Women are objects, so say Feminists

We have, more than often heard that it is the lecherous men who look upon women as objects. And this baseless statement is given banners by the women activists. But there is enough logic to conclude that the way these nincompoop women activists have approached the women empowerment has actually done a huge disservice to woman-hood as the same has only reduced the stature of women to an object – much more than it is commonly believed and associated with men's perspective.

I shall give here some examples of such disservice by feminists.

Consider the way women are shown in advertisements of deodorants. A horde of women start drooling behind a man wearing a special kind of deodorant. And there is no vocal or otherwise protest by women activists. They have given it a clean chit showcasing women as dumb objects who can be attracted by mere fragrance! And I need not tell which species we know well to have a highly developed olfactory senses. But why have feminists not opposed such representation of women? Clear answer is the money power the big corporate owner of brands of these deodorants carry with them. These companies give the feminists what they want – money stuffed in their mouth and they cannot speak.

Same money power is at work when women are represented in bollywood/tollywood selling zandu balm or Shiela talking about her jawani!

Now look at the case these women activists have got the various laws of India tweaked to make women be an object. Consider law around adultery. It is well known that in India a woman cannot be tried for adultery since the law explicitly exonerates woman. The man is punishable. What does it show? That the man is expected to know what is right or wrong and make a decision before indulging in adultery. And if he makes the wrong decision, he shall be punished. But poor women! She is just an object – an object of the man's wrong decision. How can an object be punished. She was only being used. Even if she is 30+. Woman is not expected to have brains and know right from wrong. After all , she is an object!

The recently formulated sexual harassment laws take it a step further. A woman can complain against a man even if she “feels” that the man is mis-behaving! And why would any women “feel” so. Only if she thinks that she is an object! Whether a man thinks/looks with perversion in his mind is a different matter. If the woman carries an iota of doubt or notion that is वेहम that would be enough for her to lodge a complain. And when will a woman think that she is being ill treated? Only when the woman has doubts of her own existence. Only when she thinks herself as object (it is same as saying she thinks that others take her as an object). What we think of other's thoughts is actually a manifestation of our own thoughts. Someone has rightly said “No one can insult you without your permission.

Not just above examples but all examples of gender biased laws carry a deep logic of women thought of as objects, helpless, stupid who need support of men with latent libidos or nincompoop feminists.

Care for the reason behind the perverse patriarchy, please?

The Economic Times of 31 Oct 2013 carried an op-ed by Ms. Samanwaya Rautray (a correspondent with the paper) who has given her judgment over the judgment of Supreme Court of India on the case of Naina Sahni. The link to the write-up at the end.

I have no complaints against the judgment as it has been proved beyond doubt that the man Sushil Sharma murdered his wife Naina Sahni. For a crime proved to be committed, the criminal shall be punished is the rule of law across the globe. However, my problem is with the correspondent who is living in an open eyed dream of being more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more responsible than the judges of Supreme Court (though at the same time I do not intend to say that those judges carry these qualities better than rest of the denizens).

The law has a responsibility to ensure it delves sufficiently deeper into the motive of any crime committed. And the crime here – of a man murdering his wife – carried a motive which had it's genesis in a relationship of his wife with a man. But before I put forth my views on this motive, I want to look at certain points made by the 'intelligent' correspondent.

She says that the judgment is 'wrong' when it observed that an independent educated woman cannot be subjected to violence. Now lets consider this. I have two thoughts on this. A woman as educated and as political as Naina Sahni does not take any action against her husband if he had been subjecting her to domestic violence. Why? Why would such an educated woman not go to police and lodge a complain? Why would she not raise her voice? While answering these questions we need to remember that the year was 1995 and not 1975. In that year, women activism had gained the critical mass and was indeed a force to reckon with already. So why would a woman not raise her voice. Such a woman actually does not need parental support and can earn independently, live as a single woman and care the least for her violent husband and the society, a way which anyways is being propagated by feminists for the women of India. There could be two reasons for silence of such a woman. Either she was actually infidel and wanted to keep her relation a secret, which could have become public if she had raised her own voice or her husband was not violent towards her (despite his reputation of being brash and gun trotting) which did not actually give Naina any reason to complain. The woman feared that her extra marital relation wold tarnish the reputation of her parents and therefore continued to live with Sushil Sharma under all circumstances.

Thus the court and the judges were bang right when they stated that Naina was not 'poor, illiterate hapless woman' and had the choice of walking out which she deliberately did not choose under her own volition.

In the write-up, the correspondent makes a remark that 'women are taught to be servile, obedient and play second fiddle to the men in their lives'. I will want the correspondent to think deeply on this remark again but this time with the data that suicides committed by men in marital discord is almost twice that of those committed by women. It just shows who dominates whom and maybe the husband of the correspondent (if at all someone dared to marry her) can tell more.

Ms.Rautray then also states '...mindset drives our society to harass women who marry outside their caste, demand money from bride's family and kill women in the name of honour when they stray outside the moral mores laid down for them by the majority'. I do take note of the deliberate use of the word 'mores' instead of more common 'values' to complete the phrase around morality. Nevertheless my point here is the thought behind women liberation. Why is that linked to breaking moral 'mores', and not to education. I have witnessed more feminists like Ms Rautray harping around freedom for women in terms of breaking the established moral 'mores' especially of the type late night outs, continuing relationships outside marriage, freedom to wear revealing clothes but there are few and just about feeble noises around female foeticide, female education. Why? There is a reason. When voices are raised around female foeticide and education the only person to be blamed and punished are parents – father and mother – of the girl/women/feminists. Now, how can they do this? Their target is men and their parents. So it is matters between man and woman and not between woman and her parents that get support from severely lop sided and mis-targetted feminism in India, at least.

To read the write-up click HERE

Women are innocent and impotent!

Two news reports (URLs of both at the end) in yesterday's Times of India (Delhi edition) drew my attention and I wondered the society we are giving ourselves and planning to frame in the future.

The first one is a report where a Delhi woman killed her 4 year old son, injured her 15 year old daughter and killed a woman from her neighbourhood. The reason was that this murderous woman had illicit relation with the husband of the victim woman from the neighbourhood for few years. The dead woman had got suspicious of her husband and the murderous woman. It is reported that the husband ultimately reconciled with his wife and distanced himself with the murderous woman.

But this sent the murderous woman in a fit of rage so self-occupied that she even decided to eliminate her own children just for the sake of carnal pleasures. Yes, it was mere carnal pleasure as I deeply reject that a person (man or woman) can find 'true love' at age of 40 after three children. The murderous woman was 40 and had three children (her second daughter aged 12 escaped the mad wrath of her own mother since the poor child was at school).

Now before we look at the second report, let's just see how can this woman be punished by Indian legal system. With my limited knowledge of the Indian legal system, I guess she can be booked under attempt to murder (her own daughter, who is currently in hospital) and murder of her own 4 year old son and murder of her neighbouring woman. I do not think that she can be booked under having illicit relations with a person outside her matrimony. Why?

Two reasons. One, section 497 of IPC unambiguously and shamelessly excuses the woman of the charge of adultery. It says “...the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor”

The Indian legal system just does not punish a woman if she is found to be maintaining illicit relations outside her matrimony but has listed down the criteria for punishment for a man if he is found to be maintaining illicit relations with a woman outside matrimony. This also leads us to the second reason, which is that Indian legal system and the legislature is assinine.

Thus, the laws in India for protection of women are made with an assumption that all women are innocent. They just cannot do anyone any harm especially mental harm. Be it laws around domestic violence, 498a, or adultery it is the man who is at fault. Always.

Now, coming to the second report of the day, which as per me is somewhat hilarious. As per this report the National Commission of Women (NCW) is drafting a Bill of Rights. Before we look at the content it is to be noted that it does not specify whose rights. Since it does not specify whose rights, one can be led to believe that it is talking of Rights of all Indian citizens and if that be the case then why is NCW drafting it? Who is contributing in the draft on men's behalf, on behalf of kids, elderlies, handicapped and many other Indian citizens?

My half an hour search on the webiste of NCW did not throw up a single document that was called Bill of Rights but it had few other proposed bills and changes to existing bills. But going by the report, the next funny part is that there is a demand to make refusal of sex within marriage not a valid ground for seeking divorce. Now this is clearly an outcome of more than few judgements where wife's refusal for sex with the husband has facilitated the husband to seek divorce. The reasons I consider it funny is that while it is giving the wife a right to refuse sex, it is not talking of husband's right to refuse sex. This leads me to wonder if people who are drafting this think that the sex hormones exit only in men and women are impotent. It's only women who have “something” which they can refuse and husband shall be required to beg for it. It just reminds me of a quote on twitter by a woman which went something like this (addressed to womanfolk) “If your tears do not get you what you want depend on sex”. I took it as a joke then but I guess that lady was followed by some member(s) of NCW

At the same time I also find it pathetic and feel pity that such a draft is in a sense giving an impression that women indeed is a sex object. She has something which a man around her is after and she has a right to refuse it. Disgusting line of thinking this NCW carries with it, in fact.

My only suggestion to NCW will be on terms of reality. If they are indeed proposing such a stupid one sided right-of-refusal then also propose legality of prostitution else potential of sexual crimes could only see an increase.

Click HERE to see first report on the murderous wife; and

Click HERE to see the second report on NCW's nincompoop proposals

Economics is the Name of the Game

There is no second opinion that the world runs on money and therefore it is generally said to understand the behaviour of humans, one needs to understand the subject of economics and how humans behave and make choices under influence of money.

The best seller “Freakonomics” actually puts economics in each of mundace acts of humans where one would not have thought of applying economics but concludes that even such mundane acts are guided by money.

But then divorce is not mundane! How can it be then free of economics and money? If one were to analyse the various laws that have been framed for settling marital discords (fondly called “Women empowerment” - which is nothing but a joke).

Below is my understanding of framing of various laws that “empowered” women and how the laws have transformed from being somewhat neutral to being flawed and biased with advancement in society, technology and communication. While I have focused on main and most common of the laws, in all probability I might have missed some laws/amendments, please highlight the same.

The first law to be framed with special attention to women was Hindu Marriage Act in the year 1955. Similar acts for Christians is the Indian Christian Marriage Act framed in 1872, for Muslims is the Personnel Laws of Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage Act of 1939 and The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 while the Parsis have the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936. There is also a secular act Special Marriage Act of 1954 that generally deals with marital matters where the man and women practice different faiths or religions.

A cursory reading of these acts shows that these governed the rules under which a man and a woman can start a new life as husband and wife or decide to end their marital relation in the unfortunate circumstances where going together becomes impossible. These acts, though not impartial to both man and woman, still had taken a middle path for instance in section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act the reference to property is the one which is jointly owned by the husband and the wife.

The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 was one that had right intent to weed out dowry system from India and continued to be fair in design and application by making both giving and taking dowry a crime.

However, 1973 saw the section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It carried with it a new wave of a mindset and I firmly believe that this mindset was inherently primitive and backward looking. The section unambiguously assumes that in a house only the man/husband/son is capable to earn. The section is for maintenance of wives, children and parents and is worded to corner the man. The definition of wife includes the divorced wife who is not yet married – the man cannot think to be relieved even after formally and legally separating. Notwithstanding the fact that this enactment was probably the firs step back towards a fair society, this act had taken care to refuse maintenance to women who refuses to stay with the husband without adequate grounds or is involved in adultery.

But if looked at deeply (from Freakonomics perspective) this S.125 CRPC enactment was monetization of marriage. It was economics at play in the name of women empowerment!

1983 was the year which saw the most abused and misused law in the matters of matrimonial disputes. This year section 498a was inserted into the Indian Penal Code. This section/law has certain fundamental problems:

• The act is based on the basic premise that husband and his relatives are at fault
• The section states unambiguously that husband and his relatives shall be imprisoned and fined
• It assumes that act of cruelty is uni-directional and is from husband to wife. The wife can never be cruel to husband and his family members

This act has assumed draconian proportions not just with it's misuse but also with the threats of using it and the fear in the minds of husband and his family of getting arrested thereby losing jobs and respect. This impact has made sure that this act is the most economically beneficial for the women. It helps the women extract money in the name of settlement (actually an assurance of not filing 498a).

In 1984, we had the Family Courts Act. Now this could be said to be a law that ensured that family matters are kept separate from other matters and are resolved at the earliest. But this act had one problem. It sowed the seeds of mistrust against the man by including a provision to prefer women when appointing judges for the family court.

Thus as time has progressed we have actually brought in more and more of economic despondency among women and helped them extract money from men they called their husbands. These laws are in fact making women shun their careers, give up hard work, not use their intelligence, shy from contribution to the economic development of the country by ensuring them that they can go scot-free even if they are caught in an act of adultery and would still be rightful in demanding a maintenance from the man.

But hold on. Did I just say women shying away from contribution to the economic development of the country. Well that may not be true as these women are just not shying away from making money move – from the hands of the man to their own hands and as students of economic understand movement of money is the name of the game.

What about the toddling criminals, Mr Shinde?

Our Home Minister, Mr Shinde has advised the law administrators to take all steps that they can to ensure that no innocent Muslim should be detained and put behind bars.

That definitely is a noble thought, Sir but I just wonder why has it not been brought to you notice that along with such innocent Muslim there are toddlers, in fact infants as young as a few months old who are being put behind bars at a mere complain under the notorious section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

But then I also wonder why should you wait for someone to bring this to your notice when the same has been documented in the Report No. 243 on S.498A of the Indian Penal Code by the Indian Law Commission released just about an year back in August 2012. The report is not just available in public forums it is ought to be in your office since you are India's Home Minister (and not just a father of a woman who has had a bad marriage).

If you read the report in full and provided in full fairness, you would realize that there is a significant number of men – Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Christians etc – who are being detained, put behind bars for either no fault or without proper investigation. At just a mere complain by a woman not just her husband but his entire family is thrown in the jail. And this family has often included kids, children and even infants – not to talk of elderly men and women who are in regular need ot medical help! I draw your attention to section 2.2 of the said report (just in case your office – or maybe you – missed it by chance or by design; a link to the report is provided at the end)

Isn't this report from the judiciary who actually gets to see the use and misuse of law enough for the legislature to sit up and introspect what went wrong when framing the law? Or is it that you are seeking personal benefits out from it? But what makes you sure that this will not bite you back? Will you amend it then? But in that case, the Indians are actually living at the mercy of politicians – the gods of the time! Unless they feel the heat, the commoners cannot expect any wind of relief.

So, Mr Home Minister will you now take a minute and see that besides innocent Muslims, innocent infants and kids are not put behind bars. Or do you too believe that a 4 month old baby is a grave threat to an abla naari who has all designs and plans or the support to misuse laws. By not taking corrective action on this asinine law, the legislature is putting the country on the path that slowly but surely leads to a criminal record for over 50% of the population across age!

This does not leave me with a wonder, but a clarity that law world over is an ass but Indian legislature is unique in being a asshole!

The report.  

Life in Oblivion

When a boy grows into a man of 30, it has taken him 30 years and a minimum of half a dozen women - mother, sister(s), grandmother(s), aunt(s) to start believing that the closest any man can get to God is through womanhood. But, it takes just a few years (sometimes just days) and only a single woman to help the same man realize that the same womanhood holds the potential of helping the man meet the devil.

And that single woman in the life of the man is his wife.

I personally do not rest the blame of this on woman because she is just answering the temptation created by flawed legal system of India. The grossly twisted laws don't just start from the premise that woman is righteous but the law even ends with the conclusion which is same as the premise. And this despite any number of evidences, arguments, pleadings of the man. The man was, is and shall continue to be the crooked one in matters between the man and the woman.

But why does woman resort to the temptation? In my opinion, she is human and temptation drowns everyone. Hence, the man realizes that woman is just a human like him and not an image of God which his mother, sister etc appeared to be.

While this realization comes at varying speeds - sudden to gradual - along with it comes a jolt, invariably sudden. The jolt to the man of finding his life getting sucked and falling into a deep unending oblivion. Every man has some plans or the other at each point in time. All such plans crash. He loses all his effort and money put in till such time in the plans. Has no idea if he should work ahead on the lines or change track. If later, then to which track? He is back to the position where he is all by himself to take care of his elder parents, complete household responsibilities, which by-the-way he does not shy away from since he was doing it before marriage. The only thing is that his marriage had given him mental, moral and physical support to take on with such responsibilities. And that support deserts him. Why?

Reasons galore. And the sad (or is it funny?) part is that reasons range from criminal orientation to the concept of space in woman's perspective. She was fine with her mother calling the shots at her place but she wants to ensure that all shots in her matrimonial house are called by her only and her mother-in-law should suddenly retire herself into the room - which she loves to believe has been 'granted' by her to her husband's mother.

In fact, I tend to pity myself and to men in general. On a fair view the life of a man gets torn after marriage. Torn between two women - mother and wife. But hold on! I have no data to say that woman who marry men with no parents/mothers have not deserted them - hence I stop at pitying myself only.

But then one may ask, why a man feels so helpless? In an oblivion? The answer lies in the legal system of India. The system which is built on the premise that a woman is the one who has been wronged and the man is the crook. The legal system of India is blind to crimes of women in matrimonial lives. Why else does India have no provision to punish adultery by a woman? What to talk of provision, the law actually states that adultery is not applicable to women!

It is because, we Indians have distorted our vision and see all men as Ravanas and all women as Sitas. There are no Rams left in India anymore.