Express News Service. 19 Apr 2010

CHENNAI: This is a stag party with a difference. Men, who accuse their girl friends, wives and fiancees of duping them or foisting cases against them, have come together in Tamil Nadu to put up a collective fight.

According to the general secretary of Association for Protection of Men, Madhu Sudhanan, more than 1000 members are aged below 25 years and 4000 members are below 40.

At a meeting on Sunday, attended by over 50 men, there was a talk about rights and laws favouring women. But the association is not to protect men from the the misuse of the Domestic Violence Act and Dowry Harassment Act alone but also youngsters falsely accused of eve teasing.

As one man said: “I was dragged by the police and beaten up in the station. If a girl has a personal enmity, she takes it out by falsely accusing men of eve-teasing. And there is no verification done by the police when it comes to women, they just accept what she says as the sacred truth.” Another member of the association said that he was right now on the streets after he registered his family property in the name of his lover, who conveniently duped him after that.

Madhu Sudanan said that many young men were being cheated by girl friends – they emotionally ditch the man, by marrying men of their parents’ choice. But such cheating was never taken as a crime, he said. Most of the association members had been harassed by women – wives, girlfriends, fiancées – or duped.

But the system is biased towards women, Madhu Sudanan said, and added there are 84 laws for the protection of women’s rights, but none for men.

“Gone are the days when women were exploited. Now, many women misuse the laws meant for their protection. Many young men have been trapped by the laws.

Many youth ditched by girl friends are unnecessarily harassed by police following false complaints, another association member in his mid-30s, said.

Topics: Association for Protection of Men

Comments:

Replace the word in Domestic violence act the men/women to person and husband/wife to spouse, let the punishment equal for all who do the domestic violence, will women organisations will agree, if they think they do not do the domestic violence against men?

By Swarup
4/19/2010 9:45:00 AM

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.

“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 –

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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.

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.

1. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/kem-doctor-suicide-police-register-dowry-case-against-husband/407514/
2. http://www.thehindu.com/2007/02/11/stories/2007021114290300.htm
3. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/fivemonth-pregnant-woman-commits-suicide-3-held-for-dowry-harassment/275318/
4. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/woman-commits-suicide-husband-held/494150/
5. http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/28/stories/2007032823500500.htm
6. http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_techie-held-for-suicide-of-wife_1252098
7. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Husband-commits-suicide-after-wife-calls-him-ugly-impotent/articleshow/3781322.cms
8. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Man-pining-for-separated-son-commits-suicide/articleshow/4382247.cms
9. http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/kolkata/Man-commits-suicide-on-metro-tracks/Article1-475927.aspx
10. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kanpur/Man-commits-suicide/articleshow/5276875.cms
11. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Man-commits-suicide-at-Delhi-metro-station/432125/
12. http://www.kolkatamirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=13&contentid=2009111320091113132759296662d0415&sectxslt=
13. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/ministers-gunner-kills-self-fearing-dowry-charges-against-family/463274/
14. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/False-dowry-case-Man-kills-self/270124/
15. http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=%E2%80%98Harassed%E2%80%99+husband+commits+suicide&artid=QlzZUAwpVaA=&SectionID=Qz/kHVp9tEs=&MainSectionID=wIcBMLGbUJI=&SectionName=UOaHCPTTmuP3XGzZRCAUTQ==&SEO=
16. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/19204/treated-cruelly-wife-techie-ends.html
17. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/PSI-shoots-himself-dead-with-service-revolver/articleshow/5249121.cms
18. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?section=subcontinent&xfile=data/subcontinent/2008/february/subcontinent_february242.xml

Faced with rising opposition to laws protecting women, women’s organisations are gearing up to launch an awareness campaign on growing violence against women and young girls in the state and the need for such laws.

“We will expose the concerted efforts of individuals and organisations to water down laws that have been made for the protection of women such as Domestic Violence Act and 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty),” All India Democratic Women’s Association state treasurer B. Jhansi Rani said.

She said on Human Rights Day (December 10) her organisation would present memoranda to chief justices of high courts across the country regarding the denial of justice to women victims.

According to state crime record bureau data, 163 dowry-related deaths have been reported in TN till October. While 1,198 cases were registered under IPC section 498-A, 169 were reported under the dowry prohibition Act.

All India Men’s Welfare Association on World Men’s Day held a rally claiming that they were victims of `biased’ laws that support only women. They demanded amending the Constitution (Article 51E) to uphold the dignity of men and amending IPC 497 dealing with adultery.

Terming their demands as absurd, CPI (M) legislative party leader K. Balabharathi said these organisations were basically against giving equal rights to women and attempting to reverse the progress achieved in bringing special Acts to protect women.

These Acts were passed in Parliament dominated by men, after discussions. There is no point demanding the repeal of such Acts now, she said, and demanded a ban on organisations against women’s rights. two-sides According to state crime record bureau data, 163 dowry related deaths have been reported in TN till October.

All India Men’s Welfare Association on World Men’s Day held a rally claiming that they were victims of ‘biased’ laws that support only women.

Here is a misreporting on the last line. It is not “laws that support only women” that AIMWA is against but laws that are against men. A law that is pro-women need not be anti-male. But in the case of impugned laws viz: Sec 498A, D.V.Act etc, they are blatantly detrimental to men and in the process cause havoc to the lives of women too.

But the agenda of AIMWA is not confined to fighting against such biased laws but has a wider mosaic to cover the welfare of young boys whose future is under threat from various nefarious forces.

But what one wonders is why the commie feminists running AIDWA get flustered when men join together for the welfare of the society!

These feminists who cry from housetops about women’s right are very eloquently silent about the allegations of sexual harassment against P.J.Joseph, a minister in Kerala cabinet headed by Communist Party (Marxist). The complainant, a T.V.anchor Lakshmi Gopakumar still insists that the allegations are true.

And AIDWA is sure to have a responsibility to explain their stand to the people in the matter of a Sri Lankan woman’s complaint of sexual harassment and cheating against a senior Communist Party leader Mr. C. Mahendran.

(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.