The New York Daily News reports today of one Karnail Singh, a Queens, NY resident who is currently recovering in Weill Cornell Medical Center’s burn unit since being seriously burned on October 28. How was he burned, you ask? Well, he hasn’t been convicted or anything, but it turns out Singh, 48 apparently set himself on fire while trying to set a deathtrap for his daughter-in-law by torching her basement apartment. The cause of his anger (according to fire officials): Singh claimed his daughter-in-law wasn’t sending money to his son in India. Oh, and he also also accused her of seeing other men. Thankfully Singh’s daughter-in-law Gurpreet Kaur, was rescued unharmed by firefighters who had to cut through metal bars on a basement window to get her out. In a weird twist of fate, as Singh was fleeing, he mistakenly set himself on fire. What goes around, perhaps really does come around.
Ha Ha all I can say is KARMA
This is scary....does it make a difference to morons like this that they are no longer in their villages? And that they cannot get away with shit like this?
Serves him right...reminds me of the fable where a man falls into a ditch that he dug for himself.
"does it make a difference to morons like this that they are no longer in their villages? And that they cannot get away with shit like this?"
Like OJ Simpson
sick. really sick.
It's sad forgiveness is a concept "non-existent" today. "Let the one among you with no sin cast the first stone," said a Palestinian Jew about 2000 years ago.
This is scary....does it make a difference to morons like this that they are no longer in their villages? And that they cannot get away with shit like this?
I hope there are not too many villages where someone could get away with this.
What's scary is, there are probably more than you think.
Here's one fix - if the wife dies of preventable causes while in the care of her in-laws, the in-laws should return the dowry with interest. This would remove the financial incentive for such a crime.
Furthermore, they should make a public acknowledgement that they had failed to take proper precautions for the care of their daughter in-law who died in such a horrible fashion. That would effectively serve as a blacklist even without admission of criminality.
Unfortunately, crimes against women would continue but at least this way the financial incentives for such crimes would be reduced.
You may say that it's a case of karma coming back at ya, but there are way too many cases where there is no justice at all. Way too acceptable.
I didn't realize bahu burning trend is catching up in the US. How sick does one have to be to do this?
this is utterly sick.. honestly people... not sending money to india..tell his son to WORK for his own damn self.. come on now.. being burned for that and seeing other boys...i'm sure he's just an overexaggerating fatherinlaw with no moral conscience whatsoever.. yeah, like burning someone is justifyable... this guy wins the evil darwinian award...
Wow, goes to show you that people are just deranged. How does someone even think about creating a fire "death trap". Obviously this guy wasn't thinking at all, how is she going to send money back to India if she is dead? So obviously it must have been the fact that she was seeing other boys that bothered him more. (rationally thinking, but with people like this you never know). Now I have heard as much as the next guy about cheating in a relationship and I know some pretty nasty things have been done through the course of history, but trying to kill somebody it really just over the line.
The fact that he might have gotten away with it in India is scary. What kind of village, or culture really, would allow such repugnant behavior? I hope this guy gets locked away for a while and enjoys the "lifestyle" of prison.
hey hey hey-- the father in law alleges she was seeing other people. It's not necessarily the truth...I mean, this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in setting his bahu on fire...
This story was in the news some months ago:
A British Columbia man has been convicted of second-degree murder in the July 2003 stabbing death of his teenage daughter.
A jury deliberated for five hours before coming up with the guilty verdict Friday for Rajinder Singh Atwal, 48.
During the trial, the Crown claimed the Kitimat man murdered his daughter, 17-year-old Amandeep Atwal, because he disapproved of her relationship with her high-school sweetheart, Todd McIsaac.
People who kill either their daughters-in-law or their own daughters in these types of matters are psychopaths and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So should those in their families who support them (especially relevant back in India).
Or they should be taken off the streets and quarantined in the relevant medical facility until their psychotic illness is addressed.
Either way, nail 'em.
It's no secret that women are accused of cheating without any proof, or very silly assumptions are made. It could be for something as little as innocently having a male coworker drive her home and the father-in-law naturally assumed she was a whore /end sarcasm.
I heard about that Atwal case. Sickening. Then you hear stories of how he loved his daughter prior to. Did he really? I doubt it. She just may not have "defied" his orders until this point. Sometimes you find about who really cares about you when things are not so peachy. I really doubt a desi dad who truly loved about his daughter or daughter in law would go to such heinous measures... they might be upset, but would probably eventually come around. The people who do are truly and utterly depraved and see women as possessions, not people.
The issue of "honor killings" is probably more prevalent than one thinks. Now that many of the immigrants to more liberal Western countries are seeing their children growing up in such an environment, a culture clash becomes inevitable.
Police to target wave of murders in the name of family honourPolice are to examine the scale of "honour crimes" in the Asian community amid growing evidence that women are being subjected to violence and sometimes murdered for refusing to obey the traditions of their culture.
Terrible. Absolutely terrible.
It's not just in villages: I was always shocked at the ideas of my ex's relatives. Oh, nothing so severe as abuse, nothing along the lines of that, but the ideas about women, their place in the family, giving gifts at weddings, the heirarchy of life! Very, very odd ideas for an educated group of people.
*The rates of female foetocide are not that different in educated and non-educated families in India, is my understanding, but I'm not sure about that data. It is awfully politicized.
Wow Vikram's got a whole stack of references there. Good work, news hound.
i can smell a conspiracy theory here. my gut is that ms. kaur set senior singh on fire for his property back in punjab and when he survived, cooked up a story to save her ass.
Wow Vikram's got a whole stack of references there. Good work, news hound.
Actually I got curious about whether this was a widespread problem. A couple of searches on google brought up a bunch of articles from around the globe:
This is the culture they want to preserve??
This is the culture they want to preserve??
Allright, lets not generalize.
This is how ideas ossify. I do not exist to preserve culture, it exists to serve me. To traditionalists I say I'll happily shed gender roles and casteism and forge a new culture within my family:
I don't want to raise a daughter in a culture that tells her she's less of a person than a son... If it damages the sexism in a culture, so be it. If it shatters traditional beliefs in the absolute superiority of men, let them break. [Link]
Well said Manish. Thank goodness for dudes such as yourself. It's nice to have that support from guys.
-----------------
It would be wonderful if more men would stand up for their wives and daughters, instead of raging and feeling ashamed (which seems to be the default attitude). Under pressure from relatives to "punish" for rumours about cheating or gawd forbid, fornicating, they should stand up for these women and say, "Who the hell are you to accuse my wife and spread such rubbish?!! I know her better than anyone else, and I trust her 100%. It's none of your business, so beat it!" That's the kind of attitude that needs to become more prevalent among both men and even some women, as well.
Manish you're a real man, a real suitable man...now you ladies need to check him out, this guy sounds like a catch. Have those babies quick, fast & in a hurry!
i don't even think there is one monolithic desi "culture" that is the problem here; many of the views i find truly disturbing are so foreign to what my family knows i don't even consider those views part of my culture. when people come out with the most ridiculous things i just think, where the "f" did you learn that? i never really think, hey that's my culture. bc its just not. the women in my family will kick your "a" too quick for that, and if they don't, the men will kick your "a" right after. and the same goes for girlfriends/
maybe in some fashion culture has something to do with this man's decision, but this is an individual man's decision, and a bad one at that. that said, maybe thats a wrong analysis and their is a pattern of desi patriarchy that leads to these kinds of acts; maybe indian patriarchy at its logical conclusion? i don't think so but thats just my view
there's been plenty of times i've seen patriarchy in front of my face and its directed at a non-desi, and i feel as afronted then as any other time. it has boggled my mind too some of the ridiculous things i've witnessed toward desi women; there is this idea of chauvanism thats really upsetting and it would be laughable if it wasn't actually being taken seriously
as a guy i think its way more money where your mouth is to stand up when women face oppression right in front of your eyes. it also way more satisying. you actually feel like a decent person. and now for some male-flagellation; i think that the fact men know they lack is what makes them sexist dickheads
This kind of thinking exists in almost all patriarchal societies. I have seen it with Indians, Arabs, mexicans etc etc.
Attitudes like these still make my stomach turn. I hear of men not going to their wives' funerals because they are told that they cannot remarry if they do so. I hear of women who still have to shave their heads when they become widows. I hear of little girls neglected because their parents finally had a much coveted son after three daughters. I have seen weddings being called off because of dowry issues.
Scary that in 2005, this retarded old bugger can still think that he can do something like this and hope to get away. How was he going to explain it anyways? Where do people cultivate such warped thinking anyways??
I hope there are not too many villages where someone could get away with this.
Villages?!! Try Bombay, Bangalore, Delhi, or any other metro of your choice.
Looks like this Mr Singh took a bit of India with him to NY.
At this point, I have to post this link here. This is the kind of nonsense that occupies the urban Indian male mind.
The problem with such people is that they are obsessed with a) maintaining their own perceived position of power and superiority, and b) what "samaaj" (ie. 'society' or 'the community') will think.
It's all about Ego.
For such individuals -- and unfortunately there are many of them -- their perceived status and "reputation/good name" in their social circles is more important to them than genuinely doing/thinking what is ethically, objectively correct, especially when a third-party is involved. They will regard certain aspects of "culture" as sacred, even if such concepts are grossly unfair to certain parties (women in particular) or in direct violation of whatever positive ideals their religion may teach them.
So in their own minds and very often in their outer conduct they basically become slaves to the opinions of others (rightly or wrongly) and the allegedly-unchangeable dictates of this vague, ill-defined, but all-powerful monolithic entity they term "samaaj".
They carry on perpetuating such ideas and behaviours because at some level they think that their wider community condones it, either tacitly or explicitly, regardless of how malicious such attitudes may be from an objective point of view and regardless of the fact that such behaviour is illegal. They think they can get away with it because, along with the factors I've just mentioned, they basically think that they're "above the law" and that such legal concerns are to be circumvented or ignored if they are contradicted by their own ideas and "samaaj"/"culture". It's basically an extremely arrogant, self-serving and indeed criminal mentality.
Hence bride-burnings, dowry-demands, honour-killings, forced marriages etc etc.
With regards to "honour-killings" specifically, despite the terminology, as far as I'm concerned "honour" (in the true sense of the word, ie. "integrity") has absolutely nothing to do with it. A more accurate term would be "Ego killings". These psychopaths are abusing women purely for the sake of their own egos. This kind of fake-macho behaviour -- all to prevalent in many quarters of desi society along with a number of others as has already been mentioned on this thread -- is pretty pathetic; it makes me wonder what kind of a loser can only feel "powerful" and "more masculine" if he has to dominate, disparage, or attempt to control women in order to do so.
FatMutonny,
That link was an astounding confirmation of what some people will do in order to curb progress. Absolutely sick...
I got disgusted at the story of the dowry incident where the man was called 'innocent'. It is disgusting that thinking like this still prevails. I shudder to think of the hell the women in the families of these men must face on a daily basis.
Fatmuttony, that link was fucking unbelievable! I don't think I've ever sworn on here, THAT'S how shocked I am! Insane.
Ladies, remember - just SAY NO TO FEMINISM.
Actually, just about every page on that site has 'This is written by an insecure man' plastered all over it.
Except maybe this one:
Next time you go for a vacation to a picturesque place in Europe, Beware !! The people sitting next to you in the local trains can very well have cannibalistic fanstasies and may even have those instincts.
He's right you know. And I'm hungry.
SaveIndianFamilies nutjob says:
Oh God, when will we Indians stop wagging our tails to Western Tunes...
I think we all know the answer to this one.
When Ashlee Simpson stops putting out that quality music.
FatMuttony:
Thank you so much for that link. I plan on saving it and showing it to as many people as possible.
I couldn't get past the "Say No to Feminism" page
Feminism is a western disease which condemns men in general and is now seeping into Indian Society. It attacks the men's psyche from multiple directions. Men are being forced not to look after their parents by Feminists. In the name of "gender sensitivity" the injustices against men are just glossed over. The result, the suicide rate of men goes up by 50% as they get married. In case of women, it remains the same before and after marriage. So, think of your brother who is getting married. Think of the hard work he does the whole day. But imagine if he does not get even 1 hour of peace when he comes back home. Can he live his life properly ?
Feminists are against religion and spirituality. Almost all of them are Atheists deep inside. Have you ever come across any single instance of spiritual talk in Feminist literature that is circulated in India ? The answer would be No. They want everything around them to be arranged such that they can indulge in hedonism. They are hypochondriac hypocrites and they are infecting all of us at a very rapid rate. The satanic forces of Feminism (a part of the demon called reductionism) is threatening our very social existence.
Until I found my way to the SOWRY (like Dowry, but asking the guy for money) page...
SOWRY harassment is defined as any demand for money, property or lifestyle which interferes with one's peaceful existence or lifestyle .Unfortunately this "independence" has brought in more SOWRY harassment and more demands for money from the guys. Why couldnt the divorce and separation be: I dont like living with you . I go my way, you go your way, you live the lifestyle to which you are entitled, and I live the lifestyle to which I am entitled. I am thankfull for the lifestyle you gave me while you were with me
It is always Money Money Money. I want all your money and more . I will not give you anything back in return. Neither will I allow a child to visit you. Neither will I provide a weekly amount of sex, or whatever I used to give. Because in marriage only a man is supposed to give . A woman is not supposed to give anything.
All I could say when I read it was, and I quote, ".........................."
Tip of the hat to fatmuttony.
Did some trawling of my own and found more such vermin loose on the web.
what I don't get is how they can say this with a straight face:
We also give support to people(men, women, children) who are victims of gender bias
and then turn around and say this:
We are also opposed to various reductionistic ideologies like Feminism
erm. I'm no feminist, but I do think Feminism was (at its best intended) a movement to stunt gender bias...
Idiots. They all live in their mothers' basements and are too scared to make eye contact with women.
"Idiots. They all live in their mothers' basements and are too scared to make eye contact with women."
DesiDancer,
Me too, I live in the basement too. I am too shy. I get nervous very often.
How did you found out my secret?
Joking aside..............
The core of the problem is economics, who pulls the strings. Indian women are very vulnerable when it comes to their financial strength/ independence ....... However, it is not peaches and cream in West too. Let's go over there, I need to go clubbing with OJ Simpson, gotta go.
I'm no feminist
Why is that?
Why is that?
I grew up in a very diverse, liberal community where (sometimes) activism would take on a very "keep up with the Joneses" patina, and Feminimism was less about equality and more about Man-Hating. I don't hate men at all, and I don't think it's necessary to my stature in society to go to either extreme of kissing their asses or hating them to death. -I just got the ESPN2 version of Full Contact Extreme Feminism, so I generally wince at the word.
Interesting website link posted by FatMuttony. Quite amusing in a black-humour kind of way. And yes I agree with Bongsie about how those articles scream of pseudo-intellectual male insecurity and neuroses. You get a lot of that amongst some quarters of the desi older generation and amongst many desis in general (of all ages) back in India.
The writers of those essays since they seem to be living in the wrong part of the world ("Desi Born Confused Desis ?") and should consider relocating to Riyadh or Kabul; they'll find plenty of men there who agree with them. Including OBL. Curious how the authors seem to similarly want to blame the West for everything and -- as one paragraph in particular explicitly stated -- identify more with "Persia" and the Arabs.
Oh yeah -- Hands up all those who couldn't stop sniggering when reading the paragraph about "Opera Winfree".....
I'm up for Full Contact Extreme Anything with Desi Dancer! Bring it on!
*amongst many desis in general
Referring to males in this particular matter, obviously
*The writers of those essays since they seem to be living in the wrong part of the world
Typo, should have said "The writer of those essays seem to be living in...."
Yum,
I'm up for Full Contact Extreme Anything with Desi Dancer! Bring it on!
With that ring on her left hand, you're more likely to get a Full Contact Extreme 'Thappar' if you keep talking like that ;)
With that ring on her left hand, you're more likely to get a Full Contact Extreme 'Thappar' if you keep talking like that ;)
Cool - I usually have to pay extra for that!
...Feminimism was less about equality and more about Man-Hating. I don't hate men at all...
But most feminists wouldn't call that 'feminism,' we call that immaturity. I proudly 'label' myself a feminist, (and I love men!) and I think not just every woman but everyONE should be a feminist. What does it mean except that you believe women should get the same opportunities and choices as men do?
I think it's sad and kind of frustrating when stuff like this gets passed off as 'feminism.' It really just makes the whole movement look bad, and it makes it easier for society to slap the label of 'feminist' on a woman then ignore her or just write her off as a man-hating radical.
//end rant
...Feminimism was less about equality and more about Man-Hating. I don't hate men at all...But most feminists wouldn't call that 'feminism,' we call that immaturity. I proudly 'label' myself a feminist, (and I love men!) and I think not just every woman but everyONE should be a feminist. What does it mean except that you believe women should get the same opportunities and choices as men do?
I was just going to say the same thing Rupa! The extreme feminism thing seems more like a caricature - there is however, a nice modern alternative view. And yes, I think there are men feminists too, like Manish.... hope he doesn't mind me labelling him as such... meant to be a compliment.
Rupa,
>>But most feminists wouldn't call that (male hatred)'feminism,'
But that's how most non-feminists view feminism as.
I keep hearing these assertions: Feminism is not really like that. Islam is really a religion of peace. Jihad really means the battle within self. Intelligent Design does not mean religious fundamentalism.
However, popular perception counts for more in real life than bookish definitions by the minority.
M. Nam
And yes, I think there are men feminists too, like Manish.... hope he doesn't mind me labelling him as such... meant to be a compliment.
Not at all, I am a feminist just as I'm a humanist:
I don't look like a feminist either. That feminism is perceived as inappropriate for men speaks volumes about the prevalence of the traditional gender roles... When the subject comes up, my long-time male friends are suddenly more sexist than I believed--and see nothing wrong with it. [Link]
... popular perception counts for more in real life than bookish definitions by the minority.
Sure, dude. And "liberals are crazy, conservatives are cruel, blacks are poor, Hindus are stoners and Gandhi was a freak." All popular perceptions.
>>liberals are crazy, conservatives are cruel, blacks are poor, Hindus are stoners and Gandhi was a freak.
Wrong inference to Gandhi. You are mixing up popular perception of groups/classes of people with the popular perception of an individual.
Most people in the world view Gandhi as a great man. Now, was he a freak? Going by the textual definition of the word freak( Out of the ordinary, rare, exhibiting behaviour rarely seen in others) - Gandhi was most definitely a freak. Going by the popular perception of the word freak ( mentally crazy, un-predicatable, violent, sexually deranged etc etc), Gandhi was not a freak.
So, those who call Gandhi a freak are freaks themselves! By popular perception!
M. Nam
PS: Your anger shows.
Your anger shows.
Oops, you must have accidentally gotten my point.
Feminism reminds me of my gender-studies class not too long ago.
In a class of 280, we had 6 guys. Every one of those guys was considered ( by those not taking the course) to be either:
a.gay/queer
or
b.looking to pick up girls
The conclusion was that no 'normal' ( and of course gays aren't normal) 'self-respecting' male would be in a gender-studies class and take it seriously.
Of course that irked me to no end.
Daksha, I don't think that (guy must be gay or picking up girls) is a common perception.
Not very many guys take women's studies classes, just as many caucasians may not take african-american studies, but I think it has more to do with feeling like it's their none of their business, or that one is likely to be more interested in a subject if one feels they have experience or a vested interest in it. But certainly all are welcome and encouraged to join in.
Will I vote for David Duke? Hell, no.
When David Duke was running for Governor of Louisiana, NYT and some other opinion pollsters did a survey. Most of the people at the opinion poll said they would never vote for David Duke. However, in reality, he got much more votes even in metropolitan areas than surveyed. The moral story is "talk and grandstanding is damn cheap, people say something and do the opposite." What you do in real life matters?
A while ago, I went to talk and lunch with a female MIT ex-professor and now a President/ CEO of a frontline Research Lab. A world class scientist herself who always had female graduate students and has three daughters.
Her message was almost anti-feminist: She talked about having a family, having babies, doing work from home, and also doing great, rigoruous science. She talked about giving extra time for tenure to women - those are great ideas, not some trite slogan mongering.
You know what she said (paraphrasing), "I do not want to scare women from science or other time-demanding careers. That is harmful. " Here is someone talking with compassion.
At the day of the day everyone gets judged by the quality of the work, like Madame Curie.
DesiDancer, I wanted to support your ideas.
Ang I wasn't particularly annoyed with the number of men we had in our classes but the attitude that none of them could possibly be in the class due to a serious interest in the subject.
The idea that the course was frivolous and unimportant.
Kush,
Feminism talks mostly about women's rights - Equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity etc etc. It completes ignores the other side of the coin: Women's responsibilities - Equal productivity, equal partnership.
Just by this alone, feminism is nothing but good ol' patriarchy with a vagina. Patriarchs talk about men's rights, men's strength/virility, men's conquests (sexual and otherwise). Patriarchy, of course, ignores men's responsibilities - especially towards women.
M. Nam
She talked about having a family, having babies, doing work from home, and also doing great, rigoruous science. She talked about giving extra time for tenure to women - those are great ideas, not some trite slogan mongering.
I don't consider those ideas anti-feminist. I think you are making assumptions about how some commenters feel: You would like to believe that we blindly follow some kind of overly-sensitive pc liberal agenda, but most of my feelings and sentiments are alot more logically derived than you give credit for. I hate rhetoric as much as the next person. And, I don't think feminists in this day and age feel you can't have babies or be a homemaker if you choose. I don't know of any anyways.
Besides, that is not the issue at hand. The original post about burning a woman evokes the idea that women today are still not treated as equals. This isn't exactly an isolated incident. There is much work ahead. To further the process, men need to reassess their ideas and beliefs and concept of masculinity. Both men's and women's issues go hand and hand and cannot be separated. That's why there's no point in man-hating, it's just not productive.
In addition to women's rights, I also feel strongly about other issues which I consider to be humanitarian issues, not a liberal pc umbrella because they come from the same place - a lack of equality in one way or the other, and/or ignorance.
I think the whole question of whether feminism equals "good" or "bad" depends on the individuals' interpretation of the word.
For example:
Negative interpretation of Feminism = An adversarial "Us vs Them" mentality towards men, almost in the vein of "an eye for an eye", and taking on board the very worst characteristics of male behaviour. Examples of this are wishing to have the upper hand over men in every interaction or relationship involving men, or "I'm going to treat men as badly as men treat women" (especially w.r.t sexual relationships), or generally doing self-destructive things in the alleged spirit of equality. It basically comes down to expecting -- indeed demanding -- respect and empathy without necessarily offering any (or sufficient) respect and empathy to the other party in return.
However, a positive interpretation of Feminism would be as follows:
Wanting -- and expecting -- to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect as a fellow human being, and not to be dominated, exploited, manipulated or generally treated unfairly purely on account of being female. It comes down to being treated as a full equal -- neither superior nor subordinate.
One point of confusion I think often arises -- in this particular area and in many others -- is the precise interpretation of the word "respect". Some more egotistical or misguided individuals regard this term as meaning "deferentially"; a more constructive translation would of course be "with courtesy and integrity, but as an equal". One has to remember that the woman is your fellow human being first and foremost and therefore deserves to be treated with understanding and decency, irrespective of being a "different" gender. Just because she's a woman it doesn't mean she's literally a separate species to you.
I guess it all comes down to basic humanitarianism, even more than loaded terms like "feminism".
Guys
I recently read the work of Jean Bethke Elshtain and am not sure whether she is a real feminist. But her thoughts defnitely resonate with me, when she says regualr feminists do NOT get the point of female empowerment.
They are all trying to be men....in competing for male values. There is something to that.Lisa Belkin asked a similar qestion about women and economics.
These are not black and white issues.
Nisha Sharma was indeed brave in being able to respond at the appropriate time and place. For that she deserves a lot of credit
But, also, never one must forget the fact, that she gladly agreed to a marriage where the terms of amrriage involved the exchange of a certain number of goods.
Now its when girls refuse to benefit from such bartering even when their families can afford to pay, and not merely when the ability to buy falls just short of te groom's greed to overprice his product. Its called premium pricing.
Can one exercise delayed gratfication to pay "fair price" which in the case of marriage really should be "no money"
Till that point its merely an economic reduction, not idealism.
Idealism takes different forms....Those quiet incildents create more change than hundreds of such pubic hullabaloos.
Sumita
Jai
Wanting -- and expecting -- to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect as a fellow human being, and not to be dominated, exploited, manipulated or generally treated unfairly purely on account of being female. It comes down to being treated as a full equal -- neither superior nor subordinate.
As usual, you have my respect with this wonderful summation
Sumita
Can someone give some insight on § 498a ? Are the idiots of SaveIndianFamilies on to something ?
thanks for having my back, Kush.
I'm definitely humanist, all for equality, and for all of the things that many of you have said Feminism truly is. I tend to shy away from the word, as it has bad connotations for me personally. The concept remains the same as what Jai, Manish, and Rupa have elaborated... whether you call it Feminism or Common Sense.
Desi Dancer and the rest..I agree with you all. It is not a question about the meaning of feminism or whether it is about hating men or empowering women etc. It all boils down to one thing: Respecting everyone, regardless of their sex, religion or ethnicity.
That stupid website and the moron who moderates it obviously doesn't understand that simple idea. When I read some of the idiotic ideas in it, one thing kept on popping into my mind..the old adage about 'women should be seen and not heard'.
It makes me wonder if these articles and ideas belong to someone who worships goddesses with as much fervour as male deities. In fact, it makes me question how society in general changed so much that being female and being strong and independant became 'wrong' and 'inappropriate'.
In fact, it makes me question how society in general changed so much that being female and being strong and independant became 'wrong' and 'inappropriate'.
At the risk of being very politically-incorrect indeed (not against women, I hasten to add), if you're referring specifically to South Asian culture then I suggest you read up on the history of the Indian subcontinent over the past 1000 years, and you'll get an idea.
PS Not that Indian society was necessarily perfect before those times, including with regards to women, but there is such a concept as pouring a whole can of kerosine on a mildly smouldering fire.
Hmmmm, the old to call oneself a feminist or not debate......I understand DesiDancer's point. I don't like calling myself a feminist because the term has become loaded, and not just because of negative portrayals from the outside, as it were, but because some prominent feminists just don't speak for me. I feel trapped in a box with a group of women I don't particularly want to be in a box with (and I'm sure they feel the same way about the likes of me :) ).
Anyway, this is why I use the term suffragette. Dated? Perhaps. I prefer charmingly old-school, myself.
And yes, I know we have the vote and all that - I just like those old-school feminists and suffragettes, don't you? Those were some tough old broads, man....what's not to like?
At the risk of being very politically-incorrect indeed (not against women, I hasten to add), if you're referring specifically to South Asian culture then I suggest you read up on the history of the Indian subcontinent over the past 1000 years, and you'll get an idea
Um Jai, is this a reference to "everything that is less than desirable about the Indian subcontinent is a result of Muslim invasions"? The status of women does not appear to me to have been very high among, for instance, the Guptas (or the ancient Greeks for that matter, or the Persians).
I don't like calling myself a feminist because the term has become loaded... because some prominent feminists just don't speak for me.
Reclaim the term from the Womyn!
Some of us involved in reproductive rights have a saying, "Call people whatever they want to be called." (Calling someone pro-abortion versus pro-choice or anti-choice versus pro-life can get kind of messy, know what I mean?)
So if you'd rather be called a suffragette, or a humanist, or a feminist, fine. (As long as you have the right idea!) But too bad the term feminist has been hijacked into something nasty.
I'm a feminist, I double-majored in women's studies, and never have I met this mythical "man-hating feminist." Not at women's music festivals, not at a lesbian-run newspaper I volunteered at, not at the national feminist organization I interned at, not in my classes...I wonder where these women are. They ain't writing for Ms. magazine. The only women getting any press are the ones who write books about the evils of feminism. You know, the divorced ones who go on book tours and leave their kids with nannies, while preaching that women should be stay-at-home moms. Although the media also loves young women who think that feminism is entirely about how they express themselves sexually.
Hell, if you want "man-hating," take a look at any mainstream women's mag. All that advice on how to trick men into proposing, how to lie to protect their fragile male egos (by the way, did you know that the "correct" number of sexual partners to admit to having is 4? Any more will upset Mr. Man, and any less will make him think you're too inexperienced), all the endless jokes about men's shortcomings in the communication and domestic departments -- all that stuff masks more of a loathing for men than any workaday feminist, if you ask me.
Hothead paisan lives: you bring up a good point, and reminds me of Dowd's comment about feminism lasting a nanosecond, and the backlash lasting decades...The right has been so successful in stigmatizing the term to such an extent (another one they did a number on was "liberal") that far too many people appear defensive about it. As always, the construction of a straw man (or a man-hating feminist in this case) is central to the de-legitimization project.
Although the media also loves young women who think that feminism is entirely about how they express themselves sexually.
Ditto, I more got that vibe growing up ("feminists are easy") than did I get the man-hating vibe.
I've never encountered a ragingly man-hating feminist either (and I've been involved in TONS of pro-female movements) but the stereotype is out there, and it's perpetuated by certain manifestations of feminism in the media.
I think the problem is that ANGRY feminists are easy to dismiss as man-hating, when what they're really hating on is the patriarchy.
The only women getting any press are the ones who write books about the evils of feminism. You know, the divorced ones who go on book tours and leave their kids with nannies, while preaching that women should be stay-at-home moms.
And what a crying shame that is. I went to a talk from Phyllis Schafly when I was in college, and someone asked her how she was able to reconcile keeping her kids in the care of someone else while she toured the country, and she was all "It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for my cause." I wanted to throw something at her.
Fatmuttony's link reminds me of a very serious conversation amongst some undergrad desi kids that I happened to overhear.
The boys were discussing how they were 'distressed' with the increase in dysfunctional families. So one bright boy speaks with determination, on how his wife will never work. She'd take care of the kids and the house.
That was his plan to avoid a dysfunctional family.
Maybe if he'd read the link he'd have added that his wife would also have to say NO TO FEMINISM ;)
Umair,
Um Jai, is this a reference to "everything that is less than desirable about the Indian subcontinent is a result of Muslim invasions"? The status of women does not appear to me to have been very high among, for instance, the Guptas (or the ancient Greeks for that matter, or the Persians).
Umair buddy you're extrapolating my statements too much -- my second post immediately below the first one should have clarified my thoughts. Again, Indian society was certainly not perfect on multiple levels before a certain person from Ghazni decided to start paying the subcontinent annual visits (and yes I do know there were already Arabs in parts of Sindh and Gujarat before that), but in a number of areas some of the cultural mores did subsequently take a significant downturn, especially the status and expected behaviour of women. Meaning if things weren't ideal for women before, they got a whole lot worse once the Turks and (later) the Mughals started importing their own Middle-Eastern-influenced ideas on the matter into the subcontinent.
For several very obvious reasons I don't believe in the Hindutva/RSS propaganda of blaming the Muslims (or indeed the British or the West in general) for whatever may be dysfunctional within Indian society; but if the Turkic-Mughal elite set the tone for acceptable behaviour towards women as per their religious interpretations and cultural norms, then such matters are obviously going to "trickle down" into the rest of society and give some kind of self-righteous moral justification to individuals who would be looking for an excuse to bully women anyway.
Over time these things unfortunately become entrenched as "Indian culture" and thereby become regarded as pefectly acceptable behaviour within certain quarters, especially those with a conservative mentality with regards to their expectations of female behaviour.
If anybody has very detailed information on the status of women within the subcontinent prior to the Delhi Sultanate, especially from the period of 0AD to 1000AD (which should hopefully include the Buddhist period to some extent too, including in what is now Afghanistan), I'd be very keen to hear more -- we're all here to learn, after all ;)
Hothead Paisan,
Hell, if you want "man-hating," take a look at any mainstream women's mag. All that advice on how to trick men into proposing, how to lie to protect their fragile male egos (by the way, did you know that the "correct" number of sexual partners to admit to having is 4? Any more will upset Mr. Man, and any less will make him think you're too inexperienced), all the endless jokes about men's shortcomings in the communication and domestic departments -- all that stuff masks more of a loathing for men than any workaday feminist, if you ask me.
This is exactly what I was referring to in my description of the negative interpretations of feminism, in my post no. 58. Ditto for the whole "Men are only good for one thing", "I just want to marry a rich man [not for love]" attitude etc.
Sumita,
A belated thank you for your nice reply in post no. 60 ;)
Women's responsibilities - Equal productivity, equal partnership.
Just by this alone, feminism is nothing but good ol' patriarchy with a vagina. Patriarchs talk about men's rights, men's strength/virility, men's conquests (sexual and otherwise). Patriarchy, of course, ignores men's responsibilities - especially towards women.
M. Nam
Women account for 70 percent of the world's people who live in absolute poverty. Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, produce half of the world's food, and yet earn only 10% of the world's income and own less than 1% of the world's property. (http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/globalissuesoverview/overview2/BriefOverview.htm)
Yup, looks like patriarchy with a vagina.
