My blog

Tag: Propaganda

  • How Feminism ruins the happiness of women

    How Feminism ruins the happiness of women

    Feminists have made western women miserable

    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?

  • Why dowry is not evil as painted by MSM

    Why dowry is not evil as painted by MSM

    Dowry is the favourite topic which raises immediate alarm among deracinated Indians, specially the youth who are brainwashed into believing that dowry system is evil and misogynistic and why we need feminism to fight against it. More often than not, these people tend to be young with no sense of real world and live in an urban area. They can be heard and seen writing against how evil dowry is on the internet and how they will neither give nor take it. But dowry is a lot more nuanced issue than many think it to be. It is not all black and white and is certainly not evil as displayed in media, academia and films. It is a sad commentary on how badly the narrative is rigged and dominated by the lunatic feminist academia and mainstream media. Even very simple analysis of the dowry system will poke holes into the whole propaganda, including the claims that it is a war on women. The propaganda is so massive that governments after governments refuse to even look into the issue even though the lopsided 498A law has sent millions of families to ruins since overwhelming majority of cases registered under 498A are false, to the tune of 90%. So, what is the truth behind dowry. Let’s analyse:

    Dowry is girl’s share in paternal property

    In the original Hindu culture (and indeed most religious customs), sons inherited most of the wealth of the parents. The parents of the bride used to give dowry to their son-in-law, as they would transfer their own wealth to their sons. For example, if a family has a total wealth of 10 lakh Rupees, they will give 5 lakh Rupees as dowry to find a groom of similar status while giving 5 lakh rupees as inheritance to their sons. Of course, the son being the presumed owner of 5 lakh inheritance, he usually received 5 lakh as dowry for himself when he gets married. So in total the wealth remained more or less equal, provided everything was equal- the status of bride and groom. But this dowry system could also be used in a way to give a better life to daughter by finding a better groom for 6 lakh dowry rather than just 5 lakh dowry, thus leaving the son with only 4 lakh inheritance and hence only able to get a girl of 4 lakh dowry for himself. Given that Hindu society of the old was agricultural in nature and had strict laws against marrying within ones village, dowry was a perfect system to keep ancestral property i.e. land with the sons since they did not leave the village. While girl child would get gold and other transferable property, the son usually got the land.

    Some people might object to the division of ancestral property in the above example as equal while it is unequal in the real world. But in the same real world, girls were also not supposed to take care of their old parents. Since the sons were supposed to help their old parents, they naturally got higher share in ancestral property. Also if a girl got lower share in her ancestral property through dowry, her husband got higher share in his ancestral property thus nullifying the overall effect on their family wealth.

    If dowry objectifies women, it equally objectifies men

    While this system on surface seems like it is objectifying women by associating a price for their marriage, it is very far away from truth. The price tag of dowry does not come from wealth alone. If a groom is very good guy with no bad habits, a good job and a good degree, then he is much more likely to get a better dowry than simply because of his family’s wealth. This is exactly opposite for the groom, who is a known alcoholic with no stable job and is general burden for the society. He is unlikely to get any dowry at all for his marriage. Actually it would be a great achievement for such a person to get married!! So if dowry is objectification of women, then it should also be seen as objectification of men. Men are objectified for their behaviour, job, wealth, status and family wealth. The truth of the matter is, the bride’s family is willing to pay the bribe precisely because they think the groom is worth the dowry they pay him. Isn’t that objectification of groom by putting a price tag on him? So why don’t the men go around complaining that they are getting objectified?

    The truth is, the world sees someone for what he/she is worth to the world. This is reflected in the dowry system too. A groom with good looks, good job, good status, good family will be more guaranteed to provide a good life for the bride and hence the bride’s family tries to lock him up for their daughter with dowry. Similarly beautiful, more cultured girls, and these days even working girls with good education (specially in more developed states like Tamil Nadu, Maharastra, Gujarat etc) etc will have higher demand than the ugly or uneducated girls and hence would be able to match with ideal grooms with much less dowry than ugly and uneducated girls. While it is politically correct to mince words on this issue and dance around this fact to protect the presumed sensibilities of the easily offended snowflakes, who prefer emotions of how innocent all women are and how evil all men are, it is much more important to confront this issue.

    Hence, dowry is a complex system of measuring and price gauging both bride and groom’s worth and is a way for the parents to give their girl children their wealth. But since dowry always goes from brides to grooms, does this not mean that dowry is inherently misogynistic? Of course not. The groom already brings his own inheritance as wealth to the family the new couple will start while the bride doesn’t. So the dowry which the bride brings is only a fair contribution which the bride makes to start a new family. In simple words, grooms do bring dowry to family in the form of inheritance while brides bring dowry and no inheritance.

    Changing inheritance laws will change system of dowry

    But now the inheritance laws have been changed so that daughters have equal share in the properties of the parents. This largely negates the need for dowry, since bride herself brings inheritance, much like how groom’s used to bring their inheritance for starting a family. Also in some cases, the girls family might give more dowry over the inheritance if they find the groom to be worth it and it should be completely fine. They are not being forced into marrying a groom who asks for dowry but are choosing him after fully knowing that he is asking for dowry and then deciding that it is worth giving the daughter in marriage to the guy because he will take care of the girl better than some other guy who doesn’t take dowry. This is perfectly fine as long as it is voluntary.

    This is also another example where it is easier to see the baseless propaganda against dowry. Lets say that there are two families A and B and they want to get married. A has 20 lakh of wealth while B has 30 lakh. A decided to marry off their daughter to son of family B giving family B 20 lakhs as dowry. As per the present propaganda, this practice of dowry is evil. Now let’s take another example where there are two families C and D where C is worth 20 lakhs while D is worth 30 lakhs. Then family C gives their daughter in marriage to son of family D but without any dowry. But after the death of family C, the daughter and hence the son-in-law inherits all the money/wealth of family C which is again 20 lakhs. Is the latter case any good or better? Is there any difference in the reality of former case of dowry vs the latter case of inheritance? Of course not, at least for people with normal logic except brain dead and brainwashed feminist zombies. So why is dowry demonized by media while inheritance of property by bride/daughter is seen as triumph of women’s rights? Does this make any sense?

    Is the dowry system perfect?

    If dowry is not that evil as it is portrayed in the media, does it mean it is perfect? Of course not. The problem with dowry isn’t what the feminist lunatics and social justice warriors in academia and media cry about. The problems with dowry system is the break of trust after marriage or at the cusp of marriage- whether on the groom or the bride side. Some times, the bride’s side decides to dupe the groom’s side into thinking that they would give a much larger dowry while actually they don’t. This of course is morally wrong for any unbiased observer (except feminist harpies) because it is plain cheating and breach of trust.

    To put this into perspective, imagine a groom’s family cheating the bride’s family by claiming they are billionaires before marriage but the falsehood comes out before the time of marriage or after marriage. Wouldn’t the bride’s family be pissed off at groom’s family for cheating? And if the brides family comes to know that the groom isn’t as qualified as it was advertised to them or that the his claim of being a billionaire is a lie, isn’t the bride’s family justified in cancelling the wedding to save their daughter from a bad deal? Fact is neither the society not the law would think that such a cancellation of marriage was inappropriate or wrong. But imagine if the bride’s family makes false claims, including but not limited to a dowry of certain amount, and the groom’s family comes to know about this fraud, why should it be wrong for the groom’s family to cancel the marriage? Is it any different from the previous scenario except for the gender swap? So why is the latter punished for asking dowry, when girl’s family voluntarily agrees to dupe the groom’s family?

    Post marriage demand of dowry is unethical

    This leaves the last issue related to dowry and the one where state can intervene. The real problem with dowry starts when the groom’s family asks for more dowry from girl’s family after marriage and wilfully creates problems for the girl. This of course is completely wrong from a moral point of view as it amounts to breach of contract. Any such incidents should be punished by law without fail, if proven in court. This is where the article 498A should come into play, even though it needs tweaking in the current form to prevent its abuse. This is the only part of dowry which causes deaths and hence should be strictly prohibited and punishable.

    Dowry helps less worthy girls get better grooms

    But what about the fate of poor women who can’t give dowry? This is a false question designed in a way to prey on the inherent biases humans have to favour the problems of women over men, the reason why most people in India still support article 498A in current form even though it destroys nine “innocent” men for every woman it avenges, which is completely antithetical to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

    There are countless men who would of course marry without any dowry but one does not see girl’s parents queuing up to marry them. Why? Because the girl’s parents want their girls to get a good husband for a cheap price (yes, dowry is objectification of men for their job, wealth, family, status, power etc) and that’s why there is so much propaganda about the poor man not being able to find a groom for his daughter. The proper sentence or issue here is not that the poor man is not able to find a groom because of dowry, it is that the poor man is not able to find a high quality groom as per his wish because he cannot afford the high quality grooms. Of course there are men who are unemployed bums and drunkards who would be willing to marry for nothing. Why don’t the poor guys marry their daughters to them? Wouldn’t that automatically solve the dowry problem without any state intervention?

    They want their daughters to marry doctors, government employees, civil servants and engineers at a low cost. But the problem is, there are other girl parents who are willing to pay lot more dowry than what the poor father will pay for these professional grooms from rich families. The statement or complaint that dowry cause poor girls to not find grooms is analogous to saying poverty ridden people in India cannot afford to buy Audi and hence Audi sales is evil. It may not be politically incorrect to say so, but this is the ground reality.

    The hysteria against dowry system without actually understanding what it is is another example of how cancerous feminist ideology and women’s groups pushing for more 498A style laws in India are. They just want to increase the power of women at the expense of men. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the same anti-dowry activists who see that a doctor demanding dowry from the girl should be punished don’t ask for the punishment of the girl for insisting on marrying the doctor without bringing anything worthwhile to the table. This is not to say that money is everything and dowry has to take the form of money alone. Money is but one form of dowry, the other being good qualification, good looks of the girl etc. If the doctor demanding dowry to marry a particular bride is wrong, isn’t it equally wrong for the bride to insist on marrying a doctor i.e. a person with lots of money and respect in the society? Should men take the route of these women empowerment groups and start demanding that women marry them regardless of their qualifications and family status? If that position is ludicrous, shouldn’t the position that all dowry is evil also equally ludicrous? And if Indian parents are more than happy to put in effort and money to ensure a better future for their daughters, why should feminists complain? The west has a broken family system, but it does not mean that Indians who have good family support should also reject it.

    Also read: The Entitled Middle Class Princess Syndrome

    And this is another example of intellectual dishonesty by feminists. They claim that dowry is misogyny and affects only women. But they fail to acknowledge that dowry objectifies men as well, because women and their families see men as wage earning, high status serving machines which come with a price tag. Turning it into gender war is completely bogus. How is dowry, which is for the overwhelming majority, worked and earned by men (brother or father of the bride) and given to groom’s family (usually the mother of the groom) oppression of women?

    For all the loud noise made against dowry for the past 50 years, fact is that the propaganda did not change zilch on the ground. This itself should have forced any sane academic to re-analyse their theory but not feminists. The simple reason that dowry still exists is that it provides a good market mechanism to match brides and grooms. For the ivory tower feminists, it might seem as oppression but the parents who want better life for their daughters use dowry as a way to marry them with better groom in a better household. Since they care for reality rather than ideology, they hardly pay any heed to this intense propaganda.

    In case you want to know what dowry you should demand, check this. Also watch the below video by Madhu Kishwar to get more nuanced idea about this issue. In one part of the video she calls it groom price rather than dowry!!