On “The Red Pill” and the feminist filmmaker who took it

On “The Red Pill” and the feminist filmmaker who took it

– Uma Challa

 

I had heard of “The Red Pill” even while it was being made, and have been aware of all the difficulties Cassie Jaye had to undergo to complete her project. I had been very curious about the film because the filmmaker was a feminist, and she was covering some of the veteran MRAs whom I consider my distant mentors.

 

On Sunday, I got an invite from a fellow MRA to watch “The Red Pill” at his place, and it was hard to resist because I had just published a piece on an Indian documentary, which some people have (wrongly) been calling the counterpart of “The Red Pill”.

 

I watched every frame and every shot, followed every word very carefully, sometimes asking for the film to be rewound a little, when I felt I had missed something. To me, if there was one thing that stood out in the film, it is the honesty of the endeavor, and just for that, I would say the film’s worth a watch.

 

Cassie Jaye traced her long and winding journey, or rather the journey of what MRAs call the red pill, through her system, and one would have to say that she successfully digested it and absorbed it, because at the end of the film, she says that she doesn’t call herself a feminist anymore.

 

While I have heard, read and watched MRAs like Paul Elam, Warren Farrel and Erin Pizzey for over a decade now, watching them speak in this film, and watching some of their memoirs brought back many of my own memories from my early MRA days. The circular arguments by many feminists provided an excellent contrast to the articulate presentation of facts by these veteran MRAs. In my opinion, “The Red Pill” should be on the essential “watching list” for every new MRA.

 

The range of men’s issues exposed in the film is impressive, and Cassie Jaye’s dedication to clearly understand every issue is commendable. Her in-depth research, her flowcharts, her video diaries, her candid questions and honest admissions are endearing to me as an MRA, and are bound to provoke thought among non-MRAs who watch the film.

 

I wish that Cassie Jaye’s film is watched by more and more people across the globe. It will not only be the appropriate reward for her work as a filmmaker, but also a great way to spread the information and messages that MRAs have been trying to communicate, to provoke thought and inspire action to end misandry around the world.

 

My congratulations to Cassie Jaye for a film so well-made!

The Red Pill poster

Making divorce easy? Or barking up the wrong tree?

Making divorce easy? Or barking up the wrong tree?

– Uma Challa

Published by MyIndMakers 

“lEchiMchi, nidra lEchiMdi mahiLaa lOkaM, daddarilliMdi puruSha prapaMchaM…” https://youtu.be/MmVujeuCKmI (the women’s world has woken up from slumber, and the man’s world shook with panic) was a song I used to love as a child. As a fiery young woman, I frowned upon what I thought was “misogyny” on the part of one of the greatest Telugu lyricists ever. Now I admire the clarity of thought of Sri Pingali Nagendra Rao gaaru who penned the song way back in 1962, at a time when the country was still tolerant to truth.

 

To elaborate on Pingali gaaru’s poetic rendition of facts, the first Lok Sabha in India in 1951 had 22 women MPs. Soon after, in 1955, with the advent of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) in 1955, Indian society was, for the first time, introduced to the concept of “divorce”. Contrary to its title, the HMA has nothing to do with marriage. It does not explain what marriage means nor does it enumerate the responsibilities of a wife and husband towards themselves, each other, their children, both sides of the family or the society. It enumerates circumstances in which a Hindu marriage can be legally broken. It was introduced to enable women who could not tolerate marriage to legally liberate themselves from wedlock, and to claim share in the marital property in the name of maintenance and alimony (HMA Section 24).

 

The most common grounds for divorce – cruelty, desertion, impotence, adultery etc. – are not only poorly defined, but are also difficult to prove. In addition, because litigation involves evidences and arguments from both parties, HMA did not prove as “empowering” to women as was envisioned by women’s rights activists (WRAs).

 

Enacting the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956, which entitles a woman to be maintained by her husband during her entire lifetime (Section 18), and CrPC of 1973, which extends maintenance to wives indefinitely even after divorce (Section 125), did not do the magic either, since they still involved time taking two-sided legal procedures.

 

In the year 1983, the Parliament passed a criminal law, Indian Penal Code 498A, which made “cruelty towards a married woman” a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Here, the word “cruelty” was left undefined and allowed to be a function of a woman’s perception and her lawyer’s imagination. Divorce and maintenance cases, combined with this draconian criminal section, which allows immediate arrest and incarceration of the husband and in-laws, proved to be fantastic tool of blackmail, vengeance and extortion in the hands of disgruntled wives for many years. It was accompanied by vigorous campaigns by WRAs to “sensitize” the police and the judiciary to be sympathetic towards women. Even such drastic measures did not prove to be “empowering enough” according to WRAs, because not all husbands succumbed.

 

The conviction rates under IPC 498A remained very low and the law only gained notoriety for its misuse. The hope that all husbands could be reined in and forced to pay a “monetary compensation/settlement” under the fear of arrest and criminal prosecution started waning.

 

In 2005, a new and elaborate civil law, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act was introduced. The act not only categorized every possible male action as an act of domestic violence, it also made provisions for a wife and a live-in partner to use DV accusations to claim monetary reliefs including maintenance (Section 20) and residence rights (Section 19) in the same property where the alleged violence had occurred.

 

Every year, several thousands of Indian women leverage the power sanctioned to them under these laws to terrorize husbands and to extract alimony and maintenance from them. Still, the utopia envisioned by the WRAs remained elusive since entangling a man in multiple litigations ensured neither speedy divorce nor quick extraction of maintenance and alimony.

 

In 2013, the Rajya Sabha approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill which, once again, claimed to make “divorce friendly for women” by providing for the wife, a share in the husband’s immovable property, after “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”. The Bill empowered the courts to decide the “compensation amount” from the husband’s inherited and inheritable property. Recognizing the “grave and far-reaching legal, social and economic implications of the proposed amendments” as pointed out by senior citizens groups and NGOs working for men, the NDA Government’s Law Ministry decided to put the Bill on hold.

 

According to news reports, there is now a fresh proposal “to explore the possibility of making it easier for women to walk out of a marriage”. This brand new endeavor, backed by the Minister of Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi, proposes to give legal validity to prenuptial agreements.

 

The Economic Times (18 Sept 2015) quotes an official of the Ministry of WCD who stated that the introduction of prenuptial agreements will “save marriages” because, “once, the liabilities, assets and responsibilities are decided in advance, a husband will be more careful and cautious in seeking dissolution. He would have a clear idea of the amount of alimony he will have to pay to his wife”.

 

The article also quotes another senior official of the Ministry who supported prenuptial agreements as a way to counter the “judicial delays on account of backlog of cases”, and the “delaying tactics husbands resort to”.

 

It is noteworthy that for the last 60 years, champions of women’s empowerment have been preoccupied with women obtaining an easy divorce and collecting maintenance and alimony by hook or crook. Their proposal to legalize prenuptial agreements is neither novel in its approach nor noble in its goals.

 

Aside from the fact that this initiative too has nothing to do with really empowering women, here are just a few problems with prenuptial agreements:

 

  1. Hindu marriages are religious unions and not legal contracts, even when they are registered and legally recognized. A prenuptial agreement is a contract, with the terms and conditions of separation spelled out. It cannot be applied to Hindu marriages without stripping them of their religious sanctity and the underlying philosophy of the union of two souls.
  2. While prenuptial contracts do lay down the terms and conditions of separation, the contracts are not binding nor strictly enforceable, and there are no provisions anywhere in the world to penalize a partner who does not comply with the terms of separation. However, the proposal to include punishments for “offending” spouses in Indian prenuptial agreements is nothing but another attempt to criminalize the marital relationship, pamper women and penalize men.
  3. In spite of having a prenuptial agreement, a woman will still be able to claim that she signed the prenuptial agreement under duress. She will still be able to file complaints under IPC Section 498A, the DV Act and other related civil and criminal provisions.
  4. Rich men will use prenuptial agreements to get rid of women by paying money, and unscrupulous women will use prenuptial agreements as a way to make quick money. We, as a nation and a culture, might do better by just legalising prostitution rather than prostitutionalizing the Hindu marriage in the name of empowering women through delusional and deceitful means.

 

It is about time the Ministry of WCD stops barking up the wrong tree and looks into positive ways of empowering women by helping, stimulating, supporting and encouraging them to achieve true economic independence. It is time we realize that unless women learn to want economic independence and unless they work hard to achieve it, without depending on maintenance and alimony, all the talk about empowerment and equality is meaningless.

 

It is time the “women’s world” awakens to this reality and embraces ways that are uplifting to themselves and the entire society, rather than those that shake men with fear and shatter their lives.

 

Alimony.9

 

 

Feminists bully, India Times succumbs!

India Times ran an informative poster campaign about men’s issues on International Men’s Day, 19th November, 2015.

Feminists have exposed their intolerance for any discussion about men’s issues and the celebration of International Men’s Day. They bullied India Times into retracting the article from their website and forced them to issue an apology. Here’s the apology note by India Times:

India Times apology

Ironically, India Times only recently updated its cover photo to one which says, “Not afraid”.

Not afraid

Of course you are, India Times! You are just plain afraid!

Thanks to the internet and social media though…Truth can be deleted from a website, but cannot be completely erased!

img-20151122-wa0008img-20151122-wa0007img-20151122-wa0006img-20151122-wa0005img-20151122-wa0004img-20151122-wa0001img-20151122-wa0002img-20151122-wa0003img-20151122-wa0000

Thanks to https://legalfighter.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/indiatimes-bows-down-before-feminists/#comment-3258 for saving, reproducing the posters and making them available for download.

 

“Acche din” for men? Not by a long shot!

“Acche din” for men? Not by a long shot!

By Uma Challa

acche din

When the news of BJP’s election victory broke last year, I was on vacation in the US, on a beach in Florida to be precise. I was just as excited about the end of dynastic politics as many of my fellow countrymen were. I wrote a congratulatory message to India on the sandy beach, and posted a note on Facebook about how thrilled I was to return to a “Modified” India. I knew “acche din” were going to be a reality for at least some people in at least some issues. I could imagine the beginnings of decolonization and the revitalization of neglected cultures and languages.

“What about the ongoing war against men and boys?”, I wondered. “Will the Saffron Government end it or will they intensify it in an attempt to outdo the previous regimes in their “pro-women” stance?”, I pondered. Considering BJP’s serious and seasoned feminists like Ms. Sushma Swaraj, Ms. Smrithi Irani and Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, who are all patriots enough to reject western-feminism, but share the same degree of misandry nevertheless, one could only guess whether “acche din” were in store for Indian males.

It would be useful to recall that back in December 2013, Ms. Irani, speaking at a leadership summit, said, “If a man is without malice, he has nothing to fear.” Her words resonate with those of Ms. Renuka Chaudhary, who, during her tenure as Minister for Women and Child Development (WCD), said, “If men behave, they have nothing to fear”. Anyone who has had a brush with the Indian “women-protection laws”, the law enforcement machinery and the judiciary knows what the above words mean. I took solace in the fact that none of the above mentioned card-carrying feminists were assigned to the Ministry of WCD in Modi’s Government.

Ms. Maneka Gandhi, the newly appointed Minister for WCD, remained very quiet and non-controversial with regards to her Ministerial affairs for over  a year. We do not know if, suddenly, like a bolt out of the blue, the pressure of her job description finally got to her, or the evil spirit that haunts her office possessed her. We do not know if she was overcome by a strong zeal to please or even outdo her predecessors and colleagues, or if she was indeed a misandrous closet-feminist who was waiting for the right moment to come out, but she finally spoke!

In a Facebook interaction with netizens, Ms. Gandhi declared that all violence is male-generated. Many Indian men’s rights activists (MRAs) were misled into believing that Ms. Gandhi was either ignorant of ground realities or that she was deliberately ignoring them. They tried to (in Arnab Goswami’s words) “throw statistics at” her and cited examples of violence by women on men and children. What these MRAs failed to understand is that according to Ms. Gandhi’s well-considered opinion, men are either abusive or they do stuff to deserve abuse against them, and by that impeccable logic, all violence is male-generated.

Ms. Gandhi, no doubt, made her mark and proved her worth by reasserting the Ministry’s eternal commitment to war against men. What really sets her apart, though, is the elegance with which she overtly declared state-sponsored war against boys through an upcoming initiative called ‘Gender Champions’. Under this initiative, boys who can train themselves to become doormats and punching bags early on will be rewarded with prizes, just as the girls who walk over them and punch them would be awarded titles for their “bravery” and “attitude”.

Just in case we might miss the point, Ms. Gandhi went a little further and stated that according to her, “education should be more gender sensitive and certainly animal sensitive”. This statement actually gets to the bottom of the ideology that drives the Ministry of WCD – that boys and men do not even deserve the empathy that animals do and that all males are dispensable. No democratically elected representative of India, not even the formidable ex-Minister of WCD, Ms. Renuka Chaudhary, was able to state it in such clear terms.

I cannot help recalling another speech by Ms. Irani, from late last year, in which she stated, “When women are put at the helm of affairs, conflict has this very unnatural way of decreasing”. She also said, “A leader is someone who takes you where you want to be, but a female leader is someone who takes you where you ought to be.”

So, here we are!

No prizes for guessing where we are going!