He should definitely get a divorce. This girl sounds confused.

wow. depending on where you stand he's either a p*ssy or more of a man than most would have expected ;-)

He should definitely get a divorce. This girl sounds confused.

that's the rational thing to do. but sounds like he's still in love kinda. hopefully that'll wear off.

digesh seems an awful decent guy - too good for solanki who seems to be something of a witch - and this jani guy is either a tool or a skunk.

digesh seems an awful decent guy - too good for solanki who seems to be something of a witch - and this jani guy is either a tool or a skunk.

the first i think is a likely inference based on his reaction. that beings said, do we know enough about the full dynamics to be very certain of the latter assumptions? from what we know that's a defensible claim; but brown american women are often subject to particular pressures which can mitigate erratic behavior (i.e., the expectations of society and the expectations of family, the norms they imbibe from the mainstream culture and the norms which they are held to within the subculture). though the people are brown, the particulars aren't really necessarily culturally specific.

On the bright side, this story is an exception to tropes of desi women being innocent victims being pressured into unwanted marriages and desi men being misogynistic pigs who treat women like property. If anything, Dignesh is going too easy on his wife.

This was actually a dreadful misunderstanding. She wanted to play a prank on her husband, who would of course call her up when the car was found.

Dignesh: Anu, we found your car. It is running in the woods.
Anu: Why don't you catch it then?

-----------

What are you groaning at me for? She's the one with the maturity of an infant.

Also, judging from the fact that Anu Solanki's initials are AS, we may conclude that she habitually tells only two-thirds of the truth.

Also, judging from the fact that Anu Solanki's initials are AS, we may conclude that she habitually tells only two-thirds of the truth.

Huh?

this whole story is ridiculous. but personally, i think dignesh should count his blessings he is off the hook. if the county had pressed charges to reclaim the quarter million dollars, my bet is that he would have been in jail as an abuser by now.

8 · nala said

Huh?

Oy vey! That was a passing mention to a very old joke (search the page for "two-thirds of the truth").

---------------

Some comments on the arsonist murderer thread were talking about the need to spread awareness about therapy & mental health. I suppose that stuff could be used here too, giving advice to extremely confused people about what they should do. Sort of like a suicide prevention line, but at a much lower priority. At the very least, it would prevent people doing fully-assed things like running away without any warning.

First, Dignesh's comments prove nothing. Plenty of people who are rotten in private life know how to put up a gentle, even a martyred front for outsiders. Second, Anu's comment that the marriage wasn't abusive proves nothing. The abuse might have been verbal or emotional, and she simply is unaware, as are many abused women, that she HAS been abused. There was clearly friction, as Dignesh himself acknowledges. It is also possible that Dignesh is entirely blameless and Anu is a bleeding idiot. We don't know and probably never will. What is truly appalling here is the misogynistic rush to judgment of so many commenters, who wish to label her crazy, a 'witch', etc.

In case you forgot the particulars, Anu Solanki disappeared after leaving work to immerse a statue of Ganipati in a river

That's Ganpati or Ganapati.

the Des Plaines-area woman

Desh Plaines!

Thanks for the update.

Her family initially didn’t approve of him, but once Anu’s mother relented, their wedding was scheduled for May.

Rs. 2,000 was betted that this was the case.

That's Ganpati or Ganapati.

Fixed.

The abuse might have been verbal or emotional, and she simply is unaware,

Absolutely, in fact the abuse might even be at the sub-atomic level. According to the feynman diagrams, the abusive koans emanating from dignesh's body might decay into the W bosons and gluons in mid air and penetrate the skin of her brain interacting with the pi-mesons on her cortical structure, further penetrating into her corpus collosum & anterior cingulate. There's a very smile but definitely finite non-zero probability that these abusvie subatomic particles that caused her to do what she did.

It's the synaptic discharges and sodium channels plus alphasubunits in Dignesh's brain that will tell the true story, their words mean nothing.

We don't know and probably never will.

Yes. and OJ will keep looking for "the real killer" too.

There was clearly friction, as Dignesh himself acknowledges.

This might've helped with excessive friction.

DQ, I think a rush to say she was abused is as misbegotten as the rush to say she was drowned in a river, or that she's a crazy bitch. She never alleged that she was abused, and nor has anyone else. It's ridiculous to assume that the only reason she ran off with someone else was because she was abused.

Facts come in at their own pace, and that pace is governed by the media's attention span in this case. So if the media presents her as drowned in a river, we think, "gosh, poor woman." And if the media portrays her as a deceitful wife who's run off with someone she met on the interwebs to go have horny funs in a hotel room, well, most people will probably think, "what a crazy bitch."

Anyway, who cares? She's alive, and she's being embarassed in the media, which is awesome fun. All's well that ends well, right?

So. Now I just gotta wonder what happened to her Ganapati.

What is truly appalling here is the misogynistic rush to judgment of so many commenters, who wish to label her crazy, a 'witch', etc.

reg. solanki - i was going to respond to razib's comment anyway to respond befor i saw yours DQ.

the first i think is a likely inference based on his reaction. that beings said, do we know enough about the full dynamics to be very certain of the latter assumptions? from what we know that's a defensible claim; but brown american women are often subject to particular pressures which can mitigate erratic behavior (i.e., the expectations of society and the expectations of family, the norms they imbibe from the mainstream culture and the norms which they are held to within the subculture).

Anu's comment that the marriage wasn't abusive proves nothing. The abuse might have been verbal or emotional, and she simply is unaware, as are many abused women, that she HAS been abused.

You probably have some personal issues that cloud your common sense on this issue. So let me explain to you what exactly Anu's comment that the marriage wasn't abusive proves: that she wasn't exactly running away from Mr. Dignesh. More precisely, it proves that he isn't a psycopath. She herself has apologized for the whole fiasco and says she is embarassed.

Moral: Putting up an super righteous pose about defending an idiot would end up making the defender look like one.

I am just glad she is ok. I was sickened at the thought of something unspeakable happening to her. especially after it was related that she thought she was being followed by four men.

but really the underhanded way he did it

True. Using God for your deception is real messed up. Hopefully she gets hers.

being brown is no excuse for being a turd.

On the other hand, being a turd is a perfect excuse for being brown.

Khoofia, you've got a picturesque way with words!

On the bright side, this story is an exception to tropes of desi women being innocent victims being pressured into unwanted marriages and desi men being misogynistic pigs who treat women like property

What about desi women creating drama, and acting like pigs themselves.

Is it just me, or does this story sound like a twisted Bollywood movie?

Is it just me, or does this story sound like a twisted Bollywood movie?

Don't know about Bollywood, but I predict that this entire episode will prove to be the rejuvenating shot of collagen needed to reinforce a sadly declining rock band. Jani's got a Gan-esha.

He jacked a little bitty baby
The man has got to be insane
They say the spell that he was under the lightning and the
thunder knew that someone had to stop the rain

Absolutely, in fact the abuse might even be at the sub-atomic level. .. ..

That was brilliant HMF. You have a Neurologist's sense of humor...Are you one?

you have a Neurologist's sense of humor...Are you one?

no, i play one on tv.

14 · HMF said

Absolutely, in fact the abuse might even be at the sub-atomic level. According to the feynman diagrams, the abusive koans emanating from dignesh's body might decay into the W bosons and gluons in mid air and penetrate the skin of her brain interacting with the pi-mesons on her cortical structure, further penetrating into her corpus collosum & anterior cingulate.

HAHAHA

I have to say that I was quite surprised when I read some of the comments on the other thread on this story even after it was revealed that she simply ran off with some guy. How is it that people are so quick to absolve others of personal responsibility? So do we automatically have relaxed expectation of responsible behavior on the basis of gender/race? So what if her actions wasted a lot of money and people's time? Even in the absence of mitigating factors we can invent fantastic scenarios that justify irresponsible behaviour.
And I wondered how liberals still manage to lose the public debate on personal responsibility to a party represented by a guy like Bush.

Desi Joey Tribiani?

Dr. Sanjay Gupta plays a Neurologist on TV too...:)

Anybody expect this to be the theme of the next reality show - Evading Spouses (TM)?

22 · Taz said

Is it just me, or does this story sound like a twisted Bollywood movie?

Yea. It resembles in bits and parts this boring film Namastey London I saw in India. But like most of our hindi films it has a "happys endings"

Salil - if you actually read my comment you'll see that I don't conclude she necessarily WAS abused. I say that the facts as we know them don't prove ANYTHING. They certainly don't rule out abuse.

Khoofia - using the term 'witch' for a female about whose personal circumstances you know little, if anything, is a good indication you're a misogynist - along with the other mullahs on here who've been quick to label her with every traditional epithet possible for a rebellious female.

Alphabeta - the very fact that you assume it must be 'personal issues' that lead me to defend Anu proves that you don't really need information to pass judgment on someone. You just really, really want to pass judgment.

HMF - you ARE a neurologist's joke. What procedure it was that screwed you up I can't say, but you are entitled to one hell of a settlement.

To any more ignorant, woman-hating a-holes who choose to come on here and heap more abuse on Anu: I stand by my position that she still MAY have been abused. There are women who get beaten to shreds and still maintain that their relationships are normal. There are plenty more women (as any DV counsellor will inform you) who have a hard time identifying when they have been emotionally abused, particularly if they were subject to such abuse as children.

To any more ignorant, woman-hating a-hole

ie. anyone able to see the facts for what they are.

What procedure it was that screwed you up I can't say

I think it's called the acquisition of common sense.

but you are entitled to one hell of a settlement

Would it cover one of your dinners?

I stand by my position that she still MAY have been abused.

what kind of stupid position is that? of course she may have been abused, she may have also been captured by aliens and forced to watch the entire 2nd season of ally McBeal.

DQ, you need to have a better reason to support Anu than just happening to be female.

DQ and nala for all your misoandrist comments i would say that first look at yourself before demeaning others. DQ by your defination of DV 99% people in this world are abused at some point in there life, so much for your ridiculous feminist diatribe, you certainly do have personal issues, same goes to nala before calling other people pigs first know what you are. Now go on and call me misogynist, male chauvinist and any other fad word you like, but the truth is some women are in complete denial they just don't want to know what is wrong with them.

HMF, given that nearly a third of North American women will be abused during their lifetimes (physical abuse), I'd say the parallel with being kidnapped by aliens is a trifle weak.

Desi Fury - it's not being a woman that makes me annoyed at having this individual, about whose inner life, emotional state, and past we know nearly nothing, called denigrating names. I hope not. I would hope there are men out there who would refrain from calling her a bitch, a crazy woman, a witch, an infant etc.

I still think Anu is an immature idiot for running away like this and I honestly feel bad for Dignesh.

i was wrong to have had an emotional response and to have cast a judgement. best thing to let the domestic matter work its way through court and counsellors. moving on.

All right, let's back off the DQ, shall we? I read her comment and saw in it frustration that I sometimes feel about this space, too. While I don't necessarily give Anu as much latitude as DQ does-- because after reading article after article, I think she's probably guilty of doing what her heart wanted in the most clueless, expensive way possible-- I also think that sometimes, we're a bit callous about the language we use here, and willfully oblivious of the ramifications of such typing. I know this, because I moderated both threads and had to delete some really filthy, vicious misogynistic comments. I'm good at nuking them after four years, good enough that most of you don't even see them, so you don't realize the sentiment is out there and people feel free to shit it here, as if they're awesome for feeling that way, and won't everyone think they're clever for saying "she is a prostitute of a bitch!"?

I also endorse one other aspect of DQ's p.o.v.-- that we never know what someone else's entire story is and so it's gracious to keep in mind that things beyond what we have judged or decided are possible. Maybe Anu was abused. Maybe Anu has a personality disorder. Maybe Anu just wanted a different life but was too scared to suffer through all the painful disentangling to get to it. It's a kind thing to keep in mind in every situation.

All I know is, leaving the car running b/c you want a "clean break" with your life and your husband's property is lame. Lamer still, lying to a probably horrified friend about being in danger/being followed. Lamest of all, not thinking her actions through.

What I want to know is, did she just think she'd be able to disappear? No one would notice she was gone? Discuss. And play nice while you're at it.

To any more ignorant, woman-hating a-holes who choose to come on here and heap more abuse on Anu: I stand by my position that she still MAY have been abused. There are women who get beaten to shreds and still maintain that their relationships are normal. There are plenty more women (as any DV counsellor will inform you) who have a hard time identifying when they have been emotionally abused, particularly if they were subject to such abuse as children.

I, George Walker Bush, stand by my position that Iraq still MAY have WMDs. There are countries that get searched to bits and still have WMDs hidden in somebody's basement. There are plenty more countries (as any of my administration's officials will inform you) that we have a hard time deciding whether they have WMDs or not, particularly if the WMDs were invented by foreign heathens.

Domestic violence is a serious problem.

You're hurting your case by making Anu Solanki of all people into a poster child for DV.

This is an individual who has acted immaturely, inconsiderately and irrationally. There may be hope for her, but calling her a victim of DV is speculative at best. Acting on that speculation is wasteful of resources: every resource spent on Anu Solanki's potential DV experience (which may not even exist) is not spent on helping known victims of actual (not potential) DV.

'Me' - Uh huh, right. So anyone who says that flinging epithets at this girl is wrong has 'personal issues', but those who call her those names are perfectly alright. And we're the ones in denial.

What are you basing the 99% stat on? There's nothing in my comment to indicate such a number. I pointed out that plenty of abused women are not fully aware of what constitutes abuse. And furthermore, there are many who will never publicly declare they've been abused, even if they know they have been. She may not have been abused at all, but we know TOO LITTLE to judge her and to decide hubby is an angel.

I rarely am on the same side of the table as HMF on the topic of DV, but I'm totally with him on this -- I thought the Feynman particles post was hilarious.

DQ, you're right, there is a possibility she was abused, but it is SERIOUSLY unlikely given all the subsequent information we have now. A possibility doesn't make it a certainty, let alone a prevailing probability. I was loathe to jump on the abuse bandwagon in the previous thread, and that wagon certainly seems to have broken down now. It sounds like she is immature and unclear about what she wants and handled the entire thing REALLY poorly. Let's not turn her into a victim without reason.

Anna, looks like I posted my comment the same time as you posted yours. Feel free to delete my #41 - when I started typing it, there weren't too many responses to DQ. Now all the responses together make it look like a Neil LaBute audition.

Thanks Anna.

Khoofia - impressive. I take it back.

DQ- I pointed out that plenty of abused women are not fully aware of what constitutes abuse.

Nor are men.

DQ and nala for all your misoandrist comments i would say that first look at yourself before demeaning others. DQ by your defination of DV 99% people in this world are abused at some point in there life, so much for your ridiculous feminist diatribe, you certainly do have personal issues, same goes to nala before calling other people pigs first know what you are. Now go on and call me misogynist, male chauvinist and any other fad word you like, but the truth is some women are in complete denial they just don't want to know what is wrong with them.

Huh? I think you need to improve your reading skills. I was being sarcastic in #6. If anything, I'm a misogynist. ;)
(thanks for the free therapy btw :) )

Cook County authorities will not bring criminal charges against Anu Solanki

Like that other famous Chicago person who threw the cops for a loop till he was finally nailed on tax evasion, maybe they can find the Ganesh and get Anu on littering.

Maybe they can get three stop signs, two police officers, and one police car, but when they get to the Scene of the Crime there will be five police officers and three police cars, being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wants to get in the newspaper story about it.

(thanks for the free therapy btw :) )

So Nala, now that you've had some therapy, I take it you won't be setting people on fire then?

What I want to know is, did she just think she'd be able to disappear? No one would notice she was gone? Discuss. And play nice while you're at it.

She thought she could vanish, simply vanish. Like an old oak table (5:30 onwards).

Well, Steve Fossett simply vanished too: a guy who has flown round the world non-stop multiple times, disappeared on a quiet recreational flight where no records were being broken. Never found.

Steve Fossett probably met with an accident. John Darwin certainly did not.

Darwin faked his own death in a canoe accident to get the insurance money, then reappeared years later claiming to have just recovered from amnesia. A likely story, that.

But for some speculation, the Darwin story was in the news through early and mid December, just before Anu Solanki decamped. Source of inspiration, what?

42 · DQ said

'Me' - Uh huh, right. So anyone who says that flinging epithets at this girl is wrong has 'personal issues', but those who call her those names are perfectly alright. And we're the ones in denial.
What are you basing the 99% stat on? There's nothing in my comment to indicate such a number. I pointed out that plenty of abused women are not fully aware of what constitutes abuse. And furthermore, there are many who will never publicly declare they've been abused, even if they know they have been. She may not have been abused at all, but we know TOO LITTLE to judge her and to decide hubby is an angel.

Just being a woman is not reason enough to say cheat on a husband, elope with a lover, put the family into days of turmoil. Supporting any action such as this is insanity.
There are hundreds of cases where the husbands are abused but go unspoken. This article from the guardian shows us how dishonest women are exploiting the dowry law meant to protect them.

I was starting to believe 'DQ' stood for 'Drama Quotient.' Sorry.

Seriously, it's obvious we don't really know all the details of this or any story, really. The only thing obvious is that Anu has some major issues & troubles (not to mention some shortcomings in the communication skills). Some would sum that up more pithily by saying, "Bitch crazy." I guess I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that doesn't make them "misogynists." Above all, I hope everyone involved in this mess gets whatever help he/she may need to come out ok on the other side.

Alphabeta - the very fact that you assume it must be 'personal issues' that lead me to defend Anu proves that you don't really need information to pass judgment on someone. You just really, really want to pass judgment.

No, I didn't assume it. I just thought it was a probable cause for why your call on this matter seems so much beyond what normal common sense dictates. You just misread my comment.

I was starting to believe 'DQ' stood for 'Drama Quotient.' Sorry.

DQ is short for Dharma Queen. She is popular for her Uh-huhs, earlier it used to be Uh-Ho but was later changed after the Don Imus incident.

I was starting to believe 'DQ' stood for 'Drama Quotient.' Sorry.

By her ridiculous comments I knew she is the same old "Dharma Queen". According to her women are always victims, it's not the first time she is defending a women just for the heck of it.

Silence is golden. That's why I stay off the internets (mostly) these days. No matter what you say, someone is going to jump on you.

But this comment thread was good. It is nice to see people arguing so passionately about the nuances of the case.. about precisely which inferences can be drawn, and expressed in exactly what kind of words.. and all this based on second-hand information provided by media! I should meet some of you in real world. You guys must be living amazingly rational lives.. always taking a pause before making choices, always thinking for that extra second before you utter a word.. always not judging people.. it must be all so exciting!

Bang on dude. Alright, here is my christmas song for DQ,... Ho Ho Ho

Topcat,

Saying things like that would only cause DQ to become even more pissed off at males, and hence are most definitely counterproductive. In fact, I believe its quite likely that the very reason she is so prejudiced could be the experience of too many events like this. I believe realizing that would be helpful to all.

This story is amazing. It's fun to read. Sorry Dignesh.

Is it Dignesh's story that she went to drown the "Ganapati" ? or is that one cooked up by Anu.

Anu's whereabouts were completely unknown both during the SF zoo fiasco and Bhutto's assassination. Just sayin'.

Guys! dont know the history on this, but i got the perspective DQ was bringing - it does make sense. calling someone an idiot is one thing because the person can be clearly linked to a stupid or irrational act. however, calling a woman a bitch, a ho, whore, prostitute etc is dehumanizing that person and basically clearing the way to commit acts that one wouldnt do to anyone who's a peer at some level; as in "I am morally superior to you and thus can commit violent acts to you as if you were an animal and it would be ok."

i kind of came out with the first 'witch' comment that she called me on. i think the above reason is why she did so and i respect her for that. i conceded the point earlier and i feel cmpelled to speak up here. there may be historical context to your emotional take on this exchange - but this was my 2cts.

good nite.

You guys must be living amazingly rational lives.. always taking a pause before making choices, always thinking for that extra second before you utter a word.. always not judging people.. it must be all so exciting!

Dude, thats exactly what I wondered when I read some people's responses to my comments on the original thread!

given that nearly a third of North American women will be abused during their lifetimes (physical abuse), I'd say the parallel with being kidnapped by aliens is a trifle weak.

A stat like this really deserves a link. Even if true, it doesn't prove any kind of point you're making, 100% of relationships out there have 'friction' Seriously you sound like a member of team bush saying, theres a chance she was abused. Just like team bush saying, "iraq has weapons of mass dest. program type documents that were perhaps thought of at one point" when they had no facts to prove the real deal.

In this day in age, there are multiple options out there for an abused woman to make, especially in the USA. And all this "crying wolf" crap she pulled really sucks for the true, legit cases out there.

Who's buying this "male aquaintance" bullshit either?

Saying things like that would only cause DQ to become even more pissed off at males

for future reference, other things that will cause DQ to become even more pissed off at males:

being male.

Sorry DQ, that was rude of me.... Can we kiss and make up now?

I pointed out that plenty of abused women are not fully aware of what constitutes abuse.

And some women classify shopping here as abuse.

Bang on dude. Alright, here is my christmas song for DQ,... Ho Ho Ho

Is this acceptable?

I'd like to remind everyone that it was qouted by one of the neighbors of Anu and Dig that they had "issues" and Dig was gone most of the time, "he was never around".....

There's a song by Aretha... "if you wanna do right, all night woman, you gotta be a do right, all day's man"

"a woman's only human.... flesh and blood, just like a man"

How many lonely and neglected women in this world have turned to other men for affection when their hubbies were not around?

Or on the otherhand, maybe Dig felt neglected by her and that's why he was never around?

The couple had issues.

Maybe Dig and Anu might find better luck in love here;

http://connecthearts.com/splash.asp

Multi-racial, multi-culti website for Hindus of every background.

The couple had issues.

Captain Obvious strikes again!

Jokes apart, I think that statement should have been a part of the original post. After that, any comment saying anything more could then have been deleted on grounds of being one of the following: speculation, slander, misogynist, parochial or somethingortheother.

saying anything more could then have been deleted on grounds of being one of the following: speculation, slander, misogynist, parochial or somethingortheother.

What about misoandrist.

64 · $2000.00 said

Is this acceptable?

Nope, and that is why it was deleted. What part of Anna's admonition to play nice didn't take? Disagree, don't disintegrate.

One more thing. I'm assuming that the three of you who did it on this thread didn't know any better, but one handle/name per thread, please. Thank you.

saying anything more could then have been deleted on grounds of being one of the following: speculation, slander, misogynist, parochial or somethingortheother.

What about misoandrist.

Welcome to the Matrix. Let me show you the light, the path, or as we call it: The Code.

somethingortheother = something or the other = whatever strikes your fancy = misoandrist (for you)

48 · pingpong said

(thanks for the free therapy btw :) )

So Nala, now that you've had some therapy, I take it you won't be setting people on fire then?

Nope, especially since I've stopped denying my problems, have overcome my 'miso'andry (but i love miso soup!), and have found my inner light light.

Bwahahaha...'misoandrist' :D

On another note, it's rather foolish to fake your own disappearance to get out of a bad marriage. Hubby sounds like a good guy, hopefully he makes the right decision(i.e. divorce).

72 · Meena said

Bwahahaha...'misoandrist' :D

you mean misoandrice.

I'm a visitor to SM, not a regular reader. I was attracted by the first thread on Anu Solanki being missing, but by the time I saw it and started reading, there was already an update that she was believed to be alive. So, as I read through that thread from the beginning, and this one, I was shocked at the baseless assumptions made about (1) Anu being abused by her husband; (2) Anu being oppressed by her family; (2) Anu was abused but didn't know it, and so on. Let me say, that I have been working with abused South Asian women for many years now, am Indian, a female, and a feminist since the beginning of the current feminist movement in North America,in the 1960's. I hope those are sufficient qualifications to prevent me from being labeled misogynist or uninformed. What amazed and shocked me is this automatic assumption that Anu was being victimized by her husband, even after all the facts came out. If we are not supposed to dismiss the possibility that Anu "may" have been abused, despite there being no evidence presented, why are we supposed to dismiss the probability (not possibility) of her husband being blameless, and being the victim of deception and manipulation by Anu, on the basis of the facts as presented? There are exploited men as well as exploited women. In the last ten or fifteen years, I have been hearing about many instances where Indian men (DBD and NABD, to use your definitions) have married Indian women (DBD) in complete good faith, only to be then abandoned a short time later by the woman, who merely used them for purposes of visas or as a means of getting to North America, and once here, dumped them to rejoin their real boyfriends. I have personal knowledge of several of these kinds of cases, too. On the family oppression front, again, while this is a real issue for many young women brought up in North America (whether DBD or ABD), a person capable of forming relationships over the internet and conspiring to run away clandestinely, is also capable of Googling for help for family oppression or violence, and making a phone call to a toll free number. In fact, the evidence that Anu had free access to the internet, had her own car, and her own cell phone, and full and free contact with her family and friends, all contradict one of the most oommon and important indicators of abuse or oppression, since most abusers seek to isolate their victim from any outside social contact, and control their freedom of movement. I agree with whoever said upthread that this reflexive assumption that Anu *must* have been a victim actually trivializes the issues of domestic violence and familial oppression. I will go further and say that, not holding a 24-year-old woman, who has not been shown to have any mental incapacity, to normal adult standards of behavior, is actually to treat her as being inferior to a man in similar circumstances, and reinforce the old, disproved idea that women are not capable of behaving in a rational or responsible manner.

Amen to that !

What I want to know is :

1. Why did she leave the car in a deserted place, unlocked and running ? ! It makes no sense. She got off work early. Her husband was still at work. Mr Jani was conveniently available at her bidding. Why not leave the car at home ? Or in some parking lot ? Why leave it in such a dramatic fashion ?

2. Why did she call a friend and say she was near the lake (when she was not) and that she was being followed by four men ? And then call up once again and say she was not being followed anymore ? What the hell was that about ?

I will go further and say that, not holding a 24-year-old woman, who has not been shown to have any mental incapacity, to normal adult standards of behavior, is actually to treat her as being inferior to a man in similar circumstances, and reinforce the old, disproved idea that women are not capable of behaving in a rational or responsible manner.

sm:

Well said.

There are exploited men as well as exploited women. In the last ten or fifteen years, I have been hearing about many instances where Indian men (DBD and NABD, to use your definitions) have married Indian women (DBD) in complete good faith, only to be then abandoned a short time later by the woman, who merely used them for purposes of visas or as a means of getting to North America, and once here, dumped them to rejoin their real boyfriends. I have personal knowledge of several of these kinds of cases, too.

I have been hearing about such cases too. The "general impression" is that "women" are abused and "men" are abusers. Even if the facts are clear and contradict the "general impression" some people find it difficult to accept.

I agree with whoever said upthread that this reflexive assumption that Anu *must* have been a victim actually trivializes the issues of domestic violence and familial oppression. I will go further and say that, not holding a 24-year-old woman, who has not been shown to have any mental incapacity, to normal adult standards of behavior, is actually to treat her as being inferior to a man in similar circumstances, and reinforce the old, disproved idea that women are not capable of behaving in a rational or responsible manner.

Bwahahaha...'misoandrist' :D

the word misoandry itself is misogynist. dont you know? In fact, if you take deep breaths, that's misogyny as well, you're depriving the female population of oxygen.

I think the fact that she was texting love notes to this guy not even a month into her marriage tells us that whatever problems she had were self inflicted and the husband's behavior was irrelevant.

she was texting love notes to this guy

it also tells us she was getting her f*ck on.

I hope those are sufficient qualifications to prevent me from being labeled misogynist or uninformed.

Nope sorry, you disagree with DQ. Which means you must be a misogynist and not even know it, in fact you might even be male, and not even know it. I suggest you go check real quick.

HMF:

the word misoandry itself is misogynist. dont you know? In fact, if you take deep breaths, that's misogyny as well, you're depriving the female population of oxygen.

Not sure if I misunderstood your meaning, but I was poking fun at the misspelling of the word, not suggesting that the use of the word itself is laugable.

Eek, my HTML buttons weren't working and now the quote tags are messed up. Can any intern help?

Completely agree with sm!

but I was poking fun at the misspelling of the word

Oh I see. the correct spelling is 'misandry'

84 · Meena said

Can any intern help?

Fixed.

______________________________________________

On another, unrelated note, the next time you (and you know who you are) call Anu or anyone else a "crazy psycho bitch", you will be banned. See sm's comment @ 74 for how to express displeasure eloquently. If that requires too much effort, just excise the nasty, hurtful name-calling.

This is not a thread where you get to work out the demons gifted to you by that one girl you dated eight years ago.

Sweeping comments about what "women" need to "fucking" do will be deleted. You do not know every single woman alive, you are no expert on an entire gender and your pronouncements add nothing to this discussion.

I cant believe my Christmas song was deleted. C,mon you know it was funny. Anyways, here is an old hindi song, not directed at anyone but just meant to be funny.
o Ho Ho Ho... khoya khoya chand, khula aasman

she was texting love notes to this guy

it also tells us she was getting her f*ck on.

That's an assumption. A possible one of course, but still an asumption.

Maybe this guy reall is just her friend and was helping her escape what she considered an unhappy situation.

Does anyone remember the "Runaway Bride". A few years ago the crazy woman embarrassed herself nevermind commited all kinds of felonies by saying she was kidnapped etc and it turned out that she just didn't want to marry her fiance.

All I can say from this case is people have the profound potential to be fucked up and make some very poor judgments in their lives. We don't need to be mentally challenged or stupid or even inexperienced to commit such incredible fallacies. We are human and sometimes we fuck up. Anu fucked up. The name calling is a trite at best.

That's an assumption. A possible one of course, but still an asumption.

She should submit to a polygraph, in my view thats the only way to create reasonable doubt to the conclusion that she was getting her f*ck on.

We are human and sometimes we fuck up. Anu fucked up.

The next time a guy does something similar in nature, I want you front and center, stoic with the "we're all human and we all fuck up, fucked up" Seriously, I've not seen a quicker rush to generalize

Rather than categorizing it as part of some kind of inherent "desi male" nature that's bent and destroying women around the globe. (not saying that you particularly did this, however, it is done quite frequently.)

79 · HMF said

Bwahahaha...'misoandrist' :D

the word misoandry itself is misogynist. dont you know? In fact, if you take deep breaths, that's misogyny as well, you're depriving the female population of oxygen.

Thats funnier than my christmas song, aaa ha ha ha, ooo ho ho ho

The next time a guy does something similar in nature, I want you front and center, stoic with the "we're all human and we all fuck up, fucked up" Seriously, I've not seen a quicker rush to generalize

We do fuck up. Look in this case it was inconsiderate, deceptive even if it wasn't apparently deliberate and it cost money but it in the grand scheme of things no one was hurt. If it was a case where the woman ran away because there was abuse involved or something more sinister I'd have a different conversation.

Rather than categorizing it as part of some kind of inherent "desi male" nature that's bent and destroying women around the globe. (not saying that you particularly did this, however, it is done quite frequently.)

The truth is men do this with far more frequency then women do (desi or otherwise) so the general assumption to attack them is natural. Not justifying it but I can see where it comes from.

I think the men's indiscretions receive more attention and are often potrayed as villians.

We do fuck up.

Alright, just make sure you grant men equal quarter in your apologetics.

The truth is men do this with far more frequency then women do

There you go with the generalizations, stats please? Stats that men run away from relationships more so, without any kind of notice, to go shack up with their "aquaintances"?

If you're generalising now to say, "men commit abuse more" then again I ask. Why does a group of independent individuals affiliate with another group so closely that's disproportionately bent on it's destruction and abuse?

but it in the grand scheme of things no one was hurt.

Stop minimizing accountability because no physical harm was done. That's what I assume you meant by "no one was hurt" Most guys I know would've been very hurt if someone they were financially supporting took their car, their phone to go shack up with some dude. I dont remember from the details of the story, but I dont know what kind of dough she was pullin', but Im going to assume Dignesh was paying most of, if not all the bills.

The key here is accountability. We live in a society that demands more from men than women, and that's an inequality. Fake feminists are all too happy to let that inequity persist, real ones (as post #74 is) don't.

97 · HMF said

Why does a group of independent individuals affiliate with another group so closely that's disproportionately bent on it's destruction and abuse?

sex

sex

Problem solved.

I dont remember from the details of the story, but I dont know what kind of dough she was pullin', but Im going to assume Dignesh was paying most of, if not all the bills.

She worked in a hotel gift shop, he worked at a grocery store. I think we should stop with the assumptions. She wasn't the stay-at-home trophy of an I-Banker.

She worked in a hotel gift shop, he worked at a grocery store.

Which is why I prefaced my assumption with "I dont know the exact details" Still the point about "noone being hurt" is still contestable. Obviously this guy invested emotions in this woman, and had it essentially swatted back in his face. Paying for all her sh*t wouldve just added insult to injury, but it seems to not be the case.

HMF I'm not saying she shouldn't be held accountable. But it could have been worse. She could have had the boyfriend kill her husband. And she didn't run away with his money or his car, she simply ran away and left everything behind. And really the husband is emotionally hurt but it's a far lesser pain than what could have been.

You want stats?

1. Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends.

2. Physical violence is estimated to occur in 4 to 6 million intimate relationships each year in the United States.

3. Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Young women, women who are separated, divorced or single, low- income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape.

4. 85-95% of all domestic violence victims are female. (You will note that that leaves the remainder of the percent to be shared by men and transgenders)

This isn't about women being abused by men. How many stats would it take to prove that women are victimized far more than men? The fact is that it happens and it often leads people to make certain inferences and my only point was that sometimes those inferences are understandable given the statistics.

So I'm confused with what you are saying.

101 · SM Intern said

She wasn't the stay-at-home trophy of an I-Banker.

Can we stop with this offensive generaliztion ;-). Look, I know like a bazillion ibankers and about 1% have trophy wives. the plurality seem to be smart attractive chicks that they met at yale or wherever they went to school. many, since they're geeky, have trouble meeting chicks. look at pulli.

This isn't about women being abused by men. How many stats would it take to prove that women are victimized far more than men?

No, its about you shifting the sphere of discussion to suit your argument.

Again, if you're going to shift the sphere to physical violence, (as what most women do when faced with the questions I pose) then engage in my thought experiment, if all those stats clearly show women disproportionately victimized by men, why do women seek their company? Why hasn't the feminist separatist movement gained more traction. Simple logic would dictate that as the only level-headed choice given the indisputable stats you presented.

I asked about stats pertaining to men leaving relationships and carrying on parallel relationships, my guess is they are about even.

And really the husband is emotionally hurt but it's a far lesser pain than what could have been.

And who are you to determine whats lesser or more pain for him? You'd certainly cry foul if someone seeked to quantify the the "amount of pain" felt if the genders were reversed. As for physical violence being a possibility, sure, more extreme action could have been taken by her. she could've purchased an soviet made RPG-7 and shot it at her husband. there are many possibilities.

but I took issue with your "no one was hurt" rhetoric, as it implies that she's not as accountable as say a man who does the same thing, but now you seem to be backtracking from that.

105 · HMF said

if all those stats clearly show women disproportionately victimized by men, why do women seek their company? Why hasn't the feminist separatist movement gained more traction. Simple logic would dictate that as the only level-headed choice given the indisputable stats you presented.

Because of sex, goddammit. propagation of the species. natural attraction. is this news?

propagation of the species

why propogate a species where one half the population is so bent on abusing and victimizing the other half? If you're saying they can't help it, then thats one cruel joke that God, nature, whatever is playing on them.

Seconly, if sex with the opposite gender is intrinsic to our propogative instinct, whats your explanation for the fem separatists that do exist, or say the gay population who serve no species propogative purpose at all ?
(unless you claim that homosexuality is a learned, socialized trait)

107 · HMF said

why propogate a species where one half the population is so bent on abusing and victimizing the other half? If you're saying they can't help it, then thats one cruel joke that God, nature, whatever is playing on them.

Yes, its instinct. but what are you saying? that the lack of gender separatism proves JOATs stats incorrect?

108 · HMF said

Seconly, if sex with the opposite gender is intrinsic to our propogative instinct, whats your explanation for the fem separatists that do exist, or say the gay population who serve no species propogative purpose at all ?
(unless you claim that homosexuality is a learned, socialized trait)

well, the fact that propogation of the species is instinctual does not mean every individual posses the instinct. there are exceptions and probably genetic explanations.

but what are you saying? that the lack of gender separatism proves JOATs stats incorrect?

No, I'm saying it's a logical contradiction for women to continue to seek male company, given those stats being correct.

Let me flip the question on you, the women who do participate in female separatism use the same stats JOAT provided as reasoning for their movement, are they just crazy misinterpreters who lack this sexual, propogative instinct? or are they just all lesbos?

there are exceptions and probably genetic explanations.

So they're just genetic anomolies, mistakes as it were. Then according to survival of the fittest, wouldn't this population be systematically wiped out, as they don't carry on genetic traits making them fit for survival and replication?

Secondly, the purported 10% figure is not insignificant.

The truth is men do this with far more frequency then women do (desi or otherwise) so the general assumption to attack them is natural. Not justifying it but I can see where it comes from.

Philandering depends on financial and social independence, not gender. It is just that men have been historically more independent in the past.

111 · HMF said

No, I'm saying it's a logical contradiction for women to continue to seek male company, given those stats being correct.

thats too general. it would be illogical to seek the company of a male who abuses them. although, interstingly, some do. but then again, not all slaves fled the plantation, not all homosexuals leave saudi arabia, not all Cubans jumped on a raft. and instinct was not even in play here.

112 · HMF said

So they're just genetic anomolies, mistakes as it were

well there is also free will that can overcome nature. but its diffucult and probably explains the lack of traction for these movements.

it would be illogical to seek the company of a male who abuses them.

Im saying, given those stats at face value, it would be illogical to seek the company of men in general.. but the stats dont take into account how much violence occurs at an aggregate level. the states are, conditioned on DV taking place.

see this, say there's a thousand people and 100 of them are victims of DV, and 85 of those victims are women, you can say "85% of dv victims are women", that doesnt mean 850 women are victims of DV.

not all slaves fled the plantation,

this is stupid. but not a surprise given the source.

these are geopolitical issues. the US had secure borders (two oceans on either side) that prevented leaving the plantation. and its not as if slaves had a choice: you can go if you like, or stay here and work for nothing

well there is also free will that can overcome nature.

but I'm saying, what is the motivation for overcoming the sexual/propogative instinct (for those that aren't genetically anomlied) that the fem separatists give?

116 · HMF said

Im saying, given those stats at face value, it would be illogical to seek the company of men in general

Which stats? I don't think a logical response to JOATs stats would be to try to fight insinct and avoid men altoghter. You seem to get it here:

116 · HMF said

this is stupid. but not a surprise given the source.

the larger point being there are all sorts of situations where oppressed people have an opportunity to leave, but don't. it not eeasy to leave ones family and hisory behind. so blacks stayed in apartheid south africa, women in saudi Arabia, etc...and women in abusive relationships in the US.

117 · HMF said

but I'm saying, what is the motivation for overcoming the sexual/propogative instinct (for those that aren't genetically anomlied) that the fem separatists give?

i think radfems replace instinct with an extreme ideology, sort of like a cult or maybe like the communists tryed to erase self-interest and the profit motive.

113 · Topcat said

The truth is men do this with far more frequency then women do (desi or otherwise) so the general assumption to attack them is natural. Not justifying it but I can see where it comes from.

Philandering depends on financial and social independence, not gender. It is just that men have been historically more independent in the past.

Thats not me but good points here and there

Which stats? I don't think a logical response to JOATs stats would be to try to fight insinct and avoid men altoghter.

Then answer my question, how do you explain those who do participate in the fem separatist movement?

oppressed people have an opportunity to leave, but don't. it not eeasy to leave ones family and hisory behind.

how fucking pejorative is this? how do you know what 'opportunity' existed for example, to black south africans, who essentially had all their assets taken from them? Do you think they could just jump on a plane? you're conflating a systematic confinement with a willing choice (ie. you're saying hands are 'illogical' because they can't get out of handcuffs easily... forgetting the fact that handcuffs are DESIGNED to confine hands)... ie apartheid, S.arabias treatment of women are systems designed to keep them there, to confine them.

Yet women willingly enter relationshps and seek male company time and time again having full knowledge of these stats. What Im saying is, a constant parroting of these types of stats (without background information about actual numbers, not just percentages) is fairly meaningless unless it's done to support some kind of separatist or reformation - and the separatists do exist.. and I'm asking why? (unless you think they're just lesbos)

Let me flip the question on you, the women who do participate in female separatism use the same stats JOAT provided as reasoning for their movement, are they just crazy misinterpreters who lack this sexual, propogative instinct? or are they just all lesbos?

The female separatist movement might use the same stats HMF for their own purpose but it doesn't negate the stats. Men have always enjoyed a dominant position in societies for lots of obvious reasons. They are physically stronger, they have always been the traditional bread earner and they were the mostly in charge of patriarchal societies. Why is it hard to believe then that this position of power wouldn't lead to some level of abuse?

Why are we arguing on semantics? Irrespective of whether women leave abusive men, whether the lesbians hate men or there are gays or whatever else you are throwing out there to plump up your argument it doesn't take away from the stats. They exist and they are real. You can try to argue that it’s not 850 women out of 1000 people (your example) but you can’t take away the fact that it is still 9% versus 2%!

122 · HMF said

Then answer my question, how do you explain those who do participate in the fem separatist movement?

they're ideologues. like an extreme religious person can suppress there sexuality

i think radfems replace instinct with an extreme ideology,

it's only extreme to your eyes. to them it's logical, as they draw up on those very stats as impetus for their beliefs. you're giving me a recursive proof:

"The radical feminists are radical because their ideology is extreme"

uhh. okay.

They are physically stronger, they have always been the traditional bread earner and they were the mostly in charge of patriarchal societies.

All the more reason for a feminist separatist movement to gain traction, in particular the latter.

They exist and they are real.

I'm not arguing against your biased presentation of them, rather saying that women obviously aren't getting abused at the level as you'd have be believe, in a qualitative sense, or female separatist movements would be more followed.

What is true, P(male assailant|physical abuse) = high, ie conditioning on physical abuse apriori, it's likely to be a male assailant. Anyway, it's you who shifted the sphere to physical abuse in order to serve your bs stats, when I had specifically asked for stats in another arena.

they're ideologues. like an extreme religious person can suppress there sexuality

but what motivates them to such extreme positions. you're simply answering the quetsion by stating the same words over and over again.

how fucking pejorative is this? how do you know what 'opportunity' existed for example, to black south africans, who essentially had all their assets taken from them? Do you think they could just jump on a plane?

well you don't see american blacks jumping on planes to leave the US even though they can. does that mean stats showing discrimination are incorrect or they're being illogical, as you claim women are?

you're conflating a systematic confinement with a willing choice

not really. male domination is systmeic. there's no place to go to avoid it.

125 · HMF said

it's only extreme to your eyes. to them it's logical, as they draw up on those very stats as impetus for their beliefs. you're giving me a recursive proof:

well, for one thing radfems use fake pumped up stats as chrintina hoff summers and many others have documented. often they tie femeinsm to another extreme ideology like marxism or anachism. they are extreme b/c they try to suprees human nature too much, not b/c "The radical feminists are radical because their ideology is extreme" as you say.

does that mean stats showing discrimination are incorrect or they're being illogical, as you claim women are?

No, its just a cost-benefit analysis, the cost of leaving here outweighs the benefits (better lifestyle) they'd receive outside of here. It just makes more logical sense for them to remain here and collectively fight the discrimination they face rather than leave.

And black nationlist movements have had much more traction than female separatist movements (ie marcus garvey, etc..)

not really. male domination is systmeic. there's no place to go to avoid it.

more reason for feminist separation to gain traction.

Male domination is not systematic in the sense of a formalized social institution:

Males didn't go to oprah land and bring women here to be abuse and subservient to men. thats what I mean by a system generated for the purpose of confinement, as was slavery, apartheid, s. arabia, etc..

they are extreme b/c they try to suprees human nature too much,

That is what im asking! what motivation do they have to suppress human nature??? your answer = they're extreme, they're ideologues, they're radical....

it's a recursive loop you've entered.

127 · HMF said

but what motivates them to such extreme positions. you're simply answering the quetsion by stating the same words over and over again.

the best book to explain it is probably "the god that failed" about another ideology designed to fight oppresion by creating a society in opposition to human nature.

130 · HMF said

And black nationlist movements have had much more traction than female separatist movements (ie marcus garvey, etc..)

yeah, but not much traction. and they weren't even fighting nature.

131 · HMF said

That is what im asking! what motivation do they have to suppress human nature??? your answer = they're extreme, they're ideologues, they're radical....

actually, i'd suggest raymond aron's "the opiate of the intellectuals" which also explains communisms appeal. you can't understand radfem w/o understanding marx first. he's the central figure in the emergence of all these radical liberation movements.

Why is it hard to believe then that this position of power wouldn't lead to some level of abuse?

The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it. Lot of women are equating raunch to empowerment thats the reason why women are losing their moral credibility. You would'nt want Paris Hilton/Anna Nicole to be your role model, would you?

yeah, but not much traction. and they weren't even fighting nature.

this is my point, they had more traction than feminist separatists because their discrimination was not "natural", not to say that female DV physical abuse is "natural", however, I'd say that the rush to impugn men and divest women of any accountability in any general situation based on a biased presentation of stats, as JOAT provided is, illogical.

I think the "no one was hurt" rhetoric came out because in this case the victim was male, JOATs stats do not corroborate the existence of some kind of inherent male abusive nature, only that when physical abuse occurs, it tends to be in the male --> female direction.

Men are physically stronger

Have you seen Gurinder Chadha?

Who woulda thunk that a post on Anu would lead to the new and novel topic of male-female power dynamics. But, I just wanted to address one point:

Then according to survival of the fittest, wouldn't this population be systematically wiped out, as they don't carry on genetic traits making them fit for survival and replication?

Secondly, the purported 10% figure is not insignificant.

There are reasonably convincing genetic theories for homosexuality (for example, based on the influence of mitochondrial DNA). Also, not all results of "survival of the fittest" operating at the genetic level lead to globally optimal outcomes. Read David Haig, and to some extent, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it.

Are they? Or are a few?

98 HMF said

Fake feminists are all too happy to let that inequity persist, real ones (as post #74 is) don't.

Step right up ladies, and get your Male Certified Feminist Pedigree.

105 HMF said

if all those stats clearly show women disproportionately victimized by men, why do women seek their company? Why hasn't the feminist separatist movement gained more traction. Simple logic would dictate that as the only level-headed choice given the indisputable stats you presented.

Key word: simple.

105 HMF said

And who are you to determine whats lesser or more pain for him?

Who are you to determine who's a "real" feminist and who's a "fake" feminist?

111 HMF said

'm saying it's a logical contradiction for women to continue to seek male company, given those stats being correct.

Who ever said women were logical, lol!

139 · SM Intern said

The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it.

Are they? Or are a few?

Few? I didnt mean all women but most women girls
Can you point me to any comment by a woman on this thread that gives a benefit of doubt to Anu, not counting Anna and maybe Kusala(if thats a she)

I mean does not give. Man that song is just ringing in my head, HO-rrible

The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it. Lot of women are equating raunch to empowerment thats the reason why women are losing their moral credibility. You would'nt want Paris Hilton/Anna Nicole to be your role model, would you?

We don't know if she cheated on her husband or not. She claims Jani is a platonic friend. If we are willing to believe that Dig is an innocent and loving husband, why not give the wife the benefit of the doubt as well?

Just because she ran off secretly, lied and left her car doors unlocked and motor running?

135 · Topcat said

The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it. Lot of women are equating raunch to empowerment thats the reason why women are losing their moral credibility

I don't see anybody justifying anything, I see people trying to understand why she behaved in such an irrational way. Some of us are not satisfied with a simple "She's obviously evil." explanation. Some of us are even willing to explore hypotheses which may be proven wrong.

You are making sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations which is why you are losing your credibility.

HMF, you seem to be saying that since the statistics show that men disproportionately abuse women in relationships (as opposed to women abusing men), women should stay away from men? I can't speak for all women, but I don't assume that all boys/men will turn out to be abusive. Perhaps it is sexual instinct masquerading as false hope in humanity, but I don't think so. Perhaps it's a more general human tendency, e.g. 'Even if the statistics show this, it won't happen to ME.' etc. (you see the same sort of mentality among smokers, who tend to believe that nothing bad will happen to THEM specifically) If a man (like Dignesh) has his heart broken by a woman, is it logical for him to try to separate from all women? Most people would say no. Many abused women do have a hard time 'trusting' men again, but not all.

144 · Harbeer said

135 · Topcat said

The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it. Lot of women are equating raunch to empowerment thats the reason why women are losing their moral credibility

I don't see anybody justifying anything, I see people trying to understand why she behaved in such an irrational way. Some of us are not satisfied with a simple "She's obviously evil." explanation. Some of us are even willing to explore hypotheses which may be proven wrong.

You are making sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations which is why you are losing your credibility.

Alright, Aalright. I am out of here. Let me know if you survive the maneaters.

"Who are you to determine who's a "real" feminist and who's a "fake" feminist?"

by consistency. if someone believes equality should exist across the board, they are real in my book, if they are selective about what differences should persist, and what should be eliminated, they are fake.

"You seem to be saying that since the statistics show that men disproportionately abuse women in relationships (as opposed to women abusing men), women should stay away from men?"

No, Im saying IF the stats conclude that it's reasonable to apply a blanket generalisation that men are inherently more abusive, then it makes no sense for women to want their company. but you have just negated the conditional with your statement that "I don't assume that all boys/men will turn out to be abusive"

"If a man (like Dignesh) has his heart broken by a woman, is it logical for him to try to separate from all women? Most people would say no"

the question was statistics, not personal experience.

"Key word: simple."

ever hear of occams razor

I think the "no one was hurt" rhetoric came out because in this case the victim was male, JOATs stats do not corroborate the existence of some kind of inherent male abusive nature, only that when physical abuse occurs, it tends to be in the male --> female direction.

Oh what crap. She was a jerk to behave in the fashion she did. It was irresponsible and pathetic how is anyone justifying it? Calling her names is serving what purpose? Men have equal potential to be jerks. Again I'm trying to understand your point? What are you exactly arguing about? No one here justifies what she's done for crying out loud. At least I didn't see a single person do so. OK DQ doesn't count in my books. But she didn't commit a crime hell even the lawmakers couldn't find any law she may have broken so far. She's up there on the scale of stupidity but making her out to be some kind of monster is ridiculously extreme. I've known quite a few male jerks in my life unfortunately however that is all they are, jerks. They didn't break any laws. Lets keep perspective.

ever hear of occams razor

I hear it comes with just one blade.

it was irresponsible and pathetic how is anyone justifying it?

by saying 'no one was hurt' it is a form of justification, secondly, its my belief that such a conclusion wouldn't have been reached had the genders been reversed and the events were exactly the same.

But she didn't commit a crime hell even the lawmakers couldn't find any law she may have broken so far.

Wasting 250K of gov't resources is pretty damn close, she got off on a loophole..by not filing the police report. but think about what would have happened if a woman had gone missing legitamitely while resources were redirected towards this nonsense? Since you're on the subject of perspective.

I've known quite a few male jerks in my life unfortunately however that is all they are, jerks.

alright, I guess I should thank you for not shifting the sphere conviently into physical violence.

OK DQ doesn't count in my books

then that makes you the Jane of All Trades but one (JOATBO)

Yet women willingly enter relationshps and seek male company time and time again having full knowledge of these stats. What Im saying is, a constant parroting of these types of stats (without background information about actual numbers, not just percentages) is fairly meaningless unless it's done to support some kind of separatist or reformation - and the separatists do exist.. and I'm asking why? (unless you think they're just lesbos)

I don't want to get into it; I just don't see what this (female separatists? wtf?) has to do -- AT ALL -- with Anu Solanki.

No, Im saying IF the stats conclude that it's reasonable to apply a blanket generalisation that men are inherently more abusive, then it makes no sense for women to want their company. but you have just negated the conditional with your statement that "I don't assume that all boys/men will turn out to be abusive"

There's a difference between believing that more men are likely to physically abuse partners than women are, and believing that all men are abusive.

151 · HMF said

by saying 'no one was hurt' it is a form of justification, secondly, its my belief that such a conclusion wouldn't have been reached had the genders been reversed and the events were exactly the same.

I suspect the reason for the double standard is that the reverse scenario doesn't speak to any history of systemic oppression. in other words, if a man leaves no one wonders if he was beaten by his wife anymore than if a white fails to land a job does he wonder if he was discriminated against. (i mean, both scenarios are possible, but unlikely). men weren't prevented from voting, denied their property rights, considered property themselves (at least by virtue of being male), are not usually raped, discriminated against b/c of their gender, or victims of sexual harassment.

148 • HMF said

ever hear of occams razor

Yes, but sorry, you lose. The human psyche is far too complex for your "if a, then b" reduction. Are you seriously asking "Why don't women just become radical feminazis when they are abused?" Seriously? I mean...seriously? This is the world, my friend, not math class. There are so many variables at work which you could not begin to fathom.

151 • HMF said

its my belief that such a conclusion wouldn't have been reached had the genders been reversed and the events were exactly the same.

Did you say belief? Please cite some studies proving this is truly what you believe.

151 · HMF said

what would have happened if a woman had gone missing legitamitely while resources were redirected towards this nonsense?

White woman or black woman? Caste affiliation?

Let me know if you survive the maneaters.

I eat maneaters for breakfast and then I pick my teeth with wife-beaters.

HMF, was all this a serious question, or were you being hyperbolic?

It was somewhat hyperbolic, as I cast it as a thought experiment. I brought it up to illustrate the silliness of bringing in physical violence statistics to somehow justify her actions as not "being harmful" And what do you mean its not well-reasoned?

I suspect the reason for the double standard is that the reverse scenario doesn't speak to any history of systemic oppression.

I said ceteris paribus. ie, in either case no evidence of physical abuse. the systemic oppression you speak of didn't creep its way into the heart of male-female relationships. in either case, a person has vested emotions in the other, thats a high cost, irrespective if the other person makes 80 cents to your dollar. A woman in a relationship setting could wield great power over men, hell wars were fought over some of these gals.

male/female differences are more salient, and not as socially defined as racial ones. Dont try and draw racial parallels, they simply dont hold.

"Why don't women just become radical feminazis when they are abused?"

no, try reading. you call them radical because they are a minority, but my question is why are they a minority? are you going with manjus "they're a minority because they are extremee" answer? or do you have anything else to offer.

Please cite some studies proving this is truly what you believe.

this isn't even bad humor.

if a man leaves no one wonders if he was beaten by his wife anymore

again a misrepresentation. glad to see some things stay the same in 08. the question wasn't about physical violence. it was about whether anyone would reach a conclusion that "she wasn't hurt, it's all good, so lets keep perspective" and of course this would never be said, as people would come down on a guy saying, "how could you be so irresponsible, letting your wife think you died, drowned, were murdered, etc..." and the subtle implication there is, a woman's sense of emotional vulnerability is higher, and a man's sense of responsiblity to his partner, is higher.. two things that I (and the poster of #74) disagree with: in fact she said it right here:

"I will go further and say that, not holding a 24-year-old woman, who has not been shown to have any mental incapacity, to normal adult standards of behavior, is actually to treat her as being inferior to a man in similar circumstances, and reinforce the old, disproved idea that women are not capable of behaving in a rational or responsible manner."

Why is it then whenever a woman acts with confidence, makes decisions and shows resolve she's often joked about as "the man of the house" This has nothing to do with systematic oppression of women in the work place, or voting rights.

How could they do this to her. Maybe its she was framed.

157 · HMF said

are you going with manjus "they're a minority because they are extremee" answer? or do you have anything else to offer.

C. I don't understand the stupid question.

Kidnapper's name is Kumari Fulbright. What, is she desi or an ISKCON member? Couldn't tell from the photo.

What, is she desi or an ISKCON member?

Her real name is Pardesi Gori. She also uses aliases like Miss Marples, $2000.00, and so on.

Her real name is Pardesi Gori. She also uses aliases like Miss Marples, $2000.00, and so on.

as well as PG and Tara Watabe.

Pardesi Gori means beautiful, golden foreigner, isn't it? This Fulbright woman looks of somewhat golden complexion, but beautiful she is not. Although gori means golden girl, "beauty" is implied in it's usual context.

Seriously Topcat, is Kumari Fulbright desi?

Although gori means golden girl, "beauty" is implied in it's usual context.

Gori is somebody whose insides have been the recipient of a righteous ripping by a rampant bull.

164 · $2000.00 said

photo.

No. she is not desi

Gori is somebody whose insides have been the recipient of a righteous ripping by a rampant bull.

That's "gore". Any relation to aghora sadhana, would you know?

Oddly enough, in Bhojpuri dialect, somebody whose insides have been the recipient of a righteous ripping by a rampant bull is "godee".

Small world, ain't it?

167 · $2000.00 said

Gori is somebody whose insides have been the recipient of a righteous ripping by a rampant bull.

That's "gore". Any relation to aghora sadhana, would you know?
Oddly enough, in Bhojpuri dialect, somebody whose insides have been the recipient of a righteous ripping by a rampant bull is "godee".
Small world, ain't it?

Anu Solanki and rampant bull with Bhojpuri dialect to an aghori sadhu? Never before in the history of SM has there been a thread encompassing such diversity, must say comparing a decietful wife to a rampant bull and a cannibal is genius

There's a difference between believing that more men are likely to physically abuse partners than women are, and believing that all men are abusive.

I'm saying even given the former, my thought experiment would apply.

Look at it this way, blacks make up the majority of the NBA. but the NBA makes up a statistically insignificant component of the population overall. So GIVEN that you know someone is in the NBA, chances are they are black, but given that someone is black, you can't automatically conclude they are in the NBA, just because the majority of NBA is black. Get it?

It's all Digi's lack of skill in the bedroom

Seriously, for how much weight is put on this particular 'skill' there should be government subsidies for formalized instruction in this area.

Stop the subsidies for HMF's thought experiments on gender relations.

Shanti.

Stop the subsidies for HMF's thought experiments on gender relations.

That's easy. Just provide a logical argument to disprove them.

...when a gal gets a taste of the dawg's love juice she's hooked y'all.

Looks like HMF chugged down more than he should have.

scratch that.. redirect those gov't subsidies to teaching some of the readers here how to craft a sound joke.

Seriously, for how much weight is put on this particular 'skill' there should be government subsidies for formalized instruction in this area.

Conservatives would say that the National Endowment for the Arts already accomplishes this.

Looks like HMF chugged down more than he should have.

don't go there. that's a pygmy wolf joke from way back.

It's all Digi's lack of skill in the bedroom...when a gal gets a taste of the dawg's love juice she's hooked y'all. Soskanky would be gettin it on with the dawg and beggin for more.

that's assuming that they were actually having marital relations. How much fornicating do you think they were doing prior to the marriage, to whet the appetite properly for the marital variety?

I wasn't the first to bring up the topic, but now that someone else has, Desidawg's point could have also been a factor. But if they had pre-maritial "relations" that should have been worked out before the wedding. If not, then you never know what you are going to be stuck with, for either gender. I knew of one case... ah well, no need to share. But that marriage was arranged and the arrangers did not inform the bride to be or her family that their son.......

177 · $2000.00 said

I wasn't the first to bring up the topic, but now that someone else has, Desidawg's point could have also been a factor. But if they had pre-maritial "relations" that should have been worked out before the wedding. If not, then you never know what you are going to be stuck with, for either gender. I knew of one case... ah well, no need to share. But that marriage was arranged and the arrangers did not inform the bride to be or her family that their son.......

you should come to a meet-up sometime. that's the only situation in which your repeated handle-switching won't work.

don't go there. that's a pygmy wolf joke from way back

alright, that's much better, see? you took a premise I set up and extended it (without contradicting the original premise). furthermore you used callbacks

maybe in between all the substance abuse, white fang did have a little sunthin-sunthin.

maybe in between all the substance abuse, white fang did have a little sunthin-sunthin.

just when i was trying to keep it light and topical. I suppose if I said that i spent far more on truffles than canned mushrooms during college, you would infer that I was addicted to fungus.

cmon man, keep it real. you threw, I threw back.

"pygmie wolf joke" is topical? you mean that wasn't a reference to our earlier exchange? Was I just being the hate-mongering villian again unable to discern the 'gentle chide' by the ever peaceful and angelic murali?

"pygmie wolf joke" is topical? you mean that wasn't a reference to our earlier exchange?

you established that the kingdom of pygmy wolves is a dour and humorless place, correct? I was qualifying the chugging line as bad humor/snark. It could have been far more creative and it didn't specify what the specific juice was. We do emit a variety of liquids from our nether regions.

you established that the kingdom of pygmy wolves is a dour and humorless place, correct?

A premise you took exception to, calling it "aspersions on the fam", any subsequent acceptance of that premise can only be considered a non-genuine, sarcastic one. By making a callback to that previous conversation you were not keeping it "topical" rather answering snark, with snark of your own. (and done rather well I might add, which is why I answered with the patronizing, "see thats much better") So keep it real.

183 · HMF said

and done rather well I might add, which is why I answered with the patronizing, "see thats much better")

Dude, HMF, you play a mean backhand.

'Zounds! This feud has become Shakespearean.
A curse on both your keyboards!

So keep it real.

I don't have to do anything. That's the beauty of the internets.

A premise you took exception to, calling it "aspersions on the fam", any subsequent acceptance of that premise can only be considered a non-genuine, sarcastic one.

any exchange with you is never divorced from the rules you see governing your own, rather wacky world (HMF's story of the year--that a comedian validates his convictions about gender relations. I'm sure one of us other mutineers will one day find a piece of media that resonates with our beliefs as well...if only). One where inferring that one's family members were sub-human (unless 'raised by' refers to an orphanage) isn't an aspersion on that individual's family. One in which talking in circles constitutes productive discourse.

I'd rather not 'keep it real' if this 'reality' has anything to do with your own.

I don't have to do anything. That's the beauty of the internets.

alright, then continue making unprovoked sarcastic statements towards me (oh sorry, gentle chides), getting your ass handed to you, then hypocritically claiming "why me?"

One where inferring that one's family members were sub-human (unless 'raised by' refers to an orphanage) isn't an aspersion on that individual's family.

You're the one who paraded your upbringing as some kind of unique insight providing trait, to which Camille answered that infact the b*llshit thanksgiving narrative and dressing up as pilgrims is actually quite common in mainstream elementary schools, and that I wasn't exaggerating.

'the raised by wolves' was just an exaggeration to your own setup premise of having a unique non-standard upbringing, I
could have said oompa loompas, or blue peacocks or society of montel williams worshippers, wolves just came to mind.

Again, to which I only made the wolf comment to your initial (poorly crafted) snark (or as you retroactively described it "gentle chide") at my statement of CR's joke, and casted it as some kind of plea for personal sympathy? (or who the hell knows what, and yes, he's a comedian, what of it?)

(go back to the chappal thread and, do, whats that thing? oh right.. read it.) If I'm this family-insulting machine why have you been the only one at the receiving end of that missile? Are you just that special?

187 · HMF said

getting your ass handed to you

If we learned anything on this thread, HMF, it's that you should not feel ashamed to seek help. That's your ass which is repeatedly being handed to you.

that a comedian validates his

A comedian whose happend to:

have 3 HBO specials in the last decade.
host his own HBO show
host the academy awards (quite possibly the only thing whiter is the "Frasier" fan club)
executive produce one of the most successful sitcoms "everybody hates chris"

likewise, in your reality, one could only wish for "sadly declining" status.

That's your ass which is repeatedly being handed to you.

Im rubber and you're glue, anything you say to me bounces off to me and sticks to you.

190 · HMF said

Im rubber and you're glue, anything you say to me bounces off to me and sticks to you.

Does not.

A comedian whose happend to:

have 3 HBO specials in the last decade.
host his own HBO show
host the academy awards (quite possibly the only thing whiter is the "Frasier" fan club)
executive produce one of the most successful sitcoms "everybody hates chris"

likewise, in your reality, one could only wish for "sadly declining" status.

thanks for clarifying whose juices you have been chugging. Your undying loyalty to your source of nourishment is admirable.

thanks for clarifying whose juices you have been chugging.

There's a lot worse people out there to chug from, dont you think?

Seriously? On-topic or it closes.

I wonder after the entire ordeal, if Dig will buy a-nu car.

thank you.

you should come to a meet-up sometime. that's the only situation in which your repeated handle-switching won't work.

Is there an innuendo in there somewhere? (wink)

Desidawg, enough with the "FOB men are non-creative in the bedroom" scenario....

Not when;

The unique "Chippendales" nightspot was begun by Bengali settler and entrepreneur Somen "Steve" Banerjee. Being the owner of a Mobil gas station he invested his small saving to acquire a closed Los Angeles club "Destiny II". His previous venture the failed backgammmon club gave him the experience in this business. Initially, Chippendales comprised female mud brawling with 'Male Exotic Dancing Nights' for the ladies. This was the earliest and lone of its class in the US. Banerjee invited choreographer Nick DeNoia, the Emmy decorated director of children's shows. Nick hired the 'best looking' men to get women's fantasies to life in stead of only strip tease. This brought Chippendales among the world-famous nightclub dancers.

From; http://www.chicagogigs.com/las-vegas/chippendales-tickets.htm