“Rape culture” – Our feminists are part of it

There is a good website on men rights. Actually, it’s platform to give a voice for men internationally – “A Voice for Men“, shortly know as AVfM. One MRA from India recently wrote an article on Mumbai gang rape (rape on a photo journalist). You can see the post here …

India’s sexually repressive society and gangrapes

This post is a comment I made on that post. Just for my blog readers I am pasting it here.

Many feminists in India talk about “Rape Culture”. But they forget that they are part of it.

In India, men are not recognized as victims of rape by women. Law for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace don’t recognize harassment on men, old law on rape don’t recognize boys/men as victims. These laws only recognize men as offenders. Only recent anti-rape law, popularly known as Nirbhaya Law, enacted in 2013 (after Delhi gang rape happened in 2012 Dec) recognizes men also as victims but treat only men as offenders.

As per Indian law and law makers women don’t rape. There are many incidents of molestation / rape of young boys by women in India but no law recognize them as rapists. The only way (perhaps) to punish such rapist women, may be, using the law meant to punish “Unnatural Sex”. When a man do rape it’s rape, when a women do rape, it’s just unnatural sex as per law. The rape / molestation/ harassment laws are patriarchal in nature in India.

If anyone asks about this, feminists do admit that women too rape young boys and women too harass men at workplace, men too stalked by women, but they quickly adds a suffix to cover the damage done by their confession … ” Those Incidents are very very rare”, so no need of separate law. When there is no law, no recognition for rape/ harassment/ molestation of men by women, then how do they know that such incidents are very very less?

Isn’t it rape culture, the very reason these feminists being a great critics of Indian culture and society? These feminists are just part of it.



What makes men rape ? are domination or humiliating victim sole reasons behind it ??

This post is a response post to comments that I got in response to my comment in the Indian Homemaker’s blog post ” What makes men rapes ? “. She didn’t published my comments, yet. So, I am posting them here. 

What that blog post says : It says that men rape because they want to dominate or humiliate woman.

But, I have a different point of view. It’s not just domination or humiliation of the victim are the reasons for rape. There are other reason including social depravity of men, lack of law or punishment also causes to rapes. When soldiers conquer another nation they rape many women because they know that they are not going to be punished for their acts, in general. If you see the history every war has these kind of rapes. And there are some other reasons as well. But IHM’s post Ignores them and only talk about domination and humiliation angle.

My first comment in that post is .. (link)

Wrong. If rape is all about humiliating the victim, why do men rape children of age which can’t understand the meaning of humiliation at all? What kind of power they feel when they are raping little children? I am talking about both men and women here. In a patriarchal country/society like India only men considered as rapists but not in the western culture. There are many cases where women punished for raping little boys and even grown up men. The total argument that men want to punish women is seriously faltered. This kind of argument gaining popularity only after feminists entered into the picture and started funding the studies and researches and opposing any study that seriously debunk their myths.

She published this comment. I got many responses for this comment. I responded to them again. But they didn’t get published yet. So, I am pasting those comments here.

One comment by “MR” in reply to my comment is here (link) …

MR: somehow the cases of men being the aggressors are higher in india

Ekalavya: This is the problem with feminism or any other so-called English knowing educated people. When it comes to rape there is no difference between the rapist in west or the rapist in far east and certainly no difference in rapes in India.

MR: why only men raped the journalist? how come a gang of women didn’t go after the male journalist???

Ekalavya: Right question. every feminist in India must ask this question to themselves. Why they don’t accept that women also rape. Why they don’t accept that women also harass men sexually at workplace? Why groping of man is considered as a favor to the man but not an assault on the man? If a man claims he was raped, why everyone laughs? Because, they treat it as a favor not a rape. When it comes to rape of women, it is domination or humiliation, but when it comes to rape of man it is all about sex, men are ready for sex, if they get it they are lucky. Are these double standards or the indication that what they actually feel about rape? few people in this blog accepted that rape happen on men too, though they quickly added a suffix statement “It is very very less” to that to cover the damage. Most of the feminist don’t accept for the “Gender neutral rape law” or “Gender neutral prevention of sexual harassment law”. That’s shows how serious they are on rape, When it happen on other gender.

MR: but rape seems to be more prevalent in india especially in males.

Ekalavya: Buddy, you seriously need some googling. Go and google about statistics about rape. India’s place is much better than the so-called liberated US and Europe. Where feminism thrives.

another comment by “Sangitha” here (link)

Sangitha: One major difference is that we’ll pick one case and take an opposite pole position just for the heck of it

Ekalavya: Where we did that. We are not picking one case to refuse the other Issue, rather I am taking the opposite case to explain something important. What’s wrong in it, when it can proves a populist belief as half truth or not truth?

Sangitha: Your kind of denial is part of justification, something the rapist AND Indian society have a lot of practice doing. We’re so good at justifying that we wonder why a person went somewhere at 6 pm to do her job, in a supposedly safe place with a male colleague.

Ekalavya: Oh!! great. When someone oppose your POV or a populist POV they become rape apologists. We are damn good at suppressing any other argument against a populist belief and painting that person as someone who she/he is not. Isn’t it? I am not giving justification to rapes, I am giving explanation to why rape happens. There is a difference between them, if you are ready to see.

Sangitha: “I have no control elsewhere, if I get it by raping a child, hey, I got control, so what if it was a child!”

Ekalavya: Still, a children don’t know about these words. All they feel is something happen to them that they don’t like. The modesty or “My body, my right” kind of things comes into their mind once the society inject them into it. IMO, the definition of rape is patriarchal. We never consider it as pure violation of someone’s choice. We attach many thing to that. Men and women both do this. As far as we can’t stop this mentality exist withing us, rapes do happen at this level.

Sangitha: Let’s take the men-versus-woman attitude out – at least if we want to think solutions. For pointless discussion, by all means, let’s gender bash!

Ekalavya: Oh well, we are talking about genders. Men vs women is just an unavoidable phenomena. And women happily do this as far as other person start pointing the wrongs that women do to men.

Another comment by “Fem” here (link)

Fem: Most child abuse, sexual or otherwise, occurs because the perpetrators have no control over their own lives, so they seek to control little children who really can’t fight back.

Ekalavya: Wrong. They do it because they are easy targets. They are innocent and they don’t know many things. Many times, rape is not about purely dominating the victim or humiliating victim though rapist need to dominate the victim physically at first to rape. For this reason they chose some one who is physically weaker than them and make it sure that they don’t oppose much. If they oppose, they resort to violence to control them. That’s how most rapes happen. And I am not saying that all rapes happen in this way. There are exceptions. Society attaches many things to women. Chastity, family pride and other things. That’s why rape is also considered as punishment for women. I do agree that rape happen to humiliate or punish the victim, but I don’t agree that that is the only reason or in majority of the cases that is the reason.

Fem: I hope you are joking. Children have an acute sense of feeling from the time they are a few months old.

Ekalavya: I am not joking. I don’t joke when it comes to rape, that too on children. I agree that children have sense of feeling but they don’t have sense of chastity or family pride or some other things, that’s why I consider it like that (regarding humiliation and punishment). And when it comes to rapist feelings, controlling a child can’t satisfy their ego. Many rapists molest children like touching them inappropriately (I think I don’t need to explain this), they do it because the consequences of doing same to grown up woman are frightening. Children are easy targets and they are innocent so rapist go for them.

Fem: “The total argument that men want to punish women is seriously faltered.” Men wanting to punish women is not a feature of every rape. But in ‘honour-bound’ societies, this often happens. As long as society sees rape as shameful for the victims and her family, this theory holds true.

Ekalavya: Seems, this statement provoked many to go against me. Let me put it this way, “The total argument that men want to punish women as the sole reason for rape is seriously faltered”. My bad. I could have checked it before posting it. Our is honor bound society, I agree that. But we must remember that our is a sex starved society too. If we miss this angle, we don’t get a right picture on the rape.

Fem: Why are you scared of feminists?
Ekalavya: Read my comment again, I am not afraid of them. I am just pissed off of feminism.

Published in: on August 28, 2013 at 11:07 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The possible bright side of the New property sharing law (the divorce law)..!!

I already wrote some post about this new divorce law that ministers approved and going to be tabled in the parliament for discussion. After arguing like never before with feminists and pro-feminists. I came to know the bright side of this new divorce law.

If you want to see those blog posts and comments and my arguments you can see these posts.

You may surprise, what can be the bright side of the law which force men to lose almost 50% of their property including ancestral property.

To know that, first we must know our feminists arguments why they think women deserve that share and feel this law is step towards right direction.

  1. Woman is abla nari in India. (one yawning reason they are telling from decades). She is leaving her Natal family and enters into a strangers home to contribute her share to that strangers family.
  2. That strangers family is joint-family. Mother and his sisters and brothers live there. she is giving all her services to all of them. So, she deserve share in ancestral property also.
  3. Women bring lot of dowry also. Which is her share and man’s family owns it. So, she deserve share in ancestral property.
  4. She is giving all her services like cooking, washing, giving birth to children and everything to that family. The man’s contribution is nothing.
  5. Women are forced to give-up her job and fulfill her duties as home maker.

So, after this law passes. What a man can assume?

  1. A women is getting 50% of share because she is doing all those 5 things. So, we can demand them as our rights.
  2. Women must come and stay in joint-family. She has to serve all the family members as she claim. Not only some rural women, all women must follow this.
  3. Women must give up job. And stay as home maker and take care of the house.
  4. Women must not ask man to help her in cooking or any household chores. Isn’t she contributing to the property of man by doing all of them single handed?
  5. She must bring dowry. So, may be man can ask dowry which is equal to his total property Or little bit less than that. So, when dividing the property, she will get her share and little bit more from her man’s property. That’s not an Issue for men, isn’t it?
  6. She must not ask to separate from man’s parents and form nuclear family. Isn’t it One of the reason for these women’s asking 50% share in ancestral property?

So guys, let us demand to legalize the dowry and gifts from wife’s family. Let us ask to abolish dowry prohibition act or 498A or DV Act which treat dowry as crime.

One law many reliefs, sure it has a bright side 😛

Property division law (The divorce law) and some random questions – my answers

This post is in response with some comments in Indian home makers blog posts . Even after a day or two, she didn’t published my responses to those comments. So, I don’t have other options than publishing them here. And that too, she published my comments made after these comment.

May be she didn’t have enough time to read all the comments and publish them. Especially,if they have external links. She is getting more than 100 comments for many posts. So, I can understand her. But my priority is make people aware of the situation. I can’t leave those comments unpublished. So, I feel my act is justified.

I Brierly explain under which circumstances I made those comments, what are the other parties arguments. If you find that is not enough, you can check the article and the person’s comment.

Scenario1 – Comment by Indian Home Maker (blog owner). Blog post: Instead of eyeing their husbands’ ancestral property, why don’t Indian daughters in law make their own homes?

I replied to one comment and said women never left without proper alimony. They all compensated as per the living standards of her man. But, It Is the greed of the women that make them asking man’s property earned before marriage and ancestral property of man. for that she gave some statistics regarding this maintenance …

7. 58% of the divorced women did not receive any maintenance at all (most of their cases are pending in court).
8. The remaining 42% received approximately 10% to 13% of their spouses income as maintenance. In one case from Kerala, the woman fought for 17 years to be awarded a maintenance of Rs. 900 per month even though her male spouse was earning Rs. 56,000 per month.

my response to that comment, that she didn’t published (why I don’t know) is..

7.58? don’t you think it’s small percentage? I don’t mean to say we can leave them, but the law definitely work for them too. All we need is proper implementation of the law. Even after IrBM pass the statistics looks like this only. Because property division is a civil case. They stay in courts for years. I am sure about that and that’s why WCD ministry oppose this move of including ancestral property. I must say.

And the amount of alimony depends upon not only husband’s earning, the women’s position also. If she have other source of income she will get less alimony. And even maintenance law goes against men, if the judge is biased.

Is maintenance law fair with men?

And why do you think proper implementation of the law is the answer for it instead creating another biased law? which is not gender neutral at all?

Scenario 2– comment by Satish : Blog post: Should women be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable property?

I replied to a comment made by satish who pointed women are oppressed for ages. We have a shameful history of women oppression. So, we have to share the property. But I answered him with suicide statistics of men and IHM asked me the proof for that data. I provided her two links related to married men suicides. But she didn’t published both of those comments. So, I am publishing them here.

Sharing property is not the problem. But which property thats the question we are rising. You can’t share property earned before marriage and ancestral property. That is too much. No one is denying wife shaer in martial property.

If women are oppressed since independece or before independence, it’s not my fault or any man who is alive now. You can’t punish people for the sins of their fathers or forefathers or previous generations. It’s unfair.

And every year nearly 66000 married men suciciding because of family problems, married women suicide rate is less than half of it. But women orgs and intellectuals claim many of them related to financial problems. But now they are increasing financials woos of divorced men. The suicide rate increase more and more.. after this bill passed. Why do men deserv that, because in the past men oppressed women, so some feel it’s justified if men oppressed now?

IHM: Please substantiate your claims with links, random numbers and personal opinion are not facts. Never heard/read of men committing suicide because they didn’t get enough dowry or inheritance. Or because the wife doesn’t bear male children? Generally one reads about them killing the mother,and/or child.

My reply to her questions on married men’s suicide..

These are some links that explain suicide rates of men.
One married man commits suicide every 9 minutes

NCRB stats show more married men committing suicide

Society becoming anti-male day by day with these kind of biased laws. We know domestic violence is not gender issue. Men and women both commit domestic violence but our feminist orgs and biased studies don’t show that and no body cares about a man in India. At least there is a study in america which explains doestic violence is not gender issue.
Unprecedented Domestic Violence Study Affirms Need to Recognize Male Victims

Still in India there is no study on domestic violence on men. Why? our feminists don’t let it happen. When ever people talk about male victims of domestic violence they debunk it as rare cases. The same thing american women also did in america. But the study gives different picture.

What I want to say is I am not against giving some maintenance to divorced women, but extortion they do in the name of “contribution women made”. There is no way that a women contribute to man’s property before marriage and his ancestral property. So, that should not be divided. Only marital property that means acquired during relationship need to be shared. That’s the fair game for both men and women. I ask feminists not to be greedy. Which have far reaching consequences.

Must do things for men after new divorce law passes..!!

Now the hot topic in media and blogs is the new divorce law. Many men who know the effect of that law simply opposing it. There is no way a woman can contribute to the property acquired before marriage and ancestral property of man. But our feminists with lot of self pity are going for it. This is what equality means in their eyes. And men organisations, must say out numbered by feminists, can’t stop this law because of the vote bank politics of politicians.

So, what can happen in future, after this bill pass. Women will take share in man’s property including ancestral property. So, men must follow some precautions.

1. Money is your enemy and your friend. So, be careful. Don’t marry a women if she don’t have enough property in her name.

2. Don’t marry a women if she don’t earn or don’t have job.

3. There is no profession called “home maker”. Never accept for that. Women must work outside and earn money.

4. Enjoy with your money. Don’t save money too much. You just need to save only 6months of your monthly income. After that spend your money.

5. If you have ancestral property sell it and enjoy with it. You don’t need that much money.

6. Never buy a home. It’s most stupid thing that any man can do. Take a rent house, keep your joint family in that rented house. Remember, your matrimonial home must be a rented house or house owned by your wife. Never be yours. Because, men are stripped from owning a house legally by our feminists.

7. If your wife don’t want to work outside (not as a home maker) and earn, leave your job and don’t do any job until she do. If matter goes to court, do some silly job and earn 3times or 4 times less than what you can earn.

8. If you don’t marry or simply opt for live-in relationships that’s little bit better, but it will not going to help a lot because, judges in court always consider live-in equal to marriage.

9. No love marriages. Avoid all love marriages. Arranged marriage is better.

10. And join in any Men’s right group and fight for your rights.

It’s better be careful than sorry. So, keep in touch with your friends always. Because, future seems very dark for men.

Is maintenance law fair with men?

I came to know that some people feel maintenance law is fair because it allows both men and women are eligible for maintenance depending on their financial position. They are right only partially. Because, law is fair but how people interpret them go against men generally. And need not to say, our women organizations feels that maintenance is man’s duty, women need not to pay, because traditionally it is man’s duty to provide. But these same women organizations says that if some one feel cooking is women’s duty then they are sexists.

I have a discussion in Indian home makers blog regarding this. I am pasting my comments here …

there are many cases where women got alimony or maintenance even when she is earning enough. May be the maintenance law is bit fair and gender neutral in nature but still our society feels, it is the duty of man to protect and provide. So, generally men has to pay maintenance. And women organizations strongly believe this and vociferously supports it.

Some court rulings …

1. A man earning 2000 asked to pay 1200 INR (60% of his salary) as maintenance  The Irony is wife Nalini earning 9000 INR per month, four times more than her husband. Still, man has to pay the maintenance.

Husband to pay 60% of salary as maintenance

2. Wife doing job and earning 20,000 per month (She did MBA), still she got 40,000 per month as maintenance from her hubby who is of course an IITian, but seems lost job because of the legal mess created during divorce procedure. Ironically, they are married for 12 days only. And he has to face the dowry case also additionally. ( No doubt he lost his job and self confidence also).

Rs40 thousand per month: Woman gets whopping alimony

3. And In one ruling man ordered to pay maintenance even though he is jobless. If the husband is jobless then why he need to take care of his wife? Why don’t wife do the job and pay maintenance to him? or no maintenance at all from either of them. Judge said .. ” A husband has to take care of his wife somehow or other even if he is jobless “.

Husband should pay maintenance even if he is jobless: HC

Then where is the equality? Where are all those self respected women?

Actually the problem is everyone interpret the law differently. It’s depend on judge. Some favors it, some don’t favors it. The general perception of the society influencing everyone.

Let us come to some other laws regarding money. Look at 498A or DV.  By (Mis)using them, women can get lot of money as maintenance legally and illegally (extortion).

IrBM Clause (Irretrievable breakdown of marriage) which allows women to claim share in man’s property. Actually women organizations tried to grab the property of man not only he earned but also the ancestral property. But it seems that didn’t worked. But, wife definitely get a share in man’s property. The Irony is when property shared, only man’s property considered for sharing not women’s property. What about this? I must say, because maintenance law is bit fair these laws are enacted to grab man’s property. Some feminists even said, because women are not getting property share, they are misusing 498A. So, to stop that man must share his property. How ridiculous ..!! There is no difference between these women organizations and the men who claim rapes happening because of dress that victim wear.

Why IrBM should be rolled back

And there is one more law in the queue which allows to share man’s property equally, including ancestral property. But I don’t think so, they are going to consider women’s property for sharing. Where is that self respect now? Man is nothing but an ATM machine these day. He has to pay that’s all.

Published in: on March 24, 2013 at 8:52 am  Comments (9)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

The Mariatal Rape And Debates – Who Oppose it and Who Support It?

As expected govt didn’t included recommendations in Varma Committe’s report on AFSPA in the rape ordinance. Unexpectedly, they didn’t included the marital rape clause also. I must say govt act is sensible. They took lot of issues into consideration. But, this move doesn’t went well with women organizations .

They are opposing the ordinance and some of them even went to an extent to demand The President not to sign on the ordinance. Of course, president signed on it and Ignored their demand. Many news channels conducted debate on this issue.

Some channels, as usually, with their biased views invited only women organizations, no single person from men organization. But IBN-LIVE conducted a debate with both of them. Here is the debate …

I want to give some answers to the questions of member of women organizations and like to ask some questions too ..

Their (Women Organizations) question is, many women are forcefully married without their consent and forcefully put in the relationship. So, how can you say there is no rape? This is one of the question asked by women activist and repeated by Ms.Sagarika.

My answer to it is simple. If women forced into marriage who’s fault is that? Is it the fault of man who married her or the fault of her own parents? Who need to be blamed? who need to be booked? It’ her own parents not the husband, isn’t it?

Husband assumes, marriage and the first night after that is the consent for him to have sex with her, and it is the fact too. She is an adult, not a kid. She know what’s going on, she know what’s coming. Even knowing this she didn’t opposed it at early stage. Then how can anyone blame that poor man? it is her fault or her parents fault. Stop blaming man for this. Book the girl for ruining his life by marrying him or her parents for ruining two individuals lives.

Imagine a situation, A typical bollywood style scene, a woman entered into the room with milk glass in her first night, what a man think? What he will do? Should he ask her that, do she like this marriage? Even if she likes it, do she like to have sex now or not? Is it the man’s duty to ask her? Don’t she know what marriage is? Don’t she know what first night is? Is she a kid? Why to put every responsibility that exist in this world on men alone?

The whole drama assumes that man has to take care of everything. He has to take care of woman’s consent for marriage, woman’s consent for sex. But women simply sit because some one forced her or so-called patriarchy don’t allow her to talk and later she says, she was raped. Mind blowing.

What is marriage? In a marriage women can have a share in property, can have her rights on his earnings. It’s her right, remind you. But, when it’s come to sex, men must take permission. They don’t have right to have sex. They can only beg her for it, if she feel it’s fine, she may grant it. But after that she can paint it as a rape. that’s the problem. What if women consistently say no to sex because of some issues between them? There is no other option than seeking divorce for men. But if a man deny her that right or any other right, she can use law to punish him. That’s the difference.

And must say, all these discussion happens assuming men are the people who need sex. Men are the people who force the partner to have sex. But, it is not true at all. There are many situations women also became violent and raped men. That’s why the international standard says the rape laws must be gender neutral. But our women organizations don’t want gender neutral laws. Why?

They says, it is an exceptional case that women rape men. Let us assume, these cases are only few or exceptional. Still, why do they think that these few cases need not be punished under the law? Rape is a rape no matter how many happens or how rarely they happen, isn’t it? If women and women organizations think rape is a heinous crime why they don’t want to punish these women rapists? Why they don’t want justice for male victims? Do they really feel rape is heinous crime? Do they think rape in matrimonial home is acceptable if it happen on men?

But the truth is Rapes on men or boys are not exceptional cases or rare cases. They do happen, may be the number of instances are less compared to the rapes on women.  But we must notice that, society don’t recognition rape on men at all.  That’s the problem. In these circumstances how can women organizations claim rape on men don’t exist or very rare? First, recognize it and make a law to punish the offenders.

And one more thing, do govt make laws because a particular crime exist or because particular crime is rampant? If some kind of crime happens less frequently compared to another, does that a valid reason to not having a law to punish those criminals? What nonsense is this?

Published in: on February 13, 2013 at 8:23 pm  Comments (17)  
%d bloggers like this: