You got that right. The role of the judiciary is simple- to interpret the laws enacted by the parliament. The objective of the SMA was to allow inter-faith and to some extent inter-caste marriage as well and it has been designed in such a manner. It can either declare it unconstitutional and take us all the way back to 1947 or uphold its legality but even while doing so it cannot be extended to included queer couples by any stretch of imagination.
Here's an excellent counter: Rewriting the law in favour of gay marriages may win a judge a TIME 100 mention, realms of favourable coverage in NYT and some Harvard prize (funded by George Soros).
(until it all falls apart when the judge rules in favour of the UCC or holds that Gyanvapi sits atop a demolished temple 🤣 )
vishakha guidelinesprocedure for appointment of election commissioner.
but the fact is courts should not make laws, they don't represent people, they have no accountability.
living in a country where courts make law is like living in a monarchy. They are not accountable, you can't question them (contempt of court), you can't remove them.
Courts can strike down the provision and direct the executive to make laws that conform with the right to equality among others. Instead of striking down SMA, the court could have given the executive time to frame laws and replace the SMA, thereby taking away the gendered law.
This is not just about SMA, almost all gender laws should be removed!
I’m sorry all gender laws ? No protection for women from rape and sexual assault and dowry deaths then ? No reservations for women then ? Or are you gonna destablilise the concept of women too ? This kind of anarchic nonsense is why a lot of people are scared to give an inch.
I think he's saying men should be given protection from rape/assault too and not just women? Which kind of makes sense. Reservation would be a different argument altogether. I agree that it is currently necessary in our socio economic context.
Why ? Do we have any proof at all that this is a common problem ? Women raping men ? Don’t tell me about some video you saw on the internet - stats - where’s the proof ? Women had to prove that it was a problem - Over and over again. They have to prove it’s a problem to have their complaints taken seriously. So I’m not holding men up to a double standard or an impossible standard.
Men raping men exists - that’s why we have an anti sodomy law. Can still use it if they’re forced into non consent stuff by other men.
Dowry deaths ? Do men get protection there ? What about acid attacks ? Stalking and voeuyrism and harassment ? What about anti discrimination stuff at workplaces ? Should men get maternity leave ? Should they get menstrual leave ? Should men be in lactation rooms ? How much of its welfare resources dedicated to programmes on women should the state spend on men?
Why do you think men are underprivileged by the patriarchy ? Does the empirical evidence prove it ? Or do you just not want to hurt their precious feelings ?
We have laws like this because we have sex based oppression.
For a law against a crime to be created, it does not have to be shown that a large number of people are affected by the crime. Even if the number is small, and they don't have a legal recourse, then a law is needed. There are several incidents where allegations of men having been raped and sexually assaulted by men and women have been raised. If you wish to discount all those as "Internet videos", then that's your prerogative, but that does not make you a particularly nice person or a good lawyer. The anti-sodomy law cannot and does not protect against all instances and types of sexual assault.
How does this matter get connected to the rest of the issues that you spoke of I do not know. There are problems that exclusively affect women. Such as dowry deaths. Creating exclusive laws for those has got no bearing with this. As for your talk about men getting menstrual leave or maternity leave, there did not seem to be any point in it to respond to. I for one would like for men to have paternity leave, because that is meant to pass the message that looking after the child is the responsibility of both the mother and the father.
I do not wish to go ad hominem, so I'll stop here. My only point is that there is nothing in feminism that prevents an anti-rape law to be made where men can be considered as victims of such heinous crime and not only perpetrators. If you believe that there is no such incident happening, then no case will be filed under such law. Not considering that men can be victims of sexual offences is actually patriarchal, last time I checked.
Nah . You’re just in a liberal feminist circle jerk. The point I was clearly trying to make is that men and women are treated differently in society. That’s why we have gendered laws. The reason we have gendered family laws is because men and women are treated differently. Doing away with that stuff would harm women. Those protections include age, gendered maintenance , adoption, divorce laws , protections against domestic violence, protections against incest and prohibited relationships. Doing away with gendered laws would hurt women.
So women have to prove that assault happens over and over and have to do a whole me too thing and still not really get rape law that works for them - but anecdotal evidence is enough to start jailing women at mens behest ? That seems like feminism to you ?
Whoever told you women have to be nice has done patriarchal programming well. Women are allowed to be angry and resentful of their oppressors. It doesn’t decrease their moral worth and it doesn’t make them less rational. Women don’t have to be nice any more than men do. I’d rather be right than nice anyway.
When men do a me too - we can talk about lifting gendered protections on women. It’s just wrong to claim that one doesn’t need to prove empirical truths to move for law reform. Like the world doesn’t revolve around your feelings. Women have proved that rape happens time and time and time again. And they still have to prove it in court with impeccable evidence instead of being taken at their word. Putting people in prison is an awesome exercise of state power - not something we should do because of mens feelings.
Women fight for generations to get maternity leave because passing another human through a key hole feeding them from your body and then taking care of them so they don’t choke on their spit and die should not make them lose their jobs. And men should just get paternity leave because hey - maybe if we do that then they might become contributing members of the house hold ? Let’s assume they’ll be their best selves despite everything we know about how men behave and gendered division of labour in households ? That doesn’t smack of double standards to you?
You’re not making laws for Sweden - you’re making laws for this country. It has to be influenced by empirical evidence for this country.
You not going ad hominem is a a good way to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you - but it doesn’t make me less moral than you because I haven’t gone ad hominem either.
You have gone ad hominem plenty of times. It is just that you like to think of yourself as not having done so.
The examples of protection that you gave has got no bearing whatsoever to allowing anti-rape laws for men. So your continuous claim of being right is just that, a false claim. You wear not being nice as a kind of badge, but it only makes you a jerk and does not add any value to your arguments at all. Nor are you right at all for the reason already stated.
You made a colossal assumption of the anti-rape laws involving women being jailed at men's behest. That really makes your entire argument biased, coloured and illogical. Unless you are habituated at seeing men being jailed without due process at women's behest because of the existing rape laws.
Women had to prove rape happens again and again before getting rape laws that they want? How did they prove anything at all until the laws were in place? Of course the laws are not perfect and there should be a continuous struggle to make them better. What you are saying that until those laws are perfected, nobody else should get any law at all, which is a rubbish argument.
Nobody taught me that only women have to be nice. Being a nice human being is actually something for every educated individual to strive for. You being a lousy person does not make you a better feminist or even a right one.
You keep contradicting yourself in your own statements. Women have to prove it before court beyond reasonable doubt before they get justice, but men won't have to because their word will be taken as gospel truth? Claims like this only prove your ignorance about how the legal process works.
As for paternity leave, your entire argument seems to be based on depriving others of something that you won after a struggle. That's not really how progress works. Going by that logic, for winning every step of progressive legislation, you would have to go through the same struggle that women have had to go through to win suffrage. Early struggles ought to make the lives of subsequent society better, it's not a rite of passage as you claim rather sadistically. If you don't give paternity leave, then the women would also be the ones who would be adversely affected by it, since the men would therefore have no choice other than to leave child rearing entirely to the women, even those men who actually want to help. How does depriving men of paternity leave help women get more rights or make their condition any better is a question to which only your fertile imagination may produce any answer. You seem to treat maternity leave as something that will be reduced when paternity leave will be given. Which is mind-boggling in terms of ignorance. If you are offended at the thought of men getting leaves for of a child, because women had to wait so long to get that, then that's just frustration speaking, because logically speaking, men have had to wait longer and the wait is still going on. People who don't want to contribute to the household won't do so regardless of whether leaves are given or not. People who actually want to won't be able to do so unless they are given leaves. You should reexamine your sense of logic if you don't get that.
You keep trying to talk about additional protection for women and conflate it with anti-rape laws. One wonders why because nobody claimed that these protections should be done away with. Which part of this additional protection of the examples that you have given would be in conflict with such law exactly? Or do you want additional protection for people who may commit such crimes? That's the same double standard that you glibly accuse others of. Throughout your supposed argument, you merely come across as a rabid individual, whose only point is that you have had to earn rights through struggle, so why should anybody else get similar rights without a struggle that's deemed acceptable by you? Even if it means that women would also be the ones losing out in the process like your claim about paternity leave showed. People like you are the reason feminism gets a bad name and also the reason why rights that might otherwise have been won with logical arguments become increasingly difficult to be attained. There is no use engaging with you because you look at everything through your jaundiced narrative regardless of whether it fits or not.
Where exactly is the ad hominem? I dont see it. You keep saying im not right but you produce no argument what so ever to back up that claim. And this last response is just- sorry to say- incomprehensible rage drivel- I will try and make sense of it the best I can but youve lost the ability to make a coherent argument my dude. Take a nap.
Ive explained my reasoning perfectly clearly. I do see dalit men being jailed for no reason at the behest of savarna women yes. I think that's awful and it should stop. But women as a sex class have proven again and again that this happens to them. How did they prove it when theres no law? The illegality of rape is not what makes it objectionable! If rape laws didnt exist women would still be able to tell you that they've been raped. your brain got fried or something?
Women proved it historically through the wounds and bruises on their bodies, the bitten-off flesh, the torn away insides. They proved it through unwanted babies having abortions in back alleys, they proved it through medical testing when they were lucky and death. there are thousands of dead women to prove- this is a violence at affects this sex class. Thats not rubbish like you think it is.
I'm afraid progress doesn't mean we stop asking for empirical evidence from people when we want to make criminal law. I can invent a crime tomorrow and throw my inconvenient wife/girlfriend/ side chick in jail tomorrow? yes please. Like I said- men who are raped by men have a sodomy law that covers non-consensual acts. There is no empirical proof that women rape men as a society wide pattern. The fact that you think its hateful to ask for that proof before we make a law- should tell you how keen judges and juries would be to throw women into jail given the chance.
Im not bigoted for pointing out that society distrusts women and believes men. Centuries of rape cases prove just that.
Why do men getting paternity leave affect women? Well the government only has so many resources. We dont live in a world of magic. Companies only have so much money. If they have to grant paternity leaves so the dude can sit at home, change a diaper maybe once a day and ask his wife to make him coffee/ lunch/ dinner whatever- then that money is gonna come from somewhere- its gonna come from money set out for maternity leave. these resources are finite. they wont simply increase the corpus when they go gender neutral. I'd rather we do more for women who actually do- empirically- take care of infants. Than make weak policies hoping that men will be on their best behaviour and take care of their babies. "People who dont want to contribute" Which people are those? Are they not negligent fathers? lots of women bragging about changing a diaper once in a whilfe after giving birth? Or are they in fact the primary care giver of the child? If the negligent fathers will be negligent anyway why should we spend money on them and enable them to not contribute by working at home or at the office? Why is that a good strategy? Where is the movement of fathers who want to take care of their babies? I really don't see it. There are some good fathers but as a sex class in this country- the average indian uncle barely lifts a finger to take care of a new born. People who actually want to take care of their babies will do so regardless- fathers arent physically destroyed by childbirth, they dont have to breastfeed- theyre fine- this is should not be the priority of any feminist movement. We do criminally little for mothers as is- Id rather we spend our time and resources there.
Why are anti rape laws and laws about protecting women in family law and all of that connected? Because they take into account sex based oppression! What about this is confusing to you? Women would not lose out on much if you didnt give paternity leave- Youre assuming that based on nothing- based on men saying "gee honey I wish I could help but I gotta go to work" and then take off and go to the gambling den and spend his time and money on his vices.
When you want to make all laws gender netural- which is the claim i was responding to- you are then gonna take away rights for the female sex. the additional protections we get because we are oppressed as a sex class. this is not rocket science.
People like me are the reason feminism exists- because the thought of there being sex-based oppression and violence and the thought of standing up for women- doesn't make us so uncomfortable that we have to scream out "What about men poor woobies". We're not pick mes. We are able to look at the sex based oppression squarely and advocate for real victims. If people like me did not exist- you would have a feminism thats just about mens rights. I dont really care if you call me rabid or if men call me rabid or insane or a witch. I dont seek to appease my oppressors, i seek to defeat them.
You see only Dalit men getting jailed on the say so of Savarna women, I see plenty of Savarna men getting jailed on the behest of Savarna women because of false 498A cases. Despite such empirical evidence, I don't claim for abolition of 498A, because that law is still necessary. You are just using rhetoric to substitute logic and didn't address any of the arguments made on their merit. You have made it clear that in your opinion men only seek leave to go to den of vices. After comments like that, your comments and perspective lack any further credibility. By the way, which empirical study revealed that exactly? In the name of feminism, if you want to practice misandry, that's on you. The law doesn't really work like that. Arguments like yours still continue to be one of the reasons why you still don't have the rape laws that you want. Case in point, the latest Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage.
there we go- the mens rights activist finally comes out. Cause in a country where there is a widespread practice of dowry domestic violence against women doesnt happen. women just make it up no. Good for you man. You dont get to tell me what feminism is when you think married women arent treated cruelly in our society. I agree with what the court did on same sex marriage. and despite what you guys want- we will get the rape laws we want. Our wounds are our witnesses.
You only read phrases and full sentences. There you go, your shortcomings are getting revealed with every passing comment. You would read a phrase and then twist it to fit your narrative even though it's a poor fit. Or did your eagle eyes miss the part where he mentioned that 498A is still necessary? I would have thought that you lack comprehension, but the truth is that you are just doing this because you don't have a single logical argument in your support. Pithy phrases like our wounds etc mean nothing. You and your rant are both so off the mark that neither is nor will ever be effective and it's clear to everyone that your legal knowledge is deficient though you have read all the pamphlets that sustains your pseudo-cause. You don't represent any marginalised group, merely pretend to do so, and you don't really want any progress or positive change to be made. Keep hating and keep fuming.
Ah yes, the wonderful way in which he told everyone he thought women lied as a societal trend about domestic violence and cruelty- and then decided so benevolently to let us keep the laws we fought tooth and nail for. How stupid of me to not buy right into that nonsense and notice a pattern of misogyny evident in that argument!
Its not a pithy phrase you idiot- its referring to a very material reality of what women go through. Rape kits dont contain argumentative props- they contain very real evidence of the oppression that women go through. Not everything is a debating tactic. You are just going ad hominem because you do not have the truth on your side and nor do you have any argument on your side. So all you can do is say that im ranting and crazy and mad and hateful and all this other nonsense. I dare you to point out where Ive engaged in ad hominem. No one here represents anyone else but themselves. You don't represent women either. Women are more than capable of speaking for themselves- and this particular woman is. You dont seem to understand that marginalisation should be based in material reality and not in imagined word magic.
You think you know what progress is and what positive change is. Progress has never been made by the people who deny material realities and never been made by people who prioritise "positivity" and feelings over facts. I will keep fighting. Thanks!
It's not what he thinks, there have been multiple examples of false 498A cases and that's a fact. It does not mean that most women do it, which is why he said that 498A should still exist. You not being able to comprehend others' arguments is nobody's fault other than your own. Everything is not debating tactic, that's true, because yours is not even that, just rant and trying to twist everything into your narrative without a shred of logic. Keep fighting, but you are not going to win anything this way, because your efforts don't deserve that.
To the person advocating continued reliance on laws offering special protection to women,
It is unlikely that most people here would understand or appreciate what you are saying and have gone through and/or are still going through. It is similar to (though different in more ways than one) the reservation debate. I cannot say that I fully understand the troubles that women in this country and society have to undergo every step of the way (though I do and always will keep trying to learn), but I have gone through several kinds of experience to learn why such protection is still very much the need of the day. Despite many of those protections having been there for quite some time, their effect is barely visible in the larger society. I don't even know where to begin about the efficacy of the existing rape laws, or the lack thereof. There is just no comparison between the two genders in the kind of treatment that they receive in society, daily lives, career. See, I don't know whether anything I write here will be of any help at all. However, I just wanted you to know that you don't have to fight this war all by yourself, there are allies outside your gender who stand firmly beside you. I don't have to approve of your every word, every piece of argument, every precedent cited, because it is not anyone's place including mine to stand in judgement of the way you choose to fight. The cause that you are fighting for is good enough to keep supporting, that's all. Change rarely arrives in a pretty fashion, nor does it have to.
I'm sure there are men who know the reality of what women go through in this country today. I like and admire many individual men and feminism is incredibly optimistic because it assumes that we can teach our sons to be better than our oppressors. I'm not actually a misandrist- I just think that societal trends are what they are and we cannot let exceptions make the rule no matter how much we might want to believe in the goodness of people.
You seem to be assuming that women won't lose out much if paternal leaves aren't given. Who made you the spokesperson for such assumptions and which study are you citing to justify that? Or don't your opinions need to be based on empirical evidence?
Sure. Please go and look on google scholar to see unpaid work done by women in household, and gendered division of child care, and while youre at it look at what happened to trends in division of household labour during the pandemic- hint- it got worse for women not better when the men were "working from home".
Aside from that- a generally good principle of debate is that the person making the assertion needs to prove it- if you make the assertion that gender-neutral parental leave would help women- you need to provide convincing proof of the same.
No one has made anyone the spokesperson here. Who made you spokesperson for women? Should we all shut up until official spokespersons are elected? Its up to people to generally support the point of view that aligns with their interests.
So bad arguments! Are you equating work from home with parental leaves? If so, you need to read more and get your sense of logic reinstalled. As for the other examples, please cite a study that has been conducted in a jurisdiction where men have to take compulsory paternity leave. There is not one. How exactly does one prove that something will help before the actual condition exists? Reproduce it in the lab? Matlab kuchh bhi! And no, you don't have to shut up, just curb your practice of assuming that you speak for an entire community.
The argument should be- hetereosexual and homosexual citizens have different rights available to them when they are partnered. Any discrimination on that basis- by state actors- should be unconstitutional- That limited claim would have made it through.Insurance companies cannot discriminate against same sex partners, neither can hospitals or housing policies or adoption agencies. Marriage is more than those rights- its social recognition which the court cannot give. And attacking the SMA as being unconstitutional was silly when the SMA was created to allow for intercaste and interfaith marriages.
There was definitely a more conservative claim that could be made- but 20 petitions all went overboard wanting everything and not considering that we do have very gendered laws in this country because we live in a very patriarchal society which puts women at a disadvantage. Who gets maintenance in a same sex relationship? who can be charged under 498 A? what happens to prohibited relationships? All of that needs to be worked out if you want marriage- and thats something no court can legitimately parse through. We will need a UCC to have same sex marriage become a reality.
UCC is not necessary per se, amendments to the SMA will suffice - but I agree that the petitioners strategised this v poorly. Going to the SC at first instance, and mounting a wholesale attack instead of chipping away piecemeal. For instance the challenge to Adoption Regulations would've probably succeeded on its own, it collapsed under the weight of the SMA baggage.
There isn't a good counter to this but imo it really doesn't matter. The simplest solution is for the court to say "Look, we will strike the SMA unless you amend it to include homosexual marriages". This flows from Article 13: laws infringing fundamental rights are void. If denial of same sex marriage infringes art 14 and it's an underinclusiveness problem where the right to same sex marriage can't be read in, the textual answer is to strike down the statute (Of course, the court can invoke art 142 to give the government time to amend the statue if it is so agreeable). The whole "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" line is bullshit. It essentially means that the court can't anything about underinclusiveness claims under art 14 which would make comparative review under art 14 a dead letter. The SC needs to grow a pair of balls (like the SCOTUS).
(until it all falls apart when the judge rules in favour of the UCC or holds that Gyanvapi sits atop a demolished temple 🤣 )
vishakha guidelinesprocedure for appointment of election commissioner.
but the fact is courts should not make laws, they don't represent people, they have no accountability.
living in a country where courts make law is like living in a monarchy. They are not accountable, you can't question them (contempt of court), you can't remove them.
“Think before you speak. Read before you think.” —Fran Lebowitz
This is not just about SMA, almost all gender laws should be removed!
Men raping men exists - that’s why we have an anti sodomy law. Can still use it if they’re forced into non consent stuff by other men.
Dowry deaths ? Do men get protection there ? What about acid attacks ? Stalking and voeuyrism and harassment ? What about anti discrimination stuff at workplaces ? Should men get maternity leave ? Should they get menstrual leave ? Should men be in lactation rooms ? How much of its welfare resources dedicated to programmes on women should the state spend on men?
Why do you think men are underprivileged by the patriarchy ? Does the empirical evidence prove it ? Or do you just not want to hurt their precious feelings ?
We have laws like this because we have sex based oppression.
How does this matter get connected to the rest of the issues that you spoke of I do not know. There are problems that exclusively affect women. Such as dowry deaths. Creating exclusive laws for those has got no bearing with this. As for your talk about men getting menstrual leave or maternity leave, there did not seem to be any point in it to respond to. I for one would like for men to have paternity leave, because that is meant to pass the message that looking after the child is the responsibility of both the mother and the father.
I do not wish to go ad hominem, so I'll stop here. My only point is that there is nothing in feminism that prevents an anti-rape law to be made where men can be considered as victims of such heinous crime and not only perpetrators. If you believe that there is no such incident happening, then no case will be filed under such law. Not considering that men can be victims of sexual offences is actually patriarchal, last time I checked.
So women have to prove that assault happens over and over and have to do a whole me too thing and still not really get rape law that works for them - but anecdotal evidence is enough to start jailing women at mens behest ? That seems like feminism to you ?
Whoever told you women have to be nice has done patriarchal programming well. Women are allowed to be angry and resentful of their oppressors. It doesn’t decrease their moral worth and it doesn’t make them less rational. Women don’t have to be nice any more than men do. I’d rather be right than nice anyway.
When men do a me too - we can talk about lifting gendered protections on women. It’s just wrong to claim that one doesn’t need to prove empirical truths to move for law reform. Like the world doesn’t revolve around your feelings. Women have proved that rape happens time and time and time again. And they still have to prove it in court with impeccable evidence instead of being taken at their word. Putting people in prison is an awesome exercise of state power - not something we should do because of mens feelings.
Women fight for generations to get maternity leave because passing another human through a key hole feeding them from your body and then taking care of them so they don’t choke on their spit and die should not make them lose their jobs. And men should just get paternity leave because hey - maybe if we do that then they might become contributing members of the house hold ? Let’s assume they’ll be their best selves despite everything we know about how men behave and gendered division of labour in households ? That doesn’t smack of double standards to you?
You’re not making laws for Sweden - you’re making laws for this country. It has to be influenced by empirical evidence for this country.
You not going ad hominem is a a good way to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you - but it doesn’t make me less moral than you because I haven’t gone ad hominem either.
The examples of protection that you gave has got no bearing whatsoever to allowing anti-rape laws for men. So your continuous claim of being right is just that, a false claim. You wear not being nice as a kind of badge, but it only makes you a jerk and does not add any value to your arguments at all. Nor are you right at all for the reason already stated.
You made a colossal assumption of the anti-rape laws involving women being jailed at men's behest. That really makes your entire argument biased, coloured and illogical. Unless you are habituated at seeing men being jailed without due process at women's behest because of the existing rape laws.
Women had to prove rape happens again and again before getting rape laws that they want? How did they prove anything at all until the laws were in place? Of course the laws are not perfect and there should be a continuous struggle to make them better. What you are saying that until those laws are perfected, nobody else should get any law at all, which is a rubbish argument.
Nobody taught me that only women have to be nice. Being a nice human being is actually something for every educated individual to strive for. You being a lousy person does not make you a better feminist or even a right one.
You keep contradicting yourself in your own statements. Women have to prove it before court beyond reasonable doubt before they get justice, but men won't have to because their word will be taken as gospel truth? Claims like this only prove your ignorance about how the legal process works.
As for paternity leave, your entire argument seems to be based on depriving others of something that you won after a struggle. That's not really how progress works. Going by that logic, for winning every step of progressive legislation, you would have to go through the same struggle that women have had to go through to win suffrage. Early struggles ought to make the lives of subsequent society better, it's not a rite of passage as you claim rather sadistically. If you don't give paternity leave, then the women would also be the ones who would be adversely affected by it, since the men would therefore have no choice other than to leave child rearing entirely to the women, even those men who actually want to help. How does depriving men of paternity leave help women get more rights or make their condition any better is a question to which only your fertile imagination may produce any answer. You seem to treat maternity leave as something that will be reduced when paternity leave will be given. Which is mind-boggling in terms of ignorance. If you are offended at the thought of men getting leaves for of a child, because women had to wait so long to get that, then that's just frustration speaking, because logically speaking, men have had to wait longer and the wait is still going on. People who don't want to contribute to the household won't do so regardless of whether leaves are given or not. People who actually want to won't be able to do so unless they are given leaves. You should reexamine your sense of logic if you don't get that.
You keep trying to talk about additional protection for women and conflate it with anti-rape laws. One wonders why because nobody claimed that these protections should be done away with. Which part of this additional protection of the examples that you have given would be in conflict with such law exactly? Or do you want additional protection for people who may commit such crimes? That's the same double standard that you glibly accuse others of. Throughout your supposed argument, you merely come across as a rabid individual, whose only point is that you have had to earn rights through struggle, so why should anybody else get similar rights without a struggle that's deemed acceptable by you? Even if it means that women would also be the ones losing out in the process like your claim about paternity leave showed. People like you are the reason feminism gets a bad name and also the reason why rights that might otherwise have been won with logical arguments become increasingly difficult to be attained. There is no use engaging with you because you look at everything through your jaundiced narrative regardless of whether it fits or not.
Ive explained my reasoning perfectly clearly. I do see dalit men being jailed for no reason at the behest of savarna women yes. I think that's awful and it should stop. But women as a sex class have proven again and again that this happens to them. How did they prove it when theres no law? The illegality of rape is not what makes it objectionable! If rape laws didnt exist women would still be able to tell you that they've been raped. your brain got fried or something?
Women proved it historically through the wounds and bruises on their bodies, the bitten-off flesh, the torn away insides. They proved it through unwanted babies having abortions in back alleys, they proved it through medical testing when they were lucky and death. there are thousands of dead women to prove- this is a violence at affects this sex class. Thats not rubbish like you think it is.
I'm afraid progress doesn't mean we stop asking for empirical evidence from people when we want to make criminal law. I can invent a crime tomorrow and throw my inconvenient wife/girlfriend/ side chick in jail tomorrow? yes please. Like I said- men who are raped by men have a sodomy law that covers non-consensual acts. There is no empirical proof that women rape men as a society wide pattern. The fact that you think its hateful to ask for that proof before we make a law- should tell you how keen judges and juries would be to throw women into jail given the chance.
Im not bigoted for pointing out that society distrusts women and believes men. Centuries of rape cases prove just that.
Why do men getting paternity leave affect women? Well the government only has so many resources. We dont live in a world of magic. Companies only have so much money. If they have to grant paternity leaves so the dude can sit at home, change a diaper maybe once a day and ask his wife to make him coffee/ lunch/ dinner whatever- then that money is gonna come from somewhere- its gonna come from money set out for maternity leave. these resources are finite. they wont simply increase the corpus when they go gender neutral. I'd rather we do more for women who actually do- empirically- take care of infants. Than make weak policies hoping that men will be on their best behaviour and take care of their babies. "People who dont want to contribute" Which people are those? Are they not negligent fathers? lots of women bragging about changing a diaper once in a whilfe after giving birth? Or are they in fact the primary care giver of the child? If the negligent fathers will be negligent anyway why should we spend money on them and enable them to not contribute by working at home or at the office? Why is that a good strategy? Where is the movement of fathers who want to take care of their babies? I really don't see it. There are some good fathers but as a sex class in this country- the average indian uncle barely lifts a finger to take care of a new born.
People who actually want to take care of their babies will do so regardless- fathers arent physically destroyed by childbirth, they dont have to breastfeed- theyre fine- this is should not be the priority of any feminist movement. We do criminally little for mothers as is- Id rather we spend our time and resources there.
Why are anti rape laws and laws about protecting women in family law and all of that connected? Because they take into account sex based oppression! What about this is confusing to you? Women would not lose out on much if you didnt give paternity leave- Youre assuming that based on nothing- based on men saying "gee honey I wish I could help but I gotta go to work" and then take off and go to the gambling den and spend his time and money on his vices.
When you want to make all laws gender netural- which is the claim i was responding to- you are then gonna take away rights for the female sex. the additional protections we get because we are oppressed as a sex class. this is not rocket science.
People like me are the reason feminism exists- because the thought of there being sex-based oppression and violence and the thought of standing up for women- doesn't make us so uncomfortable that we have to scream out "What about men poor woobies". We're not pick mes. We are able to look at the sex based oppression squarely and advocate for real victims. If people like me did not exist- you would have a feminism thats just about mens rights. I dont really care if you call me rabid or if men call me rabid or insane or a witch. I dont seek to appease my oppressors, i seek to defeat them.
Its not a pithy phrase you idiot- its referring to a very material reality of what women go through. Rape kits dont contain argumentative props- they contain very real evidence of the oppression that women go through. Not everything is a debating tactic. You are just going ad hominem because you do not have the truth on your side and nor do you have any argument on your side. So all you can do is say that im ranting and crazy and mad and hateful and all this other nonsense. I dare you to point out where Ive engaged in ad hominem. No one here represents anyone else but themselves. You don't represent women either. Women are more than capable of speaking for themselves- and this particular woman is. You dont seem to understand that marginalisation should be based in material reality and not in imagined word magic.
You think you know what progress is and what positive change is. Progress has never been made by the people who deny material realities and never been made by people who prioritise "positivity" and feelings over facts. I will keep fighting. Thanks!
It is unlikely that most people here would understand or appreciate what you are saying and have gone through and/or are still going through. It is similar to (though different in more ways than one) the reservation debate. I cannot say that I fully understand the troubles that women in this country and society have to undergo every step of the way (though I do and always will keep trying to learn), but I have gone through several kinds of experience to learn why such protection is still very much the need of the day. Despite many of those protections having been there for quite some time, their effect is barely visible in the larger society. I don't even know where to begin about the efficacy of the existing rape laws, or the lack thereof. There is just no comparison between the two genders in the kind of treatment that they receive in society, daily lives, career. See, I don't know whether anything I write here will be of any help at all. However, I just wanted you to know that you don't have to fight this war all by yourself, there are allies outside your gender who stand firmly beside you. I don't have to approve of your every word, every piece of argument, every precedent cited, because it is not anyone's place including mine to stand in judgement of the way you choose to fight. The cause that you are fighting for is good enough to keep supporting, that's all. Change rarely arrives in a pretty fashion, nor does it have to.
Aside from that- a generally good principle of debate is that the person making the assertion needs to prove it- if you make the assertion that gender-neutral parental leave would help women- you need to provide convincing proof of the same.
No one has made anyone the spokesperson here. Who made you spokesperson for women? Should we all shut up until official spokespersons are elected? Its up to people to generally support the point of view that aligns with their interests.
There was definitely a more conservative claim that could be made- but 20 petitions all went overboard wanting everything and not considering that we do have very gendered laws in this country because we live in a very patriarchal society which puts women at a disadvantage. Who gets maintenance in a same sex relationship? who can be charged under 498 A? what happens to prohibited relationships? All of that needs to be worked out if you want marriage- and thats something no court can legitimately parse through. We will need a UCC to have same sex marriage become a reality.