Deepak dot com

I wish you a Satisfied Women’s Day.

And if you thought this post would continue in the same tone (and are still thinking), pappu lo kalu vesinatle (a phrase in Telugu used to convey “you are mistaken” in a humorous way, the literal meaning being “have (mis-)landed one’s foot into dal“). I am taking tomorrow’s International Women’s Day as an opportunity to vomit out my outrage against pseudo-feminism, which is vast prevailing in the society. I said pseudo-feminism “just” because expressing outrage-against-feminism would make one a male chauvinist pig (That is the sad state of the society. Also, I haven’t heard any similar name to an extreme feminist). Also, the adjective pseudo is redundant, since current society’s practice of feminism is mostly pseudo.

Before continuing, I also want to, for the purpose of record, iterate that I am not against true-feminism. I feel sorry for all the women who fall victim to male domination. Life of both men and women was painful and insecure till the Middle Age: Men died in war, women ended up as war victims. Then during and post industrialization era, lives of men became more secure but the social and religious situations didn’t give enough freedom to women. Till early 1900s, even US’s society didn’t provide a free life to woman. And even today, there are many countries which don’t provide equal privileges to women. But at the same time, many countries/societies have over time, given undue privileges to women.

Definitions from wiki:

Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women.

Masculism (also referred to as masculinism) consists of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies primarily based on the experiences of men. Although masculism provides a general critique of social relations, many of its active proponents also seek to analyze gender inequality and promote men’s rights, interests, and issues.

The practice of Masculism itself reflects the fact that Feminism has resulted in some form of discrimination against men (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Masculism). There are things that one is not supposed to speak. I am daring to do it: In my experience, the average case is that a feminist makes/demands more one-sided statements/privileges, than a masculist. The privileges that are supposed to uplift women who are discriminated because of various reasons like social, religious etc, cause more people to suffer than those benefited. The sense of independence portrayed by women is sometimes not true independence. I find presence of hypocracy here: Trying to act independent while the reality is otherwise.

In India, there is 33% reservation for women, and if women are equal to men, why reservation? All the feminists out there, if you think you are equal to men (which I neither object nor accept, “just” because I want to be politically correct), dont avail this facility.

Even public transportation in some areas of India (may be all areas) provide reserved seats for women. A true-feminist would not avail this facility. Worse, the buses in Andhra Pradesh have this written: “Respecting women is our culture. Let them sit in the seats allotted to them”. I thought respecting “people” was our culture, but they say I was wrong. It’s not rare to see two double seats occupied singly by two women, and at least one male standing. (In most parts of India, you don’t go and sit beside a stranger of opposite gender)

In many situations, women can bypass rules or have special instantaneously made up privileges just because they are women. If you closely observe, such privileges arise out of the sympathy toward women, and it looks to be saying that women are incapable of living life the hard way. If you think you are a tough woman, don’t avail any such privilege.

Speaking of laws, there are tonne of laws, both Indian and International, which are made up as a result of some single instances of peculiar cases. The argument would be “to avoid such things in future”. So even if people who suffer as a side effect, versus people benefited as a measure of avoiding similar incidents, turns out the be 10000:1, it doesn’t matter to the well experienced judges sitting in the Supreme Court of India. I don’t know (and if yes, please let me know) whether this would count as a crime under any IPC section, but I wouldn’t hesitate to make a statement that the law makers (Not to be confused as public representatives. They are a different story) often do a bad job and end up making dumb decisions, especially when it comes to issues related to women. Probabilistic and cause-effect analysis on social conditions is lacking. Of course there are also situations when the Supreme Court of India passed fruitful orders based on public interest petitions against unfair corporate practices.

I think you get the general idea. One who claims to be a feminist (see definition above) should not only demand equality on issues unfavorable against women, but also at the same time reject lioness share of privileges in issues favorable towards women. I think this is a fair demand.

Some related reading:
http://falcus007.blogspot.com/2005/10/pseudo-feminism.html (This guys headline is interesting and matches with my views: If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention)
http://members.tripod.com/antibjp/events/wbill.html
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/quest/200204/stories/2002041303070200.htm
http://indianmen.wordpress.com/2006/12/19/womens-rights/ (Very lengthy, havent read it myself)

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 8th, 2008 at 4:44 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.