Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content count

    7,484
  • Runs

    110,990 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    88d 11h 8m 42s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. 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. 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.
  2. @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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. 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. What is needed, is for indian women to join the workforce and for indian men to share the household chores 50-50.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Big difference between choosing to spend more time with children and being a housewife. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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. 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. 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. Says who ? Says where in the scriptures ? Quote it please. 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. 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. 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. Whoptee-freaking-doo. Doesn't change the fact that Indra flat-out lied and took false identity to get it from Karna. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  10. 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. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.....
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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. 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'. 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. 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.
  17. Muloghonto

    It’s the policy of Modi govt to isolate Pak, says Imran Khan

    Really ? No....really ? Welcome to reality, Imran Khan.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Muloghonto

    Centre drops Tamil, 16 other languages from teacher test

    False equivalency. Bimaru states have literacy problem, period. Its not gonna matter which language gets 2nd language status other than Hindi- which favors the North Indian bimaru states the most. Nonsense and putting pride before common sense. Kids in India already have zero life being kids. If a second language is to be a focus for children's precious time away from being children, then it makes far more sense to use the global language that automatically gives Indian kids a leg-up in the international world, than jingoistic 'extend our culture' nonsense, which serves far little advantage compared to English. Nonsense. There never will be a language that will compete with English in global value. Period. Learning English means automatic advantage in interacting with USA, Canada, Britain, Australia and all of Europe, as Europe averages 40-50% comprehension in English. I've been a tourist in Denmark. Known people who went to study in Norway. Thank God for English and these folks having 70-90% of their population speaking English that life was awesome for us there. English is still the second most common language spoken in Latin America after spanish (even though 90% don't speak it, you are still more likely to find an English speaker in Colombia or Peru after Spanish, over virtually any other language). Relic of the colonial world or not, English literacy serves ANY person in the world infinitely more than any other language. The love for English is completely rational - it is the global lingua franca and serves a person FAR greater global communication ease than Hindi. This i know from being a fluent speaker of both Hindi and English. This is why i recommended every single relative in India to either enroll their kids in English medium schools or pick English as second language over Hindi if they are in Bengali or Marathi medium schools.
  21. Yeah. They don't edit out the embarrassing parts
  22. As in I can find hundreds of incidents detailing non Dalit Hindus killing Dalits because of stuff Dalits are not supposed to do from news. As for history, I don't need a leftist historian to tell me the evidence . Hindu scriptures and historic sources are enough .
  23. Google says you are wrong. Non Dalit Hindus have been killing Dalits for longer than Islam has existed
  24. btw, my family is mostly brahmin themselves. I grew up as hindu, even did the whole pancha-devata pranaam after upanayan. And unlike most educated Bong families, my family is/was mostly not CPM, they were congressi(and now BJP). People think that atheists know jack about religion, but usually people become atheist because they know too much about the nonsense that is religion. I also am a history geek, so i am very well aware of the semi-slavery of the dalits in India through the ages.
  25. Saying 'non-Dalit hindus have murdered and raped dalit hindus' is as factually accurate as saying 'muslims have murdered and raped hindus'. Both statements are true for some cases but false for most cases. That was my point.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×