BJP government, being the Hindu thekadar right wing government, has recently announced a great plan for muslims- that it will start 5 universities exclusively for minorities where 40% of seats will be reserved for women of all religions i.e. mostly Hindus. Basically it means that the universities will have 60% Muslim men enrolled and 40% women of all religions enrolled. Since 40% all women is at the very least is likely to be representative of Indian religious demographic at large, 80% of the 40% will be Hindu women if not straight up higher since Hindu women on average have higher educational achievements that average sullis who usually are bred to be broodmares for future jihadis and hence education is among the least of their priorities. Here is the excerpt from above news:
The committee will work out details and decide. But students belonging to other than minority communities can also take admissions there. We will try to give 40 per cent quota to girl students to empower them. It will not be based on religion.
Unsurprisingly, Hindu feminists and non hindu feminists alike, who have previously hailed love Jihad and rape conversions as a way to fight against patriarchy have hailed this move as a way to help fight Hindu male domination just like the white feminist sisters fight white male patriarchy by wearing body bags (burkha) and proclaiming that they would rather be raped by muslim refugees than hear about racist men asking them to be safe. While that is unsurprising, what is surprising is the silence from the supposedly Hindu RW and RW publications on this issue. Even most of the supposedly Right wing Twelebs are maintaining an unholy silence on this issue, as if they are just paid BJP chamchas rather than people with genuine Hindu interest at heart. Then again, these people have rarely not kissed BJP’s rear on policy issues and hence its not that surprising either.
So what is the problem with this idea? As already explained, BJP wants to open minority universities with 40% quota for women of all religions. So it is fairly reasonable to assume that the end result of such admission policy is that it will comprise of 60% muslim men and 32% Hindu women, 7% muslim women and 1% women from other religions. As anyone with knowledge of Love Jihad can imagine, it is basically a program where BJP government will offer Hindus girls to muslim men for breeding future jihadis, just like wives of Amir Khan, Shahrukh Khan etc. They will spawn kids named Taimur Khan, Jihadi Khan, Kaffir Slayer Khan, Muhammed Aurangzeb etc and the self respect lacking Hindus who allow this to happen can fake their outrage on Twitter just like in the case of Kareena and her spawn.
When there are so many Hindu issues to be solved like Right to Education act which has closed down thousands of Hindu run schools every month, why is the Hindu thekadar government i.e. BJP pushing for sending Hindu girls to Muslim men under the guise of empowerment? For a supposedly Right wing pro-Hindu government, BJP has managed to do something which even Hindu haters like Communists and Congress have not done before- scientific whoring of Hindu interest. Does BJP think that turning Hindu girls into brood mares of the jihadis is the best way to solve Muslim issue?
This article might put off some BJP loyalists, who will support BJP and Modi if tomorrow BJP passes a law mandating that Hindus must compulsorily give their daughters to Jihadis just like how BJP passed a law making it illegal for Hindus to not give houses to Muslims if they don’t want to turn their houses into slaughter houses, and some rational Hindu Right wingers too, who might find this article offensive. The former can go kiss BJP’s rear like they usually do and ignore this news/article while for the latter .ie normal Hindus, this article being offensive is the intention of this article and if the words sound offensive, think of the reality of the situation.
The only other solution to this kind secular politics of BJP is to punish BJP by not voting for them to make it clear that the liberal/jihadis/secular votes they gain from pimping Hindu interests is far less than the votes of Hindus they will lose by such policies. If Hindus keep listening to the daughter selling brigade of BJP, i.e. BJP loyalists who will want BJP in power even if it sells their daughters to sullas like in this instance and keep voting for BJP under the bullshit notion of TINA(there is no alternative), then BJP has no incentive of correcting itself as it has more votes to gain than to lose because self respect lacking and dumb Hindus will continue to vote for BJP using TINA excuse. Frankly, if this BJP government, which funds Jihadis by using Hindu Tax money when it is supposed to be the thekadar of Hindus and Nationalism (there is no Indian Nationalism without Hindus), is the best Hindus can come up with, then Hindus might as well give up any hope for a proper future for them.
This is the second article in the sequence on decoding usefulness of alt-right for Hindus. Here is Part I.
Alt-Right views on Women and Gender
When one looks at the alt-right and its policies and ideas on gender, it will look very similar to Hindu traditionalist views on gender. But that is where the similarity ends- superficial. Other than the emphasis on strong marital values and the stance against hedonism and sexual revolution, there is little in common between the Hindu traditionalist view and the alt-right. Alt-right does not believe in the women’s suffrage to begin with. They think that the reason why their societies are decadent today was because of women being given the right to vote. Not all of them might see it that way but a significant number of them do.
Also alt-right thinks that women should not even be allowed to work. This is again against Dharmic ethos and Dharma. Women have always worked historically. In olden days, preparing and cooking food, washing clothes, washing dishes, cleaning the house, lack of refrigerators etc meant that most of the household work women did consumed all their time to even consider working outside. Still many worked in the agricultural fields with their family and can be seen even today in rural India. Now there are lot of appliances which make all of these jobs easier or redundant. None of the above mentioned work is time consuming enough to justify wasting not working for the family. Husband and wife should work together for the betterment of the family and not because they each have to engage in ego match on whose work is more important or whose right is important.
Of course, families need to have enough children and if the wife needs to stay home to raise the children because the grand parents are not there to take care of the children, then it is her Dharmic responsibility. In this case, the wife staying at home will be more beneficial for her children than her leaving them at the mercy of daycare shelters and working as a burger flipper at McDonalds while paying puny taxes. The point is, post marriage, rights of Man and Woman cease to exist and only the duties of Husband and Wife to their children and parents exists and whatever needs to be done to take care of and serve their families better should be undertaken by the couple. In this case, both the alt-right neo-nazis, who want the women to stay in kitchen no matter what and the Feminazis who want women to abandon their families and their duties to their children in the name of women’s liberation to work as corporate slaves are just two sides of the same coin. Hindus, if they want to preserve their strong family values, they would reject them both.
Alt-Right morality
Most of the alt-right in the west believes that the genocides the whites did in Africa, Asia, Australia, North America, South America and the subsequent conquest and exploitation of the natives by them was a genuine good thing for uplifting humanity. They actually believe that the Blacks were better off under their mastership. They believe that Hitler was right to kill off Jews, Churchill was right to genocide millions of Hindus. They think Martin Luther king Jr was a social justice warrior who destroyed white societies with intermingling of races and subsequently black lives as a side effect by civil rights movement, since as per their world view, the blacks were better off as slaves or sub human citizens of USA under the whites. You only need to take brief look at their blogs about slavery, abolition and their views on Hindus to make up your mind.
Alt-Right will not help India in our fight against decadence and Feminism
Many Hindus falsely believe that since alt-right is against Feminism and decadence, they are allies in the fight against feminism. But many don’t understand that the alt-right, like most of the westerners have this idea of women’s rights hierarchy. They have this notion that their idea of women’s rights is the best in the world while anything too far is bad while anything less is primitive.
As the old saying goes, enemy of your enemy may not necessarily be your friend. For instance, take Breitbart, the supposedly family oriented, conservative/reactionary/alt-right website and analyse their stance on India and Indian societies. They are as likely to be anti-Indian family values as the likes of Huffington Post/NYT. This is not an aberration of the western way of thinking, as there are many examples of such double think existing throughout western history. The liberals and conservatives of the west are the two sides of the same coin as far as Hindus and Indian society is concerned. Both want our culture dead and neither of them are our allies, and alt-right is no different.
The article in YP and twitter discussion on abortion led to a massive twitter outrage among the “Hindu” liberals and secular liberals alike, who want to justify murder in the name of choice for women. Somehow these people don’t seem to get that every action has its consequences and if someone eats salt, he/she has to drink water. The most common retort or justification from the liberals, who want to justify murder of babies, is that babies will not be taken care of if they are allowed to be born in an unplanned way. But what they seem to miss is that this was precisely why the ancient cultures put a heavy price on such pregnancies in the form of marriage, often at gun point. People were not supposed to be having unprotected sex resulting in pregnancies in the first place. Justifying murder of few week old foetuses in the name of “unplanned”, “economic”, “muh choice” etc is no different than justifying murder of infants for the same reason. After all an infant, which is less than one year old is as dependant on the mother and society as the foetus is on the mother which some disgusting subhuman animals masquerading as liberals like to call it- “a parasite”. But nobody justifies killing infants who cannot be taken care of by their parents. The same people, ‘which’ justify abortion under the pretext of not being able to take care of their foetus would still think it is murder to kill infants under the pretext of not being able to take care of them, unless they are complete psychopaths.
a1
Sample of subhumans
There is nothing Hindu about “Muh Choice” abortion:
Some pro-abortionists, who call themselves as Hindu “feminists”, claim that Hinduism is liberal and that anything can be done and still be consistent with Hindu morality. However, this notion that Hinduism is liberal and allows whatever one wants to do is a bastardisation of Hindu philosophy and theology. Hinduism allows “exploration” of various philosophies and questioning of various ideas. That is not the same as the bastardised version of the Hindu philosophy advocated by the animals masquerading as liberals as “anything goes”. That is one can choose the path of Sankaracharya for attaining moksha or path of Ramanujan and so on but one cannot go around killing people, who they perceive as being useless for society and claim that such psychotic killing is also the way of Hinduism and is a path for moksha. As one could see in the above example, there is a huge difference between “there are multiple paths to ultimate truth” as against “anything can be done and still be moral” philosophy.
Unlike what the “muh choice” feminists/Hindu liberals like to portray, there is no philosophy in Hinduism which justifies abortion. In fact, all the philosophies of Hinduism say the same thing about abortion (sisu hatya) i.e. it is an unforgivable sin. Hindu Shastras forbid abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger, since in this case not killing the foetus will kill the mother. Hindu Shastras make it pretty clear that sisu hatya is equivalent to 50 murders, since the life being killed/murdered here is as innocent a life can be. The curse for Ashvathama in Mahabharata should be enough of a lesson for anyone on this issue. This is where it is important to call out the self-identified “Hindu” feminists and liberals on their nonsense. There is nothing Hindu whatsover about either them or their philosophy. They just want to justify murder in the name of a bastardised version of Hinduism and philosophy.
Abortion in the name of rape:
The second biggest argument from the side of psychopaths who support murder in the name of economics is that rape victims should be allowed to have abortions. But rape as the reason for abortion accounts for less than 0.1% of the total abortions carried out today. As such an exception can be made on humanitarian grounds for such conditions. However, this is not a valid argument to give to justify abortion for the other 99%. This argument is no different than saying that killing someone in self defence is valid (abortion w.r.t. rape) and so killing anybody for any reason (abortion under the pretext of “muh choice”) which is murder is also valid.
Abortion and Premarital Sex:
Amongst all this, the most disgusting and disturbing observation in the debate was that most of the anti-abortion rhetoric came from men and many women, even those claiming to be pro-Hindu Dharma, supported abortion. The reason for that can range from the deep desire among today’s westernised, mentally colonised modern Hindu women to have premarital sex to them having fully bought into the idea that abortion is about women’s rights. The former is indicative of how much the society has decayed today. All of them have been corrupted by brothelwood and hollywood into thinking that premarital sex is somehow good for women and is about women’s rights. This is of course patently false. When premarital sex is restricted by the society, either by law or by social convention, it doesn’t restrict the sex activities of the women alone, but it restricts men too. For example, when government bans the manufacture of tobacco, is it restricting the right of only tobacco manufacturers? Of course not. It impedes the use of tobacco by the tobacco users as well indirectly. The same is true with premarital sex restrictions.
Premarital sex restrictions were imposed on women mostly because women bore the brunt of the responsibility if things go wrong. They were the ones who got pregnant. A man could impregnate a woman and take off to nowhere but the woman had to bear the child. So societies were far more protective of the girl child than of the boy child. This has nothing to do with misogyny or women’s rights, but rather the practical reality and biology. And restricting girls from having premarital sex also effectively restricts boys from having premarital sex, since the penalty for such activities in pre-westernised India or any other traditionalist culture for that matter was marriage, often at gun point or social outcasting.
Also, the very notion of premarital sex is incoherent. The act of sex is associated in all archaic ethos with the act of procreation. Sex outside of marriage is purely for pleasure and is akin to mutual masturbation. Sex within the marriage is a sacred act, and one who participates in this act with his beloved, their bind sanctified by the fire of ritual is one without fault. Thus society restricted both men and women from participating in sexual union outside of marriage because of this very fact. Since it is harmful more to women as discussed above, it is imperative for the young Hindu men to take note of this and behave with the chivalry that once populated the lands of our ancestors. For men in a society set the rules while women uphold them (सा स्त्री या अनुविधायिनी।). Therefore it is important for our young men to understand the dangers of free sex hedonism and to protect their sisters and potential love interests from this danger by behaving in a dutiful manner and engaging in Dharmic conduct.
Premarital sex is a snake oil sold as women’s rights:
Feminists and progressives have sold this snake oil that premarital sex is a sign of women’s rebellion against patriarchy and misogyny and that it is about women’s rights to women. This has been internalised to a deep extend by the anglicised and westernised middle and upper middle class women and men to a large extent in India. But as shown in the above paragraph, it has nothing to do with women’s rights as it restricts men’s right to have sex as well indirectly. But even if one looks past the motives of feminists and progressives in this respect and see into the effect of what happened to the societies which adopted these ideas, it will be very clear that premarital sex has actually caused a lot of chaos and destruction to families around the world, in every country. In countries where premarital sex is the norm, women have actually grown lot less happier than they were in traditional homes. Studies after studies have shown that premarital sex actually makes women miserable. So neither is the premarital sex a women’s rights issue nor is premarital sex something which does positive things for women
Pick Up Artists and MGTOWs of the west:
The US TV operas, Hollywood films and the Brothelwood films which glorify pre-marital sex of the west do not show the result of such premarital sex to either their audience back home nor the Indians who get colonised by those ideas. West is a miserable society behind their material wealth. The number of unmarried people there is now above 50% and is only growing faster. Women are getting miserable everyday. Most of their women do want to get married but could not find good men to marry. Most of the men who would have married in the traditional societies now do not see the point of marriage. Most of them end up as single mothers, mooching off the state, which is still overwhelmingly paid for by the men there in taxes, in the name of welfare and child support or from the guys they tricked into getting pregnant and use state force to get alimony. The half intelligent women who bought the feminist Kool aid of women empowerment and sought to further their careers while screwing around with meaningless sex find themselves partner-less in their 30+ age and are forced to live with cat piss as their true companions instead of babies.
The fact that premarital sex is the norm meant that the western men can get what most men want anyway i.e. free sex without commitment. They play platitudes to women empowerment and “you go girl” feminism since it is in their direct short term benefit of having sex without commitment. In the traditional families, penalty for such sex included massive penalties like shotgun wedding. But now, feminists have freed them from that shackles. So many men do not even see the point of getting married. Since the two most important things they got out of marriage – sex and children are now not a guarantee for them. Wife can legally deny them sex, the whole marital rape issue, and can legally take their children away from them in the courts in a divorce, which is increasingly initiated by them. Of course, women are increasingly initiating the divorces because when they do decide to settle in their 30s, all the good men were either already snatched by the intelligent conservative women who were still in their 20s and hence they are left to contend with leftover men, who they might never have even dated in their prime and hence become increasingly resentful towards after marriage.
Of course, women initiating majority of the divorces in a society where 50% of the marriages end in divorces meant that many men opt out of marriages even more there giving rise to the growth of MGTOW, or Men Going Their Own Way. These are men who have decided to opt out of anything to do with women outside of work and sex and would never become committed or marry. Given their options in the west, is it any wonder that this group is on the rise? Some of them even hail feminism for liberating men from their duties towards societies and family and instead allowing them to work for themselves and enjoy life with complete hedonism.
As any astute observer might notice, all of these problems are inter-related and it is all one leading up to another. The problems in the west started with the sexual revolution of the 1970s and the little cultural capital they had left was consumed up in the very next generation. Now their societies are in profound decay with their marriage rates plummeting. In fact, the problem has forced the government of UK to create massive incentives for creating and maintaining families, like giving two parent families tax breaks. The societal implications aside, what was the result of this supposed liberation of women on the psych and well being of women and men? Men for the large part were not actually affected by this social change. The men of today are not any worse off than men of the 1930s or 40s as they have substituted sex and family by porn and video games. Their happiness levels have remained the same today as it was back then. But as often pointed out in YP, women have become miserable as time went on. All the supposedly “women” liberating ideas of feminism and progressivism have only made the women miserable.
The question is, is Indian society willing to take a known poison willingly, if that poison gets labelled “Deva Prasadam”? Because this is how the premarital sex is being sold to Indian society as being women’s right and liberation of women. Even the most basic scrutiny of this poisonous idea would have shown that premarital sex is not a women’s right issue as the most significant beneficiary of the liberalisation of sex is men as men are the ones who are always looking for more sexual partners and sexual acts. Seeing the response of the urbanised, anglicised Indian women on twitter who responded to the issue, it looks they are indeed willing to or have already consumed the poison. The irony is that most of these women who defend this nonsense on twitter are well past their prime and are unlikely to find someone they think they deserve or they could have gotten when they were younger and had not wasted their youth on meaningless sex on the advice of feminist poison of career before family or meaningless sex being awesome. One has to wonder if these women are miserable inside and hence want other young Indian women to become sluts like they themselves are so that they themselves have company in their misery. Notice that men have benefits from both normalised premarital sex as seen by the emergence of PUAs and never married happy hippy men of the West as well as the traditionalist strict marital code societies of India as complained by feminists and liberals. But women have a lot to lose in a society where premarital sex is the norm if west is any indication. The anglicised urban Indian ladies should ask themselves if they would rather have a stable family like their mothers and grandmothers or the cat piss soaked single ladies of the west in their 30/40s, all for having few more sex partners, not necessarily more sex.
Not to forget, this does not mean Indian men should turn into PUA and MGTOWs as these men are hurting their pitRs by failing to procreate and provide for their children and building good society. The western society having turned against its men has not left any avenue for their men to behave responsibly and care for future generation. So, although PUAs might be happy in short run and enjoy hedonism while their societies burn, the death warrant of their future generations is already signed. This is another reason why India should tread carefully before its men decide to completely give up on future generation and fall into hedonism.
Abortion as Women’s right issue:
This is again a spurious argument. Abortion is not a women’s right issue any more than right to kill an infant is a women’s right issue. No body, in their right mind (or semi lunatic mind like the liberals) thinks that “muh child, muh right” as an argument to kill infants, they cannot take care of. Their right to decide on the life of the foetus ended when they decided not to take any precautions before their sexual act or ignored the risks associated with free sex (even safest contraceptions have some 1-2% failure rate). They have the right to use contraceptives, but that is not an excuse to kill the foetus. Unless the woman’s health is in direct danger from the foetus, in which case inaction on the part of society will kill the mother, there is no moral justification for killing the foetus.
Laws vs Societal Norms:
Many people who are against abortion think that changing abortion laws will fix this mess. It wont and it cant. For example, the single mother rate in anti-abortion Ireland is about 25%, less than the American figure of 50% but still is very high compared to single mother rate in present day, non-anglicised, non-mentally enslaved India i.e. 1%. This is a much more widespread societal problem and has to be advanced through social change and change in consciousness. But laws do play a role. There is a reason why the single mother rate in Ireland is only 25% as against the 50% rate of USA. A law which legalises what is immoral today, will become moral tomorrow since law will change the attitude of the society to it over time. This is why majority of our mothers and grandmothers would have seen abortion as an evil thing to do while majority of future anglicised culturally enslaved Indian women of today think abortion is a “muh rights” issue. If Government legalises murder of infants who cannot be fed today for economic reasons on “pragmatic grounds”, like how these animals view it, then in two generations questioning the killing of infants will evoke the same response from then young ones of the society who would have been brought up normalised to infanticide.
Fake CultureVeers and Indian Exceptionalism:
To make these matters worse, there are CultureVeers who think that these issues are real and yet think nothing needs to be done and that Indian society will survive this without any effort. That is when pointed out that India will become a middle income third world shit hole like Mexico ,Brazil or Romania, they will claim that uniqueness and oldness of deep rooted Indian culture will protect them from social rot which comes with liberalism and feminism. They are the cultural counter part of the “we survived Abrahamic assault for 1000 years and hence nothing will happen to us” type, i.e. the morons who forget that the very survival of our civilization required the blood and sacrifice of our countless number of ancestors. Their idea of anything goes will not help India or anybody except to serve as an excuse for these things for being lazy,hiding behind the myth of Indian Exceptionalism. India wont be a shit hole today if Indian exceptionalism is indeed true. Our family institutions are what kept us from turning into North Africa and these people want to take even that away. Preventing the demise of Indian society depends on whether or not we Indians learn from the mistakes of the decadent west and how much sacrifice we Indians are willing to make. Question is- are we ready to sacrifice and learn? If not, then there is no point in talking about Hindu civilisation and culture as there wont be anything left of it at the end of liberalism, just like how Christianity is all but dead in western societies.
The march of feminism continues unabated in the middle class sections of India. It has not yet attained the ugly militant form as in the west but given the popularity of the feminist memes among young girls, it would grip a large section of society sooner or later. The most important reason for the rise of this militancy would lie in failed or low satisfaction marriages for career girls.
Swati is currently working in Railways and is turning thirty in a month. Swati and her parents have been trying hard to find her a suitable partner for the last 2 years but it has not been going well as most of their calls don’t get returned by the boys’ family. Having studied at JNU, there was never a dearth of suitors for Swati where she completed her Masters before spending few more years to crack civil services exam and join Railways. She ignored most of the arranged marriage proposals during her Masters, but now finds herself on the wrong side.
To understand the genesis of this problem, one has to look at the destroyed societies of west. How did it happen in the west? Feminists brainwashed women that they can attain everything in the world i.e. both great career and great partner. But since feminism is a political ideology, it is hardly rooted in any natural phenomenon.
Attraction to prime age fertile women had been a very well understood phenomenon in all cultures until the march of feminism which denied nature and bashed it as a patriarchal value. Those who believed this propaganda are now paying the cost in terms of depression pills and failed marriages.
But why is this even a problem for India? This is not a problem for India yet but it will become one very soon in the future. Career girls and their families are already feeling the heat in the marriage market due to ignoring traditional values and delaying marriage till they are 30 years old and un-marriageable. This is a big problem in China as well where 30 year old women are given the title of “leftover women”.
Unsurprisingly this problem does not vanish away even though India has a very poor sex ratio. The reason behind it is that the successful women and their families practise hypergamy and would not marry a beggar or anyone below their standards, while rich boys will marry prime age fertile women.
What is the way forward to this situation? Given advancement in technology and easy solutions to household chores, it is natural that most women will join workforce. But this should not happen at the cost of building future families. It is important for both the girls and their families to not ignore the forces of nature and give equal weight to both career and family. Career can be advanced even after marriage and there is no reason to turn to depression pills later in life to prove oneself modern and flag bearer of a stupid ideology which is disconnected from reality.
All names and professions have been changed to protect identity.
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?
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
Modi was chosen as the 14th Prime Minister of India with great aplomb and his elevation was finally seen as the return of a strong PM after ten years of weak-kneed Manmohan Singh in the PM’s chair. While it was common knowledge that MMS was driven by the kitchen cabinet of the National Advisory Council (NAC), it is far from clear who is running the current PMO. Is it the same strong-willed Narendra Bhai from Gujarat or just a faded copy of him? While there are some areas where Modi and his ministers are doing well and deserve rightful credit, there are a large number of issues which his government has not touched even with a bargepole. There are a host of secular issues like repeal of RTE, freeing temples from government control and illegal immigration of Bangladeshis where his government has shown absolute silence or disinterest. But what is more worrying is that now the government has also started playing to the gallery and trying to win over city-bred liberals, who were never his core supporters.
The TRAI ruling on Net Neutrality is the latest gaffe which can be added to the list of policy blunders under Modi’s watch. Once again, the Modi government caved in to pressure and tried to please the generation of urban activists — the same crowd who held monopoly over public policy under Congress. If the rural areas had been so happy with Congress top-down policy making, Modi would not have got the massive mandate that he got from the hinterland. In one blow, the minuscule population who have grown up on a regular Facebook feed decided that such low prices for consumers would be bad for poor people because their western masters said so — and forced their own government to do away with Free Basics. The last line of a screenshot circulating on social media gives away the superiority complex of the urban activists, who are more than happy to use all these services themselves but have a problem if they get extended to the poor, even for free. Sadly, they have found support from Modi to pursue these initiatives which in the long run will hurt the rural folks — simply because they could not register their voice through online activism.
But Net Neutrality is not the first issue where the Modi government has tried to woo the city-bred liberal crowd. The decision to induct women in combat duties in the IAF is another appeasement policy by the government. It has been a failed and controversial policy everywhere in the world, but the MoD justified this decision by citing trends in other developed countries. Since India has many other pressing issues, it is a big mystery why Modi agreed to pursue this issue when it hardly comes up for debate in India. Is it just another attempt to play to the liberal gallery by picking up some of their pet issues?
The solar energy initiative is another wasteful effort by the Modi government and can seriously jeopardize the energy security of the country by diverting investments away from serious and time-tested energy solutions. While most developed countries have failed to cash upon solar energy because it is expensive and inefficient, it is surprising why Modi is still pushing for it. While it would have been understandable if the private or public sector made R&D investments in solar energy, given the current technology it does not make sense to set up expensive solar plants when other cheaper options are available. So it would not be far-fetched to say that PM Modi is trying to court the environmentalists — yet another group of liberals who derive their inspiration from the west.
These are only three policy initiatives out of a big list of policy blunders which show that Modi is trying hard to win the sympathy of the liberals while ignoring his core support base. Sadly the issues raised in this article do not even cover the so-called Hindu issues like temple management — which are actually secular issues — where Modi has maintained complete silence. If Modi continues to go down this path of appeasing non-entities, it would be a great waste of the historic mandate that he got in the summer of 2014. Unlike Vajpayee, who ran a coalition government, Modi would not even have the excuse of blaming coalition partners for his mistakes. It is high time that he wakes up and stops taking the endorsement of his core supporters for granted.
Originally published February 9, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
