Pubs, Liquor Shops and Women Empowerment

Re: # 31

Nemescis,

Your logic is strange. A maimed soldier has done his duty. A lady officer hasn't. There is a huge difference between the two. Women want the same pay and perks, yet don't want the same risk to life and limb.

You say that men and women are equal; then you contradict by saying that women are intellectually better than men. See the contradiction that your ideas come from.

About chromosomes, I never said that women are less equal to men. I said that women want to take undue advantage of men. Men are the weaker sex because of their weakness for women. This, the women are taking advantage of. They claim to be better than men, equal to men, and weaker than men as and when it suits them.

Lastly, you simply fail to recognise the fact that women have their own natural advantages over men. Sympathy and moral superiority over men are two sound examples of how men are held inferior to women in all societies even though there is no evidence to this theory.

Re: # 34

Nemescis,

I agree with you on that score. But violence is violence. Just because the violence is committed by a relative, it does not justify it. There are legal means to recourse.

Please explain your concept about an Indian Valentine's Day here.
This is about women and your feeling threatened by them. Parthaab doesn't have to plough a lonely furrow any more.
Carry on.

#30 Posted by harish_hyd

Happy to note that though through different logics, we are converging on the same point of agreement.

Rohan,

Please remember that earlier case was taken up by the aggrieved party whereas the second by a vested interest with no locus standii in the case.

Going by the same logic, what shivsena did and Raj thakre is doing and vatal nagraj and other chauvinists do in their respective areas seem to be legal.

You should wear the shoe to know where it bites.

#29 Posted by ROHAND

Such situation arises when one man's food happens to be other man's poison. You may also turn to the defence of a thief or robber saying he too has duties towards his family.

#28 Posted by ROHAND

Good you know that. Any idea of section 125?

#24 Posted by ROHAND

If a soldier is maimed by bullet and not capable of going to the front is normally employed in clerical or other cadre and continues to draw full salary. His voting right does not diminish to half. If a physically handicapped person attains requisite qualification, he get the top job without discrimination. You know while the girls don't normally acquire the physical standards of men, in intellectual capacity they are equal or surpass the boys. I hope you understand that.

'bada hua to kya hua, jaise lambe khajoor'
'panchhi ko saaya nahin, phal laage bahu dooor'

Yet more piece of wisdom. If you get a daughter it is because you have 'x' chromosomes in excess to 'y' chromosomes. So you are responsible for her birth with the present form. Why should she be less equal?

I have a son and a daughter. Both are equal in our eyes with daughter being slightly an an advantage, being elder of the two.

Suffice to say?

#22 by harish_hyd

Having said that, I absolutely abhor the idea and am utterly disgusted by the very thought of barging into Pubs and Bars and beating up the women there.

Re: # 28

@Nemesis,

Further, how do you know that all the men at the village bars are married? They may be single too. What about the duties of women and men at the PUB to their families? Some of them could be married too. What about their duties to their families? Tell me that too.

Your ideas stem from your one-sided perspective of women's rights. Women's rights = men's rights. Same with responsibilities.

Re: # 27

You grow up man! Its no longer the duty of men to support the families just as it is no longer the duty of women to cook. Rights came with responsibilities. What are the responsibilities of women? Can you tell me that please? Yes, divorce is very easy for women. file a 498A case and get the husband behind bars. She can get a divorce in 6 months. Triple Talaq??? You are in the 15th century. Maybe, its possible among Muslims. Not among others. Either way, women among Muslims can also file 498A and get divorce in 6 months! Wake up! Grow up! Our constitution talks about equality of gender. It means that men are no longer financially responsible for supporting their families. Women are equally responsible. Men are equally responsible to cook. That's equality my dear!

#11 Posted by ROHAND

Your arguments stem from your ignorance of reality.

You harp on the individual rights of the men. Is there anything such as responsibility also? If liquor was so dear to him, why did he get married in the first place? Why did he want chilren out of his wife if he was not capable of feeding and educating them? Who told you rights came to you without responsibility? Are you subscribing to the idea of "RISQ to Allah deta hai, par daru kharidna padta hai?" What do you expect from those harrassed and emaciated children when they grow up? Join them in the Allah's army?. Or make them criminals? You are harping on the idea of divorce. Who told you that women on the warpath were muslims who would obtain divorce by braying 'talaq' three times at a stretch?

Grow up, man!

Re: # 23

Nobody would support violence of any sort. But this article is meant to showcase the double standards in society - violence against men is hailed. Drinking among men is a sin. Violence against women is condemned. Drinking among women is women's empowerment.

Re: # 23

If the husbands threw away their earnings, it is an issue that needs to be tackled in a legal way and through other means of social pressure and not by violent means and throwing chappals. How do you know that women's groups don't want to make political points by attacking men? I strongly believe that Muthalik did that just to make political points. I agree with you. Women's groups too do that. However, if we speak about individual rights to drink, the two situations are identical. If income is blown up, it is for the women to work and find alternative ways to correct the situation. There are legal methods by which women can assure that men support their families. Its an equal society. So, women can also work and support their families. In the PUB case, women who drink may also end up as addicts. They could be violent too and end up ruining their own families.

Re: # 22

Harish,

Exactly! You said it all! Feminists want a society where women get the advantages of tradition and modernity together. Women are in the army as officers but they are not at the front line facing the bullets. Women are there as officers and not as Jawans because the Jawans life is tougher than officers, with greater physical exertion, and lesser pay. The officers in the army command the men from their cosy rooms while the real sacrifices are made by the Jawans and JCOs.

There is a clear difference between the two incidents. The first and the earlier one was by the women whose husbands threw away whatever meagre earnings they had, in the wine shops leaving their hapless women and children to fend for themselves. It must be same everywhere, but in India, the liquor addiction by the men has ruined many houses.

In the second case, the case was made to earn a political brownie points by the disgruntled politicians who had fallen out of grace with their masters.

I personally do not agree with the pub culture of the college girls and the likes. Things are indeed getting very far. I know of a case when a girl threatened her father with molestation case if he did not allow her to marry her boy friend.

Having said that, I would not arrogate myself the role of a moral police to go and punish such delinquent people, in the name of culture.

If such tendency is allowed to rear its head, we will not be very far from the concept of 'honour killing' that is prevalent in the land of the pure.