. We base our decisions based on what is good for the family and not what is good for me or him alone. I love my role as a wife and mother. My husband sacrifices by working hard and providing for us. I am blessed to have him as my husband. I respect him as the head of our house.

SS, I called your specific comment prudish, I didn't call you prudish. There's a distinction between the two, but it seems to me that some readers here are unable to figure that out.

Kaffir:

""To borrow a phrase from CS, are you the thekedaarni for feminism? :)""

kaffir, that will cost you 10 bucks. i am the thekedaar of my own phrase.

kaffir,

you have clearly lost the argument on this thread. you are close to losing your train of thought too. a not-so-brief is highly recommended by this doctor of nerves.

kaffir,

i meant, a not-so-brief break is highly recommended for you. otherwise, you may have lost your train of thought now, but you may end up missing the bus and the boat too. take heed my friend, since you cannot stand the heat.

"I am sure there are dowry-law abuses. but they PALE in comparison to the evils women suffer daily in India. two wrongs do not make a right, but according to siffers, one wrong negates the existance of the other. revisionist history at its finest"

Notwithstanding all the rhetorics, it is the such attitude that has defined feminism. That it is ok to victimize, as it has perfect justifications for it. That victimizations are merely colateral damages in a just gender war, that is part of a larger cultural wars for leftist ideologies. That it does not have to be accountable for the fallout it unleashes in the society. That it bears no moral responsibility to the society or its institutions. So its politics boils down to digging the holes, look for people to fall in them, raise moral outrage for those who fall, pose as saviors of the 'victims' to empower the ideology, create ideological alliances and derive power from the fallout, use the ideological empowerment and leftist alliances to dig more holes, and repeat the cycle.

kerty.... you clearly drank the same water as kaffir... I SAID THAT TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. I did not feel that I really needed to spell out the entire argument, but clearly you are hiding under the same rock as sumanth.

There are wrongs on both sides. neither justifies the other. but siff would like to make people believe that the abuse of women doesn't happen. that was my only point. that and that the word "rhetoric" is both the singular and the plural. and that your picture of feminism is straight out of the siff handbook. congratulations!

SS:

""but clearly you are hiding under the same rock as sumanth.""

them rock dwellers creep out selectively...pretty creep sight.

Ah, CS. The gallant knight on a steed, to the rescue of a damsel in distress, jumps into a discussion. ;)

Let me worry about my mode of transportation - I can handle it on my own. You might want to do something about your unsuccessful diversionary tactics and an inability to eat the humble pie.

And how many genuinely harassed women got justice with these women-protection laws?(if at all they have used them!)

Its just a matter of time before one realises that in India the justice system and the police moves only at the sight of Rs. An entire class of newly recruited IPS officers could not register a single FIR in a day - this was an exercise they were given after their passing out from training, and this was told directly by an IPC officer himself.

If those IPS officers could not get any FIRs registered after trying to lodge complaints against the offences they witnessed in a particular city during the day, do u think a genuinely victimised woman can register one?

I can tell u from my own experience the police wont move a muscle without money, the court will thro 1000s of legalities which stymies ur attempts to get justice- so what justice will be upheld by these "misuse-only" women-protection laws?.

How many cases of women-protection law can anyone identify from slum areas where gender violence is the order of life?, how many from lower middle class? - NEAR ZERO

On the corollary why is these kind of cases prevalent in the upper middle class/affluent families(these dont come out since rich people pay-out before a 3rd person learns about this 'rot' in his life).

NO USE, ONLY MISUSE of these so-called women-protection laws... thats the gist of it.

Prove me wrong by giving one case where a genuinely victimised woman has got justice by the 'USE' of these laws.

SS

"I SAID THAT TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT"

I directed my comment at feminism, not at you or what you have to say. What you say is immaterial. It is what feminism does that counts.

DCritic #105,

Are you saying that this law is misused by the police officers and affluent families? How does this system work exactly? Let's say that a woman from a middle class lodges a complaint against her husband for physical abuse. What happens next? At what point does either party offer a bribe to the IPS officers? What is the bribe for? Is it to ensure that the complaint does not become a permanent record? I would appreciate your explanation.

I was also wondering about the gun laws in India. What if the woman uses a gun for self-defense against her husband or boyfriend. Is self-defense permissible in the court of law to let the woman free of malicious wounding or homocide?

To anyone,

What is your take on feminism in India vs. feminism in the U.S.A?

#108

"What is your take on feminism in India vs. feminism in the U.S.A?"

Women are naturally white in USA and they turn red when beaten and so one can tell if one is really beaten. Women in India are naturally dark and they turn dark when beaten, so nobody can tell for sure if one is really beaten or making false accusations. Humor aside, unlike races and cultures that differ, ideology would not differ from country to country, from race to race. Feminism remains feminism, no matter which country it would get to beat up. Results have to be predictable and identical. Because it is an ideology with global ambitions. What may appear as differences is merely lack of even playing field for the ideology in India and USA, hence feminism has to focus on India-specific hurdles in order to even the playing field with USA so that feminism can become a global ideology with universal relevance rather than remain a USA-specific ideology with no relevance to other countries - However, the playing field is so uneven in India and USA it turns feminism upside down in India - feminism would fight for abortions in USA while it has to fight against abortions(female) in India, it would recognize abortion as personal privacy and choice in USA but can not do so in India etc.

kaffir:

""Ah, CS. The gallant knight on a steed, to the rescue of a damsel in distress, jumps into a discussion. ;)""

damsel in distress?? SS? are we living in the medieval ages...(i mutter to myself as i chew on my humble pie)

SS

Definition of feminism is just nothing. We need to consider what feminists are doing in real world.

All definitions are made for political correctness.. but activities shows the original nature of the particular moment. I like to judge feminists by their activities not by their fancy and phony definitions.

Do you know the real data? Read this.
Data of Crime Bure 2006 498A and 304B:

No. of Person Arrested under (498A +304B) : 161217

Child/Senior citizen/Women arrested :280/4700/31253

No. Of person Arrested Under 304B : 24562

No. of Person Arrested Only under 498A (living women) : 137180

No. Of person Not Charge sheeted : 31128

No. Of person Charge Sheeted : 125277

No. Of person's Trial Completed : 78292

No. Of person convicted (498A+304B) : 16995

No. Of Person Convicted by 304B : 5144

No. Of person Convicted Under 498A but not 304B : NA?

No. Of person Proved Innocence at Court under 498A : 61297

No. Person's case compunded or withdrawn : 13970

No. Of person Convicted only under 498A without 304B : NA ?

No. Of person Accused under 498A and harresed to Got AB/ArrestStay and Trail not recomended, at least 5 times more 8,05,000 : NA ? ( 8,05,000 )

On an average (3+19.3) = 22.3% people's case (4812+31128) =35,940/- had not been even charge sheeted and proved innocence before trail.

It is a clear example that approx 80% cases people proved their innocence at Court that they had been arrested without any reason/evidence as 498A/304B is non-bailable and do not need any evidence to arrest any TOM/Dick or Marry .

So, it is a clear example that more than 92.3% cases the people had been arrested under 498A without any evidence, where as if the case is true and the verbal statement of the compliment itself find true, the convection is 100%.

Still in this special LAW more than 92.3% People proved their innocence, where as in normal IPC the convection is more than such LAW, then why need this special LAW?

The Answer : To do the Legal Terrorism and earn the money from Husband's Family as a whole sale free license and openly Blackmail and do the extortion of money by Wives family in front of Police/Court/Media and the same is not to be termed as crime.

We wonder Whose life is in More Danger in India : Men or Women?
To understand the reason one must Know: Women "Engineering viewpoint"
Crime Bure data 2005 : Married Men Sucide : 52k vs Married Women Sucide 28K.Still there is no LAW to Protect Men why?
2006 Crime Bure Data : Married Men Sucide:55452 vs. Married Women Sucide:29.869
Will Our LAW Maker change the LAW 304B( dowry death) to 304C( Sowry Death) and 498A ( harrasement to wife) to 498B ( Sowry harrasement by wife)

#107

Gowry, :)

Let me leave you with an analogy(luch time now). Have u ever seen a traffic police catch a man riding a cycle/tattered clothes/looking impoverished while there are other guys with signs of affluence, in the traffic!.

With money anyone can get a false complaint registered(without any evidence, or with evidences to the contrary), with money a genuinely harrassed woman/man also can be shooed away/denied their rights, if they come to complain(the moment police see the complainant is not a 'cash-cow' they 'test' the opposite party for 'deep-pockets' and if the aggressors have money, the police ensures that the complainant is denied justice and even threatened of dire consequences

In mumbai police(corrupt) is so evolved that they will make a genuine victim believe that doing whats harmful to him/her is actually good for him/her!. Very sophisticated-corrupt police we have, only if we find a way to use these 'skills' in a constructive way we will have the best police in the world!

But in the land of corrupt how can the police be any different, how can the judiciary be immune from corruption?.

#107
"Are you saying that this law is misused by the police officers and affluent families?"-> Police(including lawyers and personnel in courts) are always the beneficiaries of such misuse of laws. Affluent families war because of ego and/or to extract vengeance for some cheating in business deals, etc(nothing to do with marital problems!). The targets of this misuse are always 'monied'(industrialists/IT pros/high-income/networth guys- refer the traffic police analogy - theres no point in victimising poor people!)

"How does this system work exactly? Let's say that a woman from a middle class lodges a complaint against her husband for physical abuse. What happens next? At what point does either party offer a bribe to the IPS officers? What is the bribe for? Is it to ensure that the complaint does not become a permanent record? I would appreciate your explanation. "

When a genuinely harrassed girl(not ready to pay money to 'facilitate' her complaint processing!) complains the police calls the other party for 'counselling' this is essentially to assess the other party for 'bribe-worthiness' if the opposite party is ready to bribe the complainant is given some excuse and/or sent to a women welfare org who are instructed to frustrate her and send her back completely hopeless.(a lot of such cases have called our helplines and thats I say this with conviction). But if the police finds even the opposite party is not willing to give money, they show their natural colours- that of 'inaction' and indifference!.

"I was also wondering about the gun laws in India. What if the woman uses a gun for self-defense against her husband or boyfriend. Is self-defense permissible in the court of law to let the woman free of malicious wounding or homocide?"

If the gun is not licensed then the user cab be in trouble on multiple counts. Self-defence is a valid ground to bail anyone out of homicide. But dont give genuine victims(man or woman)this idea, they will soon arm themselves since our justice-system REALLY sucks.

NO USE, ONLY MISUSE happens in case of women-protection laws, and unlike other penal statutes these laws entangle entire families including other women in its tentacles.

#108

Gowri(sorry for spelling ur name wrong earlier), Pls have patience till the thekedarnis and thekedars and thekedarillos of feminism-definition-beautification think of a suitable window dressing. I am sure we all will be thrilled by the result!

Once i requested NCW head, hang the Husband in public if you fell he had beaten his wife or demended any money from them. The husbands bank statement shows the wife and wife's family several time taken money from the husbnad, still you feel the husband is wife beater or dowry seeker ( it was a love marrage with 160 ruppes cost).
The NCW chief , just smile and say, if we hange you , who will give the money to your wife?
So, I got the answer, indian law maker make the mocokery of Criminal Justice system with duplications of law and insted of making the criminal justice system punish the criminla, used the same as Free money earning business , the way Terrorist do and no dought why Supreme court of India termed the same as Legal Terrorism.
Relaity is still more than 99% cases it is the husbands family provide the shelter/home/security to women, where as the girls family prefer to tret thier own sister or daughter as burden and always look for a Free ATM machine in the form of Husband.
Till the time a women can't get equall right at thier own home and family business , but expect after marrage in the next day itself by defult they will be 50% share holder of thier Husbands hard work , such dispute will continue and legal terrorism will continue, till the indian man do not learn to die as debit man instead of credit man.

Lucky guy u lost only Rs.160 initially!

DCritic,

Thanks for your input. Wow! It is quite shocking to me. No matter what, its seems as though the common people of India are subjugated under the corrupt judicial system. How do you think the system could be turned around? I suppose it is extremely difficult to fix corruption at all levels.

Isn't the Indian media exposing corrupt police officers, judges and politicians? I know the US liberal media doesn't do a good job of exposing corruption. I may be mistaken, but I thought the Indian media is a little more conservative and non-tolerant of corruption.

"Relaity is still more than 99% cases it is the husbands family provide the shelter/home/security to women, where as the girls family prefer to tret thier own sister or daughter as burden and always look for a Free ATM machine in the form of Husband.
Till the time a women can't get equall right at thier own home and family business , but expect after marrage in the next day itself by defult they will be 50% share holder of thier Husbands hard work"

Don't forget that boys' families are usually also some girls' families. Therefore, this concern is one of hypocrisy - of demanding dowry for the gander and not the goose.

Regarding alimony, a widespread problem is that women are not raised with a view to them being independent in the first place. So who is to blame when they become pawns in games of greed and power? This is also just as much a result of a patriarchal system. I fully support financial and custodial equality in marriage (Gowris need not apply), but men and women cannot have such idealistic equality at the termination of a marriage when there is systemic inequality during, as well as often before and after the marriage.

Furthermore, this is entirely separate from the issue of dowry and anti-dowry law. Anecdotes of legal abuse of that law (especially involving legal corruption, a serious but irrelevant evil) do not invalidate the necessity for protection from this still widespread practice that socially devalues women so.

"Relaity is still more than 99% cases it is the husbands family provide the shelter/home/security to women, where as the girls family prefer to tret thier own sister or daughter as burden and always look for a Free ATM machine in the form of Husband.
Till the time a women can't get equall right at thier own home and family business , but expect after marrage in the next day itself by defult they will be 50% share holder of thier Husbands hard work"

Don't forget that boys' families are usually also some girls' families. Therefore, this concern is one of hypocrisy - of demanding dowry for the gander and not the goose.

Regarding alimony, a widespread problem is that women are not raised with a view to them being independent in the first place. So who is to blame when they become pawns in games of greed and power? This is also just as much a result of a patriarchal system. I fully support financial and custodial equality in marriage (Gowris need not apply), but men and women cannot have such idealistic equality at the termination of a marriage when there is systemic inequality during, as well as often before and after the marriage.

Furthermore, this is entirely separate from the issue of dowry and anti-dowry law. Anecdotes of legal abuse of that law (especially involving legal corruption, a serious but irrelevant evil) do not invalidate the necessity for protection from this still widespread practice that socially devalues women so.

Do it yourselves is the only way out.

The media in India are just whores for sensation, they seem to expose corruption only whenever theres a gang-war among the corrupt, just like when gangsters get eliminated due to tip-offs

Do it yourselves... is the way to go. A lot of good people need to get their hands dirty in doing this, soon may be very soon. Passive goodness is not enough, not at all enough

"Furthermore, this is entirely separate from the issue of dowry and anti-dowry law."
This is the mian reson, girls parents do not provide the equll right to thier daughter or sisters and hide behind the word dowry. Those give equll right, they never complin about so called dowry harrrasement.
The basic of misuse of such law is money and provocations to earn the same without any hard work.
There is no free meal to any one. We have seen women earning thier live hood by doing hard work as well doing kitty party. We hve seen women who do not have a pice of cloth to hide thier body at the same time seen women who hate to wear cloth.
The basic is, why women want husabnds money/property in the name of marrage and even after not keeping the relatioship. Whatever you both earned during the marrage relatioship time is 50% both of us. But that can't be a life time goverment job , you keep relatioship or not, you will get the money.
Not giving the daughter or sister in thier own home as equll right , is the min and only reasons of so called dowry or descrimanations against women.
If a women do not able to ern their live hood or how thier husbands is responsible?
If a husabnd not able to earn thier live hood, is the wife responsible?
If a women is not able to earn thier live hood , either it is the fault of women or her parents not providing or support them self sufficent.
Thos family do not give equll right to thier own daughter and sister, hide behind the word dowry and cheat their own sister and daughter, that is the truth.
In thier own home they will not give any right to thier dughter and sister and want a freeATM machine in the form of husbands and the basis is here.
But our so called women orginasations never highlight that as if the problem solved thier money earning business will stop immediately, more than 15000 unmarried women also end thier life in un-natural death , but why the parents of the girls family not booked and send to jail?
Why this double standarad?
Before marrage any women end thier life in sucide, no criminla case against her parents, but after marrage if she sucide, the husband and his all mother/sisters/child will be responible?

LAW shoulld be on the basis of same crincipal of crime, it should not be on assumption, that i want to say.
Assumption based law will always misused to earn money or other benifit, which is termed by supreme court of india Legal Terrorism.

Very interesting, my dear shoan , when you say , give the women equll right in thier own parental home /assests/business, it is hypocrisy.
Now it is proved behond resonable dought, it is those do not want to give the women equall right at their own home, hide behind the word dowry harrasement.
That is the reson , the law like dowry realted 498A, DV act is not gender eaull, otherwise, it is those women and thier family memebrs will be convicted behond resonable dought, as per court court, it is the women and thier family memerbs demand the money form husbands family openly in front of court/media/police , where as they do not have any evidence that husband family demand any money from them , except thier own verbal statement.
If this law became gender equall, then only the truth will come out, who demand dowry in the form of money/property after marrage , the husbands family or wife family?
In all the cases pending at court , all the wives and thier family will be convected behond resonable dought, as it is court record the wife want money form husbands or form his family, which is not crime in this country.
Great logic and enjoy the abuse of criminal justice system and treat the Indian Husband as Free ATM machine, it is not hypocrisy, it is social service..right?

there are more laws that can be misused. like the "sex after false promise of marriage = rape" law

Abuse of criminal justice system does not mean there should be no criminal justice system. Dowry harassment is a crime, and like any crime, it should be punished. If you want to push for greater penalties on false accusations, fine by me. But revoking the law itself is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

My "hypocrisy" exists solely in your mind, a result of your intentional misreading. If anything, I am arguing for marriages where both parties are financially independent and have equal responsibility in childrearing. But when they are not, obviously the property has to be divided equitably to compensate (usually the wife). If a husband and wife both work and share responsibilities, I have no problem with, and in fact encourage the dropping of alimony. But if the wife is expected to take care of the house and the children all her married life and beyond, then divorce has to come with the appropriate redistribution of property, especially if she has sacrificed her career to shoulder disproportionate domestic burdens.

sohan... a valiant attempt, but do not try to speak reason with these fools. we've all tried it before to no avail. their main goal is to try to spread as much hatred and lies as possible. they warp everyone's words. they have admitted that their strategy is to make everyone angry and incite problems. just ignore them, because they are only a bunch of very small minded men who have nothing better to do with their lives now that their much-harassed wives left them high and dry. they froth on and on about such things as "whorish women wearing jeans-pants" and made-up numbers than they do about real issues.

bottom line... do not feed the trolls. if you do they just later, rinse, repeat. never a lick of sense.

SS:

""sohan... a valiant attempt, but do not try to speak reason with these fools.""

SS, please refrain from insulting fools :) they would be truly embarrassed at the thought of being compared to this bunch of ????

I really thought they were supposed to be on the recent Indian unmanned space mission...i guess even space doesn't want them, even though we all know tha space abhors a vacuum.

From that IP:

* "Hardy" has posted 255 comments
* "FF" has posted 242 comments
* "Ashish" has posted 48 comments
* "Dowry Seeker" has posted 18 comments
* "Anonymous" has posted 6 comments
* "Deepti" has posted 5 comments
* "FrontView" has posted 3 comments
* "Anon" has posted 3 comments
* "DS" has posted 2 comments
* "NAKED TRUTHS" has posted 2 comments
* "close" has posted 1 comments
* "FF_1" has posted 1 comments
* "Vibha" has posted 1 comments
* "F" has posted 1 comments
* "Neha" has posted 1 comments
* "Correction" has posted 1 comments
* "Freedom" has posted 1 comments
* "Dwory Seeker" has posted 1 comments
* "FACT" has posted 1 comments

Last 60 years more and more duplications of LAW made in the name of dowry and still we are crying the same not stopped and increasing , the basic questions is are our government or NCW really want to stop this so called Dowry System?

If the Answer is "YES", then the first step to be taken on: Section 8B on Dowry Prohibition Officers.

[don't spam}

[don't spam]

Dear Editor, a soultion was posted in comment sections for the writer who calim to be doing some reserch and seems failed to understand how to stop the dowry system and where the main problem exists.But the same termed as spam.( there are numebr of comments are there repeated, please remove that as a spam)
Nice it seems all want the problem to be continue but no one ready to resolve the soultion and the natnaki should go on in the name of dowry.
Comment number 129 edited and the real view not disclosed , which was as under:

Any marriage involve with Dowry to be termed as illegal and void marriage and special task force of Dowry Prohibition officers to be appointed and start raid in marriage functions and all the Dowry articles to be taken in custody and the fine to be imposed on both the party and all the same should go to Government fund and the same will be used for the real empower of women , like their educations/jobs and make them self dependent , instead of treating the Husbands family as Free ATM machine.

· Parents should give the equal rights to their boy and girls in their assets/property/business share, instead of treating the Girls as a burden and dispose off and then after marriage hide behind the word dowry.



We argue the Ministry , give us this power for one year , we will prove it beyond reasonable drought , what your NCW and their associated organizations not able to achieve , we will achieve at faster process and will eliminate the whole "Natanki" of so called Dowry system.

per se Is giving dowry to my daughter BAD?
I do not want my daughter to walk out of my house naked when she get married. I BELIEVE THAT MY DAUGHTER HAS EQUAL RIGHTS IN MY PROPERTY AS MY SON HAS. I want to empower my daughter when she start living with his husband. What is name of presents and gifts i Give to my daughter at the time of marriage. I will give dowry to my daughter.

Intellectual masturbation is the main hobby of most bloggers.

This is the reason why dowry and extravagant marriages still exist in Indian society. Intellectual masturbation can only make one claim winning an argument. However it never makes any difference in the society.

The people who are called "fools", "delusioned lunatics" are able to move the society much better than those who only live in their own "opinion" world.

Dowry and Extravagant marriages are opposed in a powerful way by Men's Right lobby now. Visit www.antidowry.org

Now, let feminists and Govt come out in support of cutting the 45,000 crores (per year) marriage market often extracted from Girl's Father/brother.

------
Anyone can claim a group of people as a bunch of insane, delusional lunatics. The very group which is termed lunatic has created massive impact on Indian and international media.

@suresh
>>I will give dowry to my daughter.

is dowry given to daughter or son-in-law? It is not the same thing.

The best dowry to give ur daughter is to get her fit for life, arm her with wisdom(not just the so-called 'ezukasion') and lessons from raw/unmitigated life.

For ur son in law the best dowry to give is respect, love and confidence, after u/ur girl assesses him for such maturity.

And be cool.... life happens if love's around.

"I BELIEVE THAT MY DAUGHTER HAS EQUAL RIGHTS IN MY PROPERTY AS MY SON HAS."

Excellent! So write in your will that you will directly bequeath her share of your property to her when you die, as you would to your sons. Why (for daughters) at marriage, why (effectively) to the groom, and why (almost always) on the groom's terms?

Sohan

It is for parents to decide when to bequeath a share to their daughter. Most of them find marriage to be the right point, not after death.

After parents die, there is no guarantee that sons would give share to sisters and most sisters would not choose to fight their bothers in courts unless their greedy in-laws force them to do so. Greedy sons and their wives might renege on sharing it with their sisters once parents die. Sons and their wives often feel they deserve to have all to themselves since they have taken care of the parents in old age. Some renege to share it even with all other brothers. Son who takes care of parents often refuses to give a share to their brothers. Courts are littered with cases of one brother fighting another brother over property. Greed is a bitch. It can make people do crazy things and turn against one another.

If greedy extortions over dowry can create such a huge case load of persecution and violence within families, imagine what fights over entitlements in parental properties can unleash among siblings. Its like giving another ladder to the monkey. It can only increase victimization of women. Greedy in-laws can go after one more thing to extort - properties of their in-law's family, pitting brothers against sisters. The problem with dowry is that it can be turned into a right and entitlement among greedy families. Right to property creates similar entitlement that can only mean one thing among greedy families - more violence, more persecution of brides.

Dowry works among communities and families where it is not treated as entitlement or right of the groom's family or husband, but rather a gift to the bride, in the form of ornaments that can create economic security for the bride in times of crisis.

Growing up, I was influenced by the wave of dowry deaths and bride burnings that happened in the 80s and I formed a strong opinion against dowries. But on reflection, I've come to the conclusion that the concept of dowry is not that different from that of wedding registry in the West. The idea is to help the newly-weds jump-start their life and grihasti and have some security for possibly hard times. As long as dowry is given willingly and according to one's means, and I'd go one step further that both the bride and groom's parents contribute, I personally have no issue with the concept and its execution as intended. The problem comes when greed enters the picture, but then again, greed will spoil the execution of any system and any concept, no matter how good it is. I also understand if some people want to make a statement against the misuse of this concept and refuse any dowry when they get married - it's their personal choice to do so.

Sohan our customs have been designed with a lot of thought and worldly wisdom

Custom prescribes the father gives 'Kanyadan', and while doing that he holds hands with his daughter and son in law in a symbolic gesture which means that Iam am entrusting my dear one to you and Iam hereby making a 'dhaan'.

And dhaan means nothing more to do with whatever has been given on a 'dhaan'- yes I talking only about the 'spirit of the custom called dhaan' not the practicality in the present times or about the human nature which will resist cutting ties to a dhaan such a daughter. But these customs are so well thought of to fend off any interference from the girls parents side and also giving the groom the confidence, respect and love by giving a fathers dear daughter away in "dhaan"

This being the spirit and intent of a Kanyadhaan, would a father keep the rightful/worthy inheritance he himself accords to his daughter away from her till his death?.

This is our culture and cultures all through history has been evolving to suit the times, but values/spirit never changes.. good intents too.

This custom has gotten corrupt too as time went by, with some grooms/folks demanding insisting a sum for marrying a girl... to stop this practice the only thing people has to start doing is to stop marrying their daughters to such uncouth grooms/folks. The control is always with one, if he choses to see the issue in perspective and with confidence that 'he won't die on his knees, until he gives up!'

Sorry, but this poetic flourish does not mask the miasma of the patriarchal worldview. "Entrusting my dear one to you"? What, is he transferring custodial control ... of an ADULT person? Never mind the implications of "kanya", you know what "dhaan" actually means, right? What aeon are we living in that we justify viewing the marriage of a woman as a "dhaan", like a head of cattle?

Fine, if marriage is to be the event of wealth transfer, let it be so for both sons and daughters. "Would a father keep the rightful/worthy inheritance he himself accords to his daughter away from her till his death"? I could press the converse, "would a father keep the rightful/worthy inheritance he himself accords to his SON away from HIM till his death". "Hey pops, I'm getting married ... show me the money".

As for sons preventing daughters from getting inheritance, obviously the society and the law has to see daughters as equally worthy of receiving inheritance. If the parents, society and the state are all explicit in the terms of posthumous wealth transfer, we wouldn't need to use dowry as a means to end a woman's claim to the family property with offerings at marriage that effectively end up in the hands of the groom and his family and effectively end up as a groom price.

Sohan

If you have better ideas, you have to convince all those parents that they are better ideas. Last I heard, parents in India are free persons and have freedom to run their families as they deem fit and spend their money as they choose. Even if you can manage to legislate your feminist ideas, people will not follow intrusive laws unless they believe it is in their own interests. Feminists have no credibility in the society to convince anybody except those in english media and psecular political parties

No need. My primary purpose, in any case, is calling out these archaic customs of patriarchal societies for what they really are. Otherwise traditionalists will go on constructing circular justifications whereby various discriminatory customs mutually reinforce one another, without examining the core of the problem. If men did not routinely disenfranchise and dispossess women by force and custom, women would not be in need of inequitable and ineffective tokens of purported financial protection like dowry in the first place. If calling for full human dignity to be applied to all humans (what a strange notion) is feminism, call me a feminist all you like.

Soham

"My primary purpose, in any case, is calling out these archaic customs of patriarchal societies for what they really are."

But people like patriarchy. Can they counter-attack those who seek to attack patriarchy? You know how communists and capitalists and democracies use armies and kill millions to preserve and protect their systems. Can Patriarchy attack feminists and their stooges as enemy combatants and subversives in order to preserve patriarchy?

"If calling for full human dignity to be applied to all humans (what a strange notion) is feminism, call me a feminist all you like."

Ok. As you wish.

However, do not expect others to buy the sugar-coated feminism. Feminism is not about human dignity or all humans. It is about gender wars, divide and rule, atomization and decimation of society, anarchy in social sphere and statism in the rest. It is Ravan's sister.

http://www.antidowry.org/ was launched recently by SIF to stop all dowry and extravagant marriages.

Every year, about 45,000 crores (USD 11 Billion) are spent on marriages in India. The Business establishments masturbate with that money during marriage seasons. Many banks give "Kanya Vivaha Loan" (Loan to parents for daughter's marriage). Height of sexism!!

No feminist including Renuka, Girija or anywhere else bothered to oppose sexism there. Even the feminists, who take funds to fight against dowry did not question. Even the Govt banks are giving "Loan for daughter's marriage"!!

The hypocrites like Renuka, Girija and feminists have no guts to annoy the "rich and spoiled business houses (from Real Estate Moghuls to Diamond jewelers") by stopping "Dowry+High cost marriages". So, they showcase cosmetic antidowry laws and claim "wolf...wolf..."(dowry is increasing....dowry is increasing....) all the, while knowing very well that the Capitalist extremists are promoting extravagant marriages and dowry.

Dowry problem has to remain in existence for Shobhan Bantwal and her future generations to write books and make money from someone's misery.

==================
"Na Rahega Baan, Na Bajegi Bansoori".

AntiDowry.ORG will shake the ground below the feet of all the hypocrites and capitalist criminals, who promote "dowry and extravagant marriages and Loans for Girl's Marriage".

Why the hell a grown up man or woman above 18 has to take money from parents to get married?

That defies common sense.

Its a shame that our banks give loans to parents to fund their children's marriage. There are parents who save all through their life for daughter's wedding. As a result, we have the problem of female foeticide on hand. Capitalists, Business establishments enjoy selling diamonds, TVs, Cars and what not during marriage season. Then the arm chair activists masturbate discussing the same solutions endlessly.

The plan for antidowry.org is simple:
=====================================

1) Anyone who has taken/taking/given/giving dowry, their names and contact details can be submitted in the website by any friend, relative or colleague.

These details will be submitted to Dowry prohibition officer in that locality to conduct the investigation and submit the report. If report is not filed, then Right to Information act is used to nail the Dowry prohibition officer there (with media publicity).

Demand for
==========
2) Parents must not be burdened with children's marriage expenses (in this 21st century).

3) If parents or brothers spend money for marriage of son/daughter or sister/brother, then one of them have to submit "Income Tax Returns" and marriage expenses to the Marriage registrar office and get acknowledgment.

3) The marriage expense, if contributed by father or brother must not exceed 6 months income of any one of these family members. The family can choose to provide income tax returns of any one of these members.

4) While booking a marriage hall or ordering the caterer, the PAN number of the "contributing family member" must be entered in the form. If Pan number is not collected, then the marriage hall owner has to be penalized.


5) It is sure, some people will enter the names of people in the website, who are taking dowry or have taken or given dowry. We will make dowry prohibition officers to investigate.

6) If Govt does not show interest in stopping "Dowry+Extravagant marriages", then we will use media to screw the Govt. Since its launch both Renuka and Girija are silent as we pit the feminists against the capitalists with this single move. We also got the Communist feminists to support us.

The capitalist extremists know, with breaking of a single family, consumerism increases as people moving out have to buy separate houses, separate TV, washing machine and entire household of goods. They do not give a damn about what happens to kids and future of society with increases crime rate (as it happened in US). Without Capitalist extremism, radical feminist would not have sidelined the moderates for so long.

============
Let us see for how many more years in this globalized world, Indian kids keep taking millions of rupees from their parents get married.
============

"But people like patriarchy"

No, patriarchs such as yourself like patriarchy. Much as ancient Roman citizens liked the slave system.

"Can Patriarchy attack feminists and their stooges as enemy combatants and subversives in order to preserve patriarchy?"

Oh, but they already do, and they never needed my permission. They attack, rob, rape and murder, as they have throughout human history, to preserve their beloved patriarchy. But their days of taking power for granted are numbered.

Right, and don't bring state terminology like "enemy combatants" into this discussion. There is no state of patriarchs. It is in fact the responsibility of the state to protect the rights of all its citizens, not just those of testosterone-poisoned brutes.

"However, do not expect others to buy the sugar-coated feminism. Feminism is not about human dignity or all humans. It is about gender wars, divide and rule, atomization and decimation of society, anarchy in social sphere and statism in the rest. It is Ravan's sister."

Blah blah blah. All these hurtful accusations just for demanding that women be treated as free citizens instead of slaves to serve male interests.

"Two wrongs do not make a right".

Is not that perfectly applicable to "Feminist Activism"?

The patriarchal male chauvinism is now replaced by "radical feminist chauvinism".

The patriarchal MCPs are terribly wrong.
Radical feminists controlling Govt policies and UN policies are wrong as well.

And two wrongs do not make a right.

Now, we have got couple of feminist apologists who come out with some examples to defend feminism while supporting "female chauvinism" in the background.

I do not trust the noble claims made by Deepti or SS about feminism. Both of them are apologists. However, they will never oppose the radical feminists sitting in power centers creating havoc as these radicals are achieving some of the goals and intentions of feminism. These apologists are still think women's situation in the world is in danger and think feminism is still a fire-fighting movement against patriarchy.

Girija Vyas opposes making dowry law bailable and compoundable. Many powerful feminists in India oppose it including:

All-India Democratic Women's Association
(CPM's women wing)
All-India Women's Conference
Centre for Women's Development Studies
Joint Women's Programme
Muslim Women's Forum
National Federation of Indian Women
War Widows Association
Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA)

http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/17/stories/2008091756291300.htm

Feminists in YWCA, AIDWA, UN support or give silent consent to "Female Chauvinism" and believe that "two wrongs make a right".

Torturing women with dowry demands is wrong. Torturing men and their family members for huge sums of money and jailing them without evidence is also wrong.

Today, feminism is mostly about matching the wrongs done by Male Chauvinists by promoting crimes by women.

So, it is obvious that people will stop trusting feminism. In west, they do not trust feminists. The same will happen in India as well.

Till the time majority of feminists in powerful positions do not stop believing in "two wrongs make a right", the masculists also will believe in the same.

In last two years, the credibility of Indian feminists and Indian women has taken a severe beating. The trust Indian society had on a woman's word is eroding fast as some women misunderstand "women's choices" as greed, consumerism, abusing others and threatening others.

If this continues, then soon the people in society will perceive that women can do all the wrong things that men can do.

So, the entire feminism is not about transforming the society, but all about doing all the mistakes that chauvinistic men do.

Good luck. Keep defending present state of feminism and falsely assume that men are cribbing because they are losing power.

The longer this delusion continues, the more will be the harm to feminism as you lose on opportunity to make a course correction.

In last 2 years, the media coverage on masculists has increased 20 folds, where as media coverage on feminism has almost reduced to half. There are multiple bills meant for women are pending in parliament as controversies rage on regarding misuse of existing provisions.

We give the choice to feminists.

Tone down rhetoric and extremism, get support for women in the issues where they need it most.

The other way for feminists is to continue with misandry, rhetoric, extremism and put a stop to any further support to your causes.

=============
So far as masculists are concerned, we are happy going to jails under false cases. When we come out, we screw the feminists and the system ruthlessly.
=============

Is that wrong?

If it is wrong, then we believe in "two wrongs make a right."

============
You can not win against anyone, who has nothing to lose.
============

"So, the entire feminism is not about transforming the society, but all about doing all the mistakes that chauvinistic men do."

No, the "entire feminism" is not about matching patriarchal misogyny abuse for abuse, not any more than every male is out to preserve the tradition of these absuses. Some of them have lost their conscience in the rage of becoming aware of the suffering their sex has had to endure, just as some of us have found it through awareness of the very same suffering. We should no more tar their entire struggle than they should tar our entire sex.

Sohan,

You wrote:
"Some of them (..feminists) have lost their conscience in the rage of becoming aware of the suffering their sex has had to endure"

Exactly. Now, these feminists, who have lost conscience are doing more damage to women and woman's cause than the patriarchal male chauvinists.

It is up to the other equity feminists to stand up and oppose the gender feminists, who have lost conscience without fearing that this kinds of split can damage woman's movement. If the basic principles of feminism are noble and sound, then where is the question of fear?

With hatred, rhetoric and cheap tricks, they can get one or two bills passed in parliament. However, gains achieved through such methods will not last.

Regarding sufferings through out history or even today, all is not all that black and white as it is often assumed.

My calculations show that patriarchy and also capitalists use feminists in the front to further their own goals. These two entities are promoting the radical feminists and sidelining the moderates. Patriarchy has to celebrate, when there is "free love" and women always wear the "victim" tag. Capitalists gain, when people move out to a new house following separation from spouse or when 45,000 crores are spent in marriages (+dowry) in India.

That is why the entire woman's movement and its journey appears so tiring even after 40 years of struggle and quite some laws enacted in favour of women.

As I have mentioned earlier, NCW, YMCA, AIDWA, UNICEF, UNIFEM and all these entities are still occupied by "hate mongering" radicals, who suffer from blind hatred without giving a damn about the damage that they are causing to women by initiating a gender war.

Now that a gender or social conflict is initiated by the above mentioned agencies and moderate feminists want men to be considerate (to them) in stead of opposing radicals among themselves, we choose to attack all feminists.

Feminists have no business to advise how men's rights movement should run, when they themselves do not take advice from anyone else.

When feminists themselves are losing credibility at a fast rate around the world, why should they advise a hydra headed men's right movement (a nothings to lose movement) about how to safeguard credibility.

hello sumanth

has anyone noticed that sumanth uses words that sound good but when they are all put together they simply do not make any sense?

sohan, again... valiant effort but they do not listen. they only spam and spew rhetoric. it doesn't matter. just because they have proliferated this site does not make them relevent. it's kind of like a dog fart... it smells when you are in the room, but the rest of the world pays it no attention. :) :) :)

and then there's always hormone therapy...

#141
This is not meant to be poetic flourish, it's a frank opinion.. read on if you can read and react to frank opinions!

Sohan, there are obvious problems of chat section being our medium of communication, as its not entirely possible to address ur questions and further questions in one single comment reply, from anyone. If u wish, we could have a good discussion over phone or voice chat, so that we both emerge out with better perspectives benefiting out each other's inputs. My contact numbers are at http://gokul.go.to and my yahoo messenger id is "pr.gokul"

I would leave u with my thoughts which were expressed with women and equality in mind(especially the so-called disfranchised women, as u put it) and what could be done to prevent all these unfortunate 'power-struggles' which a couple goes through for silly reasons and which causes undeserving termination in case of many a relationship. http://at498a.blogspot.com/2008/05/laison-with-industry-against-legal.html

I do not hate women who stand for equality, in fact I respect them for achieving it in their own steam without wailing about the lack of it!.

As long as they have helped themselves in developing as humans who can take on this wild world they would not even have to just "Yearn for" or "Demand" equality, they would have achieved and commanded "Equality" by working their way ahead themselves(just like all self-made men are, so should it be possible for self-made women, why make oneself weak by relying upon unnatural 'supports' like reservations, priority, consideration, which all will only facilitate dependency not self-reliance and robustness).

So female empowerment is just a matter of women taking the 'responsibility' of their overall development, which would equip them with the necessary skills and qualities need to survive in this tough world. No one can stop if a woman decides to do so, my mother was not stopped by my grandparents or siblings, my wife was not stopped too, and I will make sure that my daughters also won't be stopped... unless they give up and just start "yearning", "dreaming" and "demanding" ..... 'Equality', as if they are waiting for someone to give it to them like a "packaged product!".

Its the same thing for other women, they get what they deserve, as what men get from this tough and wild world. Each to oneself, not many people are going to "stop" OR "bail" anyone out when its critical and when it really matters, self-help is always the best help.

If u do not agree with this concept and importance of self-help in achieving equivalence among both genders(in terms of respect and dignity), let me know what are the areas/aspects/occasion in which a woman finds it tough to continue her quest and emerge, through self-reliance, as a well-rounded(no pun intended :) self-made person who can take on anything in this world in her stride. I will try and answer you to the best of my abilities if anyone can let me know what a woman cannot achieve in this world, what a man can achieve.

If u chose not to have a telecon, which is the best to clarify views(bi-directional), let me just say that in case of my daughters I would feel comfortable that they have some "security" to bank upon when they get married and start a family.

My primary idea of 'security' is to get them educated and get world-ready, apart from that... if they have not built enough financial resources of their own by the time they marry, I would like to assist them with finance too(may be, as and when they require it, especially during the initial setting up of infrastructure of the new family).

In olden times too dowry was thought of a 'security' for the couple to fall back upon in case of any contingency(and contingency money, like a RAM of a PC need to be high-speed and as close to the couple, as RAM is to the CPU!).

Yes its a fact that dowry did get corrupted as a form of 'cattle-sale' component!, as u mentioned, yes that's the corrupted concept of dowry, and that happens only when the boys side demand money/property as a 'consideration' of marrying a girl- the girl herself will be an asset if she is self-reliant and can even pitch-in the family's responsibilities in some way or the other, financially or otherwise. You may realise the importance of having a security when u note that a massive percentage of USA's GDP is spent for providing 'Social Security' to its citizens, in India people are happier and live with better peace of mind and families even in the absence of any thing similar to 'social security' fund.

"but the rest of the world pays it no attention."

Ha!!Ha!!

Did you verify your claims?

Today, main stream media lines up to take our interviews.

The police commissioners issue "no arrests directives" (in dowry cases) as soon as we visit them.

Hardcore feminists make a queue at our support sessions to protect themselves and their families.

Feminism is getting annihilated in different parts of the country rapidly as feminists themselves are deep in trouble being accused of false cases.

Women are told to pay 50,000 rupees as fine for perjury in the courts. Courts are telling women to pay monthly maintenance to our members for making them lose their jobs in US.

Keep hallucinating....
"but the rest of the world pays it no attention."

You force me to talk like Temporal.

sumanth, you are a legend in your own mind only. no one is lining up to take your interview. this is all part of your campaign of ridiculousness. the reality is that the rest of us are smarter than you, and we see through it all.

there is a psychological term for what is ailing you sumanth.... delusions of grandeur...

SS,

I am just showing that you are suffering from delusion, when you made this claim:

"but the rest of the world pays it no attention."

I am substantiating it with facts in media and other agencies.

See, Communist CPM party of India is considering us as a serious threat and tryings to safeguard feminist ideology as it acknowledges in its own website:

In 3 years of our inception, the Communists of India including Brinda Karat and Suhasini Ali consider us a threat, when we have not even unleashed half of our techniques, games and engineering skills....

http://pd.cpim.org/2008/1026_pd/10262008_8.htm

[edited]

[...]

communists consider EVERYONE a threat, sumanth... that is what separates them from socialists.... paranoia.


you're not helping your own case.

high dose hormone therapy for sumanth

This whole roller coaster is going on for a long time. Women blaming Men and vice-verse.

I personally have gone through a messy divorce where false allegations were put on me and it took me almost 4 years to get out of the situation and prove (to myself - most importantly) that I was not the monster she had made it out to be.

That said, I still say it takes all kinds of people to make this world. There are always bad apples.

What I would like is that the educated and more importantly aware individuals take a step in the right direction.
These are some of the points:
1. Stop hate mongering of either sides, it's not worth it.
2. Men were disrespectful of women in the past but that does not mean now it is the woman's turn.
Instead of this crazy vengeful & vindictive attitude, let both sides be fair to each other and their relationships.
3. Females - Please try to understand that if this kind of ritualistic denunciation of men continues, there will be a time in the future where tables will turn again. Stop it NOW.
4. Males - Do not lose moral fortitude in the face of adversities. Stand up for what is right and follow the path of equality. Most of all if you are suffering, don't chicken out or hide it as a social stigma. Bring it forth and resolve it.

Some of the key things that should be done before marriage (for both sexes):
1. Be aware of the responsibilities and rights in a marriage. Don't get married without understanding this crucial aspect. In India almost 95% of men & women don't have a clue what is marriage.
2. Try to have a live-in relationship before marriage. This is not a social stigma anymore so grow up.
3. Have a pre-nup so that things are clear when relationship dissolves.

Most of all stop going to the legal system and govt.: it is a waste of time, money, energy & strength.

My 2 cents

Sooooppper, except that the realisation that even live-in option should be a better option than to have legal tangles for life is not set in here in India. Well said anyway, live in peace, with love, respect and patience, develop these and other soft skills which are needed for a marriage and then only step that way, else do net practice , so that u realise intricacies of intimacy and issues that could evolve out of extreme proximity and even out of love!, study human interactions and learn to deal with them constructively, if there are problems even after all this, learn to separate gracefully, and try getting another life.

From a juctice point of view the pendulum is going to be at the extremes most of the time, theres small time in which it approaches the middle part, but its soon swung to either extreme.

Thats how life is,so better learn internal control and effective communication and dispute resolution skills/techiniques so that u can make the better out of whatever situation u find urselves in.

I never ceases to amaze me how often any untoward behavior of women gets called-out by the mindless slobs who post comments here (though never, it seems, the actual articles -- which would take a degree of care and thought to which they have no apparent access) as "feminist". Do you people have any idea of what feminism is? Or does it simply assist your free-flowing misogyny to have a helpful label, meaning be damned?

Changing subjects.

From the title, I thought this piece was perhaps going to be about the increasing practice of what I'll call "reverse dowries." Another way of describing it: human trafficking.

The examples are intrinsically troubling. In one large rag-picking community in Pondicherry, where I live, brides cost as much as Rs. 20,000, according to rag-pickers with whom I've spoken. As a consequence, girls in this marginalized community are often sold into marriage as early as age 14.

Other examples reflect deeper social problems. Each year, thousands of brides are purchased from Assam, Bihar, Jharkand, West Bengal,Orissa, Nepal, and Bangladesh for the men of Haryana and Punjab, at a reported cost of between Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 12,000. These brides are almost invariably teenagers. Mass female infanticide has given way to human trafficking in brides. It seems the Punjabis can't decide whether women are worthless or modestly valuable.

#162

"Do you people have any idea of what feminism is? Or does it simply assist your free-flowing misogyny to have a helpful label, meaning be damned?"

Any ideology is judged by what it produces, its fall out. It is not judged by its words or rhetorics or intentions, but by its actions and results.

Mark, since you never cease to amaze yourself ;-) maybe you can enlighten us yokels and "mindless slobs" what feminism is all about. We don't have to worry about our social problems since you are here to tackle them. I hear the Taliban stone women to death in Afghanistan for minor infractions. Would that be your next stop to plant the flag of feminism? Those people need some of your wisdom and solutions to social problems too - condescending name-calling actually works great for educating people.

Ideologies have consequences and produce counter responses. As they attack the central tenants of their adversaries, they unleash collateral damage (ie victimizations). They are rationalized as transition costs, down payment for empowerment. In order to preempt rebellion against the ideology, the fallout has to be exploited that strengthens the ideology and create scapegoats. Assorted ideological side-kicks are floated to exploit the fallout that seek to empower the very ideology and propagandize the scapegoats at lowest levels and within adversary's socio-cultural framework. Since consequences manifest within and thru prevailing socio-cultural frame work and cultural institutions, they are the first ones that get scapegoated for all the evils. Since consequences manifest thru people - since people belong to both genders, since genders live within relationships, it is easy to frame the ideological fall out in gender terms, and exploit them for promoting gender conflicts and war against predominant socio-cultural framework. The mandate of Feminism is to fact as side kick for statist ideologies of victimization - Both act as victimizers for each other, but pose as liberators. They act as fetching dog for each other. That is why Feminism is a Ravana's sister.

Correction #165.. last lines..

...The mandate of Feminism is to act as side kick for statist ideologies of victimization - Both act as victimizers for each other, but pose as liberators and empowerers. They act as fetching dog for each other. That is why Feminism is a Ravana's sister.

I'm curious, kerty ... what exactly is this "Feminism" with capital F as defined by you? I would really like to know whether we are subscribing to the same semantics. I'd hate to waste time defending myself from being labelled with a term that may not even be applicable to me.

Also, why is every aspect of the "predominant socio-cultural framework" considered infallible and inviolable? Is an attack on a specific socio-cultural practice or set of practices in the name of liberty necessarily to be interpreted as an attempt to wholesale-replace the framework with one from another culture?

kerty....ravana has an honorable man,infact some people worship him in India.

Sohan

Feminism = Shurpankha, Ravan's sister(who wears sugar-coated masks and multiple heads like her brother). The details would take up a whole book, just as describing any other ideology would.

"predominant socio-cultural framework" considered infallible and inviolable?"

No. But ideologies that specialize on atomizations and micromanagement of the fallout and preying upon dysfunctions act as if they are invioable.

Here is a good parable. Dr. Frankenstein has a mission - to kill a person he regards as an infidel. So he introduces some virus in his body. The virus manifests as infection in some organ of that person - the patient predictably exhibits ill symptoms. Our doctor blames the dysfunctional organ for the suffering. He poses as liberator of pain and empowerment of body. He prescribes removal of the dysfunctional organ. Removal of an organ manifests as dysfunction of another organ that was dependent on the removed organ. Once again, our empowerment doctor prescribes removal of another dysfunctional organ as empowerment of remaining organs and liberation from suffering. Meanwhile, unchecked virus continues to manifest dysfunctions in organs after organs. Organs after organs continue to menifest dysfunctions due to removal of supporting and sustaining organs and our doctor continue to blame and demonize organs after organs and continue to remove them as remedies to remove suffering and to empower other organs. Infection proliferate, infected body organs proliferate, and removal of organs leave the patient as an empty shell. In the end, there are no more organs left in the body and doctor declares letting the patient die is the only way to end the suffering. Mission accomplished. Those who dared to call the doctor's bluff every step of the way got demonized as enemy of the sick, advocates of the outdated practices, insensitive to pain and suffering while the real villain could disguise as a savior and healer, and got empowered while his target subject got obliterated. To carry out similar mission at cultural and civilizational level, identical dynamics is framed into an ideology - feminism is one of such ideologies.

First answer: The core of all other ideologies can easily be described in a few lines at most - why not this one? "Shurpankha" is a demonization, not a definition, and a definition was requested.

Second answer: Started off ok, but instead of actually explaining the opening statement, ran off on a tangent of appeals to the slippery slope fallacy using a most questionable analogy.

Those were pretty straightforward questions. I was really hoping for at the least straightforward answers.

sohan, good luck with getting straight dialog from any of them. they only engage in rhetoric. it's pointless.

Sohan

Shurpankha is a characterization of feminism. It defines the core of feminism in less than few lines, in a most unambiguous manner that simplest to most advanced minds can understand.

Ravan tries to convert Sita(Nari Shakti)into his handmaiden in order to avenge the slight suffered by Shurpankha from Shri Ram(Dhrama Shakti). Shurpankha wanted to breakup the alliance between Rama and Sita so that Ravan can convert Sita into his handmaiden. Both of then tried to convert Sita for each other. Both claimed to be liberating Sita from Shri Rama. Ravan offered Sita an alliance. Shurpankha offered Rama an alliance - both alliances were aimed at creating absolute supremacy of Adharma(statism) over dharma and civilization. But in the end, Dharma triumphed over Adharma. Ravan and his sources of power were demolished. However, Shurpankha remained at large. She was never destroyed. She has the power to resurrect Ravan's power by converting Sita into shurpankha. Ravan's power depends on such conversion and hijacking. So the Shrupankha play continues.

Sohan

"The core of all other ideologies can easily be described in a few lines at most"

No. It is never that easy. They are not amenable to simplistic or uniform definitions. They usually have variety of shades and cover wide spectrum. Their manifestos and modus operandi also change to suit times and conditions. Anything one may assert as a definition or characterization can be easily questioned as generalization and discredited as demonization by highlighting contrary evidence and exceptions. All ideologies have such self-defense mechanisms and slick argumentations. I have provided ample argumentations behind views I have posted on this thread and in other threads on the subject of feminism - you and other feminists are welcome to challenge them, and offer their own version.

No, you yourself are being vague enough to avoid carving out a definition that can be applied as a test of falsifiability, based on the flimsy excuse that ideologies having variants precludes a core definition of belief and purpose. All you seem to be able to provide are conspiracy theories dressed in parables, and that is enough for you to go about conveniently labelling anyone who lobbies for women's rights as a tool of foreign enemies, a threat to national security and an agent of total cultural demolition.

Fine, I WILL offer my own version: feminism is the belief in the social, political and economic equality of women to men. One who believes women should have as much a right to decide with whom they will enter a communal, religious, marital or sexual relationship AS DO MEN is a feminist. One who believes women have as much a right to decide who will govern their state affairs and how they will be governed AS DO MEN is a feminist. One who believes that women have as much a right to education, enterprise and sale of labor AS DO MEN is a feminist.

Now it is up to you to either provide your own DEFINITION, or explain exactly (i.e. without parables) how holding such a belief makes a person bent on "resurrecting Ravan's power".

Oh, one more thing I should point out here is the hypocrisy of demanding that the state protect fragile religious egos from the horrors of freedom of expression and conscience on other threads, while crying "statism" on this thread when one asks for enforcement of protection for the actual basic human rights that are supposedly guaranteed to women as they are to men. I wonder since when statism came to include protection from inheritance disenfranchisement and marital rape, but exclude crushing the freedom to change one's religion and/or persuade others to do so.

Sohan:

"Feminism is the belief in the social, political and economic equality of women to men."

No two individuals can be equal as our basic nature, interests, motivations and pursuits would take each of us in different directions and position each of us at different milestones at any given point on time. That is why movements seeking equality have only produced intercesine warfare and empowered no warring factions other than power-brokers of statism - it introduces classic divide and rule in the realms that need unity and freedom. Class war has not produced equality among warring classes but rather it has made all the classes equal in powerlessness and transfered all their power to statism. Caste wars have not made all castes equal or powerful, but rather caste wars have been instrumental in dis-empowering the caste system as well as all castes and transferring their roles and power to statism. Gender wars are not meant to make both genders equal or powerful, but rather atomize them and make them powerless and dependent on statism for wellbeing. Statism seeks to rob the self-sufficiency, support-system and power that unity of genders would create. Nature has endowed man and woman to compliment each other and their unity forms the foundation of all social and civilizational institutions - family and relationships are the foundation of culture and civilization. Introducing gender war atomizes all the institutions and relationships that require unity and harmony of genders. That is what sets feminism to be anti-men, anti-family, anti-relationships, anti-culture, anti-religion, anti-civilization. All it cares about is empowerment of feminism and statism, both seeking to empower each other and dis-empower everything else - they seek humanity to submit to them and nobody to be able to challenge their power. Their political fortunes are tied together. That is why they both are considered siblings - Ravan and his side kick shurpankha.

"One who believes women should have as much a right to decide with whom they will enter a communal, religious, marital or sexual relationship AS DO MEN is a feminist."

That is a battle cry for anarchy and culture of exploitation that can never protect the weak and the vulnerables. Neither men nor women should have such rights. Communal, religious, marital and sexual relationships are built around duty towards each other, not rights. Norms and duties have to be evolved by weighing in the welfare of everything that would be effected. Decisions have to be taken in consultation with all those who would be affected. Feminism seeks to wreck the culture of relationships, duties, norms, common good, holistic approach to welfare of all. Than seek to exploit resulting fallout and victimizations within them.

"One who believes women have as much a right to decide who will govern their state affairs and how they will be governed AS DO MEN is a feminist."

Again, gender-centric outlook is never helpful to anybody. It merely empowers Statism and statist ideologies of hedonism and victimization - Ravan Raj.

"One who believes that women have as much a right to education, enterprise and sale of labor AS DO MEN is a feminist."

What such gender-centric activism masks is that feminism views women as independent from family unit and engineers independence from family unit. Instead of seeking rights and empowerment for whole family unit, feminism demands rights and empowerment from family unit, against family unit.

Feminism is built around Rights. 'Rights' are granted by state. Thus fortunes of feminism are dependent on statism. Thus, statism creates a political quid pro quo with feminism by recognizing gender rights. Feminism in return atomizes all decentralized institutions/spheres/power-centers and transfers their roles and power to statism - thus both empowering each other and both getting empowered to the exclusion of all other power(less)-centers that could possibly create alternate reality or rival their supremacy. Men are humored with hedonistic pleasures that were hitherto taboo. Statism-individualism axis is the foundation of statism and source of empowerment of both statism and individualism. However, feminism atomizes even individualism and takes it to gender level, thereby acting as a divide-and-neutralize mechanism against individualism. That is how statism achieves absolute and eternal powers that nothing can challenge or destroy. That is how Ravana gets his boon of immortality and absolute powers - why Ravana can not be killed by any anybody, not by any human, not by any hanuman, not by any Gods. Feminism is central to resurrection of Ravan and his powers.

Hyderabad Police Falls in Line:
http://hyderabadpolice.gov.in/WomenCorner/498A.htm

The police under pressure says and acknowledges many things:
==============================

Help us prevent abuse of 498(A) and strengthen your case:
Always remember! No counselling is better than the couple and their kids thrash it out among themselves.
To err is human! Mistakes can take place from both the sides. One should not misuse any law to cover one's own mistake.
Try counselling on both of you before you decide to knock the doors of police station.
Never exaggerate what had happened to you. In other words, be clear, frank and specific about the issue.
Never include the persons who are NOT connected with the harassment. Be honest.
Always remember! 498A is not a law to take revenge but punish those responsible for harassment severely so that others learn a lesson.
There are many vested interests around to take undue advantage of your helplessness. They might misguide you by exaggerating the facts, adding those who are unconnected with the harassment to the list of accused, exaggerating the amount of dowry etc.
Should you need help in expressing your woes, please take the help of reputed voluntary organisations or help lines only. Avoid the unscrupulous persons who always promise you to get your dowry amount back and extort money from the accused side and dilute your case.
Ensure your presence while someone drafts the complaint for you and ask him to read it out before you lodge it in the P.S
Some victims are misguided to exaggerate the contents of the complaint in order to make it a STRONG case. The truth is entire strength of the case hinges on quality of evidence that is provided by the victim. If the contents of the complaint are not supported by the facts on the ground, cases become very weak and genuine victims suffer
If any policeman or the officer concerned demands money for investigating the case and arrest the accused, do not give in. Bring it to the notice of his or her superiors.
Never forget that both the daughter and daughter in law deserve similar affection and care.
Remember! 498A is not a tool to force the other party for divorce. There are so many of other legal procedures to find solutions to the incompatibilities in the marriage.
498A is also not a tool to get the custody of children. There are other alternate legal methods for this.
Never force the police to arrest the accused on same day of lodging complaint as gathering credible evidence takes some time. However, you can help the police expedite the investigation by providing most of the evidence at the time of lodging complaint itself.
If you have the information that the accused are planning to leave the country, you can always bring it to the notice of the concerned investigating officer without delay. Police can alert all the international airports or sea ports for their detention, if needed.
If you are a parent, lodge a complaint only after you ascertain the facts in detail from your daughter. Her statement is vital for the investigation.
Conviction rate in 498A cases is very poor in the country as a whole. There are many reasons for this. You can help us improve this by NOT retracting during trial from what you have said during investigation.

Either you are incredibly confused about the concepts or you have no idea of the meaning of words you use to describe them.

On one hand, you claim I raise a "battle cry for anarchy", and on the other, you claim I promote what you call "statism". Not to mention this epitome of oxymorons you term a "statism-individualism axis".

"No two individuals can be equal as our basic nature, interests, motivations and pursuits would take each of us in different directions and position each of us at different milestones at any given point on time."

Why, yes, of course we all have different "basic nature, interests, motivations and pursuits". That is precisely why liberty exists; so we can follow said basic nature, interests, motivations and pursuits without some machete-wielding cultural/political/religious fanatic trying to hack us to bits for daring to think differently.

"Statism seeks to rob the self-sufficiency, support-system and power that unity of genders would create."

"Unity of genders"? I'm all for unity of genders. But NOT on the terms of only one of them. It's like slavers calling for "unity" with their human chattel.

"Introducing gender war atomizes all the institutions and relationships that require unity and harmony of genders. That is what sets feminism to be anti-men, anti-family, anti-relationships, anti-culture, anti-religion, anti-civilization."

Feminism is not against men; it is against domination by men.
Feminism is not against family; it is against patriarchy.
Feminism is not against relationships; it is against relationship abuse.
Feminism is not against culture; it is against misogynistic practices being harped about as part of our glorious, precious and inviolable "culture" that has been perfect from the beginning of time.
Feminism is not against religion; it is against the use of religion to justify women being subservient to men.
Feminism is not and cannot be against civilization; because civilization is based on the concept of mutual respect for individual liberty, and feminism is fighting for the liberty of half the human race that has been denied it so far.

"Norms and duties have to be evolved by weighing in the welfare of everything that would be effected. Decisions have to be taken in consultation with all those who would be affected."

The way it's going, in consultation with everyone except the woman herself, apparently. Don't forget who defines the welfare in these situations and in favor of whom.

"Feminism is built around Rights. 'Rights' are granted by state."

Well, what a terrible concept! We should all just carry clubs around like we're in the Stone Age and "guarantee" our rights by ourselves. Who needs a state?

The rest of your verbal diarrhea does not appear comprehensible or relevant to me and probably to many others on this board (and I doubt even to yourself). Therefore, I shall not bother with analysis or rebuttal of the same.

Sohan

"On one hand, you claim I raise a "battle cry for anarchy", and on the other, you claim I promote what you call "statism". Not to mention this epitome of oxymorons you term a "statism-individualism axis"."

Your comment suggests that you associate the term 'Anarchy' only with the antithesis of statism - state-less laissez faire - where power and functions of the state are removed from the state, thus making state a useless and ineffective institution. However, state is not the only institution that can be subjected to anarchy. Anarchy is a power-transfer mechanism that can be applied to any non-governmental institution or sphere that one seeks to dis-empower.

All spheres and institutions of the society can be subjected to anarchy so that their built-in power and role/functions can be removed from them and transfered, in this case, to statism.

"Not to mention this epitome of oxymorons you term a "statism-individualism axis"."

I would not mind explaining interplay of these ideologies, but if even the simplest explanations sound too Greek to you, you would be better off skipping parts that do not make sense to you.

"Why, yes, of course we all have different "basic nature, interests, motivations and pursuits". That is precisely why liberty exists"

That is why nothing can be equal or same. That is why all movements for equality turn into negationist and anti-liberty. That is why equality can only equalize people at lowest levels, lowest denominators.

"We should all just carry clubs around like we're in the Stone Age and "guarantee" our rights by ourselves. Who needs a state?"

Culture of rights introduces a zero-sum game in vital spheres and institutions. In order for something to gain rights, something else has to give up its rights. Thus, it pits one thing against another, one group against another. It creates a divide and destroy mechanism and cultural war, in which nobody's rights and welfare remain safe, and state remains the only refuge and guarantor.

On the other hand, culture of duties binds people, builds relationships, creates spirit of cooperation and sacrifice among people, sustains decentralized institutions. It allows non-governmental spheres to get empowered and build their own power centers and institutions. It allows state to concentrate on what it is good at - national security, infrastructure, law-enforcement.

"Feminism is not against men; it is against domination by men.
Feminism is not against family; it is against patriarchy."

Ideologies are judged not by sugary rhetorics or lofty intentions or compartmentalized issue-level politicking. They are judged by consequences, by results, by what they produce, by what they can lead to.

Hey ppl,

I just noticed that the author hasn't responded to any comment after posting her article. That along with the all caps in which she's mentioned her book's name and her self-description at the end, makes me feel it's just a slightly subtle case of self promotion.

Waise you chaps please continue the arguing. :-)

The Concept of Shakti: Hinduism as a Liberating Force for Women
By: Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales, Ph.D.

The intricate dynamics of power and gender has grown to become an increasingly important topic within the realm of present day academia - and justifiably so. Though representing half of the human race, women's voices, needs and inner psyches have, traditionally, been relegated to a place of unimportance in the history of the Western world. Throughout the history of European civilization, the nature of the feminine was misunderstood, neglected and, in some cases, practically demonized. Consequently, for millennia women have been deprived of the power - political, economic, spiritual, even sexual - which men so take for granted.

Read the whole article here:
Hinduism as a Liberating Force for Women
http://www.studentorg.umd.edu/desi/article32.htm

PS: this is not an endorsement of feminism which I view as a integral to semitic theology rather than Hinduism. Students of feminism should read this article, though.

About the Author:
Frank Morales is an Episcopal priest and activist in New York City.

Morales was born in 1949 and grew up in the Jacob Riis Houses on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. His father was Puerto Rican and his mother Peruvian. He first became involved in politics after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King as a member of the Assassination Information Committee.

Morales became an assistant pastor in 1978. He now volunteers at St Mark's Church in-the-Bowery.

The woman's brother is a public prosecutor in court. He and his family gave a dowry of 20 lacs.

Do their IT returns show such a huge income that they could afford to pay that dowry?

Why did they pay dowry? Are there a shortage of men in India?

There are now fixed Template stories with lawyers for framing innocent men in dowry cases to extort lacs of rupees of money.

1) Templates for beating, pushing objects in anus.

2) Templates for making pornographic videos.

3) Templates for attempt to murder.

4) Templates for extortion.
"Please give us back the 40 lacs dowry we paid and also the marriage expenses of 10 lacs".

=============
LUCKNOW: Physical torture seems an outdated means to extort dowry. Instead, an Accountant General of India auditor photographed his wife in the nude during their honeymoon to extort money.

Pradeep and Neera Verma from Kanpur were married in 2007. Besides other valuables, Pradeep’s family got Rs 20 lakh as dowry though he demanded Rs 25 lakh.

Suspecting that the extra Rs 5,00,000 might not be given, Pradeep took his wife into confidence and took photographs of her during their honeymoon. When Neera’s family was unable pay the dowry amount, Pradeep threatened his wife with uploading her nude photographs on the Internet. Eventually Neera told her parents of the demand. When her parents failed to persuade Pradeep to drop the idea, they approached the police.

Pradeep, his brother Deleep and mother Vijaylaxmi were arrested on Monday night.

Neera’s brother, a public prosecutor in Kanpur, is determined to ensure the severest punishment for the guilty, but for now has decided to keep quiet and wait for proof of police sincerity in the matter.
==============

Wild allegations against spouse is cruelty: HC

MUMBAI: Making wild and baseless allegations in court against your spouse and in-laws amount to cruelty, Bombay high court has ruled while upholding a trial court's order dissolving the marriage of a Mumbai couple in their 30s.

Geeta had alleged that there was a bizarre custom in her in-laws' family where they shared each other's wives. Geeta claimed that she was persistently told to have illicit relations with her husband's brother and brother-in-law and there was even an attempt to outrage her modesty.

"The allegations levelled by Geeta against the husband and other members of the family at various places and at every stage are absolutely baseless, irresponsible, wanton and scandalous and they were made for the reasons best known to her," said a division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice R Y Ganoo.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Wild-allegations-against-spouse-is-cruelty-HC/articleshow/5704370.cms