Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
velu

Indian feminists !!!

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, beetle said:

Did men not start wearing western clothes ...like tousers snd shirt,suits and jeans.

If it fine for men to change and doesn't effect their lives...why is women changing to something they like  not the same .

 

Women should stay at home..women should wear traditional clothes...women this women that...no wonder women want to go out and get careers and live seperately. Who would want this kind controlling surrounding!

Because men started working during British times and they were required to wear trousers and shirt. Women who worked during that time wore frocks. Its mainly a city trend. My dad's family are from the village and my grandparents from that side never wore modern clothes. My uncle still wears a dhoti even though he is in the city for a long time. When he used to work, he wore trousers and pants. My aunt worked in a bank always wore a saree to work. Jeans became popular in the 80s I think. I have never seen my dad ever wear one.

The last para you typed you are assuming how I think. I won't even bother replying to it if you think I'm some kind of a tyrant. I was basically saying how my childhood was in comparison with my friend's current household with alam dar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 3:03 AM, Real McCoy said:

Most of these social movements were invented by the elite. Imagine a small village with a population of 400 with 100 men, 100 women and 200 children. The men indulged in hard labor and earn money. The women take care of household activities and the children. Now a man from outside the city wants to rule over this city. What will he do. He will divide and conquer. He will say to the women that she too can indulge in hard labor giving slogans and feel good stories. Now 200 people are working outside but it still remains the same amount of work and same amount of money at play. So 200 people working means more labor at work and the pay rate is cheapened. Moreover, the children are left in the lurch. This happens in a global scale now. Can't believe most people don't see this. What used to be a simple life has become more complicated by more tactics from the elite. We have become slaves to them by their deviousness. Feminism is not invented by a woman. It was a ploy by the elite to further enslave the masses. My grandmother had a much more richer life than these women today. And no she wasn't rich in monetary terms

What you describe is basically Marxist sociology, made by Engles: Social Conflict Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory

Quote

Social conflict theory is a Marxist-based social theory which argues that individuals and groups (social classes) within society interact on the basis of conflict rather than consensus. Through various forms of conflict, groups will tend to attain differing amounts of material and non-material resources (e.g. the wealthy vs. the poor). More powerful groups will tend to use their power in order to retain power and exploit groups with less power.

Conflict theorists view conflict as an engine of change, since conflict produces contradictions which are sometimes resolved, creating new conflicts and contradictions in an ongoing dialectic. In the classic example of historical materialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that all of human history is the result of conflict between classes, which evolved over time in accordance with changes in society's means of meeting its material needs, i.e. changes in society's mode of production.

Specific to this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sociology

Quote

Feminist sociology is a conflict theory and theoretical perspective which observes gender in its relation to power, both at the level of face-to-face interaction and reflexivity within a social structure at large. Focuses include sexual orientation, race, economic status, and nationality.[1]

Charlotte Perkins Gilman's (1860-1935) work helped formalize feminist theory during the 1960s. Growing up she went against traditional holds that were placed on her by society by focusing on reading and learning concepts different from women who were taught to be housewives. Her main focus was on gender inequality between men and women along with gender roles placed on by society. Where men go to work secure proper income for the white ±family while women stay at home and tend to the family along with house hold chores. She "emphasized how differential socialization leads to gender inequality". Yet, she did agree that biologically there is different between those born with female and male parts kmt.

Conflict Theory 101 Flowchart :

Indoctrinate people that everyone is born equal--> It logically follows that if everyone is born equal, any random in-group one defines must be equal with the out-group based on a selected outcome --> when there is an inequality between the in- and out-group (ie out-group performs better than in-group) explain the inequality as based on the out-group discriminating against the in-group --> promote the idea of discrimination by the out-group(oppressor ) on the in-group(victim/oppressed) to create a wedge between two groups --> encourage conflict between the groups, sometimes violent, until there is "equality" between the two groups in that selected measure, something hardly ever actually comes. 

 

It's a nice blueprint for perpetual conflict and revolutions that Marxists dream about. 

 

History of the West post-Cold War: Marxists and their co-travelers capture education, and teach these "theories" unchallenged for decades creating over-educated, low-IQ, victim-classes which lack the critical thinking skills to challenge the dogma. 

 

Percentage share of University professors professing Radical, Activist, and Marxists ideologies

marxism

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

I have no reason to keep women under control. I want everybody (that includes men too) to show some thought and restraint in how they conduct themselves. No you didn't read it or you're purposefully dodging it. I gave you a microcosm of todays situation. Its not a conspiracy if its the truth. You think some women bound together and started feminism. As according to feminism, these women had no rights to start something. So how did they start feminism. It was started by some elite rich guys who had the privilege of poor men working under him to further enslave humanity.

My grandmother married early and she studied college after marriage. She was also an English teacher in a school. She also privately tutored some children. Her sister worked as a headmaster in a different school. They had the freedom back then also. Lots of people think that women were mistreated back then when that is not the case in our family.

What they didn't do is like that ad which Deepika Padukone promoted where she wanted to do whatever she wanted. You don't think that Deepika put her own money doing that ad, do you. Lots of foreign investment comes in and they need a front to put that poison in our tv. That is the most extreme version. There are more lighter versions that promote friction in marriages. And most of them come from movies and reality shows. I lost whatever respect I had for Kamal Hassan when he did that big boss reality show.

:confused:

So your gandma was also a working woman  and happy doing so.

Good.

That is what most women want.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander ....

 

They don't need some power lobby of elite rich guys to slide them the idea....they started working because they needed to go out and work and then realised that being a working women gives them  more options in life.

 

It is as simple as that .

 

As for feminism ...it started because there was need for women to have a voice and need for a more fair life for women.

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, beetle said:

Sorry quoting different parts ...a bit distracted.

 

The modern woman goes out and works...specially ones who choose to do it. She is like the bird who has come out of the cage and learnt to fly. She can decide what is better. If she is flying then she must be happy doing it....atleast happier than she was in the cage.

 

The old lady is like the bird in the cage who never  ever flew in life. She does not know hence can't know if staying in the cage is better or flying is better.

 

Simple is not always better...simple is sometimes just lack of options or freedom of options.

The old lady case can also be compared with many men. There are cab drivers who want to work in white collared jobs. The old lady's case was her situation. That is life. You can't say that alam dar's aunt had the same fate. She must have lived in some middle class household. Anyway that old lady lived happily while today many working women are not so happy even with this so called freedom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

What you describe is basically Marxist sociology, made by Engles: Social Conflict Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory

Specific to this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sociology

Conflict Theory 101 Flowchart :

Indoctrinate people that everyone is born equal--> It logically follows that if everyone is born equal, any random in-group one defines must be equal with the out-group based on a selected outcome --> when there is an inequality between the in- and out-group (ie out-group performs better than in-group) explain the inequality as based on the out-group discriminating against the in-group --> promote the idea of discrimination by the out-group(oppressor ) on the in-group(victim/oppressed) to create a wedge between two groups --> encourage conflict between the groups, sometimes violent, until there is "equality" between the two groups in that selected measure, something hardly ever actually comes. 

 

It's a nice blueprint for perpetual conflict and revolutions that Marxists dream about. 

 

History of the West post-Cold War: Marxists and their co-travelers capture education, and teach these "theories" unchallenged for decades creating over-educated, low-IQ, victim-classes which lack the critical thinking skills to challenge the dogma. 

 

Percentage share of University professors professing Radical, Activist, and Marxists ideologies

marxism

 

 

Dude cut the long winding BS with tabular columns and sh1t. Its an elitist mindset be it communist or capitalist. Its all the same. Even the communist regimes had inner circle members living in luxury. Check Pakistan its basically a cryptocommie govt with army as the politburo. Whats the difference if you get punched with your opponent's left hand or right hand. What matter is you are getting punched and nobody even realizes it. That's the beauty of it. Elites operate on a different level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

The last para you typed you are assuming how I think. I won't even bother replying to it if you think I'm some kind of a tyrant. I was basically saying how my childhood was in comparison with my friend's current household with alam dar

It was not a personal statement at you....it is about the objections people have to women having freedom in their own life.

 

As for clothes...that is the question I was asking ,if it is fine for men to change for work...why can't women do that too?

 

My mom wore sarees all her life ,day in and day out .

Now she doesn't give a crap and wears salwar kameez because it is so convenient . She is now favoring palazos because they are more loose and airy ...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scoopwhoop.com/amp/news/hyderabad-girls-college-bans-above-knee-kurtis/

 

 College Bans Short Kurtis As It Feels Long Ones Will Get Good Marriage Proposals

HyderabadHyderabad College Bans Short Kurtis As It Feels Long Ones Wil Good rriage Proposals College Ban Kurtis As It Feels Long Ones Will Get Good Marriaopos

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

I have no reason to keep women under control. I want everybody (that includes men too) to show some thought and restraint in how they conduct themselves. No you didn't read it or you're purposefully dodging it. I gave you a microcosm of todays situation. Its not a conspiracy if its the truth. You think some women bound together and started feminism. As according to feminism, these women had no rights to start something. So how did they start feminism. It was started by some elite rich guys who had the privilege of poor men working under him to further enslave humanity.

My grandmother married early and she studied college after marriage. She was also an English teacher in a school. She also privately tutored some children. Her sister worked as a headmaster in a different school. They had the freedom back then also. Lots of people think that women were mistreated back then when that is not the case in our family.

What they didn't do is like that ad which Deepika Padukone promoted where she wanted to do whatever she wanted. You don't think that Deepika put her own money doing that ad, do you. Lots of foreign investment comes in and they need a front to put that poison in our tv. That is the most extreme version. There are more lighter versions that promote friction in marriages. And most of them come from movies and reality shows. I lost whatever respect I had for Kamal Hassan when he did that big boss reality show.

:confused:

 

You MCP :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, beetle said:

So your gandma was also a working woman  and happy doing so.

Good.

That is what most women want.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander ....

 

They don't need some power lobby of elite rich guys to slide them the idea....they started working because they needed to go out and work and then realised that being a working women gives them  more options in life.

 

It is as simple as that .

 

As for feminism ...it started because there was need for women to have a voice and need for a more fair life for women.

 

BS. Read up on the topic and come back

My grandma worked when my grandpa had to quit working due to an illness which eventually killed him and cost a lot of money. That wasn't her first choice. She preferred to stay home so did my mom and my aunts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

Dude cut the long winding BS with tabular columns and sh1t.

That "long-winding BS" is what allows people to understand differences in ideologies rather than making generalizations, and is what, if anything, will convince people to change their minds, IMO. You are free not to read next time,and  I won't quote you with these types of analyses anymore :two_thumbs_up:

 

Quote

Its an elitist mindset be it communist or capitalist. Its all the same. Even the communist regimes had inner circle members living in luxury.Check Pakistan its basically a cryptocommie govt with army as the politburo. Whats the difference if you get punched with your opponent's left hand or right hand. What matter is you are getting punched and nobody even realizes it. That's the beauty of it. Elites operate on a different level.

That is an oversimplification, IMO. Any system has "elites" because hierarchy is the "nature of nature". That isn't proof of elitist mindsets of proponents of either. Communists don't believe in hierarchy at all, their philosophy is far from elitism, but they end up with it because a society without hierarchy is not really feasible or hasn't shown to be yet. Capitalists embrace the creation of elites and hierarchy, so long as people can fluidly move in and out of the elite class based on their competence/merit, however, it is also not of an elitist mindset as even an underdog can become an elite in their view of their system.  Both have elites but they react to them for different reasons. 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

BS. Read up on the topic and come back

My grandma worked when my grandpa had to quit working due to an illness which eventually killed him and cost a lot of money. That wasn't her first choice. She preferred to stay home so did my mom and my aunts

But she did get to exercise that choice to work when needed. 

What would have happened if the society decided women should not work outside ?

 

That is what women want...to have freedom over their lives ...

For some it is need for money for medicines ...for others it is other stuff like having financial freedom or a better life or the need to put their potential to best use or just do what they want.

 

As for feminism..that is the basic behind it...

 

I don't need to read up because there is a lot of BS written like the BS about elite men conspiring to get women to work outside home.

 

 

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

That "long-winding BS" is what allows people to understand differences in ideologies rather than making generalizations, and is what, if anything, will convince people to change their minds, IMO. You are free not to read next time,and  I won't quote you with these types of analyses anymore :two_thumbs_up:

 

That is an oversimplification, IMO. Any system has "elites" because hierarchy is the "nature of nature". That isn't proof of elitist mindsets of proponents of either. Communists don't believe in hierarchy at all, their philosophy is far from elitism, but they end up with it because a society without hierarchy is not really feasible or hasn't shown to be yet. Capitalists embrace the creation of elites and hierarchy, so long as people can fluidly move in and out of the elite class based on their competence/merit, however, it is also not of an elitist mindset as even an underdog can become an elite in their view of their system.  Both have elites but they react to them for different reasons. 

Let's agree to disagree. There will always be elites of certain bloodlines running this place. There may be some change in ranks lower to their positions and that is what many people assume to be rags to riches stories. Case in point, anyone can become a PM of England but they still come under the British royalty. Despite many news media posts, many people even in England don't like the Queen and claim she is the biggest welfare recipient in the world. But she is still there :noidea:

Yeah I have a history with tabular columns. I don't even wanna go there :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, beetle said:

But she did get to exercise that choice to work when needed. 

What would have happened if the society decided women should not work outside ?

 

That is what women want...to have freedom over their lives ...

For some it is need for money for medicines ...for others it is other stuff like having financial freedom or a better life or the need to put their potential to best use or just do what they want.

 

As for feminism..that is the basic behind it...

 

I don't need to read up because there is a lot of BS written like the BS about elite men conspiring to get women to work outside home.

 

 

 

I can't recollect a story were a woman wanted to work to support her family and she was banned to not work outside. I must be imagining those women who worked in govt offices, banks, schools, restaurants, maids, farmworkers. And this was before feminism. If you don't read up, why do you keep quoting me then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

I can't recollect a story were a woman wanted to work to support her family and she was banned to not work outside. I must be imagining those women who worked in govt offices, banks, schools, restaurants, maids, farmworkers. And this was before feminism. If you don't read up, why do you keep quoting me then

So women can only work to support families when there is no other source of income ? They can't work for themselves?

To put there education to use ?

To make better use of the brains and ability that nature has given them ?

Only if the family needs?

 

 

According to your theory...woman were hoodwinked into working by the elite men ....else they were better off not working outside...which confirms to a society where women were better off at home.

 

I really don't get what you are trying here.

Your granny was a happy english teacher ...but women were better off without working .

 

Wonder why such backward thinking theories are so easily accepted when they don't even make basic sense.

 

You can also stop quoting me....I won't mind .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, beetle said:

So women can only work to support families when there is no other source of income ? They can't work for themselves?

To put there education to use ?

To make better use of the brains and ability that nature has given them ?

Only if the family needs?

 

 

According to your theory...woman were hoodwinked into working by the elite men ....else they were better off not working outside...which confirms to a society where women were better off at home.

 

I really don't get what you are trying here.

Your granny was a happy english teacher ...but women were better off without working .

 

Wonder why such backward thinking theories are so easily accepted when they don't even make basic sense.

 

You can also stop quoting me....I won't mind .

 

Lots of people working means cheap labor. You seem to be dodging this point. You don't find any unscrupulous minds thought that and made use of that by introducing women into the work force. My friend works for a living while his wife stays at home and takes care of their two kids. This is how things used to be. They seem to be more happy than my other friends who have both people working. Don't label this as backward thinking. My friend and his stay at home wife are well educated and make informed decisions. They priority is their children and their family unit and not extra income or financial freedom as you put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Lots of people working means cheap labor. You seem to be dodging this point. You don't find any unscrupulous minds thought that and made use of that by introducing women into the work force. My friend works for a living while his wife stays at home and takes care of their two kids. This is how things used to be. They seem to be more happy than my other friends who have both people working. Don't label this as backward thinking. My friend and his stay at home wife are well educated and make informed decisions. They priority is their children and their family unit and not extra income or financial freedom as you put it.

As time goes by, the middle class disappears. As it’s happening in the west. 30 years ago one engineer could support his family of 4 on single income. Now it’s not possible. So encouraging both parents to work is a good thing. Also it doesn’t have to be the woman who stays at home and husband works, after breastfeeding days are over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, beetle said:

So women can only work to support families when there is no other source of income ? They can't work for themselves?

To put there education to use ?

To make better use of the brains and ability that nature has given them ?

Only if the family needs?

It goes for both ways. Men too are forced to pick only high paying careers. Can't they just work for themselves. But the fact is if they don't choose high paying careers then women and their parents will not select them.

 

Here is Pakistani spoof on marriages for middle class which is similar to Indian situation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Singh bling said:

It goes for both ways. Men too are forced to pick only high paying careers. Can't they just work for themselves. But the fact is if they don't choose high paying careers then women and their parents will not select them.

 

Here is Pakistani spoof on marriages for middle class which is similar to Indian situation.

 

 

:giggle: Wahan bhi bikte hain.

 

They can choose whichever career and then find a girl who loves them and marry her instead of going throw the arranged route because that is a different animal .

 

If the guy has average salary....find a girl who also works and then both can run their homes with two salaries.Treat her like an equal partner....

 

Or if you want to go the arranged route...look for girls from poor background and have a simple wedding without dowry...

There are plenty of good girls in poor middle glass families ready to marry guys who wants a simple wedding without dowry.

 

Why would parents spend their ife earning and savings and may be go into dept for marrying their daughter to a poor guy ?

 

So either have love marriage or settle for a simple marriage without dowry/ gifts or pay for own marriage ....bahut ladkiyan mil jaengi ......

 

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

As time goes by, the middle class disappears. As it’s happening in the west. 30 years ago one engineer could support his family of 4 on single income. Now it’s not possible. So encouraging both parents to work is a good thing. Also it doesn’t have to be the woman who stays at home and husband works, after breastfeeding days are over. 

My friend is making it work on single income. Eroding of the middle class makes a nation poor. Isn't that a form of slavery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beetle said:

Or if you want to go the arranged route...look for girls from poor background and have a simple wedding without dowry...

There are plenty of good girls in poor middle glass families ready to marry guys who wants a simple wedding without dowry.

 

Why would parents spend their ife earning and savings and may be go into dept for marrying their daughter to a poor guy ?

What will happen to the poor guy. you don't care right. feminist hypocrisy 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

What will happen to the poor guy. you don't care right. feminist hypocrisy 101

May be you should read the post.

 

Poor guy should marry a poor working girl in a small simple marriage without dowry and treat her equally as a life partner so that they can both help each other lead a better life.

Is that so hard ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My conclusions:

 

(1) "Respect" is not "Right"

Don't usurp the basic human rights of women in name of "respecting" them. 

 

(2) Don't believe in individual stories that this friend's family is happy and that's friend family is not. 

There are millions of family where women are staying at home, but they are having nightmares. 

 

(3) Grandmother's era is over. 

Competition is another level. Today you will not get proper job if you don't enter the market at the right time. 

If only husband was working and wife was 24h house wife, and then something happens to husband (or he looses his job suddenly), then your family is in severe crises, and perhaps out of your house and on the streets and hungry. 

 

(4) Uneducated poor women also need work. Their husbands never earn enough for their family. No problem if educated women go to important jobs, while uneducated women take care of cleaning house and cooking and shopping and bringing  children home. Family has still enough time from 18:00 till 22:00 for dinner and gossips, while whole day on week-ends and holidays. 

 

(5) Today whole world is connected with each other. If your workforce is not in big numbers and cheaper and better educated and better integrated, then others will make you bank-corrupt. You are not living in an isolated system today. If you could accept this reality, then it would be better for you. 

 

(6) Human Nature always want a change. 

I am a man. It is impossible for me to stay 24 hours at home with children. I want some time for me alone, away from family and children.

Women are no exception. They are also humans. They also need change. They also need pause from family and children for some hours. 

 

(7) If any woman still likes to stay home, and her family situation allows her to do so, then she is totally free to make this choice. 

 

(8) If any woman likes to stay with the in-laws in joint family system, then she is totally free to make this choice at her own. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the gist of what @Real McCoy is saying is that Feminists fight for pro-choice, but if a woman or a couple chooses to not work outside and take care of kids for better QOL, they don't like it. She gets pressurized by the society to get out and work sacrificing the QOL. 

 

Women should freely choose. Islamists take it further and say Hijab or burkha is also her choice. :phehe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Conflict Theory 101 Flowchart :

Indoctrinate people that everyone is born equal--> It logically follows that if everyone is born equal, any random in-group one defines must be equal with the out-group based on a selected outcome --> when there is an inequality between the in- and out-group (ie out-group performs better than in-group) explain the inequality as based on the out-group discriminating against the in-group --> promote the idea of discrimination by the out-group(oppressor ) on the in-group(victim/oppressed) to create a wedge between two groups --> encourage conflict between the groups, sometimes violent, until there is "equality" between the two groups in that selected measure, something hardly ever actually comes. 

+ add moving the target constantly at the end

 

Also add somewhere, never taking responsibility for your own role in the system, always someone else creates it, always its someone elses fault.

Edited by Moochad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Give an example where rights are taken away by respecting them?

The whole history is full of it. 

Widows were respected, but their right to marry again was taken away and they had to live their rest of life alone in this name of respect. 

Yes, they were respected for it to jump into the fire along with their dead husbands too.

Yes they are respected if they give away their right to go outside to do that job with makes them happy, but instead of that stay home, stay under the full control of husband, stay under full control of mother-in-law, never oppose their husbands even if they are wrong and at fault. They are respected if they forget about their own life, and only serve the others. 

 

Yes, every one want such an obedient wife who does not make demands for her rights. 

 

Yes, there may be some women who could sacrifice so much, but there are also women who have their own Dreams as human being and who don't want to give away their dreams, who demand equal sacrifice from husbands and the family as they are sacrificing themselves for  the husband and the family. But then these women are no more respected while they are not able to sacrifice ALL of their personality/dreams and while they are demanding equal share in responsibilities from the husbands and his family. 

 

In short, traditional India society gave lot of respect to woman, but not enough of rights to her. 

 

Religion/Traditions of Society have stipulated a specific MODEL for wife, and every woman has to give away her rights  of dreams and fit herself in that specific Model. If she succeeds in it, then she is respected a lot. But if she fails, then she is criticised a lot. 

Edited by Alam_dar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

The whole history is full of it. 

Widows were respected, but their right to marry again was taken away and they had to live their rest of life alone in this name of respect. 

Yes, they were respected for it to jump into the fire along with their dead husbands too.

Yes they are respected if they give away their right to go outside to do that job with makes them happy, but instead of that stay home, stay under the full control of husband, stay under full control of mother-in-law, never oppose their husbands even if they are wrong and at fault. They are respected if they forget about their own life, and only serve the others. 

 

Yes, every one want such an obedient wife who does not make demands for this rights and for his life. 

Yes, there may be some women who could sacrifice so much, but there are also women who have their own Dreams as human being and who don't want to give away their dreams, who demand equal sacrifice from husbands and the family as they are sacrificing themselves for  the husband and the family. But then these women are no more respected while they are not able to sacrifice ALL of their personality/dreams and while they are demanding equal share in responsibilities from the husbands and his family. 

Except for widow re-marriage, all others are rhetoric BS, that happened in every society. It is a product of its times, happened till  50s, even in modern western societies. They are not because of respect. Sanatan dharma's one major drawback is its addressing the rights of widows.  Sati was not a prevalent practice as it is made out to be. Vedas or smritis dont talk about sati. It happened in couple I f communities in Rajasthan, when the EIC blew it up to justify colonislism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

My friend is making it work on single income. Eroding of the middle class makes a nation poor. Isn't that a form of slavery

It’s what’s happening mate. Your friend may be a higher up engineer in the west but here, these days, you should know that 1 income engineer can barely make ends meet vs in the 90s or 80s where 1 income engineer in the family could easily support his kids, go on vacation and save money for college for kids. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Except for widow re-marriage, all others are rhetoric BS, that happened in every society. It is a product of its times, happened till  50s, even in modern western societies. They are not because of respect. Sanatan dharma's one major drawback is its addressing the rights of widows.  Sati was not a prevalent practice as it is made out to be. Vedas or smritis dont talk about sati. It happened in couple I f communities in Rajasthan, when the EIC blew it up to justify colonislism.

I am not talking about religion alone, but it is religion + Traditions of society which stipulated a specific model for a woman. And every woman has to fit in this specific model, sacrificing all her dreams. 

 

Moreover, if any religion is really Divine, then it should be 100% perfect. If it is making even 0.01% mistake, then it is proof that it is not a divine religion but 100% false man made religion. 

 

If widow is not allowed to remarry in Sanatan Dharma, then the case ends with it.  

Edited by Alam_dar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Give an example where rights are taken away by respecting them?

If you need to be given example for this...then I say keep your head buried.

 

I have become tired of reading how women in this country are revered as women are worshipped as devis.....everytime atrocities against women comes up.

 

Women are devis ,they are stronger ,they are more patient, they are more sacrificing ....so they can bear anything .

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 9:11 AM, beetle said:

 

If the guy has average salary....find a girl who also works and then both can run their homes with two salaries.Treat her like an equal partner....

 

Or if you want to go the arranged route...look for girls from poor background and have a simple wedding without dowry...

There are plenty of good girls in poor middle glass families ready to marry guys who wants a simple wedding without dowry.

 

Why would parents spend their ife earning and savings and may be go into dept for marrying their daughter to a poor guy ?

You are out of touch with reality of current times. What the heck is poor middle class family? A girl from middle class family if chosing arranged marriage route always seem for a groom who is way more educated than her even if she is junior college dropout. And if she is graduate (not engineer or doctor) then someone who is Engineer or doctor is bare minimum. And if she is an engineer or doctor then someone who has done his Master's in USA or phoren is bare minimum. :laugh:

Of course one can always marry someone from a poor family (*not middle class) who can barely meet ends but then the guy will struggle a lot to make a living if he earns an average salary.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

I think the gist of what @Real McCoy is saying is that Feminists fight for pro-choice, but if a woman or a couple chooses to not work outside and take care of kids for better QOL, they don't like it. She gets pressurized by the society to get out and work sacrificing the QOL. 

 

Women should freely choose. Islamists take it further and say Hijab or burkha is also her choice. :phehe:

My original post was about how elites used this feminist propaganda to make everyone's life miserable. I agree with your post as well. Feminists don't like it when the woman don't work. Islamists may take it further in the west but in islamic countries barring taliban nutcases have it right when it comes to women. The friend who runs on a single income family is muslim and has a peaceful home atmosphere. I have seen how this feminist bug have destroyed homes (not taking shots at beetle :phehe: ). Muslims have got this one right.

 

PS - I have also seen husbands who want their wife to work because of greed when the wife doesn't want to. So its not just women. Men can be greedy and stupid too.

Edited by Real McCoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It’s what’s happening mate. Your friend may be a higher up engineer in the west but here, these days, you should know that 1 income engineer can barely make ends meet vs in the 90s or 80s where 1 income engineer in the family could easily support his kids, go on vacation and save money for college for kids. 

That's modern slavery then. That's purely created by feminism. Soon your children will be working early so that elites can get more people to work. 5th grade students are writing public exams now in my state. I feel sorry for this generation of children and future generations of children as well. My friend works in a bank and he draws middle class salary. He is in India not in the West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, beetle said:

If you need to be given example for this...then I say keep your head buried.

 

I have become tired of reading how women in this country are revered as women are worshipped as devis.....everytime atrocities against women comes up.

 

Women are devis ,they are stronger ,they are more patient, they are more sacrificing ....so they can bear anything .

 

 

 

 

Is it not true we worship devis? It doesn't mean we worship ordinary women. Our gods are female too. Unlike any other religion. Our culture is responsible for SpaceMoms like situation. If you want to keep your head buried in your sea of tears, so be it. It is a glass half empty / half full thingy.

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

lamists may take it further in the west but in islamic countries barring taliban nutcases have it right when it comes to women. The friend who runs on a single income family is muslim and has a peaceful home atmosphere. I have seen how this feminist bug have destroyed homes (not taking shots at beetle :phehe: ). Muslims have got this one right.

Well...that says it all.

No need for arguments now.

What next..stay in purdah too....find some way to justify that too.

 

Why are guys ashamed of accepting their thoughts are from the dark ages?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, beetle said:

Well...that says it all.

No need for arguments now.

What next..stay in purdah too....find some way to justify that too.

 

Why are guys ashamed of accepting their thoughts are from the dark ages?

Basically Akbar Allahabadi was lying when he crooned:

" Pardah nasheen ko bepardah na kardoon,

To to to to, Akbar Mera naam nahi hai"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

That's modern slavery then. That's purely created by feminism. Soon your children will be working early so that elites can get more people to work. 5th grade students are writing public exams now in my state. I feel sorry for this generation of children and future generations of children as well. My friend works in a bank and he draws middle class salary. He is in India not in the West

Bhai, I wished you could have come out of this individual stories. 

It may be one Muslim friend of your living peacefully, but there are millions in Pakistan who are suffering badly while their wives are not able to help them financially. Or the wives have to suffer badly at hands of mother-in-law and others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

That's modern slavery then. That's purely created by feminism. Soon your children will be working early so that elites can get more people to work. 5th grade students are writing public exams now in my state. I feel sorry for this generation of children and future generations of children as well. My friend works in a bank and he draws middle class salary. He is in India not in the West

It’s got nothing to do with feminism, it’s simply and demand. Same when it happens to India and poor Indians need women to work, it’s feminism .or is it basic supply and demand of skills ?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 9:11 AM, beetle said:

:giggle: Wahan bhi bikte hain.

 

They can choose whichever career and then find a girl who loves them and marry her instead of going throw the arranged route because that is a different animal .

 

If the guy has average salary....find a girl who also works and then both can run their homes with two salaries.Treat her like an equal partner....

 

Or if you want to go the arranged route...look for girls from poor background and have a simple wedding without dowry...

There are plenty of good girls in poor middle glass families ready to marry guys who wants a simple wedding without dowry.

 

Why would parents spend their ife earning and savings and may be go into dept for marrying their daughter to a poor guy ?

 

So either have love marriage or settle for a simple marriage without dowry/ gifts or pay for own marriage ....bahut ladkiyan mil jaengi ......

 

 

This is where theory needs to meet reality. Go to any Matrimonial website and see that even girls forward mindset have written income limit of 10 lakhs or above to contact them.  If you think that Girls are happy to share financial responsibility then its not true.

 

Most women are very happy with the system of their parents finding a well settled financially well settled guy with his own house. They don't have any problem with this patriarchal system because it benefits them.

 

Similarly Girls are more crazy about lavish weddings . Most girls see their cousins and friends marrying in this way and they too just dream to marry in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, velu said:

@Real McCoy i think dmk & co put  these fake indian feminists in their place well .. 

 

"kanimoli is my daughter , but her mom is not my wife" - kalaignar

"naan mutram turnatha munivar alla , aval padi thanda pathinium alla" - anna :hail: 

That's all nice but when push comes to shove they can't go against central govt much less the UN. They can be non-feminists but they are politicians first of all and they are bound by their corruption. If they get all moralistic, come to their senses and resist, they will be held up in corruption charges. That's how it works. It comes to the people as a whole to reject their doctrine and the powers that rule this world will pull back and chose another time to attack again. Think how tamil people reacted to jallikattu when the SC and everybody was against it. I liked how they barred any politician or movie stars from participating. They had to resort to bringing LTTE sympathizers, seeman, prostitutes, naxals from AP, to break the movement.

People will resist if they get the accurate info. That is why they are all converging on children to indoctrinate their ideology. All that we can do it resist from our side. Luckily all my friends are closer to my view. Feminists are zombies. One of my cousin is one (separated and single mother) who always takes digs at men and praises "strong" women in movies. She always said her husband is at fault. One day I told her, it takes two to tango and maybe she is underplaying her role in the divide. She rarely speaks to me these days. Good for me I guess :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Bhai, I wished you could have come out of this individual stories. 

It may be one Muslim friend of your living peacefully, but there are millions in Pakistan who are suffering badly while their wives are not able to help them financially. Or the wives have to suffer badly at hands of mother-in-law and others. 

Individual stories are more real than news reports. I can't trust any news these days because every channel has its agenda. I'm not saying all men are angels but women are not as well. My view is shaped by the people around me. My single income friend has a happier life than two income friends. That's not the only story. I have several and I can write an essay like mulo :laugh: but I would be wasting my time. I also have seen a distant relative whose husband wants her to work but she wants to stay at home. The guy wants to earn more money. The dude is greedy. I wish I could present my theory but his greed and ego are not ready to listen to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, beetle said:

Well...that says it all.

No need for arguments now.

What next..stay in purdah too....find some way to justify that too.

 

Why are guys ashamed of accepting their thoughts are from the dark ages?

 

 

 

Did I say women should wear a purdah. Its a simple observation. No need to get triggered and extend my comment into the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 9:20 PM, Alam_dar said:

Yes, they were respected for it to jump into the fire along with their dead husbands too.

Wrong. This only happened during the Islamic conquest of India and is restricted to certain communities in Rajasthan as @coffee_rules mentioned. Women and children were enslaved and sold to whorehouses and slave markets in the middle east. Women thought it better to die with their husbands and not end up in a whorehouse. Modern feminism would say to the women "Be a whore to those people who killed your husband and children" :facepalm:There are people like Swara Bhaskar who say it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Wrong. This only happened during the Islamic conquest of India and is restricted to certain communities in Rajasthan as @coffee_rules mentioned. Women and children were enslaved and sold to whorehouses and slave markets in the middle east. Women thought it better to die with their husbands and not end up in a whorehouse. Modern feminism would say to the women "Be a whore to those people who killed your husband and children" :facepalm:There are people like Swara Bhaskar who say it

You are confusing sati with jauhar.

The practice of sati has existed from much before the advent of Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Singh bling said:

This is where theory needs to meet reality. Go to any Matrimonial website and see that even girls forward mindset have written income limit of 10 lakhs or above to contact them.  If you think that Girls are happy to share financial responsibility then its not true.

 

Most women are very happy with the system of their parents finding a well settled financially well settled guy with his own house. They don't have any problem with this patriarchal system because it benefits them.

 

Similarly Girls are more crazy about lavish weddings . Most girls see their cousins and friends marrying in this way and they too just dream to marry in that way.

Your line of reasoning is not consistent. 

Even if we assume your claim that most girls have set a limit of 10 lakhs as a limit for any kind of a discussion, it in no way implies that they aren't happy to share financial responsibilities. It maybe a minimum guarantee for a certain level of life style that the girl has maintained through out her life. To better it/ afford a family, the girl would have to work.

And as distasteful the practice is, it can't be viewed in isolation from the dowry. If the man can pick his would be wife keeping in mind what he would rake in as 'wedding gifts' (read dowry), then the girl can be expected to look for her best financial interests as well.

 

Guys are crazy about cars and bikes and end up spending a lot a much larger percentage of their income on these things. Its their dream. What is the problem with having a dream?

The ancillary auto and wedding management industries gain the most. So do banks providing loans for the same. What exactly is the problem if girls are crazy for a lavish wedding? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Wrong. This only happened during the Islamic conquest of India and is restricted to certain communities in Rajasthan as @coffee_rules mentioned. Women and children were enslaved and sold to whorehouses and slave markets in the middle east. Women thought it better to die with their husbands and not end up in a whorehouse. Modern feminism would say to the women "Be a whore to those people who killed your husband and children" :facepalm:There are people like Swara Bhaskar who say it

You are mixing two separate things. 

Muslims took captive all the women (widows and as well as virgins as well as those whose husbands ran away) and raped them. 

But this has nothing to do with Tradition of Satti, which is older than Muslim arrival to India. 

 

Religion is opium.

Muslim women are brainwashed and claim they feel themselves safe in Burqa, and they feel comfortable when their husbands have multiple wives. 

This was same with Hindu women who were brainwashed in name of religion/tradition that it is a great deed to jump into fire along with their dead husbands. 

PS: Somewhere I read that Indian Kings also used to rape the slave girls. Let me find the reference. It was new to me as I thought it didn't happen in India. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...