Indian cinema has bought into idea(s) of Hollywood in more than one ways. Except making films in Indian languages—no matter how polluted by English they already are, Indian movies sound and look more and more like non-Indian films. The way contemporary characters dress both men and women usually are some version of the fashion from the west, slowly erasing one of the most Indian aspects of Indian movies. The vibrancy of Indian color is still maintained, but the elegance of wearing Indian outfits as a choice of home-wear, casual-wear, professional and everyday wear, especially for women, which are climate appropriate, is fast being made to seem a choice for the poor and economically backward classes.
Increasingly, Indian cinema makes movies of a “certain genre”, rather than masala films. While former employs usually one or two emotions in narrating its story, the latter exposes audiences to a range of emotions through storytelling. And now, there are “franchise films” replacing one-time unforgettable characters, best remembered through one remarkable performance. So, as opposed to Anand, Zanjeer and Sholay that brilliantly immortalized characters in the first attempt, there are now Munna Bhais and Golmaal Returns and Jolly LLB 2—that keep returning to capitalize on their first successes.
However, Jolly LLB is more about the judiciary system than just about one lawyer, so the character is new, as is his situation from the earlier movie of the same title, released in 2013. And the one thing very typically Indian about the movie is its location of action– the Indian courtroom.
The movie, promoted as a comedy, certainly does help you maintain an amused expression for the most part of the film. But despite the fact that Bollywood thinks that it has broken the “old mold”, of masala films, it is simply creating new stereotypes. Here are some that stood out for me in Jolly LLB 2:
First: In the last few years, a few things that have become staple in Bollywood films. Women have become the gender of choice to sell alcohol to public as a fun, normative thing to do. Usually this involves them getting drunk, doing silly things and sometimes throwing themselves on men. But Jolly LLB 2 reached a new height when they showed a mother of a six-year old drinking and passing out in front of her child. Not once were the consequences of such an act even considered in the courtroom drama that talked constantly about “the right thing to do”. No commentary on what happens to children who see their parents, especially mothers, getting drunk and passing out in front of them. So, now instead of bars, alcohol is right at the center of the family, normalizing it, even encouraging it as a marker for a healthy family. Because, there were no repercussions, and no undesirable outcome of a mother drinking in front of her son.
Second: While in earlier movies it was a Naina living in New York or a Rani from Rajouri Garden who drinks in Paris to deal with her broken heart after she is abandoned by her fiancé, today it is a Shruti from Janakpuri, a regular Delhi graduate from middle class family, who is shown drinking to celebrate her wedding planning business, as if mithai and chai, an age old way of celebrating does not fit us anymore. But in Jolly LLB 2, it is Pushpa Pandey, an MA in Sanskrit at that, who has a thing for “angrezi sharab” such that despite a spat with her husband she gets up to down an entire bottle while her child sleeps in the same room. So, this love of alcohol is now presented as a norm.
Third: For all the hu-ha about feminism and movies, Pushpa Pandey is a real parasite. No, I mean really, she just takes and takes, without giving. She does not work, does not cook, talks to her husband like he is her sidekick, even though she has no special quality or ability except an obsession with western, especially designer clothes. Despite her MA in Sanskrit she utters Gucci a few times in the movie, and then to celebrate her anniversary buys a designer dress. In fact, in the beginning of the movie, she does not let her husband in the house because he has not yet bought her these designer clothes. Jolly has to break into his own house with the help of his neighbor and despite being a Brahmin “makes up” with his wife by giving an example from Mahabharata and offering her alcohol. When their six year old child demands to be taken the toilet, Jolly says, “mummy to talli ho gayi” and helps the child. The modern Indian woman can take and demand, but has no responsibility to give.
Fourth: Sufi songs are beautiful. They touch the heart. I could listen to them forever. But lately there have been too many and often it is the Hindus that are ready with their sajdahs and taveez who grace these songs. I would like to see a Muslim walk into a temple, a Christian resting his head at Krishna’s feet in our secular country. I feel minorities are underrepresented in temples. Or we could have a Shiv Bhajan playing as a Muslim young woman is shown praying in a temple, or see a Christian dancing to a lively rendition of Hanuman Chalisa.
Fifth: I thought movies today were about “reality” more real than before, then we should show various aspects of reality. So, if Jolly is riding a scooter, sometimes he should be shown wearing a helmet, sometimes not, and well, sometimes we should show the consequences of not wearing a helmet as well. Make it a part of the plot, so while the audience learns that offering alcohol to your wife is a prerequisite for a healthy family life, so is wearing a helmet for the safety of the body and eventually family.
Given the current direction of Bollywood it is hard to expect that they will make any course correction in the near future. So brace yourself for more ugliness in the future.
This is further addition to the last article on same topic. This time we concern ourselves with the winners of this new feminist world. The last articles focussed on the impact on different classes of men/women in the society, but more can be said about other groups. The other winners are-
Corporates: Apart from sexual winners, if one thinks about economics then the corporates win. The reason they started to let women work is because they were falling short of laborers during the world war. The feminist social doctrine that evolved was just an extension of this economic model. Not letting women work means 50% of capable labor force remains unproductive. Instead, if they are made to work, the production goes up and need to import migrant labor goes down. There are more buyers for all sorts of products and local economy goes up.
Now the attack on biological aspects of womanhood is a further extension of this economic agenda. If she is stuck in traditional gender roles then their economy is hurt, so they are trying to take away the femininity of the woman away and trying to brainwash all women into thinking that they are a “resource”, like a good HR would label them. Women have started buying this definition too and just like men, they have started attaching their self worth to how much they earn.
In the west, this is somewhat okay because it increases productivity but in India young women have started a new doctrine of their own, they want the good points of the western doctrine but don’t want to let go of the traditional benefits of “patriarchy”. For example a girl earning the typical 3.5 Lakhs Per Annum from one of the top 4 mass recruiting IT firms now wants her potential husband to earn at least 12 LPA. So she is trying to play the realpolitik game and make the best of both doctrines and squeeze benefits for herself. Although western women too display hypergamy but not at the same level as their Indian counterparts. If one goes around barking about being an independent woman who is not dependent on any man to sustain herself, why not marry a low earning artist, or a plumber or a carpenter? Why 3X salary requirement from the husband? Where’s the feminism now? Why claim maintenance money after divorce? Why claim custody of children by default of being a “mother”?
Government: No one can forget the second beast in the room which is the government itself. It has all the reasons to make corporate slaves out of women. More labor means more tax and more tax means more spending on welfare. The increased and non-stop growth in the size of bureaucracy means that the government needs an ever expanding size of labor force to balance budget. Now having run out of women, the same western governments are not shying away from importing foreign migrants to shore up their finances in the future.
The government bureaucrats and politicians not only draw power from increased spending power delivered through increased revenue but it also gives them immense power to interfere in public sphere. Large number of propaganda programs can be rolled out to change mindsets and thus favours can be curried to the select few through media and academia. Different gender issues which were earlier monitored and improved by civil society now require explicit government interventions, which means more redundant jobs created by the government.
We leave the reader to dig deeper into this issue but look at the kind of studies funded by taxpayer’s money as shown below. If they are not outrightly ridiculous, then one would wonder what is:
Gender scholar asks 55 women if there’s a link between being a woman and having a vagina.
If you want to think in Indian context, then think about abuse of 498A. An incoherent law has been imposed on the society which has led to destruction of families through rampant misuse, but the vested interests do not want to let it go. And who are the vested interests in this case? Feminist groups and law fraternity. These two groups hardly want to budge back on this issue, even though greater than 90% of the cases don’t get any conviction and half of the victims are themselves women. So once a law is enacted, it is almost impossible to backtrack on it. The one way street of feminism allows no U-turns.
As one can by now see, the feminist ideology gives enough reasons for the above two classes to implement these policies even more zealously. So next time when you see a government funded program in favour of altering social norms, you would understand why.
Who are the biggest losers in an increasingly feminist world? WOMEN! But there are different shades of losers and some lose more than others. The losers are listed below in decreasing order of significance:
Children– They are the biggest losers in a feminist dominated society. How does the children lose in such a society? Children lose because they are forced to grow in single parent households and sacrificed at the altar of protecting individual whims and fancies over the future generation. No fault divorce coupled with high alimony payments ensure that women have almost no incentives to maintain a healthy marital bond. Although, feminists will argue that women are not responsible for divorce but almost 80% of divorce are initiated by women!
This problem is further exacerbated by delayed marriages and out of wedlock births. #MyLifeMyChoice type of arguments have removed the taboo from pre-marital sex as well as out of wedlock births. All this means that paternal investment in kids has gone down and the laws have left no incentive for fathers to invest in their offsprings.
Sexual abuse of children increases in broken families
If sexual abuse can be taken as a metric of exploitation, then kids are at the receiving end of all the abuse in broken families. The chances of a child getting abused in a broken family is several times higher than the case when a child lives with his/her biological parents. Another metric that can be employed is school performance of kids with absentee fathers. Broad survey of research shows that absentee fathers have a negative impact on school performance of kids. The article states:
We find strong evidence that father absence negatively affects children’s social-emotional development, particularly by increasing externalizing behavior. These effects may be more pronounced if father absence occurs during early childhood than during middle childhood, and they may be more pronounced for boys than for girls. There is weaker evidence of an effect of father absence on children’s cognitive ability.
Effects on social-emotional development persist into adolescence, for which we find strong evidence that father absence increases adolescents’ risky behavior, such as smoking or early childbearing. The evidence of an effect on adolescent cognitive ability continues to be weaker, but we do find strong and consistent negative effects of father absence on high school graduation. The latter finding suggests that the effects on educational attainment operate by increasing problem behaviors rather than by impairing cognitive ability.
So laws that lead to broken families in turn harm future of children. And there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the primary goal of many feminists is destruction of family which in turn can be interpreted as destruction of childhood. The failure of blacks in American society can be traced back to broken homes and large number of out of wedlock births and absence of fathers in African-American society.
Lower class females– The second biggest losers in a feminized setting are lower class women. Although high class women also end up as cat ladies due to feminist indoctrination and male hate but the biggest casualty is borne by lower class females. They lose out by bearing the feminist assault on family structure. While high class women preach feminism to their lower class sisters, they themselves are much less likely to divorce as compared to low class women. The study by Isen and Stevenson gives details on education attainment and divorce rates.
Three things become immediately clear from the above data for US. Firstly, the rate of divorce has increased since 1950s for all classes (both race and sex). Secondly, the rate of divorce has strictly been higher for high educated females. Thirdly, percentage of divorce for blacks has been higher than whites. Since education and gender both determine an individual’s class in US, it is more than abundantly clear that lower class females have been on the receiving end of new legislations.
Not only the richer females are less likely to divorce but they also end up with high alimony settlements and a comfortable lifestyle while their poorer sisters are left out in the wild without a mate plus dependent on welfare state given low/negligible alimony payments. At the same time, while the richer women still have the option to opt out of work in case of a divorce (or even within a marriage), the lower class women have no option to opt out of workforce and have to almost always support themselves and their children, often living life on subsistence, while flipping burgers in McD. The problems of black families are increased many fold due to the breakdown of their family institution and hence black women are even bigger losers.
Lower class males– The lower class males lose due to decrease in their SMV and decrease in chances of landing up with a mate. Since women display hypergamy and have also increasingly joined the workforce, the role of lower class males as bread earners has diminished and they now have almost no utility for the modern female. If a women is unable to find a job she has nanny state to help her live on. Thus, most males on the lowest level of social pyramid find it almost impossible to attract any female.
Also breakdown of social taboos on sexual relationships means that women are free to pursue alpha males leaving the betas of the old alone and lonely. Such men only have chance of ending up with an old female once she is past her prime fertile age and does not any longer have better options. Since society does not put any pressure on their youth to get married early, an entire generation of low value men are restricted to their parent’s basement and increasingly pursue other hobbies to hide their failure at attracting women. This is reflected in the coinage of terms like herbivore men in Japan and MGTOWs in the west.
Whether the external impulses like porn, video games etc are able to compensate for life long partnership with women for these men is yet to be seen, but low SMV men are increasingly opting out of the society.
Super high class women– These are the women at the top of the pyramid and are unable to find men who can overcompensate their value. Feminism has brainwashed entire generation of women and has de-emphasized the value of maternity and children. Women who are increasingly successful in corporate careers find it increasingly difficult to find potential mates who are better than them. While successful men have no problem in marrying down and settling for a less value women, female hypergamy ensures that highly successful women end up alone.
Another factor which hurt these women is the blind pursual of career over family, thus forcing them to waste their best fertile years as corporate slaves. By the time they realize their folly, they are well past their prime age to attract high value men, who are interested in other younger women. The same women then shout at men to man up.
While few women might be happy with being corporate slaves but many end up bitter in their old lives by giving up on timely maternity. Although marriage is not important for having children but the mad race for jumping corporate hoops ensure that successful corporate women delay child bearing to win cut-throat competition. While these women might bed best males during their small fertile youthful period, their value decreases exponentially with age, thus making them resentful later on in life due to male rejection. The rise of the cat ladies to douse the maternal instincts is a modern phenomenon, thanks to the propaganda against motherhood by feminazis.
Who wins?
Not everyone loses in such a society! The winners are high SMV men who get unbridled supply of young emancipated women ready to sleep with them without the burden of marriage. Although any male with an interest in family has to act over-cautious in such a society but if the idea is to be a philanderer than no society offers better options for a high SMV men. In case these men decide to tie the knot, since educated women have lower divorce rates, it also means they do not get a raw deal like their poorer counterparts. It is an almost win-win situation for them in each case. Just to emphasize, these men lose the most in a patriarchal society due to reduced access to prime fertile women and have almost all the reasons to support feminazi agenda.
The question now is- where does India want to end up with its increasingly anti-family legislation?
What happens when you rob a man of his dignity and his life? Someone someday will take a drastic step, lose his mind and go on a killing spree. After all, if you ruin a man’s life to the point where there is nothing left to live for, well, he can surely take a few lives with him as revenge. One must not take so much advantage of someone just because one isn’t saying anything. We are talking about men in current India to make you realize that it is not far from truth. What has brought about this sad state of affairs? Short sightedness of legislature and judiciary. To give an example-
Rohit is a psychiatrist and runs a suicide prevention help line. He got a call from one guy in jail and went to meet him. He told that his wife registered a case on him for divorce and maintenance. So the judge fixed an amount but the total income of the guy is less than the amount payable in maintenance. Since he could not afford to pay it now he is jailed for not paying the maintenance. Not surprisingly, he is now contemplating suicide.
Such cases as reported by Rohit are widespread but do not get enough coverage and get drowned in the feminist hysteria, except generating some coverage on inside pages of local newspapers, where no one bothers to pay heed.
Man leaves suicide video blaming wife n in-laws, says ws threatened n harassed with a false #498A , parents torturedhttps://t.co/TFNKloH8Nu
— Deepika Bhardwaj (@DeepikaBhardwaj) August 31, 2016
What is the solution out of this mess? With changing times, men must update their attitude about relationships and marriages and see it the way women see it- a contract made for self interest. Currently, once someone’s marriage gets fixed he starts building air castles about what will happen on honeymoon, while the girl’s family starts doing financial calculation about how their daughter gets upward social/economic mobility just by marrying (female hypergamy).
The popular narrative tells men that dowry is evil but is silent on how women (and their families) hunt grooms? They roam with calculators in their hand! The primary motivating factors for them are “Mumbai/Delhi mein khudka ghar hai? (Does the man own an apartment)”, “1BHK/2BHK?”, “does the groom have any other claimants on the property, like brother?”, “ladka kitna kamata hai?(How much does the boy earn?)” etc. The institution of arranged marriage is nothing but legalized prostitution these days where parents sell their daughter to the highest bidder and have the guts to lecture ‘society’ that dowry is evil. What is this mythical ‘society’ they keep ranting about? Aren’t women a part of the same society?
Compare their cold and calculating attitude to the callous attitude of men while hunting for wives, all they see is “ladki dikhne mein theek hai? Ok, kardo shadi (Is the girl decent looking? Ok, lets marry)”. Anyway it’s inappropriate for the guy to lay claim on the girl’s property, neither socially nor legally. It is impossible to get her property even after her parents die, or if you divorce and become jobless and she has job, she never has to pay maintenance. The feminazis failed to get it legislated but the next bill will give claim to wife on husband’s inherited property post divorce. So basically the onus of a failed relationship and its economic implications are put squarely on the man, while the woman has ZERO liability in such an alliance. Go big or go home but no loss. When a girl’s family says that they got a good groom, what they mean is they found a wealthy groom, so if X is better than Y then it can be proved with objective data that X has more money than Y. Can a guy do similar calculations? What does he mean when X bride is better than Y bride? Do men even have objective parameters to judge on a scale of ‘better’? They consider themselves lucky just because someone is marrying them.
Men must start exploring proper options like pre-nuptials, hiring detective to see if there are any other Feminazis in the girl’s family who have given divorce to their husband and stolen 50% of his property. ANY red flag, ANY, just say no. It’s time men start thinking with their heads. No one goes to buy a new car and think “what are my insurance options if this new car gets into an accident” because we are all wishful thinkers and assume the best possible scenario, but when the accident happens, they realize that in their happiness to buy a new car they didn’t read the fine print and cannot claim any respite once an accident takes place. It is the same callous attitude men in India have towards marriage. No one realistically thinks about bad scenarios at the time of marriage- what if this doesn’t work out? What are my legal/economic liabilities? What is my plan B?
Men need to start becoming more cunning. The world is a scary place filled with vultures who want to take everything that you have (the very reason they made any association with you is because of what you HAVE, not because of who you are) so once you stop having what you have (by losing a job/business/accident/disease) then the same girl who thought it made sense to be with you earlier makes the calculation that it doesn’t make sense to be with you now. It is these ‘sensible’ people who are the most poisonous and we keep hunting for demons under our beds.
The idea of marriage was offered to men under the premise that after evaluating the pros and cons, it had a net positive effect on everyone. Steadily, over the years the dividends which men receive from this institution has eroded and it is increasingly becoming a liability. It used to be a package deal where you got companionship, children, sex, and a friend to grow old with, but now with the new laws and corporate lifestyle, all of that has been jeopardized. There’s no companionship as the husband and wife work in different offices and hardly see each other daily, sex is non-existent (or as per the whims of the lady, and now that they are clamouring to introduce marital rape bill, more fake rape cases will ensue to blackmail husbands). Kids? Well, once there is a divorce, the court take away the kids and gives them to the wife! And old age? You will spend old age as an old man filled with regrets, no companionship, no kids, no retirement pension, paying maintenance to your wife. Where is the benefit to men to get into such a one sided arrangement where the onus of a failed relationship is completely on one gender?
Now a days, if you are an upper middle class man, the fact that you marry only means that you have pledged your wealth to a stranger unilaterally where she has no reciprocal obligations whatsoever. The concept of household chores is non-existent as there are washing machines and house maids. So even if the wife is a house wife, her status is that of a highly pampered house cat. She adds no value to the alliance in any way compared to what she gets to legally claim in return (your entire property). Going out and marrying is like going to the mall and buying trouble with your hard earned money.
On the other hand, the women, by marrying, immediately become legally entitled to lay claim on the husband’s property and immediately achieve social/economic mobility. The husband’s real estate is multiple times of what she would earn from her job anyway. It’s the woman who gets everything in a conventional marriage scenario and no matter how shrill the Feminists are, they aren’t ready to forfeit this benefit of caricaturing the man in the role of a provider. The more he is capable of providing, the better man he is considered. How come no Feminists are crying objectification now?One just needs to look at west to realize how a failed marriage society will look like. They have disintegrated this ‘package deal’ that marriage offers and relegated each of its constituent elements to different sources. There, when the men want companionship? They join hobby clubs and meet like minded people. When they want intellectual conversations, they talk to people in their office or on the internet. They want sex?, They arrange it yourself through ‘various means’ including pick up artistry (free casual pump and dump sex which oddly is opposed by their own feminist) and fuck a new girl each weekend. when they want to have the feeling of fulfilment of raising a child? They adopt an orphan or 10 and sponsor their education. When they want safety and security in retirement? They buy a house at a prime area from all the money saved and lead a comfortable life, which arguably is a way better choice there since their chances of good old age life is better if they are single and unmarried and hence not screwed by their legal system where they get robbed of their properties and earnings in the name of divorces and maintainance. Even the hospitals have become like 5-start hotels. If you are sick in old age and pay them enough, they will keep you like a king till you die. Men there don’t need a wife or kids for that (or they will still have 10 adopted kids who might help them in old age). The laws pushed down the throat of men in their feminazi society has ensured that the above combination is FAR better than the prospect of marrying a woman in 20s, and then have a sexless bitter life with a false marital rape case filed against them once their wife lose interest in them, while their house and money and kids are taken away while leading the life of a single uncle and waiting to die and nothing to look forward to!
The above scenario is well exemplified by the movements like PUA and MGTOW in the west. Their society is already at a point where majority men don’t marry and leave their women (even the normal non-feminist feminine women) stranded with a cat with their shrinking ovaries with nothing to look forward to except cat piss in their future. While men are learning to cope up with anti-men society, it is actually the women who end up as sore losers and cat ladies in the end. Since men no longer want to marry feminazis, the shrill feminazis then raked up the old patriarchal quote and ask men “To Man Up”. The irony is that despite all these impediments that men face, it is the women who keep claiming perpetual victim hood.
The above decadent situation which is prevalent in west today, has reached the current decadent state wasn’t reached overnight and was reached by decades of unopposed march by feminism and mindless women pampering by their politicians and judiciary which thought men had no issues in marital life and only women had issues and pampered their women without thinking through the consequences for their actions. While not every women might have supported feminism or “women’s rights” march and the laws screwing the men there, they inevitably let their feminist crazy sisters to shout over the rooftop and let the laws screw their men. Now it is the same women, who might not even be feminists themselves but are made to pay the price for such anti-male laws there with singledom, cat piss and dog shit. Feminists who pushed for such laws are actually happy for it since why would an already lesbian, anti-male and all sex is rape hippy care that other normal women are getting left alone without companionship?
This is not to say that women don’t face atrocities in India. Many women in rural areas are getting physically abused and killed by their in-laws, but that sample set has no connection to the modern urban educated woman working in a corporate job. Urban Feminazis appropriating victim-hood on the behalf of their rural counterparts whom they have never even met and claiming more and more concessions is nothing but crude opportunism. It’s like Anil ambani saying “my driver didn’t have breakfast today so I must eat 2 extra burgers on his behalf to compensate for it”.
So the only advice to men and their sisters and mothers is to avoid the dynamite of failed marriage by properly filtering out any signs of feminism when they look for a bride. Unless the Indian society wakes up to this challenge, it too will end up with failed marriages and unhappy cat ladies like in the west, while men look the other side and ignore them. This will be especially true for women in India as well. The price for feminism and it’s cat ladies of the west is paid for by both feminist and non-feminists alike in the west. The percentage of women who identify as feminists is at an all time low of 27% in USA and still the percentage of women who manage to get a husband is only 30-40%. This is why women against feminism is gaining ground there. But it is a step too late and too little. Their society is already dying and their women are already miserable. Women of India should women up and stand up to the braindead white wannabe Indian feminazis, for if they don’t stand up to this judicial trampling of men by courts and society on the advice of white wannabe feminists, it is not just their brothers and sons who are going to be destroyed, but their own lives along with their sisters and daughters as well. It is about time Indians stop this blond white wannabeness and start learning from the mistakes the dying and decadent west made.
Countless studies and surveys in the West have shown that western women are on average getting miserable every decade for the past several decades while men’s happiness have been constant. Many in west find this to be contrary to what they expected because the ultra progressive feminism of the west was thought to be harbringer of liberation and hence happiness for the women of the west. However, many mainstream academia and media there, because they are clouded by their own “feminism is good” bias, miss the most important reason for the declining happiness of women in the west which is Feminism.
Decreasing women happiness: Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009
For a long time, the western media and feminists have been pushing a narrative that women would be happy with their work life and that they would get as much satisfaction from being a corporate money slave as they would from having a loving husband and loving children and loving families. They have been pushing the narrative that women can have career as much as they can have a family without any problem even though this is against reality. Given this reality, feminists have now hardened their stance against nature even more by further downplaying the role of motherhood and are increasingly calling it slavery and asking women to opt out of child bearing all together. They come to this conclusion because of viewing the world with feminist lens that men and women are absolutely the same. However, men and women are not absolutely the same. Men don’t have to take a break of 1 year from their careers to have children like women and hence have a natural edge in the careers. Men also have a higher strength in their overall body and only the top 0.1% of women can match the body strength of an average Man. This is the biological reality and cannot be wished away. While traditionally, the families helped women against this natural bias through institution of marriage, now the feminists have forced western governments and increasingly the industry to bear this private cost of having children, thus replacing regular husband with the new husband called big government.
However, this is not a bad thing. Questioning why it is unfair that men can have a career AND family while women can’t have both is ignoring the reality that women have to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and another 6-9 months of child rearing when the child must be with his mother compulsory. This takes away almost 1 year away from career of the women for each child they have. But that’s not a bad thing as propounded by feminists. When they have husbands taking care of them and earning for them when they are vulnerable during bearing and rearing a child, why should it matter where the money and resources for taking care of the child comes from? This is a problem only if one views woman as a single unit instead of viewing women as a part of a whole unit called family. So long as men and women are part of family, such differences in careers and working capabilities hardly figure into anything meaningful as both men and women would complement each other and form synergies to raise their families together for a better future. Even through government intervention, this problem will not disappear as women still have to take almost or more than an year off per child, thus making it difficult to balance career and family together. Unless women become like men and completely give up their natural instincts for motherhood, this constraint will remain binding. Now the only question which remains to be answered is whether women will like to have loving caring husbands next to their side during this important period of their life or a faceless government.
However, since many women in the west were brainwashed into pursuing a career over finding a suitable family before their prime age of 22-25, they end up wasting their prime time looking for careers and becoming corporate slaves like most men. However, since men value youth and beauty in women over money, for the most part at least, they end up not going after “career” women. So when the career women come looking for a man to settle down after their youth has faded away, they usually end up being disappointed that there is no one left, at least not the kind of guys they dreamt would be theirs. Eventually they settle for a guy that they usually end up loathing because they had passed up so many better potential mates during their prime age but were forced by career to not settle down. This undoubtedly leaves a large number of women unsatisfied with their marriages as they end up taking divorce and finally becoming lonely cat ladies in their old age.
Also, feminism has also reduced any taboo regarding divorces and free sex in the west in the name of sexual revolution. This has further reduced the incentive for men there to marry them in the first place. Why would men marry women when they can get free sex with far less emotional and economic baggage that is associated with marriage? This has led to Pick Up Artist culture in the west among men. Either way, both contribute to low marriages and high divorces in the western society and the women and men having to live separately and divorced for the major part of their life. Is it any wonder that western marriages fail more than 50% of the time even though most marriages happen after several dates and partners and live in relationships, implying that the marriage must have finally happened after the couple had decided that they have a lot of compatibility? This also busts the myth of better screening mechanism associated with love marriages. The truth is, marriage needs commitment more than compatibility to work and feminism and its assault on western families have turned marriage from being about commitment to being about compatibility. Now the western society is paying the price for it with 50% divorces and 50% single moms and 20 times higher per capita rapes than India.
How feminism destroyed the happiness of Chinese women
While feminism has completely ruined western society and it’s family structures, it is now in the process of ruining eastern cultures and society too. Chinese and Japanese society, which are all family values based societies much like Indian society are also starting to feel the pinch caused by feminism. And as with western feminism, feminism in China is ruining the happiness of the women there as well. For a long time, feminist elites in Chinese media propagandised about the greatness of women entering workforce and sacrificing their early lives for career. They fed the lie that women will be as satisfied with their lives as corporate paper pushers as they would be with their family life and children and that women can have a family after they had established a career for themselves. However, reality is far different from propaganda and China is not special either. The women who believed the media lies that men would like their money more than their youth and pursued a career instead of pursuing a family at their prime age are now finding it increasingly difficult to get married even though they are very rich now. It is important to note here that China has a very bad sex ratio and these women should have had no problem in getting married just because the demand for marriageable women would be very high due to very poor sex ratio. Still, these women have a hard time finding a “suitable” life partner and are called “leftover women” in Chinese parlance. Of course, the western feminists are now trying to blame the Chinese society and government for shaming these women, but fact of the matter is that these women are themselves sad due to lack of interest they receive from men.
Though this is a generalisation, it will hold true for most men and women- men are visual creatures and are attracted to youth and beauty of a woman and women are needy creatures who are attracted to wealth and security of a man. There is nothing wrong in either behaviour as they are deep rooted in biology and evolution. Men love women because they can have babies and hence are attracted to young women who can have healthy babies compared to old women. Women on the other hand are very vulnerable socially and financially when they have children and look to men who can provide them security- physical, financial and social and hence marry more for their power and wealth than their physical attraction, even though physical attributes do have a role in attraction.
This is why, even though the Chinese women are now millionaires they find it very difficult to find men of equal status to marry today. Women want men of same status as themselves to be their husbands and hence will try to look for millionaire men. The only problem however is that millionaire men are already rich and are more attracted to youth and beauty and would rather marry younger, less rich women as they themselves have all the money they want and have little use for more money compared to a good wife who can take care of their families better. Of course the western articles on this issue has dismissed the issue as being patriarchal mindset but that doesn’t change the truth or the ground reality or the biological realities of the sexes. Whining and crying about patriarchy is not going to make women go after poor beggars for marriage nor is it going to make rich men go after old “career” women just because the feminists say so. All that feminists have done is given women bad advice and have ruined their chances of success in their love life and hence an overall happier lifestyle. Having blindly chosen career by completely side-lining the importance of family, is it any wonder that women’s happiness has been on the decline ever since the advent of feminism?
This is the second article in this series. Check part I here.
Why Feminist version of equality is fake
Feminists also assert that men and women are almost the same and that gender is a social construct. The article argues that men and women are not identical and should be treated as complementary rather than competing classes.
The family, where man and woman form supplementary components, is presented as the basic unit of human society rather than the isolated individual.
The article argues that when family structures dissolve, the state increasingly replaces family support through welfare systems, particularly for single-parent households.
Proof that Feminism destroys societies
The article claims that feminist societies have weak family structures and are demographically and socially unsustainable.
It cites high rates of divorce, single parenthood and father absence in western countries and argues that these outcomes contribute to social instability.
The article also discusses Planned Parenthood and abortion in the United States, especially in relation to black families, and argues that family breakdown rather than race alone explains much of the difference in crime and incarceration.
It further claims that feminism is an offshoot of Marxism and that early feminist thinkers sought to weaken marriage and the family as social institutions.
The article concludes that feminism will affect Indian society in the same way it affected western societies unless Indians consciously reject its conflict-based assumptions.
Many Indian/Hindu feminists when confronted with reality check on destructive nature of feminism claim that it is implemented badly in the west and in India and hence few glitches can be ironed out through Hinduism. However, this is a flawed view as feminism is flawed at the very fundamental level.
Feminism at its core is described here as a Marxist idea of class warfare which pits women as a class against men as a class.
In most cases, feminists try to create a gender war when there is no problem to begin with. Their campaign regarding wage gap is one such example. The article argues that once corrected for different occupations and career choices, the gender pay gap largely disappears.
It further argues that in family-based societies men and women are not separate economic classes because household income is shared within the family.
This is what the feminist ideology gets wrong- it only views the issues of society from a female individualistic view instead of having a holistic view on the subject.
Feminism causes unnecessary gender wars
By turning social issues and practices into a gendered one, feminism turns simple issues into gender wars between men and women. The article uses dowry as an example and argues that both women and men can be objectified by marriage-market expectations.
When husband and wife start competing over who sacrifices more, family solidarity breaks down. The article argues that this conflict-driven framework contributed to fractured families and high divorce rates in the west.
Read Part II here.
Image Source and clarification: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/10/goddesses-hurt-indian-feminists-2013105104822923415.html
The above poster is more than enough to explain everything that is wrong with feminism. The problem can be described in one word-entitlement. The entitlement of the entitled middle class princesses.
But for the rest of the article, lets forget about entitlement and analyse some of the problems in India and see whether feminism can be an antidote for any of them.
The often cited reasons for the existence of this movement are gender gap or poor sex ratio, poor child education rates, practice of dowry, etc. However, if one takes a closer look at these issues, one would find that all of these issues are result of poverty and not really misogyny as claimed by the feminists.
Poor sex ratio or female foeticide
The article argues that the root cause of female foeticide lies partly in poverty, weak social security and the expectation that sons will support parents in old age.
It claims that population-control campaigns encouraged families to have fewer children, which intensified sex selection when parents still felt they needed at least one son.
The article points to Tamil Nadu as a place where attitudes have shifted because daughters increasingly support their parents and some parents live with daughters and sons-in-law.
It concludes that solving skewed sex ratios requires either removing stigma against larger families or making daughters equally responsible for elderly parents.
Dowry
Dowry is described as one of the traditional ways of sharing paternal property with daughters. The article argues that abolishing dowry without changing inheritance and marriage-market realities may not improve the position of the girl child.
Patriarchy has become one of the most common buzzwords used by the feminists to bash anyone they don’t agree with and specially the right wing Hindus in India, even though the latter claim to be rationalists. But does patriarchy really deserve the hate it gets from the feminists? An honest look at history through a neutral lens would tell a different story. Patriarchy is not an evil system designed to exploit women, but it was a system which helped human society build great civilisations.
All civilizations which rose up and became great in history were grounded in patriarchy. So, if one looks at it from an evolutionary point of view, the debate is already settled in favour of patriarchy. It is no coincidence that there is no matriarchal society in the world other than in feminist fiction. Amazons don’t exist in real life because it is impossible for such a society to compete with the patriarchal society. To understand the reason why patriarchy is so ubiquitous across the world and civilisations, one has to look at basic human behaviour and diversity.
Even though feminists claim otherwise, humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Men tend to have stronger muscle mass, stronger body, better spacial orientation and are better suited to the role of soldiers and roles which require hard work and physical effort like toiling under the sun and farming while women have a weaker body and are better at providing care to the young and old. And unlike men, women have the unique ability to give birth to children. No matter how hard feminists and their libtard Hindu cousins try, men can never give birth to children.
This unique place of women to give birth to children made them very valuable to the society and hence they were kept protected under the house and men were left to die fighting for them against the invading barbarians in the post nomad hunter-gatherer society. This was also the reason men were made responsible for working and earning bread because unlike the easy lazy life of modern day, earning bread in those early times meant toiling under the burning sun for several hours. Given the choice between toiling under sun for several hours or taking care of a child at home, the safer choice for women was more than obvious for human ancestors.
Another reason why women were protected under patriarchal society was because of the high mortality rate of then societies. Unlike the present day with massive improvement in health and sanitation, stone age and medieval societies had a poor health infrastructure and hence suffered massive infant mortality problems. On average, only 2-3 children of 8-10 children born to a woman survived. So the only way for the society to even survive and replace themselves was by having enough children. Also, since the old societies barely had anything left over after they had consumed themselves, there was no welfare state back then to take care of the old people. So the only way for social stability and security was to have as many children as possible. If the women had been allowed to work and die in farms and armies like men did, it would have ruined the demographics of their societies beyond sustenance, much like how feminist societies like Germany and Sweden have ruined themselves today with their fertility rate way below replacement level. Is it any wonder that almost all religions of the world revered women for their capability to bear children?
Unsurprisingly feminists and their libtard Hindu cousins also have no problem making it out as if men had all the privileges of the society and had an easy life at the expense of women, who were supposedly made into slaves. However nothing can be farther from the truth. While men did have the privileges like being allowed to go out and serve in the army, it came at the cost of losing their lives. The whole feminist narrative of women being the victims of patriarchy is based on cherry picking the examples of women being relegated to home and comparing it with modern day comforts and asserting that patriarchy was harsh to women because it did not allow women to work. This is patently wrong for two reasons. First, the most important reason being that the ancient times were harsh on everyone, i.e. both men and women, and home was the safest place for a woman at the time to work from. Compare the difficulty of staying home and taking care of children with the toil men had to go through under the sun to bring food to the table. There were no tractors and bulldozers at the time to do the hard work and muscle power was the prime energy source for work. Secondly, women weren’t not allowed to work, at least not in the areas were they were not threatened by barbarians/enemy. The fact of the matter is, unlike the “me me me” modern day feminists and their libtard cousins, women of that time did what was best in their capacity to help their family which at times included working for the family in the family fields. It was not uncommon that women worked in pounding the rice, harvesting of paddy, tea plantations etc in India and do it even today in most of the rural areas to help their families’ survival. So this whole notion that women were oppressed inside the kitchen from start to finish, at least in Indian context is completely false. This is the reason that the “me me me” narcissism of urban feminists has no takers among the rural women and the more intelligent Indian women?
All that Indian feminists are doing is projecting the oppression of women in Islamic/Christian societies and projecting it on the Hindu society and history, being the self hating oikophobic cultural Marxists they are. Ironically enough, they have no problem claiming that Muhammad, who had multiple wives and a 6 year old wife when he was 54 and advocated taking sex slaves among captured populations as a feminist icon. Perhaps it is not so ironic since the goal of the feminists is to make life miserable for all women that they protect the worst misogynistic religion out there i.e. Islam without any shame. Not surprisingly, a lot of feminists convert from vile feminism to Islam after doing mental gymnastics in trying to defend terms like Muslim feminist.
It is even more sad that the sacrifices men made for protecting their children and families by dying in the armies and toiling in the sun is brushed off as privilege by the feminists. They often cite that women were not independent from their men and hence were oppressed but this is again disingenuous as men did not have the same independence either. The truth is, men had different set of privileges to women in the society and the privileges were not unique to men. Women don’t have the same privilege as men in that they weren’t allowed to hold administrative posts. But then again, men never had the privilege to opt out of work and stay at home and eat out of their wife’s hard work either. Such a man was usually seen as a coward and and looked down upon by the society. Also, men were expected to give up their lives in defence of the the society and country and home which women were exempted from. No surprise that whenever there was a calamity, kids and women were the first one to be saved. According to post modern analysis, feminists usually refute it by saying that women were treated at par with property and hence given this special treatment under distress. But seriously, who in their right mind would think of saving their house and car when hunted down by a violent mob or army? It goes completely against the spirit of devotion and love that human ancestors had for their offspring and women-folk, something which the rabid feminists are more than happy to ignore. But in any case privileges were not a black and white issue as the Marxists and their derivatives, feminists try to hammer into young brains today.
If one goes to the rural and poor sections of India, it would not be that uncommon to see women working their backs off to support their families. They usually work multiple jobs to support their family, along with their rickshaw pulling or manual labour husbands to improve their own and their children lives. Has any of them come and complained that life is unfair only for them and not for their husbands like the city feminists of upper middle class and middle class parrot day in and day out? Compare these women who face real hardships, but for whom men would not mind to sacrifice their lives or die, with the urban feminazis, who faced no problems while growing up on their father’s money but claim victimhood because they can’t sleep around or the now famous “house wife job is the most difficult job in the world” whiners of middle class, who claim oppression for doing their own job of taking care of their own house, while their husbands are busy busting their backs, on jobs they usually don’t like, for brining food, clothes and wealth to their wives and children. While one cannot downplay the sacrifices housewives do for their families, the propaganda that only house wives sacrifice for their families and not their husbands creates a toxic atmosphere for the families. How long do you think a family, where there is constant victimisation of one or the other partner instead of appreciation for each other’s sacrifices, would last?
Also, by invoking this highly divisive victimisation of a single gender role vs the other, they turn the problems faced by women into a gender war by disingenuously avoiding the mentioning of the sacrifices made by men and their problems. This is of course very unhealthy for the society as a whole, including its women by blowing up the family structures. Can anyone with a right mind claim that no fault divorce culture of the west, which has created 50% single mothers and lonely cat ladies with massive depression in the west, is good for women? They leave no stone unturned to convert the once glorious and most feminine and natural act of giving birth to children, which brought so much joy, love and fulfilment into an unwanted and thankless “job”. Instead they wish to turn women into boring, mundane, mechanical corporate slaves addicted to depression pills and cats like the feminist women of the west. All of these feminists need to ask themselves- is it also due to patriarchy that women are blessed by nature to have the capability to bear children? Well, why wouldn’t the feminists want to demonize pregnancy and childbirth, after all, they wish to turn all women into men and destroy the femininity of women.
When cornered by logic, Indian feminists also pull out some standard social problems prevalent mostly in pre-independence India to beat down Hindus into submission and guilt. Most of these problems which the feminists claim to be misogynistic are not actually a direct result of women hating or misogyny in Hinduism but rather attempts at trying to protect women from the harsh realities at different points of time in history. Take the instance of Sati. It was certainly a vile practice, but it was done to protect Hindu women from being raped by Muslims and taken as sex slaves after their husbands’ death, a regular practice justified under Quran. Women at that time preferred honourable death to the life of a slave, unlike the western feminists who are more than happy to invite hordes of barbarians in their countries today under the pretext of multiculturalism. Thus many took their own life by jumping into fire instead of giving the Muslim invaders a chance to enslave them. Is it any wonder that the places where Sati was most prevalent were also the areas where the Muslim atrocities were maximum like Bengal and north India and was practically not heard off in Tamil Nadu and South India? And although British banned it finally but it was already non-existent in many northern kingdoms and many Hindus were already trying to reform it.
Or take the example of child marriage. Feminists claim that this is a specific case of misogyny even though this was a practice which affected both boys and girls. The married couples were usually both children and was not an issue of misogyny as the Indian feminists try to portray it. In fact, even this was a result of Muslims fetish for young virgin girls who did not lose any chance to marry them if given a chance. This forced Hindus to save their daughters by marrying them off at a younger age so as to dent the virginity fetish of Islamic hordes. Ironically enough, but not so surprisingly, the same feminists who claim Ram to be a misogynist for testing Sita under pressure of the then society, don’t forget to give feminist halal certificate for a 54 year old man marrying and consummating a 9 year old child.
Is it any wonder that they call Lord Ram, the ideal husband a misogynist while giving the mass murderer a tag of feminist icon? Lord Ram, the ideal husband who had to part with his one and only wife, Mother Sita, under the then prevalent rules of society is the favourite punching bag for all Indian feminists. Did Lord Ram suffer any less than Mother Sita in trying to uphold the laws of the then society given that he was the king or you think patriarchy gave him pain relief against any emotional suffering? Another example, look at how they bash Rakshabandhan, a festival which signifies the brother-sister relationship of men and women while keeping quiet or paying lip service to forced Burqa of Muslim women by trying to prove it as an empowering practise?
But why do feminists rant so much about patriarchy, even though it is pretty obvious that patriarchy is something of a natural order to get the maximum result out of both men and women? Feminism is just an ideological derivative of Marxism and is a part of Cultural Marxism, whose foundations were laid down in the Frankfurt school of economics and philosophy, which propounds an ideology of self-hatred, majority hatred and massive victimhood complex among varying groups based on their identity. According to their philosophy, if a system of society is operated by the majority, in Indian case which means Hindus, then such a system should be bashed as if it is bad to women and society whether or not such a system is good or bad for the happiness and prosperity of everyone. All they care about is the destruction of the culture and they market that destruction as liberation of women in the society in this case of feminism.
Sadly Indian feminists are more than happy to import a failed ideology called feminism into India. Is it any wonder that as soon as the west adopted their “me me me” man hating feminism, the happiness levels of their women have gone down drastically because men do not want to be a part of their life any more thanks to feminists successfully brainwashing women into believing that prices of paper money makes them happier than having children?
a1
Decreasing women happiness: Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009
The figures from the above paper clearly show a decrease in female happiness and specially the increasing gap between female and male happiness. The post-feminism generation in 2005 is much less happier than the generation of women in 1975. This paper also throws some light on what might have caused it which is shown in the figure below. While male trend has been stagnant for most questions, one can clearly see that females are unhappy about not getting enough time to spend with themselves.
a1
Source: Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009
In essence, feminists don’t care about women and their happiness. All they care about is their ideology without caring for societal breakdown. Since patriarchy provides a massive source of stability to the society, they hate patriarchy and want to burn it. Hindus with common sense should overcome this blind belief in feminist rhetoric and decide objectively if patriarchy is indeed evil as it is made out to be by the feminists and their media coolies. The cost of societal breakdown is just too huge for them to ignore. Sadly, this view is now gaining ground among de-racinated Indian men, who are increasingly falling for western feminism and do not want to give credit and support to their wives who choose well-being of their children over becoming corporate slaves.
The post modern application of feminism looks at male-female relationships from a Western point of view and almost always disregards and disrupts the pre-existing structures in third world society. The only measure which is then left for the third world champions of feminism is to measure themselves against the standards of modernity as accorded to their western counterparts. This whole exercise is taken with blatant disregard of the fact that modern feminism practised in the west has an Abrahamic background and misses the important cultural nuances due to deep belief that there is only one right form of gender relations i.e. turning women into men. This belief is so deep that Nordic countries like Sweden are taking it to the extreme where they are erasing sex differences even in spoken and written language and evolving gender-less pronouns.
So now the question that should arise in any healthy mind is — should the world go down the Swedish way i.e. mindless adoption of erosion of male-female boundaries? If you see how Swedish women are openly embracing misogynist Muslim men from third world countries and rejecting their local men, it seems biology does not agree with this Swedish experiment. But even before answering the above question, one should ask whether third world countries accept the definition of subjugation of women by men as propounded by western feminists?
Popular culture and art in any society is the true mirror of the prevalent social practices. So, if you go back a few years before the rise of narcissistic and crass humour of AIB, India produced some great stand up comedians. One of them is Surendra Sharma who devoted his whole life to produce humour through husband and wife jokes. A common theme that runs through his entire work is to present the miserable conditions of the husband, thanks to the over-bearing nature of his wife.
Given the popularity of his acts among the middle class, it is not unwise to assume that his jokes touched a chord among the masses where everyone could relate to his act at some level. Let’s look at another example from popular comics for kids called “Chacha Chaudhary”:
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
There are three nuances which come out of this cartoon immediately:
Even though women were/are not working, a lot of them control household finances.
The wife can be tough and even fight with a robber.
Husband and wife regularly play jokes on each other and pull each other’s leg.
So if paid attention, one can go through a large number of similar narratives presented in the popular culture of the past. This has not been different from the lived experiences of many of us. The fact of the matter is that two generations ago, most men and women worked together both at home and in agriculture depending on their field of expertise. Most of them had tough lives but hardly any time to reflect on or cry about gender inequality. This is true even for the current generation of poor farmers, where despite great efforts of foreign NGOs and domestic feminists, women hardly show any inclination to react to post-modern feminist concepts due to their lived experiences which are orthogonal to what the feminists want them to believe. The destiny of these men and women are tied together by their social and economic circumstances to such an extent that western feminist notions will hardly achieve anything for them.
Looking back now, all of us can share stories on how these relationships played out in real society. There would hardly be any middle class person who would not remember the banter and jokes shared by their uncles and aunts about who controls the finances or who to convince for buying stuff. Many people growing up in a joint family would have had a chance to see these dynamics from much closer — where grandmothers would make most of the financial and other social decisions for the family, usually with the help of one of their sons. The grandfathers on the other hand would be more than happy to mind their business and not get involved in this day to day decision making. It is no surprise that many of these old ladies were respected not only in their own family but consulted for various matters even by distant relatives. This is not to say that there were no male-headed households, but to point out the diversity. This point is actually more nuanced as the male or female headed household can still have different spheres of influence for each spouse where they enjoy complete autonomy and domain expertise. Does it surprise you now that the middle class finds it more than difficult to swallow the atrocity literature sold by western feminists?
Yes, women had to sacrifice in a lot of cases but so did men. The power relationship between men and women was nuanced and worked at different levels, which white women would never understand due to the individualistic society they grow up in — where each individual is benchmarked against the other and where the discussions have just been confined to rights while duties have been completely forgotten. But can one establish Dharma by talking about rights while maintaining silence about duties?
Thankfully Indian women are smarter than white feminists and their sepoys because they evaluate life based on their lived experiences. Thanks to feminism the west is watching over silently as their family system is completely broken. Now imagine how India would be undone if the same toxic ideology is applied here. In the absence of social security, India would not even have the luxury to exist for a short duration post breakdown of the marriage institution. The only reason the west can still export this disruptive ideology is because it has some time before it disintegrates completely due to loss of family culture. Actually one can look at black culture in the US to predict what would befall their whole society once men-women relationships are completely broken down. The rise of post-modern feminism completely destroyed the black family system and blacks are nowhere close to the social standards that they enjoyed in the 1970s. But rather than correct the situation and bring these families together, blacks are increasingly given further overdoses of feminism, disregarding the fact that it was feminism which lies at the root of all their problems.
To counter this narrative, some Native American women have taken a lead in the US. The clarity of thoughts presented by them is astounding, when compared to the blind copycat behaviour shown by Indian feminists, who have nothing but contempt for everything traditional. Some of the arguments of these native women are well documented by @bhimakarma in his series of tweets:
Native American Civil Rights Activist Lorelei Means on how feminism is just another avenue for asserting colonialism
— bhimakarma (@bhimakarma), April 17, 2016
“We are American Indian women, in that order.” – Lorelei Means
— bhimakarma (@bhimakarma), April 17, 2016
The above quote well summarizes how this nouveau colonialism can be defeated only by realizing that men and women share the same destiny, especially under threat from western ideological constructs. Blind application and promotion of atrocity literature will only lead to further subjugation of Indian masses. The above paragraphs should be an eye opener for all Indians that both men and women were equally colonized by the British, who systematically destroyed the Indian economy and impoverished us. All attempts to create a rift between the two will only lead to recolonization of our land again.
Before we close, it is important to note why militant feminism, the way we identify it today, arose in the west. Why do white feminists want to turn their women into men? One has to look at the history of Abrahamic religions to understand this development. Since there is no equivalent female Goddess in Abrahamics and women are inferior to men in their framework, it is more than understandable why these women felt aggrieved and developed militant feminism. This also explains why they want to become men and out-compete them rather than form a mutually beneficial relationship. On the other hand, this is not the case with Hindu households or Hindu religion. For every household, both Shiva and Parvati serve as a source of inspiration on how to run the household. For every Ram, there is a Sita and Vishnu is almost always venerated alongside Lakshmi.
Yes, there are problems in Indian society but there is no reason to decouple men and women and chart a collision course for them. Militant feminism has failed in the west and has led to the doom of their families and societies — and it will fail everywhere else in the world as well. Indians should act smart by looking at the degeneration of western society and learn from their mistakes rather than burn their own fingers while trying to experiment with a failed foreign ideology which makes no sense for their culture and society. So next time you read atrocity literature, just think about how the land of feminism i.e. the US is yet to elect a female President, while India gladly elected Indira Gandhi — who slapped both Pakistan and the US in the 1971 war — as Prime Minister to lead a young country.
