What exactly is Sexism? According to
Wiki 'Sexism or gender
discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex
or gender. Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender
roles,[2][3] and may include the belief that a person of one sex is
intrinsically superior to a person of the other.'
Recently I have come across articles and speeches demanding empowering of women. Where the women want to stand on the same pedestal as men. But lets just take a time-out. Did we men ever try to create any social awareness when we created our own platform while the ladies were probably busy elsewhere. We have never demanded anything of this society although many a times this society as demanded a lot out of us. A man is supposed to be independent and free to make his own decisions and not hang on to his mother's saree like a sissy. At the same time, not listening to his parents make him a rash and arrogant boy.
Right from a young age the idea has been infused in our minds that boys don't cry no matter how badly hurt you are. Well girls and boys are all the same flesh and blood and yet we have to control our emotions from that age. I wonder why no woman teaches her daughter to be like us. A girl or a lady uses her tears as her best weapon to conquer the world while we guys have to earn everything.
When I was home this time my mother was describing an extremely ambitious girl she knows of. According to her, the driving force of this female is that she wants to be at par with any guy and achieve everything a guy can. How absurd is that. Have we boys ever wanted to be like you or compete with you? Why do you consider yourself inferior to us and look up to us? We have never shied away from sharing the pedestal with you. We know what we want and the only competition is with ourselves. So why not just try to get a bit of self motivation and drive youself to your goals.
A blog I read stated a line 'At some basal level men will be men'. I agree whole-heartedly. We love our cricket our football our tennis. We love playing computer games and nothing gives us an ecstasy like a gaming console. But most of us refrain from playing with a girl's heart. We know what you are and we respect you for that. We love our pals like they mean the world to us. Most guys will agree that we are ready to take a blow or two for the sake of them. Nothing can be more joyous than a guys reunion and a night-out spent getting sloshed out and recollecting old memories. Girls - Tell me honestly; can you say with a clean heart you have never envied your best friend for her designer clothes, her make-up, her good looks or her drop dead gorgeous boyfriend. Two girls can never bond the way two guys can and that's where lies your problem. If your own gender is not your friend then how do you expect to conquer the world all by yourself.
An Fb update I recall stated something to the tune of 'Can a man and woman be looked upon at the same pedestal or is it all a magical bluff.' It probably is a bluff that was created in your own heads. A male and a female are two completely different creations of the Almighty. Both have a separate purpose in life. Both have their own equal powers at birth. It's what you do after maturity that defines a human being. Just crying out foul all over the internet doesn't solve any problems. In the words of the great M.K.Gandhi ' Be the change you want to see in this world'. So don't fight to be the same as men. Leave that to us. Be your identity and one day every one will applaud you for who you are.
We guys have never asked or been given a Men's Day to celebrate manhood. We don't need such things to prove our existence to the world. We know our place and we are proud of it. No matter what the situation, a guy is always considered to be the bread-winner at home. We never had an option like you, my dear ladies, to be a home-maker instead. He is the one who takes loans from banks and repays them all his life to get a good education, then build a good home, buy a new car and also satisfy the whims of his wife, his children, his parents leaving little or none for himself. When was the last time you heard a guy crying over all this. The answer is never. We have our own share of problems but we know how best to handle them. The social media is not the answer to them.
If you really want to change the thinking of the society and show your standing in this world, start by eliminating the women's quota in schools colleges and work places. Why do you need reserved seats on buses and metroes or a completely reserved compartment for ladies on trains? Why don't you take a stand against these facilities that the society provided you with. If you really believe you are as strong as us, then why be afraid to share the platform? I agree that there are many mischief-mongers and anti social elements present in the society who disgrace us as men. Ministers and politicians alike who have little or no respect for women; who treat rape as a mistake by young boys. On behalf of the entire men's fraternity, I apologize for these scums of our society. But the modern day man is way more receptive to your thoughts and feelings. He would love to father a beautiful angel rather than killing her in the mother's womb. He is open to your every needs and he will do anything to earn that smile on your face. All he yearns for is your whole hearted love as a mother, a wife, a sister and a daughter.
P.S. - I think every guy who reads this article will validate my arguments. But there will be some who will blast at me for arrogance and hypocrisy and for probably being a male chauvinist. These are the sissy's of our society who try to earn browny points from girls by being in their good books. Beware of such individuals. Maybe I'm wrong in some parts so feel free to correct me with proper justifications. This is not a personal attack against anyone but just the ramblings of a mind pained and tired of seeing the same articles over the internet.
OK..so I went through the blog and the content of it was much expected!!This strife has no end to it...and can flow into hours and hours of blown smoke without actually settling down to something fruitful...
ReplyDeleteWhat I decipher is that the the strife shouldn't be brought down to the level of being a male or a female..rather be it on a more mature level.We all are human beings with a soul and have all those rights that are gifted to one!!When any one of us are deprived of it then creeps in all sorts of discrepancies,differences,hostility and so on ...Thus if the root of any problem is tackled..the problem gets half solved!
As long as every being is treated in a veritable manner...I see no reason for such trivial clashes...
At the end of the day,every person..be it of any caste,creed or gender ,craves a life of peace,fame and dignity..!!
Overall, I do get your point. There are some unfair demands made of men in our society, of which I see no mention here. But those that you have mentioned are increasingly breaking down in the society, so I don't know why you feel the need to voice them. Also, I wish you would have dealt with the issue more knowledgeably. The essence of what you want to say here is driven under by the sheer arrogance and ignorance of the other sentences. For example, 'Did we men ever try to create any social awareness when we created our own platform while the ladies were probably busy elsewhere." Ummm, yeah - while you men were creating your own platform, you were also at the same time trodding upon the women who were, locked up in the confines of their household and tied up in social and religious obligations that denied them a sense of self, merely reducing them to objects of servitude and duty. So pardon them for eventually realising their self worth and trying to demand a position in society a little late and thereby being an inconvenience for you. A review of anthropology/sociology will tell you that the society and most other cultures we are exposed to, are primarily patriarchal, where men enjoyed the highest freedoms. I don't think that if you are already enjoying first class privileges there is anything remaining to demand for?!! The ideology that you complain about was once made by men for men.
ReplyDeleteAlso, independence is a quality valued in an adult, it is wholly different from respect for the parents, which is also generally a valued virtue. As such, the society that criticizes lack of original thought and dissrespect to parents is partly right in doing so, and moreover, made of equal number of men and women. It is but the screwed sense of masculinity imposed by your own kind that dictates that asking for help or crying makes one less of a man. As a woman, I know I am more comfortable around a man who does not have obnoxious notions of stoicism. Also, it is fairly untrue that women have conquered the world with their tears, if such was to be the case, feminism would be a moot point.
Also, yes at some basal level, men will be men and essentially different from women. In that, they will be less disposed to be emotional and cry, which is also scientifically proven. They will enjoy their toys and games and liquor more than other pursuits, they will be motivated by prospects of money and sex than any other things, but in the most boyish fashion, they will never ever be able to fathom a girl's mind and behaviour. In which case, they will always believe idiotic notions like girls envy other girl's wardrobe and that two girls will never wear the same clothes or that two women can never have a friendship like two men. For every Bala and Bikram, there is a Thelma and Louise, so please do not assume preposterous stances over same gender friendships or chemistry. AS many men have fought between them as have women. I think it comes down to basic difference between people and not genders.
In your own comments you have contradicted the very base of your arguments. If all the females were 'locked up in the confines of their household and tied up in social and religious obligations that denied them a sense of self, merely reducing them to objects of servitude and duty' then how come even in that medieval age we have had such strong powerful and influential women dominating the male dominated society. Names like Cleopatra - who was initially a joint ruler with her brothers but eventually she became the Pharoah, joined forces with Julius Caesar and later on with Mark Antony to expand her empire. Have you heard of Empress Theodora? In 500AD, she participated in making Constantinople one of the world’s most sophisticated cities and promoting women’s rights. 'So pardon them for eventually realizing their self worth and trying to demand a position in society a little late and thereby being an inconvenience for you.' Well the movement began way back in 500AD and till now you continue to think its a newly formed movement. Too bad you did not do your research before posting your lengthy views.The male has never felt inconvenienced by your uprising. It's the centuries of nagging for the same point that has reached a breaking point. Well God created Adam and Eve as equals in this world. It's what each has done with his own that has shaped the present.
DeleteWhy do you proclaim that 'The ideology that you complain about was once made by men for men.' when you have women like Queen Victoria ruling the Great Britian at a time when that country was the super power - An empire spanning 14.2 million square miles, spanning six continents, and controlling countries such as Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, and Sudan as well as many others.Victoria ruled over 400 to 458 million people during her reign which included both genders and she did this despite being from your so called oppressed gender of society.
Or a more home grown example of Jhansi ki Rani who fought like any other warrior irrespective of her sex. Hence these women should be examples to live by. And the fact still remains that women do TRY to 'conquer the world with their tears' and hence I consider feminism a moot point.
True, a man can never fathom the thinking of a female mind. But how come we use terms like 'bitching' (not dogging or something) and 'gossipping' all which are associated with girls. To Fight Like A Man is to take it face to face and resolve the issues in the open and then maybe enjoy a beer together that very evening. Not stabbing like a female behind the back or bitching about her to bring down her public image and standing. If you can't be united as a group, how do you expect your centuries old cause of empowerment to see the light of day? And I have done my research with a fairly good number of females before stating that 'girls envy other girl's wardrobe and that two girls will never wear the same clothes or that two women can never have a friendship like two men' because, accept it or not, it is a fact. If it's a point you don't possess then you are quite an exception to the general 'preposterous' but true fact. Fictitious characters cannot lay claim to the truth of the world.
I was hoping that the masculine ego would not get in the way of sound reasoning, but I guess you must argue for argument's sake. Since I am researcher by profession, rest assured my points are accurately researched before you suggested it. While I think it is unfair to extrapolate the lives of a few elitists women who were born and bred into power to the rest of the women in the society, I will work to invalidate your points individually.
DeleteAccording to a fellow researcher's ( Candace Keemer's ) work ''we discussed whether evidence such as a healthy handful of female rulers, property rights for women and Herodotus’ observations of women trading in the marketplace while men toiled away at home added up to the grand conclusion that this was the first feminist culture. And we concluded that no, it was not. Life in ancient Egypt was pretty wonderful if you were a wealthy woman. If you were a lower-class citizen, you were not afforded these same progressive rights.'' And therein I summarize my whole argument.
But to further invalidate your points, this Queen Victoria you speak to highly of and exemplify, I hope you are aware that she was categorically against women having any rights, especially like in voting, owning property and marriage laws. And when you revere her spirit so, I wonder if you are the kind of man who believes that she was right in having protested against women having basic human rights, and if so, I wonder if that is how you are going to bring up your children, telling them a society where women vote and own property is shit piece.
Since the legend of Lakshmi Bai is well known at home, I am sure you are aware that many were of the opinion that she should embrace Sati or hermitage rather than stick around and fight. That many men refused to fight under a woman leader until she proved herself in battle. That her very downfall was because she couldn't survive against the stigma of being a woman. That even then, she was more of a exemplary feminist that a female hero. And all her achievements have come to what. According to TOI, ''The relevance of everything she represents; as an exponent of strong, patient, perseverant, unwavering, undeterred, unflappable womanhood gained an obtuse recognition when the revered Rani of Jhansi was listed by the Time magazine among ‘wives who were resolute even in troubled times: a daredevil wife’.
DeleteThe very premise of this distinction seems flawed. Of the many roles that she played in a precious lifetime spanning a very few years – the role of a wife – was perhaps the most irrelevant. Not insignificant – irrelevant. For, in the eleven years that she was married to the Raja Gangadhar Rao, she remained just a queen, albeit a uniquely talented queen. It was the tragic aftermath of his death and the unwarranted denial of her child’s claim to the throne that hurled her into the beginning of her own odyssey as a leader, a modernist visionary, a soldier, a nurturer, a diplomat and a mother.
In a contemporary mores that was struggling with regressive concepts of gender injustice, the Rani was unconventionally trained as a woman who could read the scriptures and wield the sword with equal dexterity. In challenging the British Doctrine of Lapse, at first tentatively and eventually unbendingly, she was doing more than just fighting for Jhansi.
She was fighting for the Right of an adopted child, the Right of a woman to rule a kingdom while her chosen heir apparent was a minor, the Right of women to don the uniform in battle, the Right to live and rule rather than become sati, the Right of each and every ‘citizen’ of her kingdom, man or woman, Hindu or Muslim, Brahmin or otherwise, to enlist in the battle for sovereignty.'' This oblivion struck Cleopatra too, who being The last queen of Ancient Egypt, “spoke nine languages, she was a philosopher, she was a poet, she was a politician, she was a goddess, and she was a warrior." and yet what is most known for today, being beautiful, which to be fair, is very debatable across ethnic groups. You see, the role that women leaders are relegated to in history, due mostly to who historically controlled how history was told and recorded ( rich wealthy males and victors).
To reiterate, I feel that saying that there is no need to fight for women empowerment because the elitist few made it big in their lives is similar to saying there was no need to fight to free the black slaves, because well, if Fredrick Douglass can make it out ,so can everyone else.
DeleteBut to be fair to your argument, the situation with women was much better in the past, in ours and other cultures. The deterioration is rather recent history, the point where they stopped being regarded as an equal gender and men found it easier to limit their development as they adopted other roles. It started from the time when Victoria succumbed to 1800s social mindset propagated by the men in control to deny women power and wealth, from the time when women stopped receiving education in schools and were treated as household objects, to be bartered and traded and betted upon, when it was socially deemed that women had no right to live beyond their husbands because her entire existence was futile. That is why there was a need for suffrage, and for feminism. Please do not cite impossibly few and handful of historical examples to deny that this was not happening worldwide and prevalent in society. It seems pretty ignorant when you question, 'What?? Women were never being trodden in our society, that never happened! Female infanticide, dowry, sati are a myth!'
I am sorry that the various examples of the number of time women have united to fight for themselves is not reason enough for you to believe that we can be united as a faction, but that you insist on relying on the examples set by the fairly good number of women you have researched upon could not provide you with a better view of womanhood, but I am sure you wouldn't complain then if most women choose to think that ALL men are lecherous, vile beings since a fairly good number of men they come in contact with a generally so. Also, I think people who say stuff like 'fight like a man', or 'you throw like a girl' or 'don't cry like a girl' or 'you dress like a gay' are being, by the definition of wikipedia, sexist. But let me assure you that when I used to affectionately address you as a bitch, I didn't mean it to be insulting, or indicate that you were any less of a man, since clearly you associate bitch with femininity.
As to the part where fictitious characters can not lay claim to the world of truth, also please don't use Adam and Eve in the same argument then.
As for concepts where men are supposed to be the breadwinners of the house, or not allowed to be homemakers - well, come out to the real changing world and be a part of it. In this economy, women are equally adding to the bread in the house, and many men have stepped into the role of a house-spouse when it makes the more economically sensible option. Also, there have been successful couples where women earn more than men, and that's okay with them. Society is starting to open up to to these role reversals, and women are only too glad for this to happen. It finally allows women to go on and have an uninterrupted career which they do not have to give up for the sake of bringing up family. Which, may I remind you. was an accepted and obligatory norm in the past which feminism fought against to change. So I don't know what men would have to cry and fight for, when the options are already available for you on the table right away. And please don't tell me only men are in debt to provide for their education, or earning to have it all stashed away in home, car and other assets. You make it sound that if not for family and wife, men would rather not invest in these things. Or that the investment is for others and they don't enjoy the benefits. I'm pretty sure that where possible, in this current inflation world, the economic burden is being shared by all earning members of the family. Except maybe unlike some men, women think of it as an investment into the family and not about how they don't get to use their pay for their own fancy stuff. Responsible adults will see nothing fundamentally wrong with this situation except that inflation is high and things are overpriced so money must be given away, and maybe that is why it is not an issue to cry about in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAnd lastly, please be fair in your judgement. Women's quota in education is because, since in the past women were discouraged from education and some old habits are hard to break, they must be motivated to participate now. Just like you have SC/ST quota and such. As for the reservation on trains and buses, I can't believe you put forth that as a valid point in your argument.These reservations have been included as a safety measure against a victimised class after It has been statistically proven that women are at a risk of being unsafe while they are trying to be independent. And it is because there is an equally statistically large number of indiscriminate men (the mischief mongers and antisocial elements)whose number you grossly undermine as 'few' amongst men. Unfortunately, your apologies do nothing to improve the safety of the situation whereas these reservations do. So they must stay unless the situation improves. On the other hand, if you want to protest against reservations in jobs where they exist, I am all for it. I do believe that positions ought to go to the best deserved.
To quote an old saying, "behind every great man is a good woman." As women have moved into the workforce and women are now surpassing men for starting new businesses, many women have stepped out of the shadows to stand beside or in some cases, in front of their men into an ambitious, achiever position.
DeleteRemember the popularity and hilarity of the movie Mr. Mom in the 80s? It's not as unusual today for women to be either the primary breadwinner in the family or to have a more prominent career. But is it really that acceptable for both partners? What happens when you are a highly ambitious woman married to a less ambitious man? Or what if you are a man married to one of these over-achieving women? A marriage between these two can be a blissful balance or a recipe for a devastating divorce.
Ina hypothetical world where there exists only three persons namely Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and maybe a Rajpal Yadav why do you think Angie chooses a Brad over a Raju barring his good looks. Women want stability in a relationship and it can only be achieved by choosing a husband who is financially more stable than the rest. This has been a notion from the past and exists even in the present.
Here’s another thing I read in the Enquirer: Jennifer Lawrence said she is getting ready to stop doing movies so she can have kids. She said she’s much more interested in having a family than a career. This is, of course, a luxury she can have because she had a career early. She’s 23 years old and she already has won an Oscar.
And she’s not an aberration in Hollywood. Mila Kunis said she’d rather have a great marriage and a couple of kids than make a movie. I love how she poses it as a dichotomy. Because she’s just being honest: You can’t have a great marriage and be a great parent and have a huge career.
You know that. It’s just very few people will come out and say that to you.
Some people will tell you that such an admission is a throwback to the 1950s and it’s discouraging. That’s true.
Except for one thing: divorce law protects women today. In the 1950s, if you allowed a guy to take care of you, if you put your career aside for kids, then there was no protection for you. So women went nuts – fighting for rights, fighting for jobs, fighting for an equal right to a piece of the pie. But now women are guaranteed money to raise the kids, whether the guy stays or not.
So now that we have laws that protect kids, why do women need to choose a job over family? They can get a divorce settlement that ensures they have money. Okay, so it’s not a ton of money, but if you didn’t want to work when you were married, you probably don’t want to work when you’re single with kids, and divorce law ensures that you can pay for your kids while you’re single. A luxury for being from that gender don't you think?
As for sharing of the economic burden of the family, I came across an article about a female - 'Giselle says she earns millions of dollars a year (posing for photos like promoting breastfeeding) but she doesn’t spend any of her earnings on her household. Instead, her husband,Tom Brady, pays for everything because Giselle wants to feel taken care of.' So much for 'an investment into the family and not about how they don't get to use their pay for their own fancy stuff.' contd...
Contd...
DeleteTo prove the fairness of my judgement, why don't we establish a quota for the poor wherein their children get the privilege to study in good schools rather than a broken down dilapidated govt school? When you argue for the notion that the society mindset is changing and women 'in the past women were discouraged from education' then why not abolish this quota in the present. Come out in the open and compete with your talents. Not on the basis of your quotas and reservations.
The world as it is today has more important problems to cater to like starvation of nations, acute water shortages, abolition of child labour, rather than balming your petty egos. The mischief mongers have been present since ages and society has tried to do its bit to curb these elements. But if you are so scared for your safety why not stay in the confines of your homes rather than using these quotas as path to become world leaders. Because the examples of females I quoted in my previous comments clearly show that those powerful females who managed to rule a male dominated society were clearly more confident of their position in society and in life. What a Barkha Dutt did in 1999 is more contemporary proof than anything else how to brave even your worst enemies and show the world who's the boss. They were the born leaders unlike the cribbing kinds who just ask for facilities to deal with the tantrums that life presents before them.
I don't see feminists now billowing for women's right to work because that has happened, as a need or a necessity or purely a benefit of war, it has happened. I was never challenging that point, I was challenging the fact that you think men don't have an option of stepping out of the earning role, whereas in reality, the situation is increasingly changing. You can opt to be a at-home spouse if you wish to and can afford to. There need not be a male upheaval for that right coz it has already been granted to you.
DeleteBut then, please pardon me if women seek different things from their partners. I like how you pit Brad Pitt to Rajpal Yadav in an unfair comparison. The reason Jolie would hypothetically pick Pitt over Yadav is also the reason why in real actual life Pitt picked Jolie over Anniston. Coz she was hotter. Men and women are genetically programmed to seek the best mates to ensure the most successful offsprings, it is the law of evolution. Men look for the most beautiful, petite and broody kind whereas women look for the stronger, stabler, fiercer men. What you seek is an option against an evolutionary law, for that you must forgo having the alpha mate. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And do not use that as an excuse to feel pressured to earn more. You want the hottest chick, you gotta have better things to offer. No one, man or woman, is going to settle for less.
I simply don't understand how you relate celebrity life to other people's normal life, since these people can afford to do a lot more things that normal people don't have the luxury to. Like quit job mid career and then come back again in like 7 years and be famous, even have their comeback make a huge noise and success. But to pick your own point, I would like you to see how only the female actors have come forth to state that they can't parent and have a career at the same time. While some people like Jolie, Anniston, Berry, Holmes, Portman have gone ahead and done just that - be a mother and a career person, I completely understand why some others feel they won't be able to. What amazes me is only only the females have had to make this choice - either want kids and bring them up or have a career. I don't recall any male actors taking a break from their career in order to bring up their children. Why does the society think it is only a feminine role and responsibility when clearly it takes two to make a baby. You want me to accept that it is inevitable for a woman to have a career and kids, I'll tell you that is because the man does not share equally in the parenthood. For in cases where they do, it is very much possible for family and careers to prosper on both sides. I have seen a number of newly married friends make this work for themselves, in real touchable life.
DeleteAs for your argument about divorce laws, you have just contradicted yourself. When you know that the money paid is not sufficient to keep a family, it makes economic sense to have to go out and earn more to manage the upkeep of self and family. And alimony laws have reformed as of late, an earning spouse provides for the kids and not so much for the estranged mate, this is gender neutral. However the estranged person must live and eat, and therefore must earn. Clearly upkeep of three or more members is more than the cost for one, and alimony and child support only assuages the financial burden, which is only fair. A lot of females who earn more have to pay their husbands alimony instead. So divorce is not so gender protected as you might think. And contrary to what you think of employment as, many people would like to be employed, even if it pays minimal to none, so that they have a social life, can feel personally empowered and develop. Not everything is about money, not everyone wants to be lazy at home just because they can afford to.
And seriously, Giselle Bundchen and Tom Brady??!! Do you ever get your head out of the clouds and maybe think of normal non-billionaire people for a second. Those two, between then, earn enough to have personal harems for themselves, because they can afford to. On a more real life level, there are several several kept men and women who keep them. (read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/9472098/Him-indoors-breadwinning-women-and-their-kept-men.html) It's a personal choice for these people how they choose to spend their enormous shacks of money, if these women and Brady are not complaining, don't complain on their behalf. One example does not prove a rule.
DeleteIn all fairness, the presence of one kind of depravity does not undo the needs of another. There is as much need for women empowerment as their is for the lower economic classes. A lot of poor people have made it out and big, I don't see you analogizing that if they can, so can the rest, why do we need to give special privileges to the poor. There are initiatives for improvement in both situations and even though they face their own hurdles, these situations continue to be improved. I think the reason women's quota in education is not removed is because the policy makers don't think they have achieved the status with equal gender education as they aimed to. It is not like there is absolutely no place for men in the education system. To quote your own sentiments, if you are good enough you will make it to where you want to be, despite all odds. Don't blame your shortcomings on the system or the society. If Lakshmi Bai, Victoria and Cleopatra can make a stand for themselves in a men dominated society, so can men today fight and get a place in education in spite of all the women reservation. No need to cry sour grapes.
DeleteAs for your take on women safety, I would like to see the same attitude when it comes to your sisters and daughters. It is the women who try to be Barkha Dutt who have to face the antics of lecherous eve teasings and molestations. Reservation for women on public transport, is a criminal issue not a sexist one. I would like for you to tell rape victims that there are better things to pay attention to than grant
Deletethem 'facilities to deal with the tantrums that life presents before them'. People who think like you are what is wrong with the society. The reason these 'mischief mongers' have thrived is because some of their brethren have validated their behaviour to preserve their egos.
For every Barkha Dutt, there is that photojournalist in Mumbai, that dutch female reporter in Egypt, and that Colombian journalist lady who didn't make it. So wake up and stop using success stories as excuses for your male ego. Once again, women safety is a crime issue and not a sexist one. Learn to treat it validly.
DeleteThe modern day man, while being for all purposes and intents, tries to be a decent person; is forever blind to the intricacies of womanhood and can not even begin to fathom the plight of the modern day woman. So before you cry about having to earn your living and not having the option to be a homemaker, keep a home and know it is not the easier job. Unlike a 9-5 job, you don't just get to come home and put up your legs and drink your cup of tea while collecting a sum of money at the end of every month. It is an non-paying 24x7x365 job, that is both mentally and physically taxing with no retirement package. It is not a privilege. I can say it because I have been on both sides of the coin. A lot of women would have liked to be able to have careers and get ahead in them, be ambitious work wise if family hadn't come in the way, if they didn't have to quit jobs and give up years to look after kids. A lot of women would have liked to be not called negligent of their family when they went out to work like the men. Yes, so we have a women's day, but it is not a holiday unlike saturdays and sundays. So the point here is, for every point you make, I can give you situations ten times worse for women. That is why their is a movement for them,and so much social outrage on the media. True, men have their issues, but nothing so life-bogging, coz if it were really that aggravating, I am sure you'd have a movement up for it. And to be fair, men actually do have a masculinism movement with valid issues to fight for. Let's just accept that both sides have their own fights and their own ways to fight, what I'd like you to see is that there is a reason women need to fight for equality. Next time you trash a movement, don't be misled by what you think you perceive of it, do actually look it up and research, like you looked up the meaning of sexism on wikipedia. Feminism is not about being equal to men, as you may think. It is about having equal choices and freedom for all (both sexes). and unless your ideas were in direct confliction with equal human rights, there'd be no need to feel victimised by feminism.
ReplyDeleteI think I have already handed in all my contradictions in my previous comments to drive my point home. Moreover, a guy has to toil it out in office all day and then go back to the nagging wives and kids. All you see is a cup of tea because that's all the compensation we expect. The sum of money collected at the end of the month is spent mostly on the family for which we have toiled even after our office hours. It's just that we don't make a hue and cry over all the household works that we are actually 'expected' to do. And we don't need a movement to highlight our plight in society.
DeleteThe fact that you think that while you 'toll it out' in office, the wives do zilch at home and the home and kids you come back to just magically happened just shows how much you exaggerate your role in life. Nagging kids and wives, toiling on family after office hours?? If the family is being too much of a problem after work, feel free to not have one. Don't make life choices and then nag about them. Nobody compelled you to get married and take responsibilities. You don't make a hue and cry about the household work you are expected to do because you never actually do them. And you don't need a movement to highlight your plight in the society, but you can't stop wimpering about how you spend almost all your livelihood on a family that is yours and you chose to have, and how they are such a pain in the ass and take so much away from your life. This coming from a man who said ''But the modern day man is way more receptive to your thoughts and feelings. He would love to father a beautiful angel rather than killing her in the mother's womb. He is open to your every needs and he will do anything to earn that smile on your face. All he yearns for is your whole hearted love as a mother, a wife, a sister and a daughter. '' Being double faced much?
Delete