Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content count

    7,490
  • Runs

    111,110 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    88d 16h 56s

Posts posted by Muloghonto


  1. 2 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

    Office going jobs are only with tiny fraction of Indian population, most are self employed or in unorganised sector

     

    _-------------

    In 2011 there were 28.9 million workers in organised sector [2][3] out of a total labour force of 469 million[4]

    So approximately 6.1% of the labour force are in the organised sector.There maybe some salaried people in the unorganised sector but I believe it will not vastly change the number. 

    So my guess/estimate is approximately 6.1% of the labour force in India are "salaried class"

    https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-Indian-population-is-the-salaried-class

    yes but take out farmers and you end up with more people who work office jobs than unorganized sector. Office job is not just a tech job, it includes police, it includes every single government worker, down to the mail-man etc. the unorganized sector is basically small business sector, which is not a big employer in india.


  2. 8 hours ago, MechEng said:

    Interesting, how did secularism became being non religious? Wasn't secularism all about being in harmony with all religions instead of complete atheism?

    secularism has always been non-religious, with Indian secularism being the only exception. Secularism = seperation of church and state.

    Ie, the state machinery is not beholden to any religious ideal for making its laws or running its business. In multi-religious nations, it means making the government machinery atheist. The only exception are religious holidays, mostly due to practical reasons (and that everyone loves a paid day off, so nobody is gonna uproot a paid day off). 


  3. On 7/13/2018 at 6:37 AM, someone said:

    Disagree, disagree. You keep insulting the millions of women by calling them oppressed as housewife. Next, arranged marriages aren't just for the poor, illiterate as you keep saying. There are loads of educated, rich people doing that.  It's not a crime to be a housewife, Arrange marriages , housewifes are here to stay, and there is nothing inferior about it. You call your opinion as superior while making everything else as inferior just doesn't cut in reality.

    a social trend, is a social trend because of majoritarian governing dynamics, not what a few minority exception cases are doing.

    I can show stats from around the world, showing direct correlation in rising education & economic levels with decline in arranged marriages. Be it USA, Sweden, Germany,UK, India or China - greater economic & educational progress equals to less arranged marriages.

    Ergo, arranged marriages are predominantly for jaahils. A few educated luminaries who cannot buck the social trends in developing nations or a few old timers in developed nations do not override the governing principle, determined by majoritarian dynamics.

     

     

    Arranged marriages in India are steadily declining. And it matches the trend of every other nation out there that shows economic and education progress. Ergo, arranged marriages are on their way out. And i'd be extremely surprised to see arranged marriages done by more than a tiny fraction of the population in India, if (or when) India gets to a stage where it has near-western levels of income and education.

     

    You may call it 'westernism' but it is not. Even deeply eastern cultures like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea has shown the annihilation of arranged marriages once they too reached 1st world education and economic levels.

     


  4. On 7/13/2018 at 12:57 PM, Singh bling said:

    You have no idea how much Indian men work , Unlike west most are in self employment or unorganised sector jobs.If you are running restaurent or big shop .you have to work 10 -12 hours 7 days a week .you have no time to contribute for household chores.

     

    Human lifes are dictated by their economic conditions and not dictated by fantasies of people living in full of resources extremely developed nations.

    Restaurant or big shops are run by a tiny fraction of Indian men. Bulk majority of Indian men work as farmers. And then the next biggest segment of employment are those who sit in offices and work - both private and public sector. 


  5. On 7/13/2018 at 8:22 AM, coffee_rules said:

    He thinks we are smarter now than Valmiki because we can drive cars (technological advancements)! So, these neo-thinkers argue that if they can't understand something that medieval or ancient people built (like the cave temples or the pyramids) they must have gotten help from aliens.

    Species homo sapiens has remained more or less the same for the last 150,000-300,000 years.

    So its quite possible that Valmiki or some random dude 3000 years ago was just as smart as a nobel lauriate today.


    But what is NOT in question, is that my grade 8 child has more knowledge than Valmiki ever did. Or that every single one of us here who has a degree in technology has greater knowledge than the sum total of Hindu (or ancient Greek/Chinese etc) civilization till pre-modern times.


    Do you take life lessons from a jaahil, illierate 'angutha-chaap' ?? Do you let a person who cannot read or write, has never been to school, to correct YOUR viewpoint about the universe ? 

    If the answer is no, then the same should apply to the likes of Valmiki or Vyas or Mohammed or any such ancient writer, who's KNOWLEDGE of the universe is less than that of children today. 

    Hinduism is not a revealed faith. its a realized one. Its always relied on realizations of its sages, which is basically knowledge applied to spirituality based on knowledge of the universe. And that makes Valmiki, Vyaas and all of them inferior to the average grade 9 child today. Hence, they are not fit to be followed.

     

     

    PS: There isnt a modern engineer alive who 'doesnt understand' how the cave temples of Ajanta and Ellora or the pyramids were built. And if you really want to make a point about 'ancient technology', try using one that ACTUALLY awes the engineers the world around- Angkor Wat.


  6. On 7/13/2018 at 7:57 AM, Malcolm Merlyn said:

    Who says they are inferior? You?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
     

    Yep. Me. And anyone who has enough sense to not take moral lessons from 'rishis and philosophers' who knew less about phenomenal universe/reality than children in middle school these days. 


    In face of technological progress and progress in deciphering the phenomenal universe, its a matter of time before every old philosophy becomes antiquated and inferior. What is cutting edge modernism today,assuming development of tech & discoveries of the universe keep pace, will seem as ignorant nonsense 500 years from now, as the religious texts do now.


  7. 50 minutes ago, someone said:

    You have no real argument other that "I haven't seem something, so it doesn't exist". Using words like outdated, inferior, docile, oppressed to describe housewife, is plain dumb from you. On arranged marriages, it has be realized that even the richest of rich does that, so it's all classes. It works well in our country, and nothing inferior about it nor superior for that matter.

    It *is* inferior as it relies on several presuppositions to make the marriage work. There is a reason why in free societies, arranged marriages are not the norm but love marriages are. 

     

    The average Indian housewife *is* oppressed, because in simple economic terms, the person who has zero income, in a non-welfare state, has zero power. So the housewife *is* inferior in power to the husband. That is objective and empiric. 

     

    It has worked well for our country, just like it did in the past for the west (or does now for the Arabs) is because of poor, illiterate society, its easy to foster presupposed ideologies about marriage and then force people to stick to it. But the moment people get educated, can think on their own,have the power of choice- be it in career, life path or mate- the model of arranged marriage breaks down and is replaced by mutual consent dating-marriage, ie, love-marriage. 

     

    Since India is fast developing, this is why the arranged marriage model is being abandoned by many in India and the growth of love marriage will continue.

    50 minutes ago, someone said:

     

    What is needed, is for woman to have more options, and that's changing. There are housewife who have their small business. With technology, multiple things can be done, and so nobody needs your dictates on how they must live their lives, else they are oppressed.

    You are the one dictating here it seems, where you are hell bent on keeping the woman at home. My point is simple - both husband and wife should earn enough to support themselves and contribute to the family and both should share in ALL the household work. Whether it means the husband is stay-at-home-running-a-business  and wife goes to office 9-5 or husband goes to office 9-5 and wife stays at home running a business, is irrelevant. 

     

    Right now, i am a freelance coder with several ongoing contracts- i can work from home, i can work from a beach in Aruba so long as i have internet. Whereas my wife is in management for a multinational firm. So for the past couple of years, its me who is staying at home and doing some of the housework. But this doesn't mean that on some of the days of the week, my wife just comes home, relaxes with a beer and lets me do the running around. When its her turn to cook and clean, she does it. 
    And in a couple of years when i get bored of freelancing and get myself an office gig, we will both end up doing pretty much the same stuff on different days (when its my turn or hers). 

     

    Sad reality is Indian men simply do not have the work ethic to be as efficient as Europeans or North Americans in running their home and its the Indian men who need to grow the hell up and be more than 'paying guests' at home. 

     

    You see this attitude run amok here, where people will make fun of me for doing laundry when its my turn to do so. This is the main thing that needs to change amongst Indian men.

    Its not your wife's job to cook, clean and take care of the kids. Its BOTH PARENTS job to do so. High time Indian men started acting that way.


  8. @beetle

    Why is option 2) about woman's independence ?! If in-laws are gonna help (or daycare is involved), its nearly equally impacting (and responsibility) of the husband too. 


    You are operating from the notion that a kid is primarily a woman's responsibility. Beyond breast-feeding age, it is equally both parent's responsibility. As such, having a friend/in-laws/babysitters/daycare etc. are considerations that both take in equally. 

     

    Why would you choose option a) anyways ? 

    Option a) is what is wrong with Indian society- the option needs to be quite simply ' we both work outside and for our home'. Its fairly simple and one day Indians will realize it when value of manpower in India rises and we don't have dime-a-dozen Dhonis and such to facilitate the 'paying guest' mentality at home.


  9. 18 minutes ago, beetle said:

    @MuloghontoIn my family circle,most working women with good well paying jobs have to depend on parents or in laws  because husbands are not equal partners at home.Pressures of working both at home and outside plus the stressful commute makes life tough.

     

    Some times parents/ in laws force their way into the lives of these women and sometimes they are forced to get involved in taking care of grandchildren and home.

    These women are financially independent but have very little independence in real life.

    I feel that i have a far more independent life even staying at home or working for low paying teaching jobs on and off.

     

    True independence will come only when men accept that they need to contribute more than a paycheck when raising a family.

    Behna, 

    you are preaching to the choir. In India, most working women have in-laws involved is because the men don't do jack at home. Simple fact is, i realized when i immigrated at 17, is Indian men are not brought up to be anything more than 'paying guests' at home. 

    Some adapt to the reality of the west, where you gotta do a crap ton of housework to have a decent place. But in reality, most i've encountered, back at home or here, do nothing to help out at home. They consider 'i change light bulbs when it breaks down, unclog the drain and bring home the $$' as doing their part at home. In truth, its not just the Indians, Arabs are the same way too, so are the Africans. 

    It gets worse in the west, because most households need 2 incomes and therefore, the woman now is wonder-woman. Imagine doing what you do, plus a 9-5 job (ie, you are out of house at 8 and returning at 6). And then these guys whine about how their 'love is dying/wife is ignoring them/life is boring' yadda yadda. 

     

    True independence works both ways and honestly, in the long term, a marriage sees everything from both sides. 

    Both should bring home $$ and both should take care of the home when they are home. If both have a 9-5 job, thats when having in-laws or daycare comes in handy. But in the weekday evenings, both should take part in the whole 'cooking,cleaning, dealing with kids' aspect. 

     


  10. 7 hours ago, someone said:

    Using your logic, men also do not have have a choice, they are told that they have to be the breadwinner of the family.

    Sure. But atleast the men within this outdated arranged-marriage system have far greater power, because they earn all the money. 

    As i said, i am yet to find an arranged marriage where the man hasn't used the 'my money, my rules' argument atleast once. This makes it inferior in my eyes as there can be no true equality without financial independence of both parties.

     

    7 hours ago, someone said:

    Next, for you to say women are inferior,docile, oppressed if they don't follow your way of living is plain stupid and speaks of elitism. That's an insult to many women.

    I didnt say women are inferior and docile. I said that is what men who get into arranged marriage look for and the women who are not inferior,docile and oppressed end up either having a very unhappy marriage or set on fire by the inlaws. 

    7 hours ago, someone said:

     

    Ultimately, with today's technological advances, we live in time where one can do multiple things. And we see it here, housewife with their own small business at home. That's a good development and what is needed...

     

    What is needed, is for indian women to join the workforce and for indian men to share the household chores 50-50. 


  11. On 7/6/2018 at 3:56 PM, coffee_rules said:

    Some sorry posts by people  who don't know the philosophy behind the epic, applying present day ethics and movements like pseudo feminism to a time when societies were being formed with Dharmic principles. 

    Not at all, we are simply calling out the philosophy of the epics as dated and inferior to the times we live in now. thats all.

     


  12. On 7/6/2018 at 8:23 AM, someone said:

    Well, many Western countries are worst  than us, as they have higher crime rates. We have take the population into consideration. So it's wrong to single out our country only.

     

    Which western country has what crimes higher than India, except homicide in the US ?!?

    Remember, rape is a crime that is massively under-reported outside of the west due to social stigma. 

     


  13. On 7/6/2018 at 8:22 AM, someone said:

    Disagree.  Women do and will choose to spend more time with children than man. That's the statistics. There is absolutely nothing wrong in being a housewife similarly as nothing wrong in a wife doing a full-time job.

    Big difference between choosing to spend more time with children and being a housewife. 

     

    On 7/6/2018 at 8:22 AM, someone said:

    The problem is when you make one as inferior and other as superior. That's the trend nowadays where some people want to dictate how women should make their decisions and how they are oppressed if they do otherwise.

     

    This is not nowadays stuff, this is ALWAYS the stuff. This is why Indians, arabs and virtually all the world that sticks to the 'housewife + working husband' model prefer docile and obidient wives. Because it ALWAYS comes down to 'my money, my rules'. Seen it in every single arranged marriage that i got to know the couple well. 

     


  14. 21 minutes ago, Gollum said:

    If Bhishma was truly great he should have broken his oath to defend/protect Hastinapur crown and sided with the just party. What he did wasn't sacrifice, had he been an oathbreaker and faced consequences of that action he would have been truly respectworthy in my eyes. IMO he was selfish and for the greater good it is absolutely justified to put personal honour on the backseat even if it results in lowering one's standing/social status or earns one bad karma/curse. 

    Forget just party, Bhisma should simply have been  'you know what, my vow was stupid and my dad is dead, the pandavas are not the sons of Pandu anyways, so auto-disqualified to succeed on the throne. Dhritarashtra's sons are a bunch of cun7s, so screw you all, i am taking over the throne. I am trained by the Gods in every art and nobody can beat me in battle'. 


    Hastinapur would've had a 'happily ever after' story minus the war and deaths. 


  15. 2 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

    It is the duty of the enemy to recheck the facts before declaring the day over. Creating confusion among the enemy ranks is not deceit, its strategy. What next? One should not use XYZ weapon as the enemy doesnt have a counter to it?

    Didn't you say Krishna was a God ? Gods are now held to the same benchmark as common men ? 
    Hiding the sun and pretending it is normal, *IS* deceit. Then releasing the sun as soon as the enemy is coming out in the open, *IS* deceit. 

    A deceitful strategy to win is justified, but it is still deceit. You are pretending that a deceitful strategy is not deceit because a God did it, whereas i am not saying the strategy is invalid - it IS valid, but it is also deceptive and thus wrong. I subscribe to the morality of 'anything goes' in war. That means i accept deceit and treachery to win wars. However, i dont pretend that it is NOT deceit or treachery simply because a God did it.

     

    Quote

    War to establish righteousness is not a shop. learn the difference first.

    Irrelevant. A deceit is a deceit. A lie is a lie. Doesn't matter if its on the battlefield or on an exam, doesn't matter if its you or Krishna or Jesus who commits it. 

     

    Quote

    You are in no position to judge who is right who is wrong.Heck you are not even entitled by law to judge a fellow human being's action let alone God's.Krishna committed no wrong.You are manufacturing faults to support your own views.

    If i am in no position to judge what is right and what is wrong, then neither are you. Ergo, you are also in no position to negate my opinion that Krishna committed deceit. 

    Nothing is being manufactured here. Krishna hid the sun, withheld info from the commanders (that the sun hadn't set but he's hid it) when they declared the day done. That is deceit by withholding information - same thing as perjury really in a court of law (where deliberately witholding info is considered a criminal act). These are the bare facts. 

     

    Quote

    Boons are to be granted on basis of Karma.

    Says who ? Says where in the scriptures ? Quote it please. 

    Quote

    Read how people got boons by hard penance or sacrifice or such deeds.

    There is no one way of getting boons in Hinduism. Sometimes you do a lot of penance to get boons, sometimes you do that and don't get boons. And sometimes a God just pops by, is impressed by you and gives you a boon. 

    Quote

    It wa snot Surya Devta's which is why it could be taken away by Indra. yes the Swargalok does have a Dev Shastragaar, it houses the divine weapons of the gods and it had just one armour that Surya Dev gave to Karna.

    this is utter nonsense. Please quote the mahabharata part or any of the vedas or such where it says that in Swargaloka every devata owns every article/nobobdy owns any article. You just pulled it out of your rear end. There is zero evidece that Indra could've taken it away if Karna had decieded not to give it as alms. The owner of anything has the power to give it away to anyone. In this case,Karna was the owner of the Kavach-kundala and he had full power to give it away, which he did.

     

    Quote

    The Armour is not Surya Kavach?Is it? Various people possessed the Brahmastra simulataneously as it could be granted to many people.

    Indeed. And its Brahmhastra, which means its up to Brahmna to deciede how to give it and who to give it or when to give it. Other Gods don't get to mess with that, just like other Gods don't get to mess with when Surya gives his kavach-kundala to whom. And in this case, he didn't just give it to anyone but gave it to his own son. Perfectly legitimate. 

    Quote

    Only one person in entire Hinduism possessed a Kavach that could stop all weapons. It was a unique defensive weapon, the only defensive weapon mentioned in any hindu scripture.

    Whoptee-freaking-doo. Doesn't change the fact that Indra flat-out lied and took false identity to get it from Karna. 

    Quote

     

    Again stop ramming your own views down other's throats. You have no right to attack or insult my belief.

    Ofcourse i do. I have full right to critique any religion, any philosophy, etc. within the purview of the net-neutrality acts worldwide. A given site can have its own rules, but nowhere in the manifesto of this website does it say that one does not have the right to criticize a particular religion or philosophy. 

    Quote

    You are free to not believe in it but your freedom doesnot give you the right to attack anyone or his beliefs. Its none of your concern what I believe in, thats my personal space, you have no right to encroach on it.The same right resides with billions.

    My freedom does indeed give me the right to say whatever i wish about any idea or any person who is not alive today. Same goes for you. Your personal space does not extend to social arenas. 

    Quote

     

    The rights of a criminal is not the same as the rights of a innocent man. A criminal can be hanged or shot or electrocute or confined in solitude or removed from society.He can have his freedom curtailed or taken away.

    He can have his freedom taken away. But he still has every single fundamental right as a free citizen. You could be a mass-murderer, but you still have right to not be raped. Right to not be starved, have your hair pulled out, eyes gouged (all falling under a human beings right to not be tortured). 

     

    Fighting a criminal does NOT give you the right to get your acts of cruelty, deceit or torture be deemed as kindness, truth and benevolence. You can argue legitimately that to fight fire with fire you need to commit heinous acts against criminals. Thats fine. Which is why i didn't say Krishna shouldn't have been deceitful or shouldn't have perjured himself. What he did was necessary. But it doesn't make his actions honest either.

     

     

    Again, just because you are guilty of murder, does it mean i can rape you ? Yes/no response please. 

    Quote

     

    Again.Read the various adjectives used and how is Krishna referred to in the Gita. It mentions not only power.

    I don't care how he is described. Read the various tales of krishna in the mahabharata itself. An all-knowing, all-powerful God avatar does not act like a naughty little kid stealing cream or clothes of women bathing in the river. It doesn't change the fact that Krishna was deceitful during Kurukshetra by hiding the sun. 
    Your religion is no different from other religions where the claims (as in the epithets used for the Gods) simply does not measure up to the actions expected from an allknowing, all-powerful being. 
     

     

    Quote

    Again Rama talks about his actions as a husband not as a king.

    So let me get this straight - an all-knowing, all-powerful being (God-Avatar), is displaying remorse and regret for his action. Doesn't matter if it is in the capacity of a husband, brother, king, son, whatever. Please reconcile the idea of regret and remorse with all-powerful and all-knowing. 

    Quote

    The duties of a King are more important than that of a Husband. The King must at all times consider the good of the society to be above his own personal pain or belief.Lord Rama set that example. He removed his wife from his life, a act that is legal even today according to law.

    Incorrect. He failed as a king in this regard. The duty of a king is to uphold justice. No proof was presented against Sita, yet he caved to the macho pressures of seeing her as unclean. According to you he is equal of Vishnu, simply Vishnu in flesh and blood. He could've used his divine power to determine the truth. But nope, he did no such thing. He simply bent under the pressure of allegation with zero proof. A good king does not set the example of declaring someone as guilty without evidence. 

    Quote

    They are GOD.They are everything that their Godly Selves are.Just the form is different.

    False. Their actions do not reconcile with this view. If they were Gods, then they'd know everything, see every single possible scenario, have infinite power and wisdom. And such a being does not display remorse- which is a fundamental admission of error. An all-powerful, all-knowing being is, by definition, incapable of error. That in the Ramayana it CLEARLY says that Ram was remorseful for banishing Sita, is decisive, incontrovertible proof that he is not equal of Vishnu with infinite power and infinite knowledge. 

     

    Otherwise, please reconcile the idea of an infinitely powerful, all-knowing being committing an error and having remorse. I will wait.

     


  16. 9 minutes ago, speedheat said:

    Apart from that I think he stood in between arjuna and vaishnava Astra directed towards arjun by karna to neutralize it.

    @Muloghonto bhai and others I have a question

    1. Bhishma is shown as invincible and un conquerable in Mahabharata but then why did he kept quiet when his contemporary evils like kams, jarasandh  and narkadura were spreading Adharma? Why didn't he challanged and killed them?? Was he incompetent or was unaware? 

    I don't think Bhisma ever took it upon himself to fight all Adharma in all corners of the planet. What Kamsa, Jarasandaha, etc were doing was probably seen by him as none of his business. 


    Just like today, if i hate rapists & rape ( which i do), doesn't mean its my responsibility to go hunt down rapists or i am being a bad person.

    9 minutes ago, speedheat said:

    2.  Why did he kept quiet during wastraharan??

     

     

    I never got any satisfactory ans for those   two above questions .

    Perfectly fine. Bhisma's vow was to defend and uphold the throne of Hastinapur and whomever sat on it. Ergo, he was honorbound to STFU and ignore it due to his own oath.

     

     

    IMO Bhisma's story is the best example of the english saying  'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' and how Mahabharata would not be a story if it wasn't for Bhisma. 

    He was a demi-God, was trained by the Gods themselves in every art imaginable- warfare, rulership, etc. Had he not taken the vow to foresake the throne to cure his father's love-sickness, or had he taken on personal dishonor by breaking his oath and seizing the throne (which is rightfully his anyways) from a blind Dhritarashtra/weak Pandu, game over, no story to be told - the 'perfect king, trained by the Gods, ruled happily ever after' and Mahabharata would be a 30 page short story. 

     

     

    Bhisma's story demonstrates the buddhist axiom of 'sometimes one needs to do a little evil for the greater good'.  In a way, its a warning against personal honor - for its Bhisma's sense of personal honor that ultimately caused untold deaths, misery and practically a world-war. To me, no personal honor is worth that price.

    I'd happily live with the title of 'oath breaker' if it meant peace and prosperity for my citizens and no war. 


  17. On 6/29/2018 at 1:14 AM, MechEng said:

    I'm a traditionalist at heart. What I fear the most is that if society completely loses it's traditional values, then the things we enjoy today or take for granted will be luxuries in future. Maa ke haath ka khana will be restricted to history books.

    Traditions 'asmaan se tapak ke nahi ayi'...traditions are invented....Social systems are ultimately driven by necessities and technologies at hand, nothing more. In the last 500 years, the rate of evolution of technology has been greater than the previous 100,000 years put together. Hence 'traditions' cannot keep pace with rate of technological evolution and are dying out. 


    Our traditions all stem from farming culture. Go tell a nomadic culture like the Mongols that women cannot hunt or ride a horse and should stay inside their tents only, they will laugh at you as a moron. Because their traditions are not due to farming culture's evolution.

     

    Traditions are there to serve a purpose - to lubricate the social system that has arisen. But once technology makes a certain social system redundant, its time to chuck that tradition in the dustbin- just like our ancestors chucked the traditions of hunter-gatherer ancestors of theirs in the dustbin when they adopted farming, so too should we as we are leaving that world behind.

     


  18. Someone should tell these morons to go to a strip club and see that every freaking stripper is wearing skin-color underwear/stockings. 

    Because in dim lighting of strip clubs, the skin-color underwear projects the 'naked' look, which is why skin-color undies/stockings are so popular in those establishments. Its completely moronic to say 'skin color undies so boys don't stare'. Wear skin color undies and boys will go 'is she not wearing underwear ?!' and then stare 10 times as hard to make sure.....


  19. On 7/4/2018 at 8:47 AM, beetle said:

    This.

    Ours is a traditional Indian household right now.

    I take care of home and family completely.

    Husband gets the bread home .

    No one should have to do it all.

    If both work outside home, then both should help each other at home.

     

     


    I prefer the model where we both work and we both do household stuff. It keeps the dynamics even. The big problem with Indian system is, too often (in majority of the cases), I've seen the husband turn into a domineering control freak, using the 'my money, my rules, b!tch' mentality and too often the housewife falls prey to the khusur-phusur of personal dirt on everyone in the family/neighborhood, living the 'idle mind is a devil's workshop' axiom. 


    I have also noticed that women who work are far more confident in themselves than women who don't (its not a woman thing btw, its a human thing- obviously being independent financially leads a positive feedback system in the mind to higher self esteem) and are easier going. 

    However, in the 'working family' model in India, India is at the toxic '1980s western world' stage, where I have also rarely seen a working Indian household that treats the wife as a normal human being, instead of Wonder-woman. Many 'progressive Indian couples' who come to the west, i've seen has the guy still thinking along patriarchial lines of 'mans work vs womans work' and refuse to do household chores beyond the bare minimum. 

     

    So the wife now is in charge of making lunches and sending kids to school, then go to work, then come home and cook, clean and put children to bed. Because 'its wife's duty to cook, wife's duty to clean, wife's duty to deal with children' mentality amongst us Indian guys. 

     

    So the woman doesn't get to rest from 6am till 9pm and then the guy goes 'aah ! finally, she is all done, lets have sex, coz now its ME time for the wife'....and then wonders why the wife is giving him the cold shoulder or has 'a headache'. 

     

    People have to remember, marriage is a partnership of two human beings. The prime objective is to love each other and loving each other means helping each other over anything one can be helpful over. 

     

    But Indian guys don't have this mentality, even the most liberal ones i've encountered. They see the whole cooking, putting the baby to sleep, changing diapers as all 'demeaning for men'. 

    Notice how months or maybe over a year ago i made a funny remark about how bloody hard it is for me to fold my wife's laundry when its my turn to do laundry and even now, plenty of the guys here end conversation with a 'go fold your wife's laundry' type chauvinistic comments. 

     

    For Indian family to survive in the modern world without having western levels of divorce, its critical for the woman to realize that holding a job is a good thing for the marriage (not financially but emotionally) and for the man to realize that splitting chores 50-50 is good for the marriage.

     


  20. People here are confusing lack of rights with safety. 

    Take Saudi vs India - ofcourse women have far less rights in Saudi than in India. However, safety is about unexpected violence - women are far less likely to be randomly raped and dumped in a nullah in Saudi Arabia than in India. A country can have far more rights than another, but be less safe than its counterpart at the same time. 

     


  21. 1 hour ago, speedheat said:

    there was no righteous person in Mahabharata except lord Krishna, there were some straight forward in your face type persons like shishupal and barbarik but no righteous and I personally think that bhishma was hypocrite :laugh:

    Even Krishna was not righteous. He flat out lied about the sun setting, hid the sun and then releazed it to bail out his chamcha Arjun from a stupid vow he took to commit suicide.

    Nobody is 100% righteous in the Mahabharata and that is what makes the tale so beautiful. 


  22. 9 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

    Jitna pata ho utna bolna chahiye.

     

    Krishna didnot steal the jewels. Indra asked them as alms from Karna. Karna was free to refuse but he didnot as he had vowed to never refuse alms. Indra did this to protect his "Manas Putra" Arjun. Now how did Karna get the Kavach and Kundala, the only armour in the Dev-Shastragaar? Surya his father gave it to Karna at his birth. So Devtas were involved on both sides.

    Sorry my bad. 

    However, Krishna is not without his deception/deceit. It was him that 'hid the sun' and falsely declared the day over, to kill whatsisname that Arjuna had vowed to kill within the day or commit suicide. 

    If Surya gave Karna the kavach-kundala, its perfectly moral and just: a father has the moral right to give his children what is his. 
    However, this doesn't excuse Indra's deception or Krishna's deception during Kurukshetra.

    9 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

     

    Secondly for you religion may be nonsense but its not so for billions. No need to call it nonsense or mickey mouse tales. Learn to tolerate other's belief as others tolerate yours.

    I tolerate them, which is why i am not for banning religion. Learn that freedom of speech and ideas means that as long as no living entity is being libelled against, you have the right to say whatever you want. I shall defend YOUR right to chant 'ram nam satya hai' or 'Allah-hu-akbar' in public. Because its your right. Sad to see that right wingers do not extend the same right to atheists, who are also equally in the right to say 'God is BS'.

     

    9 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

    No one here is interested in knowing about your family so stop boasting about it.

     

    Mahabharata is open to interpretations as its not written in vernacular hindi or english but in sanskrit. The core 24000 verses are almost 2500 years old. So the sanskrit text is indeed open to interpretations.Also hindu religious texts have inner meanings and open to interpretations.

     

    If you are a victim of treachery and adharma, its correct to resort to treachery to destroy that adharma and establish dharma.

    False. Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong action, is still a wrong action whether its committed against a treacherous person or not. Just because a person is a criminal, does not give you the right to abuse their personal freedoms. 

    9 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

     

    Avatar is a embodiment of the God himself and is as infallible as god.

    Show me where it says that....in any scripture. I will wait.

    The stories THEMSELVES show that Avatars are not infallible. Rama regretted sending Sita into banishment. If Avatars are infallible, then it means each and every action of the avatar is infallible, ergo, Rama would not have committed an action he regrets. That is direct contradiction of the term 'infallible' and the tales themselves demonstrate that Avatars are not infallible.


  23. 1 minute ago, dial_100 said:

    I request you to not make such comments. Please remove the word from your text. This is not a place where we discuss any GOD whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or hate it. I can defend, I can put lot of stuff in defense but then again, i wont stoop to that level. 

    Krishna, is an avatar. Not a God. An avatar is not infallible, even by technical standard of Hinduism. 
    I come from a brahmin family- before i stopped believing in the nonsense that is religion, the whole ' what is the difference between krishna, vishnu and rama' are the type of keen discussion any brahmin family (especially with the upanayan-guru) has.

     

    And whether you like it or not, the story tells itself- i did not invent anything, nor twist anything. Every version of Mahabharata has Krishna decieving Karna as a brahmin alms-seeker when Karna is performing the Surya pranaam. 

    Pretending to be something you are not is deception. If i dress like a policeman and act like one, i am being deceptive. Similary, Krishna was being deceptive when he pretended to be a brahmin alms-seeker. An act does not become less/more moral because a God or prophet did it versus a normal person. An act stands on itself and the Mahabharata is not subject to your interpretation nor mine- it says what it says. And it clearly shows even Krishna is not beyond treachery. 

     

    Which, ironically, makes it a far more 'divine' in my eyes than the mickey-mouse tales of other religions, as it actually portrays reality as being grey. 

     

     


  24. 12 hours ago, Pollack said:

    He was brave but certainly not righteous. No character in Mahabharat is righteous except of course Krishna.

    So righteous that he had to resort to treachery to steal Karna's jewels. That Karna was wise enough to see through Krishna's deception does not change the fact that Krishna flat out lied in his personification of a brahmin beggar asking alms. 


    Nobody is righteous in Mahabharata except maybe Bhisma - and IMO the whole point of the book is the idea that good and evil are relative, with nobody ever being completely 100% good or evil, Krishna included. 

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×