Feminists have spent decades trying to get equal pay and rights for women. But while, in the West at least, discrimination against women is rigorously challenged, a growing band of men’s rights activists say no such protection is afforded to men.

Many of these activists also believe that the media allow women to objectify and ridicule men in a way that would be unthinkable if the gender roles were reversed. A new book argues that on a whole range of fronts – from government, the courts and schools – men are being discriminated against.

David Benatar, head of philosophy at the University of Cape Town, argues in his polemic The Second Sexism that across the world men are more likely to be conscripted into the military, be victims of violence, lose custody of their children, and take their own lives.

Custody law is perhaps the best-known area of men’s rights activism, with images of divorced fathers scaling buildings in Batman suits familiar in the UK.

Benatar asserts that in most parts of the world custody rights cases are stacked firmly against men. “When the man is the primary care-giver his chances of winning custody are lower than when the woman is the primary care-giver.

“Even when the case is not contested by the mother, he’s still not as likely to get custody as when the woman’s claim is uncontested.”

Education is another area where men are falling behind, the activists note. Tests in 2009 by the Programme for International Student Assessment showed that boys lagged a year behind girls at reading in every industrialised country. And women now make up the majority of undergraduates, Benatar says.

“When women are underrepresented as CEOs of companies that is deemed discrimination. But when boys are falling behind at school, when 90% of people in prison are male, there’s never any thought given to whether men are discriminated against.”

If sexual equality is to be achieved then male discrimination must be taken as seriously as sexism against women, he argues.

Equal pay is the barometer in developed countries like the UK. According to the Office for National Statistics, the gender pay gap is still pronounced within professions. Women earn on average £8,000 less than a man as lawyers, £14,000 less as a CEO and £9,000 less as a doctor.

But the picture may be changing. Last year the the Universities and Colleges Admission Service discovered that women aged 22-29 have overtaken men on pay for the first time. And a survey for the Chartered Management Institute found that female managers in their 20s were earning 2.1% more than their male counterparts.

Such controversies are feeding a sense that men need to set up their own support structures. The Men’s Network, a charity in Brighton, aims to help “every man and boy in our city to fulfil his greatest potential”.

Movember, a campaign in which men grow facial hair for a month, taps into a feeling among some men that male diseases like prostate and testicular cancer are not taken as seriously as women’s.

As the old certainties break down, a masculinist movement claims men need their own equivalent to feminists.

Aoirthoir An Broc, founder of the International Association of Masculinists, says there are thousands of male activists in India fighting the country’s unequal divorce laws.

An Broc, a web designer in Cleveland, Ohio, is planning to set up the first domestic violence shelter in the US for male victims. He says there’s an assumption that women are always innocent and men the aggressor. In response he’s coined the term “all men are good” to counter the negative perception.

“We say that all men are men, all men are good, all men are worthy of love and respect regardless of race, sexuality, religion. We don’t believe in cultural definitions of men.”

There’s a cultural context, too. Some of the men’s rights-type concerns echo those of feminists – male body image is a growing issue.

And there are some who feel that while feminism has addressed discrimination against women, outdated attitudes towards men have not been tackled.

Tom Martin gained attention last year after suing the London School of Economics’ gender studies department for sexism.

He says he was radicalised while working as a barman in a club in Soho. “I could see that male customers were being abused at every point,” he says.

Men had to queue and often pay while women got in free. They were goaded by bouncers to leave, while women were treated with respect. But worst of all, he believes they were used by women to buy drinks.

But Martin says it is all about sex.

“Since the pill, women have been told they can and should be having orgasms. And because they haven’t been, they categorise that as men’s fault.”

He concludes that “it’s women’s job to make themselves sexually happy, it’s not a man’s burden.”

The psychologist Oliver James believes men are feeling “sexually threatened”.

Women are no longer reticent about sex or their expectations from a lover. Furthermore they are now more likely to evaluate a man’s sexual performance in public and even deride men who “aren’t particularly imaginative or clever” in bed, he argues.

For feminists the men’s movement is more straightforward. “It’s the same old point that feminism has gone too far,” says Mail on Sunday columnist Suzanne Moore.

The continuing gender pay gap and the fact that men dominate senior positions in public life, show up where the real discrimination is, she argues. There are problems with the way boys are educated but “you can’t make sweeping statements about all men being discriminated against”, she says.

Kat Banyard, author of The Equality Illusion, says men make the mistake of fearing feminism when it offers them liberation from an outdated masculinity. “There’s a belief that feminism is a zero sum game and that men are losing.”

To argue that men are now the victims of the gender struggle is absurd, she says. “For thousands of years women were subjugated as second class citizens. We’ve just started to change that in the last two centuries and there’s a long way to go. The men’s activists are denying history.”

Male rights campaigners have struggled to shed their “cranky” image, argues Tim Samuels, presenter of BBC Radio 5 live’s Men’s Hour.

Most men don’t see themselves as part of a movement, Samuels says. But they do want to talk to each other with a greater emotional complexity than previous generations of men – “even if it’s not like Oprah”.

And whatever one thinks about the spectrum of men’s rights activism, there are important issues, like the fact that young men are three times as likely to die by suicide as young women.

“The men’s movement tends to be dismissed as blokes scaling buildings dressed as superman. Whereas the women’s movement is given credibility,” Samuels says.

Subject:

The International Association of Masculinists’ denounces India’s new gender biased divorce laws.

Introduction:

The International Association of Masculinists‘ ( Masculinists.Net ) is a Men’s Rights Organization serving tens of thousands of Masculinist Activists around the world with more than two thousand in India alone. It provides numerous resources for the Global Community of Masculinists and it is dedicated to creating a world where Men are seen as worthy of kindness, respect and love.

India’s new gender biased divorce laws:

India has just seen tabled before the Cabinet, an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act entitled Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010. This bill sets human rights in India back decades and perhaps hundreds of years. Masculinists spoke against this bill as far back as 2010 informing the Indian Government of the gross degrees of misandry ( hatred of males ) this bill supports. Among the more disgusting forms of misandry this bill would enact we find the following:

1. A wife may oppose a husband’s filing for divorce at any time.

2. A husband is restrained however from opposing his wife’s filling for divorce.

3. Courts are given great freedom to decide that a husband’s property should be granted to his wife, perhaps leaving the husband impoverished. Many Indian courts are corrupt and there have been reports about the Indian Judiciary being incompetent.

4. No such option is granted to provide a wealthier wife’s property to an impoverished husband.

5. The anti-male clause entitled ‘Financial Security of Women’ restrains courts from granting divorce unless adequate moneys are paid to the wife.

6. This creates an unlawful system of Dowry wherein the husband is now paying his wife, something forbidden by Indian law.

7. This law is thoroughly gender biased because specifically ignores all issues of Men’s rights, yet provides special consideration for women’s rights.

The International Association of Masculinists’ has long repudiated gender biased laws which favor one gender over another. The Governing Body of the Association therefore denounces this gender biased and anti-male bill and promises that we will dedicate our resources to expose this corruption, inform our membership globally and encourage our activists to assist their Indian Brothers in confronting this misandry (hatred of males).

Statement of Masculinists.Net to our Indian Brotherhood:

We, The International Association of Masculinists, stand united with you, our Indian Brothers, against this despotic system of gender biased tyranny at the hands of the Indian Government. We stand against and in absolute defiance of misandry in all its forms. These heinous injustices attacking Indian Men, which ignore international practice and human rights, are an attack on all Men globally. Know that we, your brothers, stand unwaveringly with you to see an end to gender biased and misandric laws such as these.

Thank You.

Governing Body of

The International Association of Masculinists

Phone: +1 440.941.4167

Email: masculinists@masculinists.net

Website: masculinists.net

Shri Salman Khurshid

The Honorable Minister for Law and Justice

Sub: – Paying (multiple) maintenance to qualified and empowered women for short marriage must be stopped with immediate effect.

Honorable Minister,

Ordering maintenance to a qualified woman voluntarily, incapacitating herself after a short marriage, just to extract money from her husband is nothing but a judicially imposed system of involuntary servitude wherein one human being is placed within the bondage to another one as long as the maintenance term is ordered. I feel that it is every parent’s responsibility to provide for child support however paying maintenance to qualified women in childless marriages who voluntarily incapacitate themselves must be stopped outright.

Accepting multiple maintenance petitions from wife clearly amounts to “Double Jeopardy”. In Constitution of India and various Acts there is a bar on “Double Jeopardy”.

a) Even our Constitution of India has given protection to every citizen not to be prosecuted twice for the same offence. Article 20(2) of the constitution provides a bar on this.

b) Indian Penal Code (section 71) provides immunity from double jeopardy.

c) General Clauses Act, 1897 section 26 provides immunity from double jeopardy.

d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 section 300 provides immunity from double jeopardy.

The current condition of Indian Women

No matter how much the women’s organizations and women’s ministry want to fictionalize to the world, the sorry state of Indian women (especially wives), the reality is however quite the opposite. India has undergone a sea change as far as the empowerment and earning potential of women are concerned. Women now dominate many fields like Call Centers, BPO’s, Advertising and Media. Women get equal opportunities at workplace and are better educated than men because the cost of educating girls in India is far less than cost of educating boys. Women get free education and also pay lesser taxes for the same amount of salary earned as compared to a man.

Delhi recently registered more female births than male births effectively killing the India female foeticide agenda that was drummed around so far and used as a negotiating bait to draw social concessions for women albeit at the cost of men. Women have special trains and buses for them to make commuting to and from their workplaces easy. They also enjoy reservations at various levels of the government including the now historical recommendation of reserving 33% of all seats in the parliament for women.

The percentage of reservation for women has now been increased to as high as 50% in some cases. While women contribute only 18% of the country’s taxes the Indian government spends over Rs 6800 crores on them annually under the various different heads. Women have a fully functional cabinet ministry and a National Commission for women working just for their needs. Women have over 15 marital laws to protect themselves including about 5 different laws to get maintenance from their husbands. The misuse statistics of some unconstitutional laws Anti Dowry law (IPC 498A) and the Domestic Violence Act of 2005 has been widely known now the world over and is not presented in this letter.

Indian Maintenance laws for women:

Divorce and Maintenance laws in India were created when the majority of women in India were illiterate and no means to earn a living and were totally dependent on their fathers, brothers or husbands for their livelihood. Maintenance laws had the noble intention of ordering the husband to provide separate livelihood expenses for his wife of many years, his children whom he had fathered so that the wife who had never worked before or was uneducated could provide for herself and her children and elk out a decent living.

The current reality in Indian family courts however, is shocking. Extracting maintenance is becoming a cause and motivation for marriage for many women and not an outcome of an unfortunate divorce as the popular perception goes. Women marry so that they can extract money through the various maintenance laws; many times filing simultaneous maintenance cases under various sections. Indian women have access to as many as 5 different laws to get maintenance from their husbands.

• Section 125 of the CrPC: Meant to provide no-fault maintenance to wife from husband.
• Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA): Though gender neutral, is largely used by women to extract maintenance from their husbands in pendency of a divorce. It will not be off the record to mention here that even the judiciary is unpleasantly reluctant to provide maintenance to a man who knocks the doors of courts; having lost employment due to any misfortune, from his wife who can support him.
• Section 25 of the HMA: Meant to provide alimony to women from divorce.
• Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act: Another provision for maintenance to wives.
• Domestic Violence Act: This Act also is used to extort money from the husband under the cute name of maintenance and exhort their properties under the cute name of “Right to Residence”.

Out of these 5 laws only one law is gender neutral, al least on paper; the rest of them can only be used by women against their husbands.

Qualified women extracting maintenance – A modern Menace

A visit to a family court in any of the metropolitan cities like Delhi, Mumbai or Bangalore will reveal a shocking reality that in almost all divorce cases high maintenance is demanded by women in even marriages as which are short as 2 months or 6 months. The educated and empowered women in these cases are all very qualified, the minimum qualification being a graduate degree.

A large number of women are highly qualified engineers, doctors or IT professionals. These qualified women still demand maintenance stating the fact that it is the responsibility of the husband to provide for the lifestyle maintenance of these women as they were maintained during their very short marriage. These women at first voluntarily incapacitate themselves, and most of the times extract astronomical amounts in the form of maintenance even if they are gainfully employed by lying to courts and hiding their professional status.

The various different ways that money is extracted is highlighted below.

• Section 498A is used in many cases to arrest the husband and then force him for a ‘compromise’ which is nothing but a huge lump sum amount that is to be paid to the wife by the husband. This is not a normal maintenance case but nevertheless is still a great extortion tool.
• CrPC 125 is used along with Domestic violence act and maintenance is demanded simultaneously in both cases.
• Women with marriages less 1 year voluntarily incapacitate themselves at their parents’ home and then demand maintenance so that they can now live life to the same standards in their parents place as they have enjoyed during the marriage.
• DV act is abused to get access to home and residences apart from ex-parte maintenance orders in marriages shorter than even 1 year.
• Once interim maintenance in granted the women drag the cases, being patronized by our inefficient and complacent judiciary, so that the interim maintenance is continued to be paid for a longer time.
• Qualifications and previous work experience is deliberately hidden by women to get the sympathy of the court. Women are not penalized for coming to the court with unclean hands or committing perjury openly.

In the HMA 24 case of Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal where the wife was qualified, had voluntary incapacitated was demanding maintenance from her husband, Honorable Madhya Pradesh High court stated the below.

“In view of this, the question arises as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendent life alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition?

According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less effort is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendent life alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose.”

“In fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. The spouses who are quarreling and coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guided for the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible and, therefore, grant of luxurious, excessive facilities by way of pendent lite alimony and extra expenditure has to be discouraged.”

Inspite of having such sensible judgments, the courts in India regularly grant maintenance to qualified women who prefer to incapacitate themselves at their parents home and demand that their husbands keep them in the same standard as during the marriage .The courts never question the motive of these women not earn a living for themselves and still rely on the centuries old tradition that the husband must maintain the wife come what may. A woman no matter qualified, no matter how short her marriage and no matter how much her contribution to the marriage is more or less guaranteed to get maintenance in India if she petitions for it.

Recommendations

1)    Alimony for graduates ,doctors, lawyers, professionals, engineers, MBAs, CAs and the likes should be rejected prima facie and concept of lifetime parasitism be replaced by a better concept to provide interest free sustenance loans returnable in 3-5 years upon obtaining gainful employment. Voluntary incapacitation by capable spouses asking for maintenance to be made a punishable offense to discourage it. Moreover interim maintenance should not be allowed to be used as a dole leading to treatment of husbands as FREE ATM MACHINES.

2)    The quantum of maintenance must be strictly based on the duration of the marriage. For example, in most states of the United States, the wife can qualify for maintenance only if she has lived with the husband for a minimum period of time and the quantum of the maintenance is dependent on that.In the state of Texas a wife can claim maintenance from her husband if she has stayed with her husband for a minimum of 10 years.

3)    Women with children must be provided with sustenance loans from their husbands so that they can train themselves in order to enter the workforce again. These loans must be returnable to the husbands once the women start earning. This is apart from the child support payments that the husband must contribute.

4)    Multiple provisions for maintenance viz. Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, Section 18 – HMA, Section 24 – HAMA etc. should be simplified and normalized to one single provision as people are entangled in multiple litigations for the same alleged cause of action leading to infringement of Constitutional Rights vide Article 20,21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.

5)    Husbands also must be provided with maintenance when they need it. Maintenance must not be made the exclusive right of a woman in a marriage. Men are today increasing taking over roles of a mother and a father and husbands are liable to maintained by qualified wife if the need arises.

6)    The upper ceiling of a maintenance amount must always be fixed by law and based on the country’s living standard so that unscrupulous women do not use the marriage as a way to riches.

7)    Provisions be made for gender-sensivity trainings for judges of lower courts and sessions courts from a husband’s perspective, to be conducted by reputed firms having expertise in men’s rights awareness and an understanding of the needs and problems of the male gender.

A marriage must not be made a way for qualified unscrupulous women to profit. Breaking a marriage must never be made monetarily lucrative, as it has been made in India today. Today qualified Indian women stand to gain a lot my marrying and then by quickly breaking the marriages and thereafter immediately demanding huge maintenance and alimonies. Maintenance must be based on genuine need and not greed of a woman. Today, however the practice and the urge to get maintenance through multiple maintenance laws has become the cause of breaking marriages and extracting money. The government must make the maintenance laws such reasonable so that while parties (either husband or wife) who are truly needy can take relief under this section, the unscrupulous ones who sole intention to extract maintenance from the husband can be punished.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Name:

PS: Readers are free to download a copy of the letter by clicking here and send it to the Ministry of Law and Justice.

FEMINISTS in high places should be hanging their heads in shame.

In their desperation to avenge all women victims of sexual assault they gleefully seized on highly dubious and probably fabricated rape claims of one (apparently wealthy, according to mysterious bank transfers) African immigrant woman against a rich, powerful white man.

Rushing to judgment before any substantial investigation or trial, and aided and abetted by a New York Police Department and a prosecutor bent on re-election, they recklessly trashed the reputation of one man for their own ideological ends, even making bizarre links with France’s burka ban.

In their eyes, Dominique Strauss-Kahn had become the grotesque symbol of all that was rotten in the state of patriarchy (and especially in “sexist” France) and therefore not worthy of the minimum presumption of innocence before proved guilty.

Willing accomplices to his crime, French women in their entirety were also put in the dock.

Who could forget Katha Pollitt in US left-wing bible The Nation scorning “pathetic” French women “rising in defence of their right to be pawed by their bosses” and dismissing French feminism as a “small and conflicted” movement that effectively condones sexual predators.

DSK’s wife, Anne Sinclair, was a special target of the woman-hating feminist brigade.

The spectacle unleashed hysteria and bloodthirstiness rarely seen outside an Arthur Miller play, Philip Roth novel, or Harper Lee’s classic American tale of alleged rape and race in a small town, To Kill a Mockingbird.

Within days of the sensational claims of attempted rape, Strauss-Kahn lost his freedom, his job as head of the International Monetary Fund and his political career as a possible future French president.

He was paraded handcuffed before the world’s media, thrown into Rikers Island and referred to as a criminal by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Across the continents he was condemned as a rutting satyr, notably by the frothing-at-the-mouth New York Times columnist cum judge, jury and executioner, Maureen Dowd.

The profile of the evil sexual aggressor trying to flee the crime scene was constructed thanks to the NYPD and prosecutor’s office. They briefed journalists on and off the record about DSK having been a “man in a hurry” who left his mobile phone behind (ie, guilty). According to their too-perfect narrative, his alleged victim, a pious Muslim refugee and single mother, was “traumatised” by a brutal sex attack. Meanwhile, they demanded the most draconian of bail conditions, and released all the salacious details of her now-apparently unsubstantiated and perhaps invented accusations, while allowing the publication of illegal photos of DSK looking appalling in Rikers Island.

After all the triumphal declarations of the superiority of US justice and American relations between the sexes, and protests that this had nothing to do with old-fashioned Yankee puritanical hang-ups, our US allies have scored an embarrassing own goal.

The transatlantic polemics ring hollow as the New York prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, has gone to court to declare the accuser’s lack of credibility, and request DSK’s release from house detention.

Feminist ideologues such as The Nation’s Pollitt or gender studies guru Joan Scott and their legions of internet fem-activists, along with the woefully unprofessional New York Police Department and prosecutor – who should resign over this failure – have done women a gross injustice. They have cavalierly endangered the possibility that future victims of sexual assault will come forward, be heard and seen as credible.

Commentators spoke of a “before and after DSK moment”, but what about before and after the maid, Nafissatou Diallo, who is now being labelled a “hooker”. Could there be a worse outcome for women and feminism?

Maliciously, leading feminists in the US, Britain and as far afield as Italy and Africa, exploited this case for venal point-scoring against the French women’s movement and its leading lights with their disavowal of an Anglo-American battle of the sexes.

Mainstream French feminists have long resisted such binary classifications of most men as potential rapists and protested their right to participate in the pleasures of seduction.

They should be vindicated by this turnaround.

There will be those who will suggest that politicians such as DSK should not be engaging in any extra-conjugal sexual activity and, if they do, it serves them right.

That is certainly one philosophical and moral argument, and the revelations about DSK’s proclivities and indeed other accusations of harassment and worse may well rightly preclude him from a presidential run.

However, the third-wave feminist dogma that every woman who accuses a man of sexual assault is by definition an innocent victim who must be believed, and her alleged attacker automatically a lying rapist (because any woman who dares to speak out is therefore infallible) always smacked of dictatorship.

By dispensing with basic precepts of fairness, nearly all sexual relations between men and women can be depicted as perverted acts of male power and domination. It is a distorted and impoverished view of human relations that devalues both consensual sexual contact and especially those women who have endured assaults and rape.

There is no point awaiting a mea culpa from the feminist luminaries and media commentators, bitter academics and one-eyed activists who assumed that DSK was a sexual predator drunk on droit de seigneur and 100 per cent guilty of rape. It will not be forthcoming, such is the inherent dishonesty now disabling the heart of a once noble movement.

Indeed the rewriting of history has already begun with Vagina Monologues author Eve Ensler publishing a barely comprehensible ramble in The Guardian trying to justify feminism’s failings, with not one sliver of humility over its misjudgment.

“But the collapse of this case is not the worst thing that could happen: that would be for us all to retreat into our corners, to retrench our polarised positions.”

Ensler should ask how feminists could have been so easily fooled, or at least why they could not have exercised a little more restraint pending investigation and trial.

Before going into the details of how the Mandavli Bill can be a serious concern for husbands, lets walkthrough a short imaginary story.

Ajay Mhandre is a hardworking professional who works as a business consultant in a reputed MNC, earning a handsome salary and had a nice and decent reputation in his office. Just like any other Indian man, Ajay is also married off to Shiela, who is a very beautiful, attractive and educated young girl. Ajay always encouraged her to work, given her educational background, but Shiela somehow refrained from doing so and preferred staying at home. Ajay does not force her.

Shiela always had an issue with the close proximity of Ajay to his parents, though they did not stay with them. However, one fine day they decide to visit the couple and hell breaks loose. Shiela makes a big issue out of it and tells Ajay clearly that his parents are not welcome. Ajay tries to reason with her, but in vain. Finally, she tells this to her parents and they ask her to wait till Ajay’s parents land there.

As soon as they land, Shiela and her parents swoop on them with the local police along with a complaint of dowry harassment under Section 498A. Ajay’s troubles only start from there, after that he is slapped with maintenance cases wherein she demands Rs. 40000 per month in two separate cases.

Ajay starts studying the law, as the defunct legal system of India refuses to give justice to him. And he comes to know that if his wife starts working he can save himself from the financial monster called “Alimony”. Ajay gives a tough legal fight-back, which forces his wife to start looking for a job as her parents start viewing her as a burden.

Just as Ajay was hopeful that Shiela would get a job and that would mean some relief to Ajay, his hopes come crashing down as Shiela is unable to land a job for herself.

The reason for Shiela not getting a job was not her technical incompetence or lack of experience, but her gender. Yes, you heard it right! Companies were increasingly shunning away from recruiting women and always preferred to recruit a man, if available with similar competencies.

And the reason for the strange behavior by Corporates was the upcoming “Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010” which had become popular as the “Mandavli Bill” because the bill empowered unaccountable local, gender-biased and anti-male NGOs to act as “deciding bodies” in complaints of Sexual Harassment and no corporate was ready to take the risk.

“Mandavli” is a Marathi word for “Settlement” which often gangsters do between warring parties. In this bill also, the complainant (female) would be entitled for compensation against complaints of Sexual Harassment, against the accused (male).

And the compensation amount would be decided in presence of unaccountable local, gender-biased and anti-male NGOs – resembling gangsters who would coerce the accused male to enter into a negotiation holding the complaint as the basis and threaten him with legal action and road-show in front of his house and by giving him a dose of male-hatred.

What the bill meant was that if any manager confronted any female employee with professional under-performance, the female employee had all the powers to just lodge a complaint of “Sexual Harassment” against the manager and ruin his career and create a nuisance for the company.

Moreover, such incidents have happened in real life as well, what with managers from Nokia running for their life and had their careers ruined in 2009 on one such complaint by a female employee who later on went on to commit suicide and the managers were held responsible for it.

No company would ever like to take the risk and thus there was a whisper going on in the corporate community against hiring females.

And the brunt of this fallacy would be faced by husbands like Ajay Mhandre. Being husbands, the judiciary won’t listen to them and would force them to pay aristocratic maintenances to their wives through their nose and yet another anti-male law would prevent their wives from getting jobs and this would further plug the miniscule chances of husbands like Ajay Mhandre getting any relief.

While this “Mandavli” bill would spell terror for males at workplace nonetheless, it should not be surprising if the indirect consequences of the bill lead to more and more husbands either committing suicides or killing their wives brutally – the only channel of communication left to a male that he is being harassed. This would further increase crime against women as well; crime against men anyways goes unnoticed.

The unthoughtful manner, in which the Govt. is rushing ahead with this bill, will only create more chaos at family and workplace.

This “Mandavli” Bill aka the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010, should be dropped immediately lest the Govt. is least bothered about citizens and the disastrous socio-economic ramifications of such ill-conceived and redundant laws. It would suffice to end this article with a note that Section 509 of the IPC takes care of sexual harassment. This law is redundant and not required for any sane purpose.

There wasn’t any concept of feminism at the time of Titanic sinking but still it is said, when it sank, “The richest man on board had fewer chances of survival compared to the poorest woman on board.”

Why was it so? Because men, as a system, have always been hated, despised with, while women as a system have always been sympathized with and looked at with compassion; feminists decoded this social phenomena, amplified it and created a huge and real gender bias in the society for men under the cover of imaginary bias against women.

That’s the principal reason why discriminations against men have never been challenged – the motivating factor for the unbridled feminist utopia and constant negative ranting against men – be it in the media or social circles. In fact, media has been the primary amplifier of male hatred with repeated anti-male conversations on a large, wide, repetitive and imperative scale.

And the media channel, Star Plus is no exception to the rule From 29^th January 2011, the channel is coming up with a show called – “Wife Bina Life, Saza ya Maza” Show details can be found on the link. Relevant excerpts from the link about the show are reproduced here,

“10 husbands brave it out to cope up with housework, homework, wailing children and much much more. We offer you a glimpse into the lives of such 10 men.

The women disappear for a period of 2 weeks, on a much-deserved holiday, leaving the men to fend for themselves, their house and their families. While the women are away, the men must juggle all the cooking, cleaning, child rearing and work duties alone (in some cases) while the women enjoy 2 weeks of pampering at a luxury resort. But they are watching every move their husbands make! Any incorrect action & the Game is over for the husbands! ”

Problems with the above format:

1. 1. It creates a false perception that men always have it good and when they are not doing housework, they are holidaying!
2. 2. It creates a false perception that managing households is a very difficult belittling bread-winning which is a far more risky, dangerous and difficult task.
3. 3. It creates a false perception that men do not need “well deserved breaks”.
4. 4. It creates a false perception that men cannot raise children.
5. It creates a false perception that somehow it is OK to abuse husbands.

The overall format of the program is anti-male in nature and is legally/socially allowing wives to dominate over their husbands, which is nothing but promotion of Domestic Violence against husbands.

Domestic Violence is a very serious social issue and is the numero uno reason due to which married men commit suicide. The suicide figures for the years 2005 – 2009 for married men vis-à-vis married women are as follows:

2005: 52583 vs. 28188

2006: 55425 vs. 29869

2007: 57593 vs. 30064

2008: 57693 vs. 30224

2009: 58192 vs. 31300

Hence, we see that every year it’s the husbands and not the wives who are committing suicides in large numbers. Also an analysis of suicide data from 1996 – 2009 shows that, “Married Men are twice as vulnerable in committing suicides compared to married women”.

Even the life expectancy of men has reduced drastically over the last century. Compared to 1901, the life expectancy for men has dropped 6.5 times vis-à-vis women, in today’s stressful times. Life expectancy data can be obtained from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

All the above figures clearly indicate that the stress is definitely and substantially more on men and added to that, the fact, that men have no available socially acceptable channels of communication; the torpedo effect is taking a huge toll on men’s lives.

Shows like “Wife bina Life – Saza ya Maza” only add to the stress factor for men wherein they are not only expected to be breadwinners for the family but also look after house and children. There is one key difference between a working man and a working woman. The onus of the financial responsibility always lies on the husband, it’s the CHOICE for a working woman whether she wants to contribute to household expenses or spend it for herself. Somehow, this key difference is always ignored.

These double standards against men are never highlighted and the misandrist media conceptualizes programs like above which further plug the communication channel for men. This, in turn, leads to additional stress for men and opens new channels of inflicting domestic violence upon men.

As a men’s rights activist, I strongly object to such shows being aired and as a result, I have sent this complaint to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, asking them to stop the airing of the show till the format is changed to something acceptable.

The letter can be viewed here.

If you also feel that such a show is anti-male, please feel free to download the above letter and send it to the address mentioned in the letter, marking a copy to the Prime Minister of India.

The letter is available here.

After that an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) was filed with the DMRC asking them about the status of action taken on the demands made in the letter.

DMRC has replied to the RTI and the reply is available here,

RTI Reply

The RTI reply mentions that,

“Further, your suggestion to reserve separate coach ‘only for men’ is not found feasible.”

Interestingly in reply to another RTI to the DMRC, some interesting facts and figures have come up. That RTI has been described here

Metro Construction 100 times more hazardous for men compared to women

The RTI was about the gender-wise distribution about the number of people died/injured during the Delhi Metro construction and the data that has come out is, that during Delhi Metro Construction:

1. 1. 111 Men have lost their lives
2. 2. 107 Men have been injured.
3. 3. 1 Woman died.
4. 4. 0 Women injured.

Hence, we see that on one hand, it’s the men who predominantly risk their lives and limbs (more than 10000% compared to women) and on the other hand, it’s the men who not only get thrashed up inside the metro but are also officially denied any protection or even an attempt to provide them with a safe and comfortable ride as DMRS rules out “male-only” coaches as “infeasible”

So, how was beating up of men or risking their lives feasible?

Such double standards are social norms unfortunately. Use men to build structures and them impose rules inside structures for the very men.

To start with, reserving coaches for women in metro is completely wrong. Why, at all, should men be barred from entering any of the coaches? To top it, men are thrashed and beaten like animals when they inadvertently enter the coach or are unable to get seats in unreserved coaches (as women occupy them as well).

And, even with violence happening on men, there is a straight denial to provide any kind of safe environment to the men.

This is nothing but a clear-cut illustration of male-hatred, misandry, as we know it better. And this misandry is the root cause of all men’s problems be it abnormally high rate of suicide, unemployment, no law to protect them, anti-male laws or no right to choice in life, to name a few.

Men are considered as the disposable entity – use and throw – and only an entity that is hated against can be treated as a disposable one.

That is why it is feasible to beat men, and not safeguard them.

Hail misandry!

Two years after that, another attack of similar nature happened inside India and this time the attackers were Indians, the targets were Indians and the mute audience was also Indian.

I am referring to November 26, 2010 whence ordinary, unsuspecting and innocent Indian men were bashed up by gruesome and violent Indian women merely because the men had inadvertently stepped inside a coach allegedly reserved for women. Instead of behaving with decency, the women decided to show their true colors and bet up the men severely who were unable to find seats in other coaches as the same women used to “misuse” the privilege granted to them via reservation and would occupy unreserved seats while the reserved seats went empty.

Such a behavior is pure social terrorism and nothing short of it. To add to the ignominy the misandrist media and the male hater Gurgaon Police Commissioner Shri S Deswal hailed this gruesome act of violence as a sign of “Women Empowerment”. Violence is a sign of empowerment!

Seeing blatant misandry at play, being a men’s rights activist, I filed an RTI with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), asking them gender wise distribution about,

1. No. of persons died during construction of Delhi Metro and
2. No. of persons injured during construction of Delhi Metro.

DMRC has replied to the RTI and the reply is available at the link. Reply Link.

As we shall see in the page 2 of the above reply,

No. of men died = 111

No. of women died = 1

No. of men injured = 107

No. of women injured = 0

Above data clearly shows which gender has taken more risks and which gender has made more sacrifices?

It’s the Men who have lost their lives and limbs in order to build the Delhi Metro and finally it’s the Women who reap the benefits by getting “Reserved Coaches”, “Luxury to Commit Violence”, “Social Acceptance for being Violent” and it’s the Men who keep on getting abused merely because they are men.

Every time, men’s rights activists talk about some problem being faced by men, the reply they get back, for inaction on the same, is – ITS A MALE DOMINATED WORLD.

I completely fail to understand what kind of domination by males is this that males are dominating all the domains of risk, sacrifice and getting abused and when it comes to according rights to men, it suddenly becomes a male dominated world!

Why such double standards against men?

The RTI data clearly shows that men face more than 100 times the dangers/risks faced by women and in the end, it’s the men who are denied a safe, secure and smooth travel in the same metro that their brethren had built for them sacrificing/risking their lives.

Why so much hatred for the men, for the very men, who have been laying down their lives, sacrificing their likes and interests, like an unsung hero, for millennia just to build this world, civilization and society?

Do our men deserve such a treatment?

Misandry – male hatred – is a social crime of highest degree and needs to be eliminated completely.

1. For, its misandry that creates no alarmism, generates no sensitivity and evokes no response even when men are losing their lives/limbs more than 100 times compared to women.
2. For, its misandry that allows wide-scale public bashing and mass-humiliation of men by violent women.
3. For, its misandry that makes it politically correct to brandish such incidents as “heroic acts by women” in media.
4. For, its misandry that makes it possible to eulogize such acts of terror by women against men and yet go unchallenged, unscathed.

Few drunken women are beaten up in a pub in Mangalore and it becomes an issue of Constitutional Rights of Women and public exchequer’s money is wasted in bogus committees inquiring into the probe. Is consuming alcohol a Constitutional Right?

And here, scores of innocent men are beaten up, without reason, and the incident is forgotten, just like another political scam – like 2G covering up CWG! Is not Right to Safety a Constitutional Right?

Why such double standards on the basis of Gender?

What kind of a “Male Dominated Society” is ours?

A glimpse of the figures is

1. Unmarried boys – 17738.
2. Unmarried girls – 10063.
3. Husbands – 58192
4. Wives – 31300
5. Widower – 2848
6. Widowed – 2674
7. Divorcee (male) – 635
8. Divorcee (female) – 613
9. Separated (male) – 2058
10. Separated (female) – 1030

1. Total (male) – 8147
2. Total (female) – 45680

Ratio:
Male : Female Suicides
2009=178 males :100 females.

Some more facts:

1. One married man commits suicides every 9 Minutes and 20 seconds.
2. Difference between suicides of men and women is substantial only when the wife is associated (literally/legally) with the man – refer suicide statistics of married men/women and separated men/women.
3. Since the 63 years of Indian independence, not a single rupee has been allocated / spent for men’s welfare.
4. Indian Govt. has no National Commission for Men to look into issues of men.
5. Men pay close to 82% of all the taxes collected and pay more tax at the same salary levels compared to women.
6. Indian Govt. has a welfare ministry for children, women and even animals but not for men.
7. Indian men face the brunt of 15 anti-male gender obsessed unconstitutional laws which treat all men as criminals and “Guilty until Proven Innocent”. These laws are just a tool of extortion to be used against innocent men. More are in pipeline.
8. Men are subjected to rampant domestic violence which kills on an average 14,791 Indian husbands annually. (Refer section on Domestic Violence below.)
9. Men are forced to live a “sub-human” existence with social memes like “Male Dominated World” and “Women Empowerment” which quintessentially gags the communication channel for men and leads to infringement of their basic human and constitutional rights.
10. Most risky, menial and dangerous jobs like firefighting, army, police, plumbing, climbing buildings, working in mines, working in hotel kitchens, working in railway pantries, distributing newspapers early morning, and so on and so forth are thrust onto men sans any recognition. Men are like salt in food, whose presence is mandatory yet inconspicuous.
11. Men face 3 times more chance of getting killed in a road accident and 5 times more chance of getting kidnapped and yet there is no exclusive law to protect men – rather there are anti-male laws to persecute men.
12. More male children die compared to female children during child birth.
13. Men face unwarranted “media-trials” and “media-convictions” becoming a prey to the trend of “alarmism” because on one hand where the media happily brandishes men as criminals and aggressors, most irresponsibly it does not make amends when the same men are found innocent later on.

The above facts corroborate the figures by NCRB as when men are being subjected to such discriminatory attitudes, little options are left before men but to commit suicide as we see that in all categories, suicides by men are higher than women if not equal.

Domestic Violence – The numero uno killer for men:

As per the suicide analysis done by NCRB, family problems, family disputes and domestic violence is the single largest factor responsible for suicides. Almost 30% of the suicides are happening due to family problems and related stress. As the total number of suicides by married men is 58,192; the number of married men committing suicides directly due to Domestic Violence would be 17,458. As compared to 1996 there has been 44% increase in suicides overall. Hence, at least 12,124 married men would have committed suicide in 1996 directly due to Domestic Violence.

Taking a mean of the two extremes, on an average 14,791 men have committed suicide directly due to Domestic Violence year by year. Taking the total of 13 years from 1996-2009, we get, that in 13 years, 192,283 i.e. One Lac Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Three married men have committed suicide directly due to Domestic Violence.

Equivalent figures for women would work out to 103,248 i.e. One Lac Three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight.

Hence, we see that not only in overall suicides, but also in suicides due to Domestic Violence, men are twice as vulnerable to lose their lives compared to women and instead of protection, men are offered persecution!

These figures should suffice to suppress any and all voices of dissent against men’s rights movement and men’s issues and for the Govt. of India to form a National Commission for Men and a Men’s Welfare Ministry.

Is anyone listening?

Julian Assange had his own personal tragedy which turned his brown hair white. Julian Assange was born in 1971, in Australia. When Assange’s girlfriend gave birth to a child, he wanted to get custody of the kid. Assange fought a long and futile battle in the courts for custody and lost. The sum total of Assange’s experiences may have embittered him to all forms of authority. That could have been the premises for his desire to expose information.

And regarding the rape accusations made by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Ny is working in something the prosecution office calls “development department”. What they are developing are new even harder and deeply disturbing rape laws. This is something Marianne Ny and her sisters has worked to achieve for a long time. If they can convict Assange of “sex by accident“, they will be able to pass this new bill. They are already planning the construction of more prisons. I think they underestimated the number of people that saw through this though. They are used to get away with this. In Sweden the media is now writing about the “horrible hate against women that spreads on the net“. Either they are just plain stupid, brainwashed, or they are willfully spreading lies and propaganda. They have for years. That is why I think this new kind of journalism is a breath of fresh air. They are publishing a lot of damaging documents about Sweden too. And I have a field day every time another hypocrite gets exposed. This runs deeper than feminism. This corruption goes all the way to the top.

Feminisms main goal is to destroy the families. In Sweden they have done a hell of a job. And the governments of course benefits economically. Where there used to be only one in the household that you could charge for rent, taxes, give bank loans to etc, there are now two, Toyotas vice president once uttered in an interview “The more misandry we spread, the more cars we sell“. Toyota is now selling more cars to women than to men.

We need to see the bigger picture here. It’s all connected in one big fat mess. I believe that Assange who is a clever guy have realized. That is why he wants to hit them where it hurts. To just publish a few verdicts in custody cases wouldn’t change a thing.

Sweden has the second highest number of reported rape in the world; only beaten by “Lesotho” in Africa. From 1975 – 2005 the number of reported sex crimes has increased from 2000 a year to almost 16 000. This is totally according to the plans of the Swedish regime which are flourishing and making a lot of money by the wars on fathers and families. Hence the cries for new and more “effective” laws on rape are on the rise. It will be perfect to use it against us dads to separate us from our kids. The feminists have one big problem though. “Only” 10 percent of all men reported for rape or abuse get convicted; though a “reliable story” is often enough. So now they want to sharpen the laws so that they can jail more men. And this is why Marianne Ny went after Assange. If the “development” department gets a conviction, the bill can be passed.

2009 (last statistic from the prison authority) there were over 5000 men serving jail time in Sweden. Many innocently convicted of just sex crimes.  The number of incarcerated women was 294.

When you start to study the verdicts, you realize that they often are just as absurd as the Assange case, but men are being convicted and denied any chance of getting a retrial. In one case, just an example, a father was sentenced to 8 years for over 100 counts of rape against his daughter. 3 years into his sentence the daughter confessed she had lied, and she even got a medical statement saying she was still a virgin. But still he was denied a retrial. The prosecutor said “Well maybe he just entered a centimeter or so”. Only the guys lucky enough to have high profile cases, and thereby get a big journalist interested in their case have any shot at getting freed.

I am at the moment living with my 6 yr daughter in a so called investigation home. The CPS accused me of sexual molestation in March 2009. It has taken me almost two years of intense fighting on my blog to get to the bastards to agree to get access to her again, and start trying to repair at least a bit of the damage they have done to my girl. So I am under a tremendous stress at the moment. The mother has done her best to PAS her.

For the first time ever someone has gotten some international media attention to the Swedish stupid laws. Whether the charges of rape were part of a international conspiracy to get him extradited to the US, I don’t know, but I doubt it. You don’t have to be an international whistleblower to get charged with rape in Sweden. It´s easy; anyone can do it as long as they are men.

Assange is leading the vote for man of the year in Time magazine. So the opinion must be varied in the US too.