[soumya_mty]

Do not speed read this...

Originally Posted by Pupil

Oh okay okay, so you want to discuss facts. Obviously you have written all this from hearsay and have no idea about the ground realities.

okay, the info is based on wat i have read in Times of India so far...so Times of India is all hearsay...eh?.....fine, so be it, if it pleases u.

Originally Posted by Pupil

Not that I am interested to convince you, don't I have any constructive work to do instead of trying to make a woman understand?.......It seems it just doesn't make you happy to save an innocent man. .......Men too are victims of domestic violence and refusing to protect them reveals your intentions to strangulate men's rights. ......And women like you are taking every possible advantage of this situation and at the same time criticize patriarchy to receive a clean chit from the society.

hey...let's not get so personal over here...that's cheap talk...

Originally Posted by Pupil

If you really want women's liberation then why do you want men to follow 14th century patriarchy system of protecting you?

excuse me?....when did i say that?!!!.......i think u misunderstood me....i dont want 'men' to protect women...i want the 'state' or the 'gvernment' or the 'law of the land' to safeguard them where they are vulnerable......cuz that is the duty of the 'state'...to protect its citizens...

Originally Posted by Pupil

For your kind information, you are criticising patriarchy without even realising that the traditional culture of protecting women stems from the beleif system of patriarchy. I don't care if you disagree because you need to.

For your kind information, i already know that........and yes, it's true that initially men wanted to protect their women, it's a natural male tendency......but the problem started when over the ages, men became over protective of women.......limiting their freedom, denying them rights, and confining them only to household work, both through physical or psychological coercion...u must b knowing that in the early vedic period, the status of women in society was decent......but in the later vedic age and for the subsequent ages after that almost till independence, women had been relegated to a subordinate position and their status in society had degraded substantially over the ages........hence, there was the demand for women's liberation not only in india, but all over the world...and for good reason i believe.......thanks to feminists like Raja Rammohan Roy, Sati was abolished (though it's still being practised in remote parts of our country!...tragic!)......and then slowly slowly, women had the right to education and every other oppotunity that men had.....though even now many lower class women still dont get access to these oppotunities due to the stagnant village societies that have not grown for the better, culturally...

Originally Posted by Pupil

Society was and probably always revolve around the importance of a woman in the family.

r u kidding?...for ages, man has been considered to be the bread winner of the family and hence, the head too......."do some research and then talk to me"...

Originally Posted by Pupil

According to you, you believe that men are the cause of all women's suffering then there should be absolutely no legal protection for men even if he is innocent.

No, i dont believe that men alone are the cause of women's sufferings.....often women themselves cause pain to other women......that is not the point......and i never said that there should be no legal protection for men.....

feminism is not against males, it is against patriarchal values that regard men as more important than women, it is for fighting for the rights of a woman, it is for spreading awareness amongst women to know about their rights...

Originally Posted by Pupil

As far as sex ratio is concerned, you don't even know how it is computed. Econometrics model, based on predefined assumption, is used to compute the sex ratio, which is not more than a rough estimate and does not depict the reality. You love to generalise. Just because there are small number of female foeticide, you want all men to be blamed without even admitting that a male will always desire a daughter and a female will always desire a son. Arguing that sex ratio is less and so men are criminals, is absurd and only proves the male-hating attitude in you.

well as far as i can see, it is you who is generalising over here..."a male will always desire a daughter"...recently there was an incident on the news of a man who killed his two very young daughters by forcibly immersing their heads under water (in the sea)...just because he dint want daughters, he wanted a son........"a female will always desire a son"......again an absurd generalisation.....

and regarding me not knowing anything abt sex ratio....well i was only quoting wat i had read in the newspapers, and wat i keep reading everywhere about the skewed sex-ratios.....now if all of it is a farce and such info cannot be called facts based on survey/research....then i guess the same is applicable to the figures that u r quoting...90% of dowry cases filed are false...!....now plz do tell me how did they come to this conclusion?...doesnt that mean that those cases have already been proved to be false allegations....so the men involved too must have been proven not guilty?.....or is there sumtin im missing?....just how did they know for sure that those cases are false accusations if they weren't proved in the court of law to be so.....and if they were proved in the court of law, then the man is free to go, isnt it?....no harm done, except the embarassment of course...but nothing else right?...so wat's the problem wit the law then?...

and another point to be noted is that most of the dowry-harassment/domestic violence/rape cases go unreported......the women who are in real need of such a law miss out due to their ignorance or due to their reluctance to go through cumbersome and expensive legal procedure which they often cant afford...not to mention the social stigma and embarrassment involved.....(plus the harassment in courts by competent defence lawyers...that is why there were talks of a legislation of only women judges to try sensitive women-related crime cases)...

and further, every law is subject to manipulation.......why is the judiciary there?....the very purpose of the court of law is to settle disputes, to find out the truth, to give justice......so that laws are not manipulated, and only the guilty is punished.........it's not like someone says that u hav stolen his property or murdered someone and bang! ur thrown into the jail!.......

u must be aware of the fact that in most of the rape charges, the accused is acquitted due to lack of proof.......and in most of those cases the accused is really guilty....take the cases of priyadarshini matoo and jessica lal...this shows that the court in fact lets more people go than punishes.

regarding domestic violence bill, physical abuse may be proven, but it is veryy difficult to prove mental torture.....hence, the clauses...

Originally Posted by Pupil

Men too are victims of domestic violence

yes, it may be true but only for a small number of men as compared to that of women......it has not yet become an ugly social problem as such......for the simple reason that...if a man wants, he can walk out of marriage since he has a steady income.......but that's not the case with women....most women who are helpless in domestic violence cases are helpless because they have no other options but to stay in the marriage......they cannot support themselves and their children, since they are either uneducated, or are not financially independent ,or both.......this law is primarily meant for such women...who really need it...

Originally Posted by Pupil

men are silently suffering in their own house.

silently suffering from nagging wives?...... or wives who criticise too much.....and wat else?.....seems like we should also have laws for friends/bosses/parents/relatives/other people who nag us too much!...

Originally Posted by Pupil

Men are brought up in your dear patriarchy system and that is why he refuses to complain about his own suffering and strives to protect women.

yes sooo correct.....men always try to protect women....that's why rape and domestic violence cases are on the rise.....so true...

Originally Posted by Pupil

God forbid, if your own brother or male relative is falsely implicated under dowry harassment case or false domestic violence case, you will realise how helpless and defenseless men are in this society.

i can say the same thing regarding women, if this law is repealed or changed in any way...

Originally Posted by Pupil

Imagine yourself to be in the position of a man in India who is under constant threat of being falsely accused and also there is none to protect him legally.

which is worse?.....a man just being falsely accused of domestic violence....or a man who truly abuses his wife but still gets away with it and continues to do so cuz there is no law to protect the woman?.....

Originally Posted by Pupil

I will also not accept your faulty understanding.

with all due respect sir, it is not I with the faulty understanding...

[soumya_mty]

The Protection for Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is primarily a protective law......

check these out...

Domestic Violence Act

http://ncw.nic.in/DomesticViolenceBill2005.pdf

[karthik velayudham]

Hey everynody...this topic is hot n the discussions n arguments are really hot...mind goggling stats n proofs....i completely argree wid pupil....i wil get back to u guys after doin sum research on this...keep it goin...u guys rock!!!!!



Cheers
Kart.

[warrior]

Originally Posted by Uptowngal

Cheers mate.I completely agree

that's the real problem. given a free will to use a knife almost all will use to butcher somebody.

If we human were so altruistic you won't be needing all these laws and panduus

[soumya_mty]

Originally Posted by warrior

given a free will to use a knife almost all will use to butcher somebody.

it's a real pity u think that way...

[Pupil]

Okay, so you are saying that I need to do some research and then get back to you.

No, i dont believe that men alone are the cause of women's sufferings.often women themselves cause pain to other women.that is not the point and i never said that there should be no legal protection for men.

You think women cannot cause pain to men, only to other women. That implies that you don't think men needs any legal protection from women.

feminism is not against males, it is against patriarchal values that regard men as more important than women, it is for fighting for the rights of a woman, it is for spreading awareness amongst women to know about their rights.

Currently, the basis of feminism is anti-men. Patriarchal values never regarded men as more important than women. Patriarchal values burdened the responsibility of women onto men because women were very important in the family. And when men thought that this is 21st century, why do we have to follow an outdated value system when women have excelled in almost all fields, you women realised that this could take away their opportunity to demand more rights from the government.

well as far as i can see, it is you who is generalising over here."a male will always desire a daughter".recently there was an incident on the news of a man who killed his two very young daughters by forcibly immersing their heads under water (in the sea).just because he dint want daughters, he wanted a son."a female will always desire a son".again an absurd generalisation.

Ask any man and he will say that he wants a daughter. Ask any woman and she will say that she wants a son. A mother is always more attached to her son and the father is more attached to his daughter. Mother is more friendly to her daughter and the father is more friendly to his son. This isn't any absurd generalisation. And there are many many cases that mothers have killed their daughters because she wanted a son. She gives poison to her daughter and says to her husband that she died out of food poisoning. I don't have the link to this article to prove it.

and regarding me not knowing anything abt sex ratio.well i was only quoting wat i had read in the newspapers, and wat i keep reading everywhere about the skewed sex-ratios now if all of it is a farce and such info cannot be called facts based on survey/research.then i guess the same is applicable to the figures that u r quoting.90% of dowry cases filed are false.now plz do tell me how did they come to this conclusion?doesnt that mean that those cases have already been proved to be false allegations.so the men involved too must have been proven not guilty?or is there sumtin im missing?just how did they know for sure that those cases are false accusations if they weren't proved in the court of law to be soand if they were proved in the court of law, then the man is free to go, isnt it?no harm done, except the embarassment of course but nothing else right?so wat's the problem wit the law then?

Sex ratio is a econometrics model based on predefined assumptions similar to the computation of the country's or world's population. 90% of dowry cases are false are actual events and not some formula-driven report. The legal system in India is different. Here when a woman accuses a man, the man is considered, "Guilty until proven innocent", which in my opinion is violation of human rights. Supposing a woman complains that her husband demanded dowry, it is virtually impossible for the man to prove him innocent. Nobody would ask the woman to give proof. But, the police and the lawyers who are handling the case knows that this case is false but they have to do their job. Under anti-dowry laws, only 2% cases leads to conviction. What does it tell you? Of course you will, like other women organisation, say that the law isn't stringent enough. But actually majority of the cases are settled out of the court by husband paying a huge sum of money to the woman. It is much more than embarassment to the husband. In many cases, the woman will inform his company that he has harassed me for dowry and sometimes the company fires him. The society will humiliate him. Nobody will want to get their daughters married in their husband's farest relative's family. Quite often the woman calls the names who harassed her for dowry includes far relatives, pregnant women and even small kids. The court ordered that no child will be arrested only when a 3-year-old girl was also arrested on the complain of the woman. The woman will walk away with huge money and the husband will go bankrupt, face humiliation, ruin his career, and see his ailing parents die of mental torture in jail.

and another point to be noted is that most of the dowry-harassment/domestic violence/rape cases go unreported.

How do you define 'unreported'? If the complaint is not filed then how can they assume that many cases are unreported? It makes no sense. Expensive legal procedure for women? When a woman files a case of dowry harassment/domestic violence/rape, she does not have to pay the legal expenses, the Government pays, for your kind information. There is no social stigma or embarassment involved. The society looks at the woman with sympathy and many NGOs extend their help to them. It is the men who suffer the most and especially when he is falsely accused. A girl goes ga-ga for a man, but he refuses. The girl goes to the police station and complains that she is raped by this man. The man is arrested, and the news channel (acting like pseudo-judiciary)printed the article that he raped a girl. He is defamed and destroyed. He gives proof that he at the time of rape was participating in muscle building tournament. The police does not believe. Another man hears the news and reports to the police that the girl was with him at the time of rape and she said that she like that man very much. The accused man is acquitted but he will never be able to get rid of the defamation and humiliation he faced. The girl walks away free only because she was a minor and the man refused to file a case of defamation on her because the case will be handled by the juvenile court. A minor girl elopes with her boyfriend on her own accord and her parents files a case on the boyfriend of kidnapping and rape. He gets arrested. The girl is ready to testify that he is innocent but the police does not consider the testimony of a minor. The boy is convicted and his life is destroyed. The girl gets married in a rich family living happily ever after.


the very purpose of the court of law is to settle disputes, to find out the truth, to give justice so that laws are not manipulated, and only the guilty is punished it's not like someone says that u hav stolen his property or murdered someone and bang! ur thrown into the jail!

Anti-Dowry law is non-cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable. A mere written complaint is enough to arrest the accused. The cases continues for few years till the husband decides to give the money that the woman is demanding. There are hardly any cases filed by the husband on his wife for filing a false case and defaming him. And if it is filed, the cases goes forever.

u must be aware of the fact that in most of the rape charges, the accused is acquitted due to lack of proof and in most of those cases the accused is really guilty take the cases of priyadarshini matoo and jessica lal this shows that the court in fact lets more people go than punishes.

If the proof of rape is not resolved then any woman can accuse anybody of rape. Of course, sometimes even when the proof is present that the accused is innocent, he is still convicted. Without proof anybody can file any case on anyone. As far as Jessica Lal case is concerned, the case was blown out of proportion only because politicians were involved. Priyadarshini matoo cases too was blown out of proportion because Santosh Singh's aunt is daughter of Chauvan, renowed minister. Just one case, only one case of Jessica Lal made the Judiciary to amend CrPc 161 (examination of witness by police). But thousands of cases are reported each year of misuse of dowry laws does not make the judiciary to amend the laws.
It seems you believe everything TOI says. Okay lets see how much credibility they have. At the 100th anniversary of Vande Mataram, Sonia Gandhi was not present at the celebration. BJP criticized Sonia. TOI prints that, "BJP got yet another chance to attack Sonia". What does this mean? Is TOI justifying Sonia conduct? Yes. Currently the most critical issue in the country is farmers suicide. TOI isn't highlighting the issue because it will expose Congress's failure to solve the problem. In last four months, more than 1000 farmers have committed suicide (average 8 suicide per day). Am I making much ado about nothing? There are 'n' numbers of cases where media has covered up political failure from the public for their ulterior motives.

regarding domestic violence bill, physical abuse may be proven, but it is very difficult to prove mental torture hence, the clauses

Hence, the clauses.what? How do you define mental torture and who? A woman is scolded by her husband on petty issues, she might not consider it as domestic violence and ignore such incidents and choose to live a happy live with him. A woman demands 5 lacs Rs worth of jewelry from her husband and if he refuses, she can complain that she was mentally tortured. Mental torture is a relative term. This loophole itself is open to misuse.

yes, it may be true but only for a small number of men as compared to that of women it has not yet become an ugly social problem as such for the simple reason that if a man wants, he can walk out of marriage since he has a steady income but that's not the case with women

How do you know that there is only small number of men suffering from domestic violence. Is there any social mechanism in the society that a man can complain? No. The woman has it all. Whenever there is a problem in the marriage, by default, the husband becomes the first suspect of crime. There is none to believe a man's cry, and even if some people do, there is nothing they can do about it. Give legal protection to men and see how many men will report domestic violence. Even after divorce, the husband is asked to pay huge alimony and maintenance even when she is earning. However, not all women are earning now but generalised laws is faulty in such situations. In some cases, when the salary of the husband is only 10K, the court orders him, on the request of the wife, to pay her 20K. What do you think of this injustice? After the divorce, the child custory invariably goes to the woman. The woman will stops the child from meeting the father. The child is told that his/her father is a bad man. Is this justice?

silently suffering from nagging wives? or wives who criticise too much and wat else?seems like we should also have laws for friends/bosses/parents/relatives/other people who nag us too much!

You will never know how vicious a wife's nagging could be. It can easily drive a man to commit suicide. It is true that society says that when a man commits suicide, "He should be mentally unstable", and when a woman commits suicide, "Her husband must have harassed her."
Let me give you some facts here.
IGIDR reports
Marital status-wise sucide rate in Maharashtra.
Not married : 8.7 males, 6.8 females
Married : 30.6 males, 15.4 females
Widowed : 38.7 males, 7.0 females
divorced/separated : 135.9 males, 30.3 females.
In 2004, 4826 females commited suicide and 9903 males committed sucide.
According to dowry laws, a woman committing suicide within the 7 years of her marriage, by default, the husband and in-laws are arrested for murdering her. But when a man commmits suicide, her wife is given all the sympathy of the world.

i can say the same thing regarding women, if this law is repealed or changed in any way

Nobody has asked to abolish women protective laws, but when it is misused, then why it is not amended. The Government knows about it. The Government asked a starred question in Rajya Sabha to your dear NCW, they shamelessly denied saying that there is no report of misuse. What do you call this? Deception?

which is worse? a man just being falsely accused of domestic violence or a man who truly abuses his wife but still gets away with it and continues to do so cuz there is no law to protect the woman?

The legal tenet says that it is alright to let go ten culprits to save one innocent to get convicted. What is worse? A innocent man falsely convicted or a biased laws to protect women. Why don't you remove the bias in these laws? No. There is so much apprehension that if the laws are made unbiased then women will not be protected. It is alright to falsely convict thousands of men to protect one woman.
It seems you trust a lot on NCW (National Commission for Women). Lets see. The chairman of NCW Girija Vyas was the main culprit in Petrol pump scam in 2003 and the congress had to cover it up. She was also accused of sending gangsters into some apartment to force the owners to vacate because she wanted the place. Renuka Chowdhury, the Minister of Women and Child Development who executed Domestic Violence bill was accused of physically assaulting a police inspector with her chappal. The congress has a long a dark history of corruption and autocracy. Indira Gandhi declared National Emergency and got her opponent parties arrested. She replaced her own men in judicial system and media to protect herself. Sanjay Gandhi tortured men with forcibly sterilising them to control population. Swiss newspaper declared that Rajiv Gandhi has 20,000 crores in his swiss account. And what can we say about Sonia Gandhi. Manmohan needs to throw away all his credentials because he is just a puppet in the hands of Sonia. Sonia says she has only 20,000 rupees in her bank account. Really?
People like these are running our country. Do you think they know what is good for the society. Protective laws for women should be to save the marriage, not break the marrriage. Why is it so intolerable to you to remove the bias from the protective laws?


Okay, so you still want me to do some research on this subject?
If you have any further arguments, please bring it on. I am ready.

[soumya_mty]

Originally Posted by Pupil

If you have any further arguments, please bring it on. I am ready.

no sir.....i've already put forth my views and proved my point......besides, the style of arguing in ur posts indicates a very misogynistic attitude.......so, i have no further comments...good bye and good luck in ur pursuit...

[Pupil]

Originally Posted by soumya_mty

no sir.....i've already put forth my views and proved my point......besides, the style of arguing in ur posts indicates a very misogynistic attitude.......so, i have no further comments...good bye and good luck in ur pursuit...

Yes, you have put forth your views but you have proved nothing.

I have not shown any attitude except telling you the exact facts. I am against biased laws, not against women. Of course, you being a woman will consider my views anti-women, but its not true. Why is it that when a man fights for justice, he is called a misogynist? When a woman fights for justice, nobody calls her misandrist.

If you think I have offended you in any ways, please pardon me.

[warrior]

Originally Posted by soumya_mty

it's a real pity u think that way...

It's a pity that being human ( am I assuming that) u don't know the human nature and the basic instincts that guide all of us.

• According to Hobbes, humans in the state of nature are inherently in a "war of all against all," and life in that state is ultimately "nasty, brutish, and short." To Hobbes, this state of nature is remedied by good government.
• According to original sin, humans in the state of nature are tarnished by the sin of Adam, and can only be redeemed by the grace of God;
• According to Bertrand Russell moral evil or sin is derived from the instincts that have been transmitted to us from our ancestry of beasts of prey. This ancestry originated when certain animals became omnivorous and employed predation (killing and thievery) in order periodically to ingurgitate the flesh as well as the fruit and produce of other once-living things to support metabolism in competition with other animals for scarce food-animal and food-plant sources in the predatory environment in which we evolved. Thus, the simple fact that we humans must eat other life or else starve, die and rot is the probable primordial origin of contemporary and historical moral evil; i.e., the bad things we do to each other by lying, cheating, slandering, thieving and slaughtering.

[Pupil]

Now, the mission of women’s organizations is to improve the status of women in the country. Don’t know on what basis they believe that women’s status in the country is inferior. Maybe if they consult a psychiatrist, then we would officially know that they are suffering from paranoia. How will they attain it?

Apparently, the only solution, women’s group is assuming to improve women’s status is to show men in bad light. Till now they aren’t facing any public objection for slandering all men on television. Surprising, isn’t it? The increase in women-centric serials on television is mind-blowing. It deserves to be called an insane phenomenon. Stressed out working people coming home, would like to watch some refreshing and comical serials to de-stress themselves. They keep on changing channels and they only find one type of women-centric serials on all television channels all at once. If this sort of mental torture is given to a hard-core criminal, he would surely breakdown within a week.

These women-centric serials have pretty much the same theme. Show women as better than men. Now how will they do that? They first select the target. Not the target audience. Target the part of the society that they feel should be destroyed. Men and Patriarchy. There are endless creative ideas with the writers to show men as criminals.

The latest serial, ‘Betiyaan – Apni yaa parayaa dhan’ is very fascinating. One family, 2-4 elder daughters and one youngest son. I know you’ll have already visualized what will be shown in this serial. Yes, you’ll are right. The son is shown as spoilt brat, worthless and weak in studies and drunkard. Daughters, on the other hand, Yes you guessed it right, are shown responsible, mature, hardworking, cultured, and an obedient child. There is a lead actress supposedly the eldest of all is a very scary woman. She is always on the slapping spree. Watch just one episode and you will see her slapping different men three to four times. This sort of behaviour on television is a direct encouragement and inspiration to all women that slapping a guy is fine and justified. Are they not worried that this can easily increase domestic violence on men? It seems that is exactly what they want. In the famous movie, ‘Harry Potter’ the girl is shown punching another boy and men’s groups had objected because this sort of visual will only increase violence in women. They are quite justified in their objection.

Anti-patriarchal value serials like, ‘Thodi khushi, thoda gum’ is yet another classic. The head of the family, a male, is always made a scapegoat. The daughters-in-law are superwomen. They are invincible, impeccable and always right. The world would have been heaven if this was true. Anyways, the serial is doing well to crumble the patriarchy system of the society but ironically, the value system of patriarchy of protecting and providing women should still remain. Well, that is quite understandable seeing the way women usually think. They want to have the best of both the worlds. Eat one’s cake and have it too.

There are innumerable women-centric serials on air at the moment. All have the same theme with different stories. Degrade male gender so that women’s status is improved. Show men as oppressors, criminals and show women as victims, innocent and potentially better than men in every respect. Women just love these serials. And men, well men are facing domestic violence which the Government does not want to recognize. Men’s health has been steadily deteriorating because they are cruelly forced by their wife to watch these torturous serials everyday. Phew, now that is some nasty cruelty.

Let’s see how many more such women-centric serials will come and go. The damage is already been done. Showing men as criminals and women as victims is apparently a winning formula in television serial business.