Being A Liability

Saaks, here is what you tell that MCP (sorry even if he is your flesh and blood) that any individual who, as an adult, whether married or unmarried, does not pitch in either monetarily or by doing house chores is a liability to the family.

It isn't marriage or gender related.

Sakshi, I agree with Deepti. Also don't forget that MCPs are made, not born. Your cousin has probably heard his parents - both mother and father - say the same sort of stuff.

Its the sort of situation that makes my mum furious - but then she raised her son to (a) not make such statements, (b) to stop others, including his friends or elders, from making them, (c) accept women as equals based on intellectual and emotional capabilities.

Perhaps with your help, your cousin will learn too. Why not help him broaden his horizons and change his mind? Not a bad resolution for 2007.

The problem is, this sort of opinion is held by a number of people from this generation, and almost all folks from the older generation. This leads to the concept of when a girl gets to be over 26, there is a frantic search for a groom as that is her destiny.
It would be good to have males who do not hold such views, since they help in forming opinions of others.

What i am happy about is that this kind of stuff is noticed and people are blogging about it. Idiots are idiots, whether its one's own brother, mother, father or whoever!

20 years ago.. most of the men (and most of the women) out here would have bashed u up for having a counter opinion towards such an attitude!

Sakshi:
I think you are being too hard on your cousin brother. What he says is indeed 'true'. Its like saying- 'there's too much garbage on the streets of India'. We all wish there was no garbage on the streets- but the reality is that there is indeed garbage on the streets. Just because articulate the reality, it does not mean we accept it.

It is 'true' that an unmarried woman is seen as a 'liability' by many parents- I am talking of very educated people here. They carry the burden on their shoulders and one can see them droop to the ground. I know of parents who are not ready to visit anyone since their 'old' daughter is not yet married.

While this shouldn't be the case, the reality is different.

What your cousin said is 'true'. May be, he may not practice it with his daughter, but he is in no position to change other parents, even those in his immediate family. He is saying an obvious fact- you should ask him if he would feel that way towards his daughter when she grows up.

India is seeped in such belief systems. Each time I visit my folks, I get to hear one statement or the other that seems politically incorrect. You can't change such belief systems overnight. It takes few generations. Even today, in most parts of India, a girl child is unwelcome at the time of birth of a new kid. The elders bless the couple saying 'putr_vathi bhava'. Can we change that belief system directly? No. However, through time, when things improve for women and their futures, people will start realizing that its OK to have a girl child, and may be, in a generation or two, they would welcome a girl child.

What your cousin said applies to most Indian families. He is right about that. Whether he meant to direct that comment to you personally is something you are a better judge of.

Sakshi:
Before others jump on me, let me clarify.

I do not agree with your cousin's views, but I can understand why he believes an 'unmarried woman is a liability'. Just because it is an all-pervading notion, it does not make it right.

We can correct some people, others- we just have to ignore. If you are in a position to correct your cousin, you should. Otherwise, you can ignore him and and if possible forgive him. If you are in the midst of Indians, there would be hundreds of them who would carry the same belief. I am not sure if you can afford to be angry with each of them.

There have been many debates on this forum on women related issues. There is a tendency to blame the man for what the woman suffers.

When a daughter-in-law does not beget a son, the person who indulges in harassing that woman is usually another woman- her mother-in-law. The person who, while raising the girl, tells the girl that it is her duty to serve the parents-in-law and the husband, and that she becomes a 'pariah' after the wedding, is another woman- her mother. The people who make sure a widow feels she has lost everything are other women. Also, the people who bitch about a successful or independent woman with a high-growth career are usually other women.

The women is discriminated against, harassed, insulted, berated, and discouraged, by both men and women. By singly focusing on one enemy, that is the man, we are defining the problem statement wrongly. It is not 'man vs. woman', it is rather 'society vs. woman' and the society consists of both men and women.

The wrong perceptions, the false notions, the misconceptions, about women and their status, cannot be addressed by targeting individual men or women. It cannot be solved by targeting the elusive society either. No matter how much you teach and preach, unless it is backed by concrete actions, which include certain mandatory provisions, supported by law, enacts and bills, we will not see any change in the belief systems of this society. Mere lip-service, indignation, anger, feel of hurt would not bring about change.

I am a strong believer in 'enforcing' certain actions through 'mandatory provisions'. India does not give freedom for free. Our freedoms come with responsibilities. We pay taxes, whether we like it or not. We are supposed to obey traffic rules, whether we like it or not. We can't hope to bypass them saying we have the freedom to do so.

I am a strong proponent of mandatory reservations. I know that many educated and elite Indians see it as anathema. They do not see it as serving their best interests, of course.

I come from a backward region, where one can see many of our belief systems in action. People openly discuss certain things about women; as if she is a burden- that once the girl goes to her husband's place their 'bhoj utar jaayega', etc. People openly want a baby boy. If they beget a baby girl, they actually feel sad. Some families do not even want to celebrate and will write it off as if they are going to mourn now. Comments and insults are thrown at women freely.

While no text book, no speech, no exhortation or no leader could bring any change in the perceptions of these people, one single act from the state government brought in a fresh outlook. The state government imposed 33% reservations to girl students. Whether it had any immediate effect or not is not important to me. What it brought as a change in the perception of the people from the small towns is extremely worthwhile. Families now look forward to seeing their girl kid become an engineer or a doctor. They are ready to sponsor the girl's education and encourage her in her pursuits. There are many families who see this as an opportunity for their girl kid. She is no longer considered 'absolute burden'; she is now seen as 'lesser burden'.

Recently, India has also passed certain laws to protect women from domestic violence. I welcome such concrete actions backed by legislation, law, enactments and bills. I do not expect our society to 'wake up' on its own to change its perceptions. Unless our government makes it a law against throwing garbage on the streets, our roads and neighborhoods will never become clean. To expect that our people will 'wake up' and 'realize' on their own to keep their streets clean is a chimera.

Our people will not change their perceptions towards women. In almost all small towns and rural areas of India, eve teasing is rampant. It's insulting to any person and has an everlasting effect on the morale and confidence of a woman. Indian women grow up developing a way of tolerating such harassment, which is quite unhealthy, because it becomes tough later on in life to stand up and protest at bigger harassments. Sexual harassment is also very rampant, though almost all cases go unreported. Just because there are no cases reported does not mean it doesn't happen. India has to come up with more provisions to make a woman's life better in this country. We have a long way to go. I look forward to more provisions that empower women, forcefully if necessary.

Sakshi, seems like you are getting a whole lot of flak for stuff you said...and thanks for pointing it out.

My grandmother - who was EXTREMELY traditional - used to say that only people with great karma had daughters because of course one needed to be much more "evolved" (not her words, but the closest I can think of in translation) would have the right to raise a daughter.

Things will change when women start changing things - and that doesn't mean simply agitating for the right to work, equal pay, anti-glass ceiling etc (classic feminist agenda). Things will change when women start raising their sons to be feminists. And their brothers to be feminists. And when they start working on their fathers to change their minds about the importance they have.

You REALLY want to change things? Well, start with your brother, son, nephew, cousin, father. Find the man who loves you most and work on him... :-)

[EDITED: COPY PASTED COMMENT WILL BE TREATED AS SPAM]

Sakshi,

If your cousin brother married? If yes, does he protect and provide for his wife?

Did he work as an unpaid body guard in the family for years since childhood? If yes, then its just his natural response.

It has nothing to do with any chauvinism.

Boys are conditioned to think from childhood that they have to protect and provide women, family and children.

Even today, most people (men and women) in India feel, men have to protect and provide for women.

So, the men are fed up.
and hence they want to delegate the responsibility to other men(husband of the girl).

I must tell you, most of the so called Liberal Men also protect and provide for their girlfriends, sisters and mothers. They also think that women (not just unmarried) are a liability or a burden. The only difference is that they are not as honest as your cousin brother.

Men(Liberal, conservative and chauvinistic) are so frustrated with this whole issue that they want to delegate the entire responsibility to Govt (the substitute husband). Men feel, if laws are passed and implemented, then that will decrease the burden on them.

Men who support and cry for these laws give a damn about women and equality. They are more interested in shifting the so called "liability" or burden to govt.

You must appreciate honesty of your cousin brother. Others also feel the same, but they do not express it because of annoying women or to remain politically correct. If you disagree, then please conduct a small survey by encouraging men to speak up than getting angry on them.

If I accept that men need fixing, then its necessary to work on the root cause/s, than blaming everything on "male ego" and "male chauvinism". Its important to conduct research on masculine behaviour and its evolution that jumping into simplistic solutions which fail miserably.

Anamika,

You said,"Things will change when women start raising their sons to be feminists."

Some 25 years back, a feminist started raising her son as a "Die Hard" feminist and still did not free him from conditioning that he has to "protect and provide" for others.

Do you know, what happened? This son became India's no.1 Masculist and spearheaded the biggest anti-feminist campaign ever launched in India.

I am not sure of Girl being liability at her parental home...My sister is not...But a woman is definitely a liability,risk and a big threat at her matrimonial home these days.

Is it that may be in general women(excluding certain specific cases) are liabilities almost everywhere and need men to be protected and fed??
Atleast history does seem to faintly signal to that.

Kind of sad, Sumanth, that you had such a poor experience of life. In another Indian family, 25 years ago, two feminists (one male and one female) raised a boy to be a feminist.

You want to know how he turned out? A strong, intellgent gentleman capable of respecting women on an equal footage. He has little patience for "financing" women who are (and should be) capable of taking care of themselves. He also has little patience for men who can't treat women as their equals.

Yes he can open the doors for women (good manners are NOT the same as disrespect) and old people. But he also can relate to women as his equals - something that is reflected in his wide circle of female friends and acquaintances.

I feel sad for men like DG's cousin or indeed various other "masculinists" on DC threads - they will miss out on one of life's richest experiences - friendships with women (including with their own spouses, daughters, mothers and sisters) - simply because they are too "masculinist."

And Hardy - if your sister isn't a liability, what gives you the right to decide women that you don't know are? Condescending at best, and illogical at worst.

oops, meant Sakshi not DG. Apologies...and further apologies for the bold print - cant seem to get rid of it

Hello Anamika,

You wrote:
>>He has little patience for "financing" women who >>are (and should be) capable of taking care of >>themselves. He also has little patience for men >>who can't treat women as their equals.

So mean to say, lack of patience is a virtue (for male feminists). Please find out if this guy hates masculine side of life including his own self. It takes quite sometime for a person to discover the inner self.

There is no difference between masculists and feminists so far as what they gain and what they lose.

Here are some examples and you can find their marital status.

1) Girija Vyas
2) Madhu Kishwar
3) Flavia Agnes

I hope, you have some sympathy for them as well.

Anamika,

You wrote:
>>I feel sad for men like DG's cousin or indeed >>various other "masculinists" on DC threads -ey will miss out on one of life's richest experiences - friendships with women.

May be it is a great idea if you feel sad for feminists, who miss out on one of life's richest experiences - friendships with men.

After destroying their marriages due to greed, selfishness, consumerism and arrogance, these unfortunate women run around courts day after day only to get divorced (because its too late) and life is unforgiving to them. The only thing they get in return is a bundle of cash or a bank draft (legally). They and their parents cry in the court, in the street and even in front of the man's lawyer for not being able to undo what they took on themself.

--------
Today, masculists like me have access to feminism. Because, we were feminists at one time. I was a feminist for 25 years and masculist only for 5. I have seen both sides. So, I have the balance. But, the same is not true for a 100% male feminist disconnected from his masculine side. In a debate, I can argue the feminist cause much better than any average feminist. I have counselled many women who have faced severe marital problems.

What we differ with is the radical side of feminism. The first thing I do when I interact with a abused man is to disable his patriarchal and logical side of mind. Then his feminine side is boosted up. In just 2 to 3 months, his power on his life gets restored and the arrogant female loses all her evil powers. The marriages are saved if it is not too late.

Sumanth, anyone would lose patience with people who prefer to leech off another human being. That is not a mark of women or men, or indeed feminists. So I don't think he needs help with his "masculine" side.

Fyi, a "feminist" woman doesn't expect a man to pay for her life or do anything other than (1) treat her as an equal - financially, socially, economically and emotionally, (2) have enough self-confidence to be a man - and that means being sensitive, emotionally supportive and strong enough to be emotionally vulnerable and open. And yes, it also includes having a life and career, and the ability to pay his own way.

But perhaps these are too complex for you to manage?

I am guessing you don't know many feminists because most have loads of male friends. But then none of those men would ever qualify for neanderthal status, or indeed buy into the patriarchal bullshit.

After all a man who claims that his sister is NOT a liability but is happy to generalise about all other women is not so different from the classic Haryanvi jat (and I speak as a Dilliwala) who will get into drunken brawls about HIS sister's "honour" while being happy to "eve-tease", harass or even rape anyone else's sister.

The marital status of any of those women is not important very simply because judge women solely based on their marital status is sexist. Are you thus suggesting that they are "less" than full women because they aren't married?

In which case where do people like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, or George Fernandes, or indeed Rajesh Pilot and Madhav Rao Scindia stand? Their "marital" lives are/were less than perfect yet no one accuses them of "masculinist" fanaticism.

Finally, seems like some people on the forum (as well as on the dv thread) are using personal anger and experience to generalise about genders without any recognition of their own misogyny.

Just so happens that someone very dear to me got a divorce recently because her husband was physically abusing her and at the end, nearly killed her. When she tried filing the report under 498a, NOBODY in the police station (Defence Colony, N. Delhi) would take an FIR - this even when she was visibly bloody and bruised. The so-reviled people at NCW (by various posters here) told her that their "brief was not to split up families but to reconcile them" and to achieve that end even tried forging her statement.

Even after medical reports (from AIIMS as well as various other corroborating hospitals) showed extensive injuries, including fractures of the skull, the family court judge in the case told her that she was a "feminist for wanting a divorce and there was nothing wrong with a slap or two."

She finally managed to get a divorce by mutual consent (after five years of trying), got NONE of her jewellery back, AND had to pay the ex-husband to sign on the divorce papers. And the biggest reason she finally got that divorce was because her father and brother supported her to the hilt and helped her all the way through.

Now I could generalise and tell you that all Indian men are male chauvinist bastards based on this one case. But I realise that one can't generalise based on a specific case about an entire population. And I CHOOSE not to spew anonymous bile against an entire sex on web forums.

Perhaps, your own patriarchal prejudices are too strong for you to make such a choice? Hence your unmitigated bile against all feminists, and indeed any women who choose to contradict you?

Anamika,

We will generalise, till feminists like you keep generalising and flood media with false statistics and gender hate. Now, do not tell me feminists do not generalise and they are very balanced creatures.

44.7% of all suicides are by married males compared to 25% by married females.

You wrote:
Fyi, a "feminist" woman doesn't expect a man to pay for her life or do anything other than (1) treat her as an equal - financially, socially, economically and emotionally, (2) have enough self-confidence to be a man - and that means being sensitive, emotionally supportive and strong enough to be emotionally vulnerable and open. And yes, it also includes having a life and career, and the ability to pay his own way.

Please tell me, is it wrong if a male expects the same from a woman?

How can a man be sensitive, when his emotions are suppressed when he is as old as 5 years? How can he be sensitive when he is subjected to worst kind of competitive and risky situations since childhood. Many men do seem to be sensitive and they basically act it out.

I do not agree that today's feminists are interested in any of the above. They are interested in just blaming men and masculinity for all their problems.

You are comparing Girija Vyas with APJ Abdul Kalam. Fine. Then why is she against same laws for same crimes irrespective of gender. Why she is trying to force all to accept that adulterous women are victims.

We are for gender equality and we are against patriarchy. But, today's feminists are only interested in seeking revenge for imaginary historical injustices against women (by men). Feminists do not even care if its the guilty or the innocent who is paying the price.

Today, Feminists give a damn about any social issue. They only want funds and attention.

I refuse to believe the story of the lady who got battered and she could not file 498a in a police station. I am an expert on this subject. If police does not file 498a (due to any reason), a woman can directly go to the court and file section 498a. Do not sell that crap that the woman has to pay money to her husband to get the divorce.

So far as my own female friends are concerned, how can you generalise bases on my writing in DC or in one blog? When you can generalise so easily about other people, then how can you preach others against generalising?

I am fed up with the text book definition of Feminism being thrown at me every now and then. Feminists today feel the only way to achieve equality is by "male-bashing" without bothering who is innocent and who is guilty. Feminists in US (e.g. Niomi Wolf) openly acknowledge that they committed this blunder in US in 80s and hope that Indian feminists wont commit the same blunder.

Now, you want to sell us the idea that feminists never indulge in "male-bashing", they are extremely balanced and are extremely sensitive to unborn children and support breast feeding. You may further claim that adulterous males are villains and adulterous women are victims. You expect me to to shallow all that crap just based on your imaginary claims that I have never seen women and I am not sensitive or caring towards women, I have no female friends, I am sex-starved and what not.

Men resent this. Men may not speak up, but they resent hypocrisy in the name of gender equality. Finally, a kid like Sakshi's brother will open up and say,"Hey, the king has no cloths".

Today, many urban men are fed up with consumerism forced on them by wives brainwashed by advertisements. These men struggle for 10 hours a day and feel like retiring by 35. The females on the other hand say, "why can not he get me a 50 lacs apartament? If he can not provide, why the hell he has to marry?"

Men marry expecting that the women will remain the same.
Women marry expecting that the man will change.

They spend rest of their lives changing/fixing the man till he becomes like a vegetable and dies.

In another 5 years, 50% of Indian males will not marry. Women should also stop marrying. Once number of such unmarried males and females increases, then the families will stop considering unmarried people as burdens.

Your spiting venom without even trying to contemplate of what i said is preposterous.

My statements out the two females I talked about are on the firm basis of the first had experience I had and are not any off the cuff remarks. Both of them are as qualified and self dependent as you yourself are. Just that one of them thinks that to earn, run and manage the house is responsibility of the male she is associated with.


Women in general prefer to be fed or to put it harshly in your words "do not mind being leeches".
Had it not been to that fact, the heavily biased laws would we currently have would have been limited only to poor needy rural women and the likes of you should have access and recourse to exactly the same laws as are applicable to any other male citizen of this country. But strangely people like you do not advocate/speak for such demarcation in the society, but prefer to eat fruits of misuse.

You wrote in your comments...
Fyi, a "feminist" woman doesn't expect....also includes having a life and career, and the ability to pay his own way

Well if that was indeed true, then why feminists are so venomously against their own husbands for any dowry....To explain it further it is expected that the son(your husband) inherits and brings in wealth from his parents...after all you look for rich, well settled guy who is earning more than what you do...I am yet to see an exception to this...i.e...where the rich, working girl getting married to some male lower down say a barber and a shopkeeper e.t.c. Coming back, once you expect the boy to inherit and bring money from his parents why the hell the same does not apply to the bride...she should/must bring dowry(for herself and the new family she is going to start with her husband)...where does a feminist pride and self independence go when such equitable distribution is considered...


Where does this pride and self respect of such feminists/all those women who file false cases against there inlaws go? It is probably there only to flaunt themselves in public so that people look at them with some kind of respect and goes for a toss when it comes to facing harsh reality of life. That is exactly what happens when paper tigers like you defend women rights here and make best use(by misusing laws) when the life hits you hard.

You must be joking to have said that some body with medical proof of could not get a FIR registered where I see day in day out hundreds of complaints getting registered without any proof. It is stories like the ones you told, which confirm to me the fake nature of allegations you seem to be making.
And I am circumspect and it looks to me that I am listening to only one half and hence a biased story of a female "allegedly" abused. The other story could possibly be as horrendous or even more if one was to listen to the other side, it is just that the female tears make final and lasting impression on most of us.

Then you talk about jewellery and other items...
It is you and your ilks who think that jewellery given by husbands side is wife's property even after she goes for divorce. And people like you pushed for laws that legalized gifts by matrimonial side to bride as stridhan where as punishing the groom and family for having received even innocuous gifts as a crime punishable with five years of imprisonment.
Not stopping here feminists no different from you then come up with strange laws whereby any monetary demand by wife "if not met" to be considered a economical abuse punishable with 1 yr imprisonment where as any expectation from wife to contribute financially OR inability to supply the wife with lavish expenses she demands day in day out, be termed as demand of dowry.

As for being a liability, I assertively say women are liability if not financially then in lot of other ways...Every man on an average enters in numerous scuffles and struggles so many times in life and most of those incidences go unreported and are accepted as a struggle to live and exist in world.
Let me hear from a feminist self dependent woman who will in her practical life choose to stay with her husband after he has lost his job and prefers to stay at home. I personally know of one feminist who very recently filed a DV and 498A case once she found that her husband had become physically disabled
and that there was no easy way(other than filing 498A) that she could apply for divorce and get rid of this now seeming burden called husband.

Where as I see almost every other male on street pulling a family where he is sole bread earner with a whole hearted dedication and commitment. None of those men treat wives as leeches, but instead continue to silently fight out for their families existence in this world in the name of "responsibility".


But no sooner a women has to face such harsh reality, there is a huge hue and cry made about it. Issues like women protection, gender based discrimination and harassment are raised, alarms are made all over media and so on so forth. Media and feminists alike talk about modesty of women and choose to ignore of the miserable life men have to live and undergo while earning bread for their family.

There is so much of social bias in favor of women that any atrocities on men go unnoticed and are treated as usual patterns in life.
Our social structure tells us to protect the woman sex at whatever price we may have to.
Such women crib and accuse men of not protecting them in this wild world. Once my sister blamed me for not being hyper active once in past at one such incidence. There is an inherent expectation from every man to protect a woman(financially or otherwise) the cost of which is never taken into account when either such laws are framed or when feminists open their blabber mouth spitting out venom against males. This expectation is hidden on all double speeches emitted from feminists who tend to speak favorably for so called "strong" men.

I am yet to see a wife who does not nag all day out if her husband earns less than what she expects him to.
The taunts he gets for the low profile job he may be holding for last 'n' years is a ubiquitous phenomenon in every middle/lower middle class family.

How many women in this country accept their husband the way he is?

A large percentage of them like to change his habits, his thinking, his dressing, his friends, his eating habits with stubborn stubborn nagging to outright abuse with a harsh tongue.

They even justify it in their mind,"after all I am doing it for his good only...no....."

Indian females in public places order other men for anything without even saying a thank you. They think, "if you say thank you, the guy will imagine having sex with her."

Recently, media did survey measurement of "Manhood of Indian Males" and concluded that Indian men do not measure up to the size that western guys have got.

Feminists in Media encashed it very well without realising that Indian females have the worst figures in the whole world and the "Manhood of Indian Males" and "the size breasts" of average Indian females suffer from this problem together. Indian women do not even rank 100th in the world in this dimension.

So, who will give a damn about Indian females especially in a globalised flat world?

Even today, most educated Indian men are moralists and they stay miles away from pre-marital sex. So, Indian females can throw all kinds of crap and accusations on them at every opportunity.

Once, India becomes a country like Sweden, females will forget all the basics about "Male Ego", MCPs and persistent life style demands while swearing about feminism.

"Oh, I have been so caring to my husband." claimed one female journalist one day. We just wondered,"in what way?" Its very easy for very demanding, greedy, consumeristic females to imagine herself as a victim (because her husband is giving a worse lifestyle compared to her friend's husband).

Very few of friends of mine feel that their wives are caring or understanding. Now, men have started discussing in open about how to handling demanding women. They even say,"That guy is in deep shit because of his highly demanding wife". I have not met a single man who can say that his wife does not expect him to protect and provide for her.

Some women are so pathetic that they use the husband's mind as a personal computer and stop using their own brain on any of their own (created) silly problems. Then they define that as a sensitive, caring and understanding husband. The guy in the end of day feels like "Sugarcane pulp".

There are Indian females who will not leave the guy to have even 10 minutes of silence in his own house. They feel, if they leave his mind free in silence then that guy will imagine about other females.

Now, if one has to display love, one has to gift diamonds. Thats what is advertised by GiftADiamond in TV. The bloodly female (in that adv) gets tears in her eyes because her husband has got a nice diamond necklace for her. Seeing that every female is now hoping that her husband will get diamond necklaces for her.

The capitalists know very well, the best way to increase GDP is to make men lose money to their wives. So, 90% of all advertisements are targetted at women.

For a guy who has to buy expensive house, car and diamonds of wife and stop meeting/calling his parents, wife is not just a "Liability/burden", but a Monster.

In Bangalore, when females go to their "Maike(mother's house)" the guys celebrate (whether they are north Indians or south Indians) and other guys congratulate him.

If a guy gets divorced, the other guys are extremely jealous of him because of his great fortune return to bachelorhood. In the workplace, the most married guys look dull, less energetic, busy and serious (pathetic).

If females are not burdens, then why these men celebrate when female goes to her parent's house?

Its time, feminists stop being arrogant and start listening to what men think deep down their mind.

Finally, most females do not possess structured brains. i.e. They simply do not have any fixed position in X, Y, Z, T coordinates. Its like a Tennis player taking a serve at baseline now, at nets next time, near referee after that.

The thicker corpus callosum makes them take all kinds of stands and keep changing them at every drop of the hat. The result, the logical brain of a poor guy gets burdened processing all these conflicting situations.

Now, how many points are needed to prove that an average female in India or any country is a liability and a burden (on men) for more than one reason. Thats what most men (including liberal, male feminist type) feel deep down in their mind.

If you do not agree, you can try a lie detection test.

The only kind of males who can handle Indian women well are the "real abusers". Before the female can say or do anything, they create a big fuss over every trivial issue and throw tantrums. That keeps females in defensive always anticipating what he will do next. That keeps their mind busy. In fact, the men who abuse or dominate wives rarely get into any serious marital problems.

The straightforward, logical, rational, structured, responsible guy is a easy target for females well versed in handling complexity. The only thing they have to do is to disturb the structure (he has) just when he goes to work or when he is doing anything important. A constant provocation and personal attacks by woman keep always in fear,"I do not know what my wife will tell, let me ask her first."

I see the two SIF Talibs have hijacked this debate with their bullshit as well. Keep going boys - more financially independent Indian women are buying the rabbit these days and not marrying jerks like you.

one more word the von-siffers can learn

www.dictionary.com

delusional

Its a generally understood phenomenon that people of a certain life condition attract the same sort in their lives and that goes for friends too. Sumanth it seems you and the rest of SITH tend to attract only those men who are unhappy in their marriages.

Obviously that justifies the thinking of women haters or those who think they have been victims of women that all women are Satanic parasites out to screw their happiness.

SIF seems to be the flip side of the hardened feminists of yester years.

That keeps their mind busy. In fact, the men who abuse or dominate wives rarely get into any serious marital problems.

This is called victim precipitation or passive aggressiveness. Similarly there are men who like to be victimized by their wives. Hell, I saw a Japanese video where men were getting their balls hit by whores, obviously that doesnt mean that all Japanese men are into kinky violent behavior.

To make sweeping generalization that all women like abusive husbands is down right stupid and more so coming from a intelligent guy like Sumanth from whom we except more rational thinking.

Any person , man or woman sticking out in a bad relationship deserves the shit that comes their way.

Where there are bad relationships there are good to counter them. It depends upon which side you want to stick to.

It hurts when truth comes out.

Yes. SIF is the otherside of feminism.
When you can digest feminism and even propagate it, now handle masculism.

The ground for SIF was well prepared by feminists with their fascist mindset. Now, whats the point in blaming masculists?

If you love hatred by spread by feminists, then learn to love the same from masculists as well. Then, you know how it feels like when lies and false stories are propagated in media.

If feminists are all about Equality, then why the hell laws are not made gender equal?

Forget making laws gender equal, why do not they give even 2% for men in any law? Adulterous women are victims and adulterous men are bastards. What kind of shit is that?

If feminism is all about gender equality, then why the hell they do not allow even 2% of spending in "Gender Studies Departments" on masculinity and study evolution of behaviour of males.

Now, females teachers are padaring boys nude in school and going scot free. Tomorrow, feminists will say, the sex maniac female teachers who did that is a victim and the boys indulged in workplace harassment.

If feminism is really noble and its goals are valid, why do not they stick to at least a bare minimum level of values or principles?

Each feminist behaves like a dictator. So, Indian parliament has defered women reservation bill indefinitely.

Females in urban Indian a greedy, consumeristic,selfish and they consider the husband as a ATM machine. If women are economically powerless, then how the hell 90% of all advertisements are targetted at female audience in India?

The Indian males are indeed in great delusion. Otherwise, how can they remain stable without sex till 28 or 30. People including girls in other countries are laughing at such abnormal behaviour of delusional educated moralistic indian males.

We tell the guys abused by brutal women,"just think that you are sleeping next to a prostitute or a dog at night. Just think, what do you do when a dog barks at you at night."

The guys find it difficult initially. But, within one month they feel great and relieved.

If women want gender equality, they also need to change their mindset just the way they expect men to change their mindset. In spite of all the bullshit crap that young feminists talk, they still wear a mangalsutra during marriage and follow all patriarchal procedures. They expect the guy to protect and provide for her.

In Male Dominated society, a 1% patriarchal men (with all power in their hands) dominate remaining 99% of men. But, females around the world has the habit of going desparately after those 1% patriarchal males. A guy like Kofi Annan can not even find one woman in Ghana whom he can marry. Now, a patriarchal guy like him does research on domestic violence.

If you behave like a liability you will be treated as one.
Most of the women unfortunately treat themsleves as liability because they demand money from someone else .

As far as sakhshi is concerned if she does not want to be treated aas liability let her prove that she is an asset. Let her start takin gcare of her pld age parents.

Otherwise yes the males thinking of women as liability would be right and would want to transfer tranfer the liability to husband.

Anothe reason is probably sakshi says like many ogf sif wifes you are not in position to earn lakhs of Rs through blackmail of husband and that is why you are a liability

Bharti, it is not only about self dependent women...it is also about a high biased, anti-male and pro women mindset of our society in general and that is what feminist are exploiting for their immediate gains...

Imagine a husband loosing a job/source of income...he would have the taunts, ignominy, demeaning statements coming from every quarter of society...the first ones coming from the people most close to him i.e his own wife, her parents, his own parents and so on so forth...Months within he looses a source of income he will be branded as lazy, good for nothing, parasite and looser (the famous tag line from feminists).

Compare this to what happens when a "self dependent" women in a relationship looses a job...it is considered as if a lottery ticket did not materialize and everything remains cool as was before...no ignominy, no issues...she has all the security in her life as her husband, post marriage, is assumed and expected to support/maintain her all her life.

There is no sword hanging on a female while the male has it hanging on his neck through out his married life. These attitudes have been thoroughly forced deep in psyche of the entire society. The male in the role of bread earner and sole supporter is assumed by default. It is post this assumption only that the duties and sharing of responsibilities of an individual in a marriage are considered. The wife then asks as to how much he contributes in household chores and taking care of kids e.t.c.
For a woman doing job and earning is a fun, pas-time and excitement of life, where as for a man it is a challenge and the risk of his life. To create a fun out of this challenge is considered a hall mark of a successful man, but at no cost can he afford to loose in this challenge. And that is exactly how the feminists lead the society astray by masking/hiding this very important aspect of society.

If the author is true about women being a liability then who are the culprits and what is the solution?
Culprits:
1.Parents and I have to mention here that Parent means Father and Mother both and not one gender.

2.And the parents who think a girl as liability are more than happy when they find a husband for their daughter to marry. This is nothing but shifting the liability.

3.Even if the girl is raised in a gender equal family and gets the right to have a say in marrying a boy, most of the time she also suffers from the syndrome of liability as she always looks upwards for a well settled guy.

4.This liability syndrome is even more propagated as laws to her in the name of empowerment which is called alimony while getting separated.

When will at least educated and equal women(Creamy Layer in terms of Supreme Court) come out of the liability syndrome and start marrying downwards to Jobless Guys (Rabbits?) or refuse money in the name of alimony while getting separated?

Or how about not marrying at all? One glance at the forum above shows a definite paucity of men one would WANT to marry, or indeed want one's daughter/sister etc to marry.

Get an education, get a job, take responsibiity for yourself and anyone else you need to - and forget about the MCPs, of the SIF brand or the passive-aggressive ones like Sakshi's cousin.

Women are not liabilities unless they demand protecting, providing (directly and indirectly) from other men in the family. Sometimes, they have to raise their voice to refuse chivalry (by men) and protectiveness of males. A man who does not think of "protecting" females, will never consider woman a liability.

A guy had to pay Rs.12.5 lacs as alimony in a marriage, which lasted just 30 days. Ideally he should have paid half of his savings out of his earnings in those 30 days. The judge, the bench clerk did the bargaining to arrive at this figure.

Society wants men to pay huge alimony and also provide costly lifestyle to women because woman is a liability.

A guy bought a house in Bangalore by taking a huge loan. His abusive wife got an injunction on that house, where as ideally what she should have got is just monthly maintenance (as she is not working). Being tutored by feminists, she filed a false case against chairman of wipro, the employer of her husband.

Its just a choice. The attitude of men will change, if women shout it out,"I am important and I am an important contributer. I need no protection and men must not protect. I will take 50% protecting and providing for elderly and children in the family."

In stead, we get lectures about how male feminists are good in openning doors for the females. Such chivalrous men consider women as burdens and yet they will never express it in front of women.

It all about attitude.
What is the logic of considering a spinster living with her parents as a liability. In our South Asian Society, when many chivalrous and macho sons join hands with their wives to abandon the joint family and make a nuclear one, it is these daughters who care for the aging parents, and if they are working ladies, also provide the income.
I would tend to look at daughters, daughter in laws, sisters and sister in laws, wives and sisters as people of the same gender. If an unmarried daughter or sister is considered a liability, then why not other women like wives.
I dont understand the logic of palming out one and vice versa accepting another.
Its a social taboo that the society has to grapple with.
Cheerios

Ijaz...what ever you are saying is 100% correct but only if the society was equitable...

Why would I or for that matter other SIFans have any issues if a third woman lives alone or with her husband or her parents in whatever way they feel is best for them. The problem comes when

a) the husband is made to pay through nose alimony and maintenance for the whole life for a wife who spent less than a month with him, in addition to

b) Facing false fabricated charges such that no proof is required to frame those charges and that you have to fight in court for years to prove that you are indeed innocent where as the person who filed those false charges goes scot-free in 100% of cases and also

c) Pay for your wife's lawyer from your own pocket and that is when

d) You are considered guilty even before the trial starts and that the onus is on you the innocent to prove that you are innocent.

e) And when it is not just you but your entire family who is at stake because the "shrew" mentioned the names of entire family(including kids and parents who never saw the two of you since marriage) in her false complaint.

Now you tell me whether such a woman is indeed a liability and threat all rolled on one?

Ijaz you should ask these feminists(who are shouting with inflated windpipes and who claim them to be self dependent) to give in writing to the courts and the Govt that they will never need any women laws for themselves what ever may happen to them and that they should not be allowed to use such biased women laws ever in their life, and instead should have recourse to only those laws as are applicable to any normal male citizen of India. Let us find out how many such phony feminist heroines have the guts to say that before they enter a marriage (or even after marriage).

temporal, i love the way you retort back to HARDY and Rathor, it leaves them speechless and irritated. damn good!!!!!

Hardy, i love the way you retort back to Temporal and F(*).it leaves them speechless and irritated. damn good!!!!!

Hi sakshi,
I was reading the comments that were posted in response to your post and i find that readers were very inclined to digress, even very subtly to make themselves heard.Any new reader, possibly runs the risk of forgetting the issue that your post addressed.
Being a male and totally agreeing with your view's, i seem to be up against a preponderance. A 25 year old woman who's yet to marry is not a liability to anyone unless she believes it her self.Though one can surely not overlook pressures that her parents are subjected to. Her parents may be inclined to be supportive but its their relatives and friends who probably influence them to believe that an old daughter who's unmarried is a liability despite her financial independence.
For this notion to be totally erased, it would require some women of strong will to speak for the rest, though it will take time for any change in attitude.
cheers

[EDITED:REPETITIVE COMMENTS AND SELF-APPRECIATION FROM MULTIPLE IPS WILL BE DELETED]

The latest proposed ALIMONY IN LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP" AMMENDMENT has left me shocked and stunned. I am unable to believe that how can feminists, who themselves so vigorously have introduced the concepts of free living, free sex and live-ins for women are themselves unable to get rid of their own 16th century mindsets when it come to men. Feminists want to escape the rigors and duties of a marriage and yet want men to be legally chained to his role of the eternal provider and protector for women even in a live-in.
This is totally unbelievable!!!!!!! Feminists and feminist run NCW is so pathetically female chauvinist, sexist in nature. They are trying to legally sexually stereotype men. The proposed ALIMONY IN LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP" AMMENDMENT is an open attempt to introduce legal sexual discrimination against men.

[EDITED:REPETITIVE COMMENTS AND SELF-APPRECIATION FROM MULTIPLE IPS WILL BE DELETED]

[[EDITED:REPETITIVE COMMENTS AND SELF-APPRECIATION FROM MULTIPLE IPS WILL BE DELETED]

temporal, i love the way you give hardy your one words and he writes these 20GB of explanations with childish quotes!!Man ....he must spend time on those, sweating, panting and angryyyyy

"null" Ignored :).

[EDITED:REPETITIVE COMMENTS AND SELF-APPRECIATION FROM MULTIPLE IPS WILL BE DELETED]

[EDITED:REPETITIVE COMMENTS AND SELF-APPRECIATION FROM MULTIPLE IPS WILL BE DELETED]

The modern woman does not want to be bound by the responsibilities, duties and conventions of a "marriage" but at the same time she wants to legally impose these restrictions, duties and burdens on her male live in partner and even wants to continue to economically exploit him even when the relation no longer subsists.
Women are nothing but liabilities on men. How can NCW, feminists and women's organizations deny it? It is so stark. They have taken men hopelessly for granted. They have taken for granted that men will never react and feminists can eternally depict themselves as "victims" and men will continue to slave and slog and provide for them even in a live-in.

Lol...such hatred against the womenfolk...the wheels turn brothers...men subjugated women for centuries, indulged in pedophilia by marrying preteen girls, threw the women into pyres or exiled them, stripped them of any sort of property rights, turned them into baby making machines, lived polygamous lives and now that they are being bought to justice or for the first time feel the inequality we have suffered for centuries [EDITED:PERSONAL ATTACK]

Typical imbalanced and irrational observation from Ash the wolf and the lamb(males). A story to illustrate Ash and her mentality...

WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me." "Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born." Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture." "No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass." Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well." "No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me." Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! If it was not you then it must have been your ancestors"

MORAL : The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

1) Men subjugated women for centuries - Myth and distortion, A statement in air ...trying hard to garner precious female votes.

2) Men threw the women into pyres or exiled them- A Hoax...Many times more men died protecting women than vice versa. The "Johar" was volunteer and as for Sati even in those olden times less than 1% of women used to commit sati. Even then men came openly against this practice and a result that 1% has shrinked to 1 nano percent today.


3) Turned them into baby making machines- Well that was God's fault. Let us be fair to men on this atleast.

4)"Stripped them of any sort of property rights" -Well blame it on brothers and fathers then...why single out husbands for it...Even then the fathers and brothers had to toil full life to arrange dowry for the woman else she would wail , complain and refuse to marry down. However the reason the property (was mainly land in those days) rested with men was mainly because it had an agricultural angle to it. If men kept land then women kept all the jewellery, so what is the big deal. Divorces were unheard of in those days so the property remained within family and would subsequently get a passed on to heirs who belonged as much to the man as to the woman. Still if there was scope for a correction, it has been corrected with full support from all quarters and has been welcomed by all sections of men.

Another dictionary entry for temporal:

Hysterical

Or have you used that one for SIF-fers already?

Ash #44 "Go on with your incessant barking...guess what? No one is listening to your obnoxious haranguing."... yes no is listening, thats why u decided to respond! .

Good logic, at war always, no time to love..... still a lot of unwanted children, so that they can be at war soon(Abraham Lincoln it seems said" cats fight all the time, still theres more than enough children"!)

A new word "Womantic" (because "lunatic" could not express the severity)...for the gang headed by Renuka's and Girija's.

Let us name them NCWers or more aptly "Sewers".


"Womantic" = all that temporal will ever have in his/her reference book + lunatic + irrational + imbecile + dumb + nagging + ...

the list grows with every new idea tossed up by "Sewers".

hardy, do not cry over what temporal told you. He is an orginal and dont even try to ape him. it is like a sheep trying to be a lion. Now that is a disaster isn't it? So I suggest you be a sheep, atleast his skin comes into use when killed.

I never read all that temporal talks and writes about, it has been you who has been hiding behind him/her.

As for what I said above, if that looked like sheep, you hit the bull's eye, for i was actually talking to herd of "sewer" sheeps.

I know I hurt you.

Once a wise man told me...
Do not pick up a quarrel with under-rates because
1) First they drag you down to their level.
2) And then they beat you on experience :).

I prefer to quit.Bye bye.

:)

Editor's please get 49 to 55 cleaned up.

Thanks.

Thanks temporal...
please delete all my comments since #49(inclusive) too, for they were not intended for wider audience either.

#53'S IP has been banned for using multiple ids and addresses including using names of known commenters

Thank you for this discussion. This is one clear departure from a more Western audience, and I mean that in a mostly good way. Bad, of course, because of all the lingering thoughts that seem to think of women as pets.

Of course, arguably, a vocal minority of American men think only one thing of women as well - a receptacle.

I was lucky enough to be raised by a single mom for at least half of my childhood. I saw her work hard to raise two boys, and her strength went unsaid but not unnoticed. The noticing came also by her natural nurture and emotional intelligence. (The EQ idea which surely should have caught on more as a concept, much more accurate a barometer of success in a well-rounded life than IQ).

A pressure to marry or have kids really means nothing - unless people saying so are a part of your daily lives, unavoidable and undescribably ignorant and distasteful. Old people ARE on their way out - but no one can reject everything they say out of hand. It needs context. It needs others to bounce that context off of, as was aptly demonstrated here (I missed all the deleted posts).

- Temple

Some extremely mis-empowered ladies in this post have come down to individual accusations and insult.

This way, they are truly proving themselves as liability to the society in general.

I would request them to free themselves from hate mindset and not being liability to the rest.

#57 and all other von-siffers or SIF-lings croaking/gloating here - another simple dictionary break;)

www.dictionary.com

1: pot
2: calling
3: kettle
4: black

Well...What about all those self proclaimed "self dependent" feminists, who bank upon misuse of women laws that were in principle meant only for rural poor needy women but got served on platter to them as a result of clumsy drafting, over-generalization and lack of imprecision exhibited by some Misandrists at NCW.

www.dictionary.com

1: Wolf In
2: Sheep's
3: Hide

Temporal,
Request you to refrain from ususal but useless rant.

Thats why I say, there are a number of good words too in dictionary. But your mindset only picks and expects -ve words.

#56...I respect you thoughts about you mom...the idea being discussed here hear is totally orthogonal to what you have been trying to comprehend...

If you consider yourself lucky for being raised by a hard working single mom whose strength went unsaid and unnoticed so does it happen in India where a millions of males(just like you mom but belonging to opposite sex) struggle and toil whole life, day in day out, just to provide and feed their family and their efforts also go unnoticed whenever any laws what so ever in Modern India are made.

If you are proud of one mom so are so many Indians proud of their millions of fathers, brothers and husbands.

So where does it take...as long as women treat themselves as liabilities they will be "liabilities". There is a large scale misuse of totally biased women laws in order to exhort money from hapless innocent males. Why should anybody check him/herself before labeling such extortionist as liabilities?

NationCommissionforWomen(the organization responsible for women laws) who deliberately chooses not to demarcate such class of of independent women from the ambit and preview of law, in itself promotes this very idea of women in general being liability.

There are two class of people here on this discussion board

1) There are feminists who are self independent but want to look like "liabilities".

2) There are men who know for sure and believe with conviction that "Women are NOT a liability" but are forced and coerced to believe and treat them as liability by Indian legal system.

You got to choose one of the two...

If women think that they are not a liability on men then how come they want to introduce such absurd amendments as the live in alimony amendment which compels a man to earn and support a woman in a live in where the woman has no corresponding duties and responsibilities which can be legally enforced by the man.It takes men for granted and is based on the belief that it is the basic duty of men to support women at what ever cost.

Fundoo, are you aware of the nature of drafting and wordings of the proposed live-in amendment. What are the nature of responsibilities, how they will be determined and defined? How a live in relation will at all be defined? Will a 10 day relationship lead to a legal obligation for a man or a 10 year one. Most important , does the amendment propose of any legal responsibility on the part of the woman.
Keeping in view the atrocious drafting of D.V. and the recent comments of Ms Girija Vyas, Chairperson of NCW about adultery by women, any proposal by NCW, will be totally biased against men, will be totally pro-women and will be totally imbalanced.
Hence, it is vital that NCW makes the draft proposal public, so that there is a general consensus about the matter, prior to its enactment.

Fundoo reg #62, you have done a good job in making us aware about the latest anti-male and pro-women law proposed by NCW.
However, The Telegraph after the "ALIMONY IN LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP" article on 27th Dec, had come out a couple of days later with an editorial titled "Always a victim", wherein the editor criticised the recently passed laws to help women but which in turn badly victimised men. From the D.V., to the highly controversial comment of NCW about adultery by women to the proposed amendment of live-in-relationship, the editorial was sarcastic about the approach and commented that the implications and validity of the said amendment and the drafting needs to be analysed, especially after the debacle in D.V.
More recently today, i.e. on 3rd Jan, a series of letters to the editor was published in the same daily where the readers openly criticised the "ALIMONY IN LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP amendment. The common theme was the total surprise at such a proposal. The modern woman enters into a live in relation only to avoid long term commitment, then how can she expect her partner to be bound by legal duites in a live-in and the legal duties should be same for both the partners, commented one reader.
This not only shows that the media is getting sensitive to these issues, but the general public is commenting at such totally anti-male and pro-women laws being brought into existence by NCW. HOW can NCW impose such atrocious laws on men which are totally sexiest in nature and aimed at demeaning men and furthering sexual stereotype ?

Shocked and stunned at #63 is absolutely correct. The live-in amendment is a black hole about which nothing has come out from the feminist run NCW.Men are not aware about the exact changes, which section of which act is being amended, whether it has a civil or a criminal implications, how do you define a live in, why should it be the man who should be imposed with legal onus, whether the woman is also imposed of equal legal responsibilities, what is the legal safe guard available to the man, what are his legal rights etc?
Since men are too involved in a live in, he has the full right to know as to how the Act is being framed and defined. NCW can not simply propose a totally weird, lopsided and anti-male law and impose men with it as we have seen in D.V. They can not simply and deliberately keep men in the dark and slyly propose legislations which victimize and sexually stereotype men.

We have seen that in the recent controversy about adultery by women, NCW, came out with corrections. It had gone on record saying that the matter needs a national consensus. So when it comes to women and their rights, they claim for a national referendum.
But when it comes to passing legislations which are patently biased against men, then the same NCW is not even willing to divulge to men the contents of such a legislation so that he too can protect his rights and remove sexual bias and discrimination which are inherent there in. Then men are not supposed to claim for a national consensus. NCW does not deem that men have any such rights or are entitled to it. It is disgusting.
If you come out and speak, your comment is liable to be deleted. Feminists claim that they are leading women to the 21st century but they are pushing men to the 13th century. It is all double speak and rank female chauvinism.It is time for men to emerge from the slumber.

If you copy-paste and that too to an irrelevant thread, it is spam and will be deleted.

NCW should have made public the proposed amendment regarding live-ins. Such a recommendation was made stealthily with out any fanfare so as not to attract any criticism. The same approach was followed in the case of D.V. No body was aware of such a move by NCW which came as a shock to the common man.
When it comes to women's issues, even if it is grotesquely female chauvinistic, NCW demands a national debate and consensus. So why can not men too demand a national consensus on such controversial issues as the live-in amendment which also involves men and adversely affects them?

NCW has to unveil the cloak of secrecy that it has shrouded this amendment with. No body is the least aware of it's legal implications, what kind of responsibilities have been imposed on men, what rights does the man has in the live-in,what duties and responsibilities he can impose legally on his female partner, whether at all the woman is imposed with any corresponding liability and duty or it is only unilaterally imposed on men and if so , then why? How is a live in defined? What are the legal parametres?
There are a host of issues involved which need to be clarified and debated and traces of male bias removed and to obliterate the desperate attempt by feminists to stereotype men as eternal supporters of women, who exists only to slave and slog and earn and satisfy the material desires of women.
NCW can not simply bring in such a ludicurous law and impose it on men and expect men to abide by it. We demand a national consensus on such issues.

I guess DC will have to stop carrying articles discussing women's issues in India given that SIF-ers hijack any and all discussions about Indian women with their repeated/multiple postings about their hobbyhorses.

What a shame! This could have been an interesting discussion.

It is a fact that like D.V., this amendment was also sought to be passed surreptitiously and furtively so that men do not have the time to analyse it and react to it. Shame on NCW! Basically we are not fighting this amendment, we are fighting the utterly sexiest and female chauvinistic MIND SET of feminists and NCW.
If you speak about it too much, Aman is waiting to delete your comment.Any way we will fight all odds and raise the consciousness of the society about such issues. I WOULD PLEAD EVERY BODY TO BE MORE VECIFOROUS.

Anamika, I remember you once asking where the liberals of DC were when you seemed to be the only one holding the flag up for your gender.

You are now one of us who have realized that sometimes with the bleeding heart (SIF) there can be no reasonable discussion.

.....TOLD YA..........

Anamika, your comment can be accepted if you persist that this is a woman's issue. But this is not a woman's issue. This is a men's issue. It is men who are getting adversely affected by such patetently one sided laws being proposed by NCW.It is men who are getting victimised.Hence it is men who are coming out and protesting and reacting and they have full right to do so.This is the exact mind set of women that we want to change. They have to start accepting that men have the right to protect their interests.

WONDERFUL...

SO SIF bogus claims on statistics has been exposed by desicritics who has banned all these mulitple ids. I PITY their plight. They are not more then 10 workers in their group who amongst them are fighting for leadership and money collections!

BOOOOOOOO....

# 59 Hardy

You have used 3 words

1: Wolf In
2: Sheep's
3: Hide

But NOW they are more apt on you and your sheep whose IPS have been banned on this very forum. You all cry wolf trying to hide behind sheep's clothing. How truly pathetic and pitiful.

Temporal used some words on you and you ought to have replied to him in a man enough way and not attack women [EDITED]!

But we enjoy this state of yours. What happend to Sumnath BIG FAT CLAIMS on 5000 siffy frogs who are craoking !! Not there :)

Serious bloggers,

Request you all to ignore the provoking tactics of faces(multiple) hidden in 'null'.

They just want you to provoke and create enough grounds for moderators to ban your IDs. They are not at all interested in discussions.

Request moderator to take a note of this and ban IPs of #76.

Booooo.....that is really really pityful Rathor.

Read all the deleted comments above with open eyes.

[EDITED - IRRELEVANT]
Ever heard of what an IP address is???

Request moderator to take a note of this and ban IP of #78.

He He He...
"null" on the run with her new IP since the old one got banned while bad mouthing(and trying to spit on sky) on another post.
Ha Ha Ha...
Rathore......just ignore...(this null 'chooore').

My comments have been deleted time and again. But this does not mean that I do not exist. There is no way for the moderators to prove that I am a multiple ID and there is no way to prove that I am not. It is just whims and fancies of the moderators..We take cues from and each other. May be we at times repeat our ideas just to drive home the point. But that does not make it a case for multi ID.

Hardy


He hehe heeee heeeee.

One word for you < speechless >

I have been following the discussion here.Has any body of us here ever wondered as to what will men do if this amendment is in fact brought to life? I believe the only option left for men is to start putting their foot down. If in a marriage , the man is bound to earn and provide for his wife and a similar legal obligation is enforced on him in a live-in also, then why should men at all consent to a live in ? What is he gaining out of it? Where is the freedom for him in a live in, the freedom which his female partner will enjoy? Then why should he at all agree to enter into a live in as he is only imposed with duties and bereft of rights in such an arrangements.
In such an event, men have to be taught to reject the concept of live-in altogether. If women want men to slave and slog and earn and support them, then men have to put their foot down and insist that it can be done only in a marriage where the man also enjoys similar legal rights against the woman also.

My comments have too been deleted a number of times for reasons best known.
However, in response to Mr Chatterjee, I would state that we would never want such an horrendous amendment to come across in the first place.But if it at all comes through, then that will be the end of the much touted so called live-in relationships promoted by feminists and NCW.
It is true as to why should a sane man knowingly enter a live-in with his eyes wide open if he is to be dumped with the same responsibilities as that of a marriage. A live in is an escape from the institution of marriage (for both the man and the woman), so why should a man enter into a live in and not a marriage if the amendment comes through? It seems that NCW has taken men totally for granted.

Most live in relations today that we see are between professionally qualified men and women. Since both of them are working, there is no question of one supporting the other financially. So why should it be only legally compulsory for the man to support the woman and not vice versa.
More over which man will be stupid enough to enter into a live in relation with an unemployed woman and be bound to legally maintain her even after when the relationship ends while he can not enforce any similar rights and duties on her as well. Such a skewed relationship, envisaged by NCW and it's supporting feminists, can not even take off , let alone stand the test of time. NCW is proposing ideas which are totally invalid and weird. We have seen the same happening in D.V. and the adultery issue. IT IS TIME FEMINISTS CHANGE THEIR MIND-SET.

Hey
just read the first few replies to this post.
What remains to b seen is how many ppl who go on and on about males being assholes etc etc follow their own fucking advice.
and thats the reason my college going generation rocks.

Absolutely disgraceful !

One would have thought that lessons would have been learnt by them after their wives abandoned them, but I guess more music is only going to come their way.

Sakshi
You are right --ignore. But well expressed article!

Preeti ji,
But the problem is those wives of those husbands do not abondon them unless they prove themselves a liability on their husbands in the court of law and get a Good sum of money.

Marriage is a relationship which involves both the man and the woman. Men had taken over the role of the provider since the cave ages and had done it without complaining. He used to sacrifice all his hard earned money for the upkeep of his family.It was never imposed on him in the sense that he never felt it as an imposition. It was out of natural feelings of duty, commitment, love and binding for one's family, for one's wife and children.
It was the same for the wife, who was supposed to look after the family and nurture it.She did it with utmost affection, commitment and sincerity. That was the way, the basic unit of human existence, i.e. "the family" came to being. The roles and duties were not legally imposed but evolved with course of time. They became conventions and unwritten rules which were passed from one generation to another for the sustenance of the "family".
That is what feminists have overlooked and totally misjudged. Whether it be marriage or a live-in, the emotions, commitment and sense of duty should flow naturally. It should come from the heart. It will come from the heart when one feels belonged to the "unit". Hence the unit, even if it is a "live in", should evolve naturally so that it gives rise to commitment, duty and love naturally. That requires hard work from both the man and woman in the relation.
If feminists think that they will force men legally to unilaterally discharge his love, affection and sense of duty in a live in without expecting any thing in return, it simply can not happen. Over a course of time men will simply refuse to enter into such lop sided relations. Feminists have to accept that they are dealing with human beings and not machines. Men will simply abstain from living with a woman under the same roof if he feels it will lead him to more trouble.It will be as simple as that. Then feminists have to make laws imprisoning men if they refuse to share a house with a woman! It is an impossible situation for feminists.

#87 Who gave you this hilarious illusion that wife abandoned husbands. The fact is that they were totally unwanted in their matrimonial homes as they acted as nothing but leeches posing a big threat, liability and burden to the peace at home.

Men wanted them away and out from house, but court wanted men to keep them(as it considered those women as liability indeed) or else threatened them legally with a huge penalty called alimony.

Men only pretend in courts that they want to keep the marriage going, for the sake of minimizing this Immoral, Illogical, Biased and Stale concept of alimony for wives who brought themselves to divorce(and themselves to disgrace) in less than a year.

Now that statement by wife saying she abandoned husband is called

www.dictionary.com

: delusional

What Nandu has said in #89 is in the right spirit.Sense of duty, commitment and devotion can arise in a relationship only if the conditions in the relation is conducive for it.It simply can not be forced by law.Feminists are ignoring the reality that people cannot be compelled into relations if they feel that they will be victimised by it.It is the natural right of any individual to decide whether he/she at all wants to be in a particular kind of relationship.
If this obnoxious amendment really comes through then men will have no option but to react in either of the two following alternatives:-
a) Either insist on a legally enforceable marriage where both the parties are legally bound to discharge certain duties and responsibilities, or
b) Usher in a new kind of relation i.e."LIVING SEPERATELY" wherein both the partners live in their respective homes, share a relation, meet outside or at either's house, but do not share a home or co-habit under the same roof.
This way all the problems will be solved.Men will not be treated as a mere free meal ticket and there will be no domestic violence or torture of women as there will not be any "domestic" house. "Na raahege baas no bajenge bansuri".
Prior to bringing about this amendment, feminists should explore all the likely facets and not complain afterwards and start blaming men for the reactions.

I dont think any women who is capable of filing a 498 is a liability. But does not matter, stay in your own world!

With regard to the drama in court, again it is a loose loose loose(3 times) situation for you Hardy baby.

Because if we come back -we will make your life miserable

If we do not come back, we get a divorce, which we badly want too to free ourself.

If we get a divorce , then the 498 cases can run on youguys for years.

Harrdy why do you always do this. Do you think whne I see my husband begging in RCR cases I do not know it is drama? But I let him know that it is I beleive him. Coz I got a chance to suck his life out when I went back to him.

HAAAHAHHHAAAAA

me too.....HAAAHAHHHAAAAA

???

HA HA...

Ha hahahaa speechless huh??

Loose loose loose--remember girls, if you husband ever files an RCR on you, take it and use it and give him the experience of a life time. But dont forget, he is recording what you say, so do more, like add salt to the food, drop the milk in the kitchen, burn your finger and call the police. My in-laws almost died of a heart attack when i burnt my finger and threatened to call the police. Criminals are always scared of the police and the 5 nights spent in jail in enough for 5 lifetimes.

So GOOOOO for tthe RCR. It is fun!

"A comment by null(frustrated)" is the best medicine. ;).

Poor husband who got married to ****. JC or not his life was hell.


BTW,
> ?Criminals? are always scared of the police
> and the 5 nights spent in jail in enough
> for 5 lifetimes.

I thought, that was the case with ordinary innocent citizens not the criminals. Criminals have no fear of prisons just like your Majesty.
Their modus operandi is to instill fear in common people and then exploit them.

Criminals are good at attack and innocents become fearful and become defensive to save themselves.

Time is not far, when mis-users of law will end up behind bar like hostile witness Zahira Sheikh(Best Beckery).

SC is definitely working towards making laws of perjury strong and IPC 182 and 211 compulsory.

Going forward, burn your fingers, make false accusations and after a small victory be ready for a heavy loss.

I know #94 knows this and that's why did not complain.

Is she trying for a(n) (im)moral victory?

thanks for responding

Hardy and Rathor are as usual frustrated endlessly!

Btw, how is the jail, court and police experiences? Some infamous people became famous when they wrote their jail stories, comon this your time of limelight, go for it. '
Guys you need to choose between the after effects of RCR or alimony? See we give you choices.

I love when I saw my husband begging in front of the judge(his drama). I too said the same things and as soon as we arrived home, the drama was over and he was in for a major anti climax. He was not sure whether 5 days in jail was worst or 5 weeks spent out of RCR were his worst!
He tried his best to record my threats but did such a shabby job, it blew up on his face totally!!

Yes we are raedy for heavey losses, the earth will be saved when 140000 men will lead to suicide and heavy profits will happen when fan sales go up!

Readers can make out who is talking sense and who is frustrated. They are intelligent and do not need a certificate from madam x (null).

btw, null is defined as an invalid input to any program.

Ajay's view in #91 is indeed worth a second look.If the live-in amendment really comes through, then it is bound to throw up newer reactions and responses from men which feminists have not obviously anticipated.
Live-in is a concept which has emerged from women's perception that marriage is restraining. In the same vein, the post amendment live-in relation will be similarly viewed by men as restraining and it is natural that some oher kind of relation will emerge to beat the oppressive and one-sided live-in. It may lead to Ajay's concept of "live seperately", where each partner enjoys his/her own freedom,stay in seperate residences, enjoy a relationship,have individuality and identity and are not unilaterally imposed of any unwanted and undesirable liability.
I too strongly feel that more and more men should pitch in strongly for "live-seperately" rather than get involved in a post amendment live-in and be bound by host of unwanted legalities, impositions and life long burdens.The society and feminists should be flexible enough to let such sentiments emerge.Feminists can not complain afterwards if things do not turn up as they had immaturedly envisaged. They seem to take men for granted and never envisage that men too will react and respond in their own way which will not be in tune to feminist way of thinking.And as and when men start reacting, feminists start feeling frustrated and deeply disturbed.

Ajay's view in #91 is indeed worth a second look.If the live-in amendment really comes through, then it is bound to throw up newer reactions and responses from men which feminists have not obviously anticipated.
Live-in is a concept which has emerged from women's perception that marriage is restraining. In the same vein, the post amendment live-in relation will be similarly viewed by men as restraining and it is natural that some oher kind of relation will emerge to beat the oppressive and one-sided live-in. It may lead to Ajay's concept of "live seperately", where each partner enjoys his/her own freedom,stay in seperate residences, enjoy a relationship,have individuality and identity and are not unilaterally imposed of any unwanted and undesirable liability.
I too strongly feel that more and more men should pitch in strongly for "live-seperately" rather than get involved in a post amendment live-in and be bound by host of unwanted legalities, impositions and life long burdens.The society and feminists should be flexible enough to let such sentiments emerge.Feminists can not complain afterwards if things do not turn up as they had immaturedly envisaged. They seem to take men for granted and never envisage that men too will react and respond in their own way which will not be in tune to feminist way of thinking.And as and when men start reacting, feminists start feeling frustrated and deeply disturbed.

Readers and the owners have time and again asked sif geeks to stop their tirade. Do you want to read those comments.

Readers and the owners have a zillion times deleted your comments.

Readers and the owners have successfully banned a few geeks in the past.

Observing nature gives insights into humans to some extent.

1. Marriage is not natural to animals.
The concept of marriage is more in the interests of women than men. Men, as any male in the higher order species of the animal kingdom, has one primary aim- to impregnate as many women as possible. Women, as any female in the higher order species of the animal kingdom, has one primary aim- to rear the child, protect it and feed it.

2. Marriage is one of the most successful institutions that has benefited mankind.
In contrast to animals, whose kids are ready to walk off within few hours of birth, humans do not walk for almost a year. The kids of humans cannot protect themselves for many years. The growth of human brain in the first five years is the maximum compared to any species on the planet. Kids grow up observing rather than learning locomotory skills in the first few years. All this allows humans to be intelligent (in comparison to other animals). Marriage helps the woman to protect, rear and feed the kid for a very long time (thus allowing humans to be intelligent) with the help of the man who will always be there to bring home the game and the food.

3. Marriage is conducive to our sexual activity.
Unlike animals, where every male gets to know when the female is receptive, we humans cannot exactly say when the woman can reproduce. Also, the woman can have sex almost anytime unlike in animals. A male thus has better chances of having sex being with one woman than if it was like in the animal kingdom (where you get a small window of opportunity with a female and you have to fight for it with other males). Thus, monogamy is also in the best interests of a male to have more sex- but the downside is that he doesn't get to inseminate many females.

So, we have #1 and #3. As men, we have to strike a balance. The man is always trying his best to choose another female for sex while continuing to keep his wife in the marriage :)

WEll said Sujai, so men have to basically control their needs or else they will land in the hot soup of 498a and burn their bottoms et al permanently;

Sumanth are you listening??

Guys, run run run run, bigg boss is coming.

Its very sad the way women are looked upon even after they have proved themselves in every field of life. I dont quite understand the logic behind calling woman a liability. The only way they can prove they are not a liability is by staying seperate, earn their living & be independent. Still the question remains if a son can stay with his parents, not earn & still not be a liability...what kind of world are we living in?

"so men have to basically control their needs or else they will land in the hot soup of 498a and burn their bottoms et al permanently;"

I am surprised that moderator is still allowing these lines and not banning the IP of #105.

BIG QUESTION MARK ?????????????

Null why should men control their needs and wants. Today woman want to to behave "as they want to". Then why restrain men?? If men have have a higher sexual urge , why should he feel ashamed of it and not feel normal about it.It is his right to live as he wants to and to be proud about it. How can woman decide what is good or bad?

Reader in #103-As we see newer social systems emerge in the form of singlehood, single mothers, open prostitution,live-ins etc,ushered in by women, there is a great inertia among women to allow the same free thinking among men and to allow him to redefine issues from his point of view.If live-ins and the supposed amendments are the new social realities that have to be faced, then why not have the courage to face the concept of "live seperately" to protect men to safe guard themselves. Why crib about it and decry it as a "TIRADE" by "SIFians".
More over, all the men here are not linked to SIF. I do not belong to SIF and so do a lot of men I know who are commenting here.Why not have the moral courage to accept the male point of view rather than bracketing all in the hue of being SIFians. Can not a man express his views in his own right?? Is it so threatening?