Cognitive dissonance or simply double standards lie at the edifice of post modern feminist discourse. It becomes even more apparent when this framework is applied without any careful thought to the Indian context because whites did not design the system for non-western, non-Abrahamic audience. Even careful mental gymnastics on the part of Indian feminists cannot clarify its vague incoherent framework and comes out in the open to haunt feminists in the abortion vs female foeticide debate.
One of the problems with feminist discourse is its malicious attempt at obscuring the true implications of the buzz words it uses. The phrase “bodily autonomy” or “My Body My Choice” is another such attempt. On the surface it sounds like something any sane person would endorse- the right to choose what to do with one’s own body. But well-meaning individuals fail to account for the fact that humans are bags of flesh littered with emotions. They are not driven by logic but by fear, longing and other primal urges. Simple pheromones can alter human behaviour. For this reason, it is important for humans to be guided less by their emotions and more by the structure and order provided by the shastras.
In the abortion debate, the foremost thing to consider is the definition of life. Leftists will argue that the child inside of you is not a human but a clump of cells. Other degenerate liberals will call it a parasite, the justification being that such terminology is supported by Science. This is an obfuscation since scientific terminology is not strictly scientific but inherently philosophical. By extending the principles of “parasitism” – a newly born baby is also a parasite, unable to function on its own, a life form which relies on its parents for sustenance. In a very similar sense, the old, the infirm and even unemployed are also parasites since they are forced to leech off on their kith and kin or the society they are in. Would it be humane to simply murder one’s parents once they reach an age where they may be “scientifically” considered a burden? Left liberals would have you believe that the people who have raised you, tended to you while you were ill and comforted you when you were afraid are burdens for you to rid of. Marxist literature exhorts men to cut familial ties, consider women tools and destroy social bonds to further their revolution. Destroying the institution of the family will achieve the total annihilation, since married men commit less crime. Feminism destroyed the Roman Empire, and even a bachelor tax couldn’t get men to enter the institution of marriage willingly.
Before going any further, it is important to provide a metaphysical definition of what is “alive”. The fact remains that there is no scientific way to discuss what is alive since there is no way to determine what death is. Bruce Charlton discusses it here; reproduced for your benefit:
For example, I heard the top British doctor-expert on coma and other “near-death” states, assert that we should not think of death as an event, but rather as a process. So there was no “moment of death” but only a period of time on one side of which was life, and the other death. The implication was that some people are stuck in this process for very long periods – maybe years.
He was responding to the fact that various definitions of death may conflict – cessation of the heart, activity in various parts of the brain, responsivity of the pupils, decomposition of internal organs such as the pancreas and adrenal – these signs do not co-occur simultaneously, and may be dissociated in some situations; plus of course they are, to some degree, reversible – so death cannot be conclusively pronounced until there are several or all of these signs in place for some length of time.
A simple solution to this conundrum can be stated thus:
If a human one is alive due to the sustenance drawn from its environment, a foetus is alive similarly.
Now that we have established that a foetus is alive, the topic of abortion shifts from “should women have bodily autonomy” to “should women have the right to murder their own young”.
Pro-abortionists are not truly trying to help women. They degrade them further by introducing the seemingly innocuous idea of free love, the idea that there are no consequences to casual sex. Of course women who have premarital sex tend to get divorced more, are more depressed, more disease ridden and less happy but leftists only like science when it comes to bashing the religious, they do not actually engage in the scientific method.
One defence of this cold-blooded murder is that a woman may not be financially well equipped to bring a child into this world. It suffices to say, that no one would calmly explain to a woman with a 3-year-old, that since times are tough it may be financially prudent to lop off the child’s head and dispose off the body quietly.
This is not an argument for a total ban on abortions. Life which is the product of rape or medical condition can be made an exception. The shastras endorse allowing abortion when the life of the mother is threatened. For all other cases, it is important for the civilized to restrain their carnal urges.
It is important to follow through with the consequences of allowing the right to kill one’s own young based on certain conditions. Consider this: If a condition x exists to allow for abortion other than the two I have mentioned above, then it follows that we may use this condition to allow for abortion according to preference of gender. Females are financial burdens more so than men, because of the costs associated with raising a girl. And this is a universal phenomenon. In India and other eastern societies it is even more pronounced because men are supposed to man up and take care of their old parents while daughters have no such social responsibility. It follows from this that feminists must necessarily support the perpetuation of female foeticide.
These conclusions are self-evident, requiring only a small amount of reasoning. Most feminists in India do not have the intellectual fortitude to follow through with their own logic for which they can be labelled as Morons among leftists. It is important to note that the Moron is only used as a tool by the Evil for the destruction of Hindu society. It is incumbent upon the right thinking Hindu to discuss these ideas being forced down the collective throat of Hindu society by the media before our children are murdered under the guise of “women’s rights”.
The author blogs at khatvaanga and tweets at @PaganTrad.
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.
All civilizations in the world have been patriarchal, but none can be as loathing and dismissive towards women as Islam. It is then only possible with extreme mental gymnastics that one can even get the idea to compare other religions with Islam, stuck in the seventh century, when talking about the position of women in respective religions. The draping of women under a tablecloth called burqa should be more than enough for any sensible person to fold chips and devote an entire life to solving problems faced by women in Islam. But not if you are a cultural Marxist like Barkha Dutt, who has refined this art of mental gymnastics to bring Hindus into every discussion under the sky. Don’t be surprised if next time she links Manuwadi Hinduism with the disappearance of whales in the Pacific.
Sadly, this time on a panel discussion on women in Islam, she was slapped hard by Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she tried her usual gymnastics to divert attention from Islam by talking about misogyny in Hinduism. Here is the slap:
See the extreme contempt this sold-out brown nigger has for Hindu traditions. If one believes Barkha, then a ban on entry of women in a minuscule number of Hindu temples is equivalent to genital mutilation practised in half of the Islamic population. But in this panel discussion there were no takers for her shenanigans and she was quickly shot back down to earth when she tried to divert attention from Islam.
The fact of the matter is that even if India wholeheartedly converts to Christianity or Islam, as most Marxists in India want, they would strictly remain below white masters in the international hierarchy. This tight slap on Barkha should explain that there is no space for sold-outs like her in the world. She is just a useful pawn in the grand scheme of things for Western masters and any self-respecting person would treat her accordingly.
Respect is commanded. Hating yourself and your culture like cultural Marxists is not exactly the best way to get respect, as evidenced by this video, where Ayaan shows absolute contempt for this cultural Marxist. Maybe cultural Marxists should introspect whether being coolies without any self-respect is worth the brownie points they win from white masters.
