All India Men's welfare Association16 Day Activism

Gillette’s mischievous lazy stub ad falls flat!

CyberBrahma — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:57:40 +0000

AIMWA’s campaign against the malicious ad fiasco by Gillette figures in the renowned “Talk Radio with Freedom Twist” with Katherine Albrecht.

Parthasarathy “Partha” Raghuram joins Katherine Albrecht to discuss his campaign against Gillette’s efforts to label Indian men with facial hair as “lazy” in a deleterious bid to sell more razors. Callers weigh in.

Men Are Human Too

Uma Challa — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:52:11 +0000

Today, 10 December 2009, marks the conclusion of the “16 Days of Activism Against Global Feminist Terrorism” by All India Men’s Welfare Association (AIMWA) and All India Forgotten Women’s Association (AIFWA).

Today, UN and all countries around the world are also observing Human Rights Day, with “non-discrimination” as this year’s theme.

Commenting on this year’s theme Mr. Ban Ki-moon said, “Discrimination targets individuals and groups that are vulnerable to attack: the disabled, women and girls, the poor, migrants, minorities, and all those who are perceived as different.”

Most people will not miss seeing the word “men” in the list of “vulnerable groups” mentioned above. I am sure majority of men, including the UN Secretary General himself, do not know that they belong in the list.

This is not surprising, as Mr. Ban Ki-moon himself said, “It is often those who most need their human rights protected, who also need to be informed that the Declaration exists — and that it exists for them.”

During our 16 Days of Activism Against Global Feminist Terrorism, we highlighted the serious human rights abuses that men are subjected to in the name of women’s rights and the collateral damages suffered by women, children and families.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims to be “a reaffirmation of the faith of the peoples of the UN in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women”, it is amply clear that in most parts of the world men are not treated with the dignity and respect that human beings deserve.

On the contrary, social and legal discrimination against men and violation of their human rights are now projected as praiseworthy goals for all present nations and future generations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

In blatant violation of all the above rights, thousands of husbands and their families are arbitrarily arrested every year, without evidence or investigation, under IPC Sections 498A, 304-B, Dowry Prohibition Act, and related laws which presume that the accused are “guilty until proved innocent”.

India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has noted the misuse of dowry laws, arrest of innocent individuals and the resultant overcrowding of prisons. NHRC has urged the judiciary and law enforcement agencies to take measures against these abuses.

Nevertheless, police routinely enter people’s homes at ungodly hours, take accused individuals into custody, and incarcerate them without bail for variable lengths of time, ranging from a couple of days to several months. Innocent citizens are illegally detained, humiliated, subjected to mental and physical torture, blackmail and extortion, driving many to commit suicide. The honor and reputation of these accused individuals is attacked through media trial and unrestrained slander by feminists every day.

The Universal Declaration of Human rights states:

Men and women are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
All are equal before the law, and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

Family and marriage related laws in India exhibit nothing but discrimination against men and fathers. Men are blatantly denied social and legal protection from domestic abuse. Men suffering domestic abuse are compelled to endure several years of legal harassment and are often denied divorce citing “lack of strong grounds”.

Men also endure false allegations of abuse made by wives seeking divorce, and end up with a divorce they never wanted. Fathers are ruthlessly denied contact with their children, and forced to pay exorbitant sums of money as alimony and child support.

The Universal Declaration of Human rights states:

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

The Indian Domestic Violence Act empowers a wife to violate marital norms with impunity and claim residence and maintenance from the husband. Many men and their families are thrown out of or deprived freedom of movement in their own homes, upon baseless allegations of abuse made by unscrupulous wives.

Mr. Ban ki-moon asserts, “It is our duty to ensure that these (human) rights are a living reality — that they are known, understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere.”

It is ironical that the United Nations and its affiliate organizations sponsor these human rights violations and legal terrorism through feminist initiatives claiming to uplift and empower women.

On the occasion of Human Rights Day 2009, AIMWA and AIFWA urge you to raise your voice against global feminist terrorism, which is responsible for large scale human rights abuses against men and their kin.

We demand that the UN declares “Men are human too” as the theme for Human Rights Day 2010.

Fatherless Society – The Feminist Utopia

Kiranam — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:40:11 +0000

Anyone who had a brush with the family court system in India knows the following general rules of thumb:

A woman will get divorce on demand irrespective of the veracity of her claims or what the man wants.
A man seeking divorce must survive 6 to 15 years of trial (by fire) knowing well that the odds are stacked against him.
A woman will get maintenance from her husband, no questions asked.
A mother will get full child custody irrespective of what the father or the child wants.
A father must pay child support many times beyond his capacity even if he never gets to see his child.

In short, a man is a walking ATM-cum-sperm dispenser.

Most people know what it is to be robbed of their hard-earned money but one must be really damned to suffer the pain of being robbed of one’s babies or of fatherly love.

Family courts have developed an entire menu of ways to prevent fathers from being a part of their children’s life and vice versa. These range from preventing physical proximity and hindering even precious few telephone conversations, all the way to breaking the man’s spirit but leaving him with enough desperation and frustration to commit suicide.

Even in the few cases where family courts show generosity in granting fathers the rights to visitation and telephonic contact with children, the courts are quite liberal with mothers who violate these rights.
It is surely no surprise that way more divorced men end their lives than divorced women.

One can say with confidence that feminists have successfully “sensitized” (read bullied) the family court system to be “committed to the cause of women” and to stretch to any lengths for the “cause of women” (read wives), even if it is to the detriment of the rest of the family members.

While we may never plumb the depths of feminist ideas, or confront them without holy water or some such thing, we do know this – Feminists want women to be free of marriage, family, motherhood and anything that involves compromise. Destroying marriage and family, treating children as a by-product of woman’s right to sexual expression, and rearing children with the State as the father is the formula for “true equality”.

Of course, the above formula requires you to assume that “the cause of women” equals “the best interest of children”. Make that one assumption and we’re all good.

Forget about all the scientists crying hoarse about how the lack of a male parent affects the normal growth and development of children, apart from all the social ills these children are likely to face and cause.
Ignore the fact that most violence against children after divorce is committed by their mothers, in large part due to depression and substance abuse.

Turn a deaf ear to what the children may really want, and a blind eye to the other progenitor, the male with nothing but love and longing for his offspring.

Agreed! Rights of non-custodial fathers and their estranged children are but hurdles along the way to a feminist utopia, which is paved by the family courts, but guess who’s footing the bill for the trip. Not just the non-custodial fathers but tax payers like you and me too.

As the feminist juggernaut bulldozes the family justice system leaving behind glaring biases, broken marriages, shattered families and battered souls in its trail, we are not far from reaching a fatherless feminist utopia with few resources and severely damaged children unable to grow into healthy adulthood.

Those who want the juggernaut to stop, speak now or forever hold your heads in despair!

“Committed to the cause of women” – The Trojan Horse of Indian Feminism

Sai — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:33:48 +0000

“Committed to the cause of women” is the phrase you encounter frequently when you peruse the legislation proposed by the feminist outfits like Lawyers Collective and NCW. You also hear this phrase in the numerous representations made to the authorities by the feminists. Examples include the draft Sexual Harassment bill where the Service Providers “committed to the cause of women” were to be given powers to arbitrate the disputes. Similarly, in the representations made to the Government by the radical feminist outfits like AIDWA and Lawyers Collective, they are demanding filling up the judiciary and the police with officers “committed to the cause of women”.

Questions raised in any thinking individual’s mind when one hears the phrase “committed to the cause of women” include –

What is the meaning of “cause of women”? Is it related to women’s advancement in various areas of social life? Is it arming a woman with unchecked power to unleash “legal terrorism” against anyone at her fancy? Is it achieving true gender equality, so women are given equal opportunity to advance in any area of endeavor on par with men? What is the true cause of women?
Which particular segment of women’s cause is it? Urban women or rural women? Rich women or poor women? Educated or semi-educated or uneducated? Mothers-in-laws/sister-in-laws or the daughters-in-laws? Live-ins or wives? What if the cause of one segment of women is in direct opposition to the cause of another segment? Which segment’s cause should take precedence?
Can the authorities, whether they are in the judiciary or in the executive like the police, who derive their powers from the constitution and democratic institutions, be committed to the cause of one section of the society at the expense of another section of the society?
Where should the commitment of an individual who professes to practice a certain profession lie?

The “cause of the women” from the legislation already passed so far, and the legislation proposed, appears to be neither the true advancement of women nor the redress for victimized women, but that of arming an urban, upwardly mobile shrew with unchecked powers to unleash the full force of state machinery on unsuspecting individuals at her fancy. It is that segment of women’s cause that the radical feminists are vociferously advocating and advancing.

Coming to the last two questions raised above, it is obvious an individual’s commitment must lay towards the cause of the profession he or she professes to practice and not towards one section of the citizenry at the expense of the other. This is particularly applicable in professional matters, no matter what his or her private opinions or viewpoints may be.

For example, there is a doctor in your town who is “committed to the cause of women”. She routinely administers incorrect medicines to her male patients, often causing death and disability, because of her belief that all men are abusers of women. Would you condone such a doctor? Would you be willing to send your son, your father or your brother to such a doctor for treatment?

Now imagine that the judicial ranks are filled with judges “committed to the cause of women” and not to the cause of truth, law and justice. What would be the confidence level of a citizen who approaches such a court for justice? What if the accused person in such a court is a female and the victim a male? What confidence could the citizens repose in any judgments delivered from such a court?

In the same way, when police ranks are filled with persons “committed to the cause of women”, instead of to the cause of upholding law, what kind of redress can a citizen expect when approaching such a biased agency?

From the above, it is amply clear that “committed to the cause of women” is not the right commitment for any professional – whether one is a judicial officer, a doctor, a lawyer, the police; or for that matter any other professional.

Then what is the true agenda of the radical feminists when they exhort the authorities for the appointment of officials “committed to the cause of women”?

Their true agenda is an insidious attempt to infiltrate and subvert the sacred institutions of our democratic society, like the judiciary and the law enforcement, from the inside. This phrase “committed to the cause of women”, as innocuous as it may sound, is the most dangerous Trojan Horse let loose on our society by the radical feminists, that all civil society must vigorously guard against.

Dowry death and bride burning: A look beyond the smoke screen

Uma Challa — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:50:07 +0000

The phrase “bride burning” conjures up images of a cruel husband and his family members dousing a young woman in kerosene, flinging a lighted matchstick on her and gloating as the hapless bride goes up in flames. The term “dowry death” also sparks off vivid imaginations of a woman being taunted and harassed for money and finally, hanged to death within the four walls of her house. We also have watched movies and TV serials where a malicious mother-in-law poisons the unsuspecting daughter-in-law’s meal or quietly causes a gas leak and locks the new bride in the kitchen right before she lights the stove to make tea for the family.

There must be many families who burn their brides for dowry as a routine practice otherwise, why would there be so many news reports about dowry deaths? As they say, there cannot be smoke without a fire. Right?

Feminists would have you believe that every unnatural or untimely death of a married Indian woman is dowry death. Not only that, the feminist hyperbole on “bride killing” and “dowry harassment” makes it look like Indian men have an uncanny propensity to commit violence on their wives for money, while men in other countries commit domestic violence for other reasons.

In reality, it is the number of registered suicides of married women which are passed off as statistics of dowry death, and even these numbers are almost always exaggerated. It has become a custom to claim that all the women have been “driven to suicide” due to dowry harassment.(Links No.1-6) The husband and in-laws are immediately arrested under IPC Sections 304B and 498A and incarcerated for a couple of weeks to several months without bail. They are promptly subjected to media trial and labeled criminals even before investigation or trial can begin.

Even if all the noise about Indian brides being “driven to suicide” for dowry is indeed well-founded, one would expect that the number of suicides of married women would be significantly higher compared to that of unmarried women. However, the National Crime Records Bureau’s statistics show that there is no significant difference in the rates of suicide by married and unmarried women.

Justice Saldana’s remarks (in Crl.A. no. 589 of 2003) are testimony to how anti-dowry laws are being misused to the detriment of innocent citizens:

…we need to sound a note of caution that the police and investigating authorities should not improperly and technically jump to the conclusion that merely because death has occurred that ipso facto a criminal offense has been committed . In as many as 44% of these cases prosecution is thoroughly unjustified. Unless there is cogent and convincing evidence and unless there is material to sustain these charges, it would be totally impermissible and completely unjustified to embark upon legal action. The consequences of these charges are extremely grave because the accused husband and invariably family members are placed under arrest. There are serious social and economic repercussions.

The fact that we do come across considerable number of instances where prosecution was unjustified seems to indicate that in every case of death of young woman or recently married women that prosecution and filing of charge sheet has become automatic. There does not appear to be a proper application of mind at the stage of scrutiny and having regard to this position we direct the concerned authorities to ensure that requirements of the law are correctly and responsibly followed.

It is important to note that more than 56,000 married Indian men end their lives every year. According to statistics obtained from the National Crime Records Bureau, every year, twice as many married men, compared to women, commit suicides unable to withstand verbal, emotional, economic and physical abuse by their wives and in-laws. Deaths of these men make for the brief stories we often read in newspapers stating that a certain man “killed himself due to family issues or financial problems”. (LInks No.7-12)

Thanks to the concerted efforts of the feminists, thousands of men are also becoming victims of “legal terrorism” unleashed through laws like Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, adultery laws, laws against rape and sexual harassment, and even divorce, maintenance and child custody laws. Many men are ending their lives unable to endure the fear, humiliation and trauma caused by the legal harassment.(Links No.13-18)

While it is insisted that the death of every young married woman is a case of dowry death requiring immediate arrest of the husband and in-laws, accompanied by media-hype, male-bashing and breast-beating, driving thousands of men to commit suicide is considered social service in India.

Feminists have always wanted “dowry harassment” and “bride burning” to remain hot issues that fuel the Indian Domestic Violence Industry.

The feminist Taliban will surely burn in rage as we look beyond the smoke screen and call their bluff.

Feminists: So Say One, So Say Them All

Jared “Jmnzz” W — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:33:27 +0000

Almost any feminist today, be they a remnant of the second wave or a so called third wave moderate will revert to one programmed defense when faced with facts that paint an unsightly smudge across the believed to be good name of feminism. So simple is this defense that while it can so easily be set aside by those digging up the inherent bigotry of feminism, those tossing dirt back into the hole, feminists, seem to grip this new defensive mechanism as tightly as their ideal that women are being oppressed by men this very second.

What defense may this be? It is quite easy to find out. Speak with a feminist about any of the discriminatory laws passed under the banner of feminism. First they will deny the fact that the laws are discriminatory. Next they will deny that the laws were created and supported by feminists. Finally, after the subject of your one point has been changed and expanded upon about twelve times over, yet still proven, the feminist, faced with facts that her/his movement is a direct cause of bigotry and discrimination will back down, not meekly but rather arrogantly with that one simple defense:

“Not all feminists are like that”

The sentence will have several different variations such as

“There are many subdivisions of feminism”

“Those are the radical feminists”

but the intended defense will always be the same. Just because one group within a movement has done terrible things doesn’t mean the entire group is bad. On some levels this can be true. There are many within the Men’s Rights Movement, that wish to return men and women to their roles of the past. However, the most obvious difference between the radicals within the anti-feminist movement and the radicals within the feminist movement is where truth and corruption reveal their true bedmates.

The advocacy the anti-feminist movement undertakes is for equality within western legal systems such as, default shared custody upon divorce, a VAPA (Violence Against People Act), for men accused of rape to be kept out of the media and afforded the same constitutional rights as the accuser, and many other balanced laws that do not favor one gender over the other.

The advocacy of feminists, all feminists, is for the imbalances that grant women special privileges and protection from men to not only continue, but increase. The hypocrisy of those who claim they do not support the so called radical elements of the feminist movement is seen through one simple principle. Those who claim that feminism is a movement for equality always claim that the entire movement is for equality. Yet when they are finally forced to admit that there is discrimination born of the movement, the movement suddenly splits into different subdivisions that all uphold different values and ideals that cannot be blamed for the actions of the other. The statement any feminist will make to you will always be

“Feminists want equality”

not

“My subdivision of feminism wants equality”

yet when you unmask the hypocrisy of feminism the statement will change to

“There are radicals, but feminists want equality”

or something along those lines. The defense may be longwinded but no matter how long the explanation is it will always boil down to those few simple sentences.

Furthermore, another blatantly obvious difference between feminists and anti-feminists is, anti-feminists will actively voice their protest of those who taint the movement with radical ideologies such as

“Women are evil”

“All women are whores and liars”

voicing their disdain for these foolish notions. If there was ever a complete opposite, a complete yang of one’s yin, it is the actions that feminists will take towards their radical members, no actions at all. The moderate feminists, the pro this and pro that feminists, will remain silent, while those who taint the movement they believe in so strongly with bigotry continue to shout their hatred to anyone that would listen.

What has happened to those who the MRM and other anti-feminist groups have shunned? They have been sent packing, free to wallow in their hatred of women for whatever legitimate or illegitimate reasons they may have. What was the fate of those within the feminist movement that spoke out against the injustice of its leaders, and its movers and shakers? They were the ones sent packing and branded as anti-feminists. The evidence is easily attainable on any third wave feminism website. Such former feminists as Christina Hoff Sommers and Wendy McElroy who dared to speak upon male issues and the discrimination against men in the west are scorned and slandered routinely on the so called moderate feminist websites.

There are many young men and women today that view feminist propaganda through public service announcements, which feature only men as domestic abusers. In my preteens I remember rape awareness announcements that of course featured only men and young boys as rapists and I once thought those commercials made sense. We are bombarded with billboards, pamphlets, and websites of men destroying women’s lives through violence and sexual abuse. To top it all off, there are college courses young women are now attending in order to not only be convinced of their so called male oppression but also learn how they are being oppressed in their own countries. It is no shock that without nearly as much government funding and media attention with which to counter these lies, many women and men are simply raised to become feminists. The knowledge of these young people is limited to what they are taught, but they are taught that no matter how limited their knowledge is on a certain situation, as long as the outcome of their argument is men are the problem and feminism is the answer then all is well with the world.

Given these facts, one can understand why it matters not that feminists do not agree on how women are being oppressed, the point of the matter is women have not been, nor ever will be oppressed solely because they are women. Given these facts one can understand why they do not have to back down when met with the “not all feminists are like that” defense. Regardless of the ideology they uphold, be it patriarchy, gender socialization, rape culture, or whatever other theories they are cooking up, the fact remains that each and every one of these ideologies paints men as oppressors (forcefully and or unwittingly oppressive) and women as victims (innocent of any damage they may cause to society).

After infancy, no human being is innocent and while I have met very few (4) self identified feminists that acknowledge the discrimination men face in the west with no protest, or senseless theory to explain away the blame feminism carries, the fact still remains that if they were to voice those acknowledgements openly they would face the same scorn as Sommers and McElroy. They would face this scorn because the feminist movement is not one that advocates equality of opportunity but equality of outcome and one feminist propagating the bigotry that is the feminist movement carries the voice of the entire feminist movement, for there is no one within the movement bold enough, or righteous enough to protest it.

One common observation that I have yet to see challenged is simple. Feminists: So Say One, So Say Them All.

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness

Pelle Billing — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:34:30 +0000

Originally published in www.MensNewsDaily.com

One of my core principles when discussing gender issues is that we need to trust facts and research more than we trust ideology. In my experience, it is quite common for facts and research to fly in the face of commonly accepted ideological “truths” that have been repeated to the point that many people regard them as facts.

Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfer, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, recently published a very interesting research report about the subjective happiness of men and women. If you want to you can read the whole paper, but the most important findings are summarized in the abstract:

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging—one with higher subjective well-being for men.

These results are very interesting. What the research shows is that as women have entered the workforce, their subjective happiness has declined. Contrary to what is politically correct, women were happier when they were housewives than they are nowadays. How can we explain these results?

Working outside the home is not as glamorous as feminism would have us believe. Many jobs are exhausting without offering a large monetary reward.
Many women are torn between the feminist expectation to work full-time throughout life, and their own desire to work part-time when the children are small.
Young women are taught that they can have it all: a successful career, a loving relationship, beautiful children and interesting vacations. In reality, life is much more messy and you often need to sacrifice what is important to you in order to achieve something that is even more important to you. Impossible standards lead to unhappiness.

The researchers themselves also have an interesting theory about the declining happiness of women:

First, there may be other important socio-economic forces that have made women worse off. A number of important macro trends have been documented—decreased social cohesion (Putnam, 2000), increased anxiety and neuroticism (Twenge, 2000), and increased household risk (Hacker, 2006). While each of these trends have impacted both men and women, it is possible for even apparently gender-neutral trends to have gender-biased impacts if men and women respond differently to these forces. For example, if women are more risk averse than men, then an increase in risk may lower women’s utility relative to that of men.

In effect, what they are saying is that women and men have had certain roles for thousands of years, and our biological and cultural makeup have adapted to those roles. Sudden changes to those roles may cause a stressful reaction in either sex, and according to this research women’s liberation has actually been more stressful to women than to men.

So what can we learn from this research report? First of all it informs us that the traditional gender roles gave women a higher subjective happiness than men, a finding that flies in the face of feminist theory. Second of all, it is inviting us to admit once and for all that there are innate differences between the sexes, and that gender equality does not necessarily mean gender sameness. This is not to say that we should go back in time and re-create stereotypical gender roles that offer little freedom to either sex. It simply means that the project to make men and women exactly the same is a futile one, and a better strategy would be to support men and women in their individual choices, and in having the lifestyles that they desire. If we do that, instead of shoving radical feminism down people’s throats, chances are that the subjective happiness for both sexes would increase.

The Myth of Women’s Oppression

Paul Elam — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:45:33 +0000

(Reproduced from Men’s News Daily)

Forty some odd years ago, feminists bellowed their way into mainstream attention, launching a major offensive on what they called a patriarchal system that had oppressed women for centuries.

Painting women as downtrodden and powerless, they railed against men with the missionary zeal of abolitionists and with largely the same message.

In short, women were slaves and men were their masters. They demanded liberation and have been making demands every since.

They did a magnificent job of pitching all this. That could be a testament to the inherent truth in their ideas. Or it might be something else, like the fact that they already had so much power that few were willing to question anything they said in the first place.

You can put your money on the latter, because even a remotely objective examination of the facts leads to a far more reasonable conclusion.

Women were never oppressed to begin with. Not even close.

I’m no historian, but I did attend some history classes before I finished middle school. So, by the time I was 13, I knew what oppression was. And lucky for me I was 13 in a time when people still knew what it wasn’t.

Oppression has some pretty obvious tell tale signs. Like torture and death; like bullwhips and chains; gas chambers and death camps. Oppression is a roadmap of scars on the back of a field hand that was purchased at an auction. It is the rope that gets strung over a tree branch in broad daylight and used to choke the life out of someone convicted of being the wrong color.

It is an indelible stain on humanity, void of compassion, dehumanizing both the oppressed and the oppressor. And the evidence of it is so offensive to modern sensibilities that we preserve proof of it as lessons for the coming generations.

Now, when we compare those things to the historical world of women, which was largely one of being protected and provided for, we get an entirely different picture. It is a portrait not of the oppressed, but of the privileged. And it begs a good many questions that need to be answered.

For instance, how many times in history did we have slaves with the first rights to a seat in the lifeboat? Which slave masters were compelled to go off to war to protect the lives of their slaves? How many oppressors tore their own bodies down with brutal labor so that they could provide food and shelter for those they oppressed?

Zero sounds like a good answer.

It also makes one wonder, or should, how many slave masters had to get on their knees before their prospective slaves, bearing gold and jewels to ask permission to be their master? How many slaves could say “no” and wait for a better deal?

How about another goose egg?

It’s not coincidental that feminists pointed to marriage as an oppressive institution. Pointing at nothing and making a lot of noise has worked pretty well for them. And so, in a collective fit of neurotic activism they attacked the one institution that had served as the source of more support and protection for women than any other in history. They became obsessed with depicting a walk down the wedding isle as the path to oppression; each woman’s personal Trail of Tears.

You couldn’t buy this kind of crazy if you were Bill Gates.

“Hey!” some feminists are shrieking by now, “What about voting rights? Women were not allowed to vote! That’s oppression!”

Well, no, it’s not. And all we need to do is look at the history of voting in America to prove it.

In the beginning, almost no one could vote. It was a right reserved for a few older white males who owned land, which left almost all men and a lot of other people out of the picture. This doesn’t say anything particularly special about women. So if this constituted oppression, then it meant that nearly everyone was oppressed. Maybe the early Americans didn’t catch on to that one because they were too busy …celebrating their new found freedom.

Anyway, as time passed, because men of good values wrote an amazing constitution, voting rights were expanded to other groups. First to the men who didn‘t own land, then later to other ethnic groups, then still later to women. Even further down the road the voting age was lowered bringing another large group of people into the fold. And today we are debating the voting rights of illegal aliens.

Formerly oppressed hamsters may be next.

And we should consider that there was something of a tradeoff for women regarding the vote. Like exclusion from combat and men compelled to turn over the fruit of their labors and to die for them at the drop of a hat. Perhaps it wasn’t a fair tradeoff, mainly to the men. But proof of women’s oppression? Comedians pay for material that isn’t nearly this funny.

The same was true for owning land. Plenty of women weren’t allowed to…for a while, anyway. It probably had something to do with the fact that it was men who had to have land on which to build women homes, or perhaps they figured that men who were expected to face bullets in order to protect that land might be better, more deserving keepers of it.

Who knows what insanities plagued us before feminism restored us to reason.

Whatever the reasons, those rules weren’t long lived. Besides, not being able to own land was pretty much softened by the fact that women could choose men to provide it for them through that oppressive institution of marriage, and the phallocentric, linear thinking alleged tyrants that they married.

I am old enough to remember well the older rules for men. Work hard and take care of your woman. Be prepared to lay down your life for her. Watch your mouth in the presence of a lady. Offer her your seat, even if she is a stranger. The same for opening doors and lighting smokes.

Disrespect her and risk a beating. Touch her in the wrong way and you’re a dead man.

This isn’t the way oppressed people are treated. But we do have another word for those fortunate enough to benefit from these kinds of standards.

Royalty.

We didn’t coin the term “princess” for women without a good reason.

With a few trivial exceptions, this has always been the gold standard for the treatment of women. The fact that this is beginning to change, that men are starting to put the brakes on doing a lot of things out of chivalry, is just another example of feminism shooting women in the foot. Accidents happen, especially self inflicted wounds, to people that play with guns when they don’t know what they’re doing.

Still, I have to hand it to feminists in their capacity to spin a wild yarn. Taking a privileged class of people and convincing the world that they were picked on was a masterful piece of skullduggery. But it was only successful because the mandate for men in western culture has always been to give women whatever they want without much question. Otherwise, the plethora of feminist ideas would have buckled under the really oppressive weight of unchecked dishonesty.

Nonetheless, our unhealthy enabling of them set the stage for women to pass up men in every aspect of life. Women are now getting more educated than men and they also have most of the jobs. Nothing suggests this is going to do anything but favor women even more in the future.

All that from an ideology that resides a house of cards that only remains standing because the wind itself has been scared out of blowing it down.

I would offer the feminists my kudos for shrewd work and a job well done, but winning a race is easy when you start with one foot already across the finish line, and everyone else pretends not to notice.

Compromising National Security to Address Feminist Insecurity?

Uma Challa — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:54:45 +0000

When I was a little girl, I used to witness my brothers playing cricket with the other boys in the neighborhood. They seemed to have such a good time, bowling, batting, fielding, catching, screaming, falling over and rolling in the dirt. I insisted on playing with them even though they warned me that it would hurt.

They were gracious enough to allow me to play one day in order not to break my heart, but they couldn’t avert physical hurt. It was a hard cork ball for heaven’s sake and I, not too alert.

I sobbed until they felt sorry and bought a rubber ball for me, and allowed me to play “baby overs”, which meant I got three balls to bat on every turn.

I quickly understood that I wasn’t enjoying the game the same way as the boys could. I was not capable of playing by the standard rules of the game.

I was not happy about concessions they made for me all the same.

I realized that if I really wanted to play, I had to assume all the risks that came my way.

This personal anecdote comes to mind whenever I hear feminists disparage many demanding and high risk careers as “male-dominated”, and seek concessions for the “weaker sex”.

In recent years, Senior Officers in the armed forces have been criticized by feminists for making “discriminatory” remarks and for not being able to accommodate women into all ranks, in all regiments and divisions of the three forces.

Politicians promptly take the bait and make tall promises in an urge to pacify their perceived “female vote bank”.

Union Defence Minister Mr. A.K Anthony, who had initially cited “operational reasons to rule out inducting women as combatants into the armed forces”, changed his mind two days later, on the occasion of Women’s Day 2008, and declared, “I’m sure that at some point of time it will happen.”

Former Defence Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee once went to the extent of saying, “We are encouraging more and more women to participate in the armed forces…They should be encouraged not only to equal pay, equal allowances and other opportunities, but we should create an atmosphere where they feel comfortable.” Mr. Mukherjee also envisioned “setting up of institutional arrangements for enhancing their (women’s) level of comfort”.

That is indeed very “gender-sensitive” of Mr. Mukherjee, but I wonder how such politicians propose to fulfill their promises, at what cost and at whose expense!

In a game of “galli cricket”, it is easy to replace a cork ball with a rubber ball and introduce “baby overs”. But what about a career in the armed forces especially involving combat duties? Can we provide “pansy training” and expect “rubber bullets” in the battlefield? Are we going to go as far as compromising National Security for pampering women, and call it women’s empowerment?

In a recent article (reproduced below), Seema Goswani provides a candid and incisive commentary on the issue of recruiting women as fighter pilots in the Indian Air Force. I hope the politically correct Government authorities, politicians and citizens are listening.

Spectator – Ladies’ Special – Hindustan Times

The brouhaha about female fighter pilots shows how feminists are falling prey to the culture of entitlement.

NO, THERE WAS NOTHING REMOTELY SEXIST ABOUT AIR FORCE VICE CHIEF P K BARBORA’S STATEMENT

By Seema Goswami

I KNOW I’M going to get sack-loads of hate mail for this (bring it on, ladies!) but I simply have to say this. When it comes to women being inducted as fighter pilots in the Indian Air Force, I’m one with the IAF Vice Chief, Air Marshal P K Barbora, who famously voiced his reservations on the subject.

As Barbora explained, an obscene amount of money goes into the making of a fighter pilot. So, it makes no sense to train someone who would then take ten months off on maternity leave.

Hence, if women are to be inducted as fighter pilots, they should undertake not to have children until a specified time.

Honestly, what is so chauvinistic about this statement that it has feminists foaming at the mouth with indignation? It’s a valid point, surely? If the Indian state is going to spend several crore on training someone with a specific set of skills, it stands to reason that it would want these skills to be available to it for a certain period of time.

In the Indian Air Force, that period is defined as 14 years. If a male fighter pilot quits before that, he has to compensate the Air Force for his training costs. So, if women are also expected to serve for 14 years without taking nearly a year off on pregnancy-related leave what is so scandalous about that?

After all, isn’t feminism all about equal rights for men and women?

Isn’t it all about equal pay for equal work? And in that case, isn’t it a given that women should be held to the same service standards as men? So, why target Barbora for saying something that should be obvious to everyone, irrespective of gender?

No, there was nothing remotely sexist about the Air Force Vice Chief’s statement. But what is indubitably sexist is what some women are doing: claiming special rights for female fighter pilots when they finally are inducted into the Indian Air Force merely because they are women.

It’s not the Air Force Vice Chief who should be apologising for his remarks. It’s the women who are making a mockery of feminism who should say sorry to the rest of us.

Surely it is self-evident that if women are to gain respect at the workplace it has to be on the basis of equality. We have to embrace a level playing field, not ask for special sops for the girls. And anyone who does ask for special treatment is a traitor to our cause. And yet, such is the culture of entitlement has begun to take root within the ranks of feminists that their demands have now become faintly ludicrous if not down right surreal.

Now, it is no longer enough that women get enough time off to have babies, they should also be able to work flexible hours or part-time once they rejoin office. What’s more, despite putting in less work (for the same pay) they should still remain on the fast track for promotion.

Surely, this kind of self-serving nonsense beggars belief. Why should a woman who puts in fewer hours, makes less contribution be treated on par with her other colleagues male or female who are far more invested in their jobs, just to fulfill the demands of political correctness? And why should women take for granted their place in the sun no matter how long they have been in the shade?

None of this makes any sense. I am not suggesting that we deny women the right to a family life, or make it impossible for them to have a healthy work-life balance. I am merely making the point that these are choices that women make. And when they decide to put family first they cannot realistically expect to be treated the same as someone who puts work first.

Unfair? Not a bit. You make your choices and you take the consequences. After all, it makes little sense to replace the much-derided glass ceiling with a baby vault in the boardroom.

So, if you are female and want to become a fighter pilot, then there are some sacrifices you will be expected to make. Postponing childbirth will be one of them. Because no matter what the posters may tell you, you really can’t have it all well, not all at the same time, certainly.

The kind of militant feminism that says otherwise actually harms the cause of women. It makes women especially those of an age to have babies a much less attractive employment prospect. And it predisposes businesses and employers to choose men over women instead.

But more than that and this is what really worries me it leads to the infantalisation of women. Instead of being seen as equal partners in the business of life they are projected as some sort of special-needs minority group that needs extra protection. Rather than being seen as strong adults they are portrayed as helpless little kids who need looking after.

That is what is truly offensive. That after all these years, we are still asking for special dispensations to help us cope.

If we don’t want to be treated like the weaker sex, perhaps it would make sense to stop behaving as if we are, in fact, weaker.

Misuse of Sec. 498A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act

Virag Dhulia — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:44:17 +0000

Section 498A of the IPC:

This is the most controversial Section of the Indian Penal Code and one that receives the highest media attention these days. It reads as follows:

“498A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.”

The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961:

The DP Act is a related law which defines giving, abetting and taking of dowry as criminal acts, and it also prescribes many rules as to the exchange of gifts, expenditure at the time of marriage and declaration of the same to the Government.

The purported aim of the DP Act is to curb the practice of dowry and to prevent extravagant marriages.

Anti-dowry laws ineffective:

Together, IPC Section 498A and the DP Act are promoted under the label of women-protection laws.

Law enforcement officials, judiciary, general public and even feminists criticize these laws for being ineffective in curbing dowry or dowry harassment.

This factsheet highlights the magnitude and intensity of harm caused by Section 498A and the current implementation of the DP Act. The information presented below sheds light on the reasons why anti-dowry laws are ineffective.

Number of cases filed:

Case Type	2005	2006	2007
498A	58319	63128	75930
DP Act	5243	4504	3204
Table No.1

Number of Persons arrested in Section 498A:

Gender	2005	2006	2007
Male	98815	105927	120745
Female	28745	31253	35667
Total	127560	137180	156412
Table No.2

Note: The total number of persons arrested under Section 498A is 421,152 in just 3 years!

Low conviction rate:

Ad-hoc studies have hinted at a very low rate of conviction – 2% or even less – under section 498A.

There are several instances where convictions by lower courts have been reversed by the Higher Judiciary.

Taking the conviction rate to be 2%, out of the 421,152 people arrested, 8423 people could not prove their innocence while 412,279 people were successful in proving their innocence.

Unfortunately, proving one’s innocence is an extremely expensive and time consuming affair, costing an individual lakhs of rupees and 4-10 years of one’s life.

Voices of reason ignored:

Numerous authorities including Her Excellency the President of India Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil, the Supreme Court of India, Chief Justice of India Shri K G Balakrishan, various High Courts, eminent lawyers, and several NGOs under the aegis of the Save Indian Family movement have raised concerns over the misuse of Section 498A and the arrest of innocent people under false cases filed by greedy, disgruntled women.

So far, no measures have been taken to curb the arrests of innocent citizens or to prevent misuse of the law.

Constitutional and Human Rights violated:

IPC Section 498A and DP Act consider the accused as guilty until proven innocent, and under these laws, the accused are punished even before investigation or trial.

The criminal justice system, which has been thoroughly “sensitized” by radical feminists, is jeopardizing the life and liberty of everyone in the accused husband’s family (including minor children, pregnant sisters and senior citizens) just to satisfy the greed and ego of one ‘woman’ – the wife/daughter-in-law.

These laws violate a citizen’s basic right to life and liberty, right to due process, and right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The Paradox:

Radical feminists vehemently reject all proposals to amend Section 498A claiming that its enactment was the result of years of tireless campaigning to provide protection to the married woman.

Radical feminists ignore the fact that over 123,000 innocent women (mothers and sisters of men who were implicated in 498A cases) were arrested under Section 498A over a span of just 4 years (2004 – 2007) without evidence or investigation.

Radical feminists ignore the fact that for every woman who files a false case under Section 498A and DP Act, at least TWO women in the husband’s family suffer unnecessary arrest and legal harassment.

Radical feminists ignore the fact that due to a spate of false cases, timely justice is denied to genuinely abused women.

This is the most deplorable fact about Section 498A – the law claiming to protect women is their worst abuser.

DP Act not implemented, only misused:

The DP Act came into effect 48 years ago, and yet women’s rights activists claim that the problem of dowry is only getting worse every day.

Basing their claim on the rising number of dowry cases, they constantly urge the Government to introduce more stringent provisions against the husband and his family.

The current DP Act is sufficient to contain the dowry menace if it is implemented in its true spirit i.e. penalizing BOTH dowry givers AND dowry takers.

To date, not a single woman or her family has been punished for either “giving dowry” or “admitting to giving dowry”, whereas scores of husbands and their relatives have been arrested upon mere allegations every day.

Section 498A and DP Act destroy families:

Once a case if filed under IPC Section 498A and DP Act, the marriage invariably ends in divorce.

Section 498A and DP Act have not only converted marriage into a crime, but also serve as weapons that break marriages and destroy families.

Section 498A and DP Act are two examples which illustrate the success of the radical feminist campaign of hatred against men and disdain for the family.