Breaking the silence against imposed “martyrdom”

During the last few months, there has been a wave of praise in the mainstream and social media for an Indian documentary film on IPC section 498A entitled “Martyrs of Marriage”. The filmmaker, Deepika Bhardwaj, has been extolled not only for technical excellence in filmmaking, but has also been elevated as the messiah for men. Recently, there has also been an expected, well-justified and visible pushback from the men’s movement in India, because the movie is anachronistic, it promotes a feminist lie, misrepresents men’s rights activists (MRAs) and undermines the men’s rights movement (MRM), which provided much support, information and content for the film.

 

The perspective of the men’s movement and the reasons for the pushback require a close look at the history, significance and purpose of the men’s movement, and the factual narrative that Indian MRAs have fought to establish over the last 10-13 years. It would involve learning, in depth, about why IPC 498A is a malicious law and not a law made to save lives as claimed by the film. People who are not interested in this academic exercise are bound to look to the documentary film as an authentic source of information, representative of MRAs and the entire length, breadth and depth of the MRM.

 

I would urge everyone to make the effort to know more about the MRM, MRAs and why they would vehemently oppose the only film which claims to give them a voice and show their side of the story; and why MRAs would oppose a filmmaker, who is sympathetic towards a men’s issue, becoming the face of the MRM and the “voice of men”.

 

To this end, I will direct the attention of the readers towards certain crucial but invisible aspects that do not require you to have any background in the MRM, but just require basic human intelligence to understand.

 

Every person who is arrested and imprisoned based on a false complaint goes through a phase where they are dying to scream out to the world that they are not criminals. They are stigmatized in the society, they are vilified by the media, and pushed into a corner so much so that the only thought that dominates the person’s existence is the need to NOT be identified as a criminal. There are many who experience the need to be identified as victims, and they want their personal narrative to be heard by someone, especially by those who hold the power to influence the social and political narrative, such as journalists, filmmakers, celebrities and politicians.

 

However, victimhood is an affliction suffered by but a fraction of individuals who are implicated in false cases. Unfortunately though, individuals and entities that control the narrative do not understand that a need to “not be identified as criminal” does not automatically translate into a “need to be identified as a victim”. As a result, even sympathetic journalists and filmmakers impose victimhood and martyrdom on everyone because victimhood sells, and is seen as the only way to bring attention to problems.  

 

This kind of victimhood is a state of mind, and it does not have anything to do with what life throws at us, false cases included. MRAs who have counseled hundreds of affected men observe that “men carrying victimhood for long periods of time works like an addiction which eventually destroys them. MRAs also feel that fostering or nurturing perpetual victimhood in victimized people is a feminist recipe and does not bode well for any society”. Over the last 10 years, MRAs have worked very hard to exctricate men from this sense of victimhood, to empower them to stand up for themselves, and to take responsibility for changing not just malevolent laws like 498a, but the overall social mindset which sees males as disposable.

legal terrorism

When a person does not wallow in victimhood, it is assumed that they are either culpable or that they do not experience any pain. It takes much time and struggle to gather the voice to deny criminality, to maintain the resolve, and fight to the finish to establish one’s innocence in the courts of law. Every person who has walked out of the court after hearing the words “acquitted” knows the feeling of taking a full breath of air, walking with their head held high, with the kind of satisfaction and joy that the heart does not seem enough to hold.

 

Everyday, the mainstream media keeps declaring innocent people as criminals without trial for the sake of political correctness and ratings. To those who have experienced it, acquittal means restoring one’s honor and dignity, even though one may have lost many years, dear ones, life’s savings and all the things one has given one’s life to. It is such a profoundly liberating experience, that the voice, which for many years, wanted to scream “I am not a criminal”, now wants to scream “I won” until the sound of vindication reverberates all over. MRAs have always fought, worked hard to empower and encourage others to fight, to demonstrate that we are real people and not mere numbers or data points in the National Crime Records Bureau. However, the voice of the acquitted is never heard because the mainstream media chooses to be deliberately silent about them.

acquitted cropped

As a fellow MRA rightly pointed out to me, given the status quo, “a journalist independently gaining the trust of people who have been victimized by 498A is difficult, and to make them to open up to any publicity via documentaries is even more difficult”. When a journalist comes along, claiming to want to make a film or write about us, members of the movement are always inclined to project individuals who have won their cases to narrate their stories. This is because a person who is still fighting a trial always fears a backlash from his opposition, the police or the court of law. He or she does not want to take the risk of being disbelieved or ridiculed by others because an individual’s story is not considered credible unless their cases have ended in acquittal.  

 

Therefore, when the documentary filmmaker in question approached the Indian MRM for interviews of affected individuals, she was also directed to meet individuals who had been acquitted some years ago. Revisiting profound personal tragedies, many years after the fact and years after acquittal is an ordeal in itself, and not something anybody would want to do. However, MRAs, who chose to take one for the team, reluctantly opened up to the filmmaker who promised to highlight these stories as those of hope and triumph to inspire others to fight. MRAs unravelled personal details to demonstrate that they are normal people, just as vulnerable as anyone else, and traced their own journey to victory, in parallel with their activism in the MRM to inspire everyone to be “that second mouse”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51lFmdChOA0

 

When these detailed accounts of gallant fight are edited, placed out of context and shown as stories of plight, and the filmmaker uses her film and her public image to promote victimhood, to become the face of MRM and the “voice of men” by lie of omission, one is bound to feel violated. The filmmaker silencing MRAs, by playing the victim card against them is an additional violation that needs to be overcome. Under such circumstances, it takes much time, effort and thought to gather the voice to say “I am not a victim”, and to initiate a meaningful conversation around the important issues concerning MRAs and the MRM. The struggle to deny this imposed martyrdom is just as emotionally excruciating as the one to deny imposed criminality.

 

It is important to recognize that there is little difference between journalists painting us as criminals for TRPs and filmmakers misrepresenting MRAs as victims just to make the cut in their career.

 

In this context, it is also important to look at how different individuals who approach the movement identify themselves in very different ways. Many individuals approach the movement for help, but always remain aloof as individuals, see themselves as unique in their hardships, feel entitled to support and help, look for a quick fix and an easy exit. They are the victims looking for a messiah, preferably in female form. In their myopic view, anybody, even a filmmaker, who can offer them a temporary vicarious experience and fleeting hope for change, is a savior. These victims would be willing to let a whole movement and the collective hard work of all the MRAs who dedicated their lives to it, be sacrificed on the altar of their personal desire for quick relief and freedom. Longtime MRAs are usually glad to take one for the team, but everyone must realize that exploitation of personal tragedies, for any reason, is an insult to the dear ones whose honor we fight and win for. It is an insult to the MRM, which gave us life and that we gave our lives to.  

 

While the film, which boasts of highlighting human struggle, ironically, undermines the same, there are some who have been foolish enough to believe and say that MRAs are jealous of a filmmaker’s success. MRAs have much to be proud of because they stand up and fight to restore their own honor and that of their families, and also empower others to fight. With no offense intended, it must be said that there is little to be “jealous” about a victim-turned-filmmaker, who has neither experienced nor understood what fighting means, and promotes victimhood among men.

 

Some MRAs have been demonized for saying that the filmmaker did not duly acknowledge the MRM and MRAs for their earnest contribution to the film, and for stating that the filmmaker is undermining the movement through calculated silence. While I leave it to experts to comment on the technical excellence of the film, I propose a thought experiment and ask the reader to imagine what the filmmaker’s reaction would have been, had someone taken all the credit for her hard work, through lies of omission. MRAs have been maintaining a dignified silence about this issue for several months, but when a filmmaker takes advantage of her popularity to undermine a long-standing movement, and becomes the “voice of men” by lies of omission, silence is no longer an option.

 

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.

 

Violence Against Men and Boys Awareness Month

October is Violence Against Men and Boys Awareness Month (VAMBAM)

-Uma Challa

Power of a woman

“Stop violence against women!” That is a slogan that we have heard, day in and day out, over the last thirty years and have agreed with, unquestioningly. By doing so, we have also embraced its underlying assumptions, that violence is a gender issue, that men have been historically inflicting violence on women, all men (and only men) are capable of violence and that violence against men (by women) does not exist.

More recently, the focus of the subject has been broadened to include boys. A social awareness platform called Vogue Empower even made a short film entitled “Start with the Boys” which says, “We have taught our boys not to cry. It’s time we teach them not to make girls cry”.

Echoing this politically correct stance, and underlining the agenda of her Ministry, Women and Child Development Minister, Ms. Maneka Gandhi, recently said, “All the violence is male generated. One of the ways to tackle this is at the school stage”.

Ms. Gandhi proposed a program called “gender champions’’ in which “boys who have been particularly respectful and helpful to girls and deserve to be emulated” will be rewarded every year.

The powerful impact of these political and media generated messages is reflected in everyday conversations as well. To quote an example, a mother, who was worried about her 7 year old boy who would not talk to girls on his school bus, expressed her concern on Facebook, and received the following response from another boy’s mother:

Boys do need to do “feminine” things like cook, wear pink, dress up in florals, wear a skirt if only for protest against rapes….After all, a true man is someone who is in touch with his feminine side.”

For a while now, even something as innocuous as the usage of “he/him” has been politicized enough to make everyone pause and reconsider the use of the masculine pronoun in a normal English sentence.

One might have believed that all of the above are genuine efforts aimed only at gender equality and protection of women, if not for the stark apathy shown towards men in distress. There has been a prolonged and uncomfortable silence in our culture about female violence against men and boys. Emboldened by this silence, the war against men and boys, and everything masculine, has now become full-blown, and too glaring to ignore.

Today, exploiting, abusing, insulting, kicking, punching and slapping males has not only become acceptable, but it is even considered laudable behavior on the part of women and girls. While the popular media showers titles such as “bravehearts”, “youth icons” or “female role models” on these feisty women (like Rohtak sisters and Jasleen Kaur), State Governments have even announced cash awards to them. Ms. Gandhi herself has proposed prizes to girls who have been outstanding in their “bravery and attitude”.

There are far too many examples and compelling (NCRB) data about female violence on men and boys, begging for the conspicuous silence of the society to be broken.

The idea behind observing “Violence Against Men and Boys Awareness Month” (#VAMBAM) in October 2015 is to break the silence and address female violence against men and boys, which is stoked by gender politics.

Let us treat men in distress with the same kind of compassion and support as women in distress. Let us recognize that ignoring violence by women, and denial of protection against the same amounts to promotion of violence against men and boys.

Let us allow boys and girls to naturally explore and discover ways to relate with the opposite sex. Let us recognize that imposing gender politics on children to modify the behavior of young males or shaming those who do not comply amounts to violence against boys as well.

All India Men’s Welfare Association, All India Forgotten Women’s Association, True Equity Network and Paritran Foundation have joined hands to observe VAMBAM in India. VAMBAM has also been endorsed internationally, as seen in this message by Ms. Diane Sears, who is the Director of In Search of Fatherhood ® International Fatherhood and Men’s Issues Program:

October 2015 has been designated as INTERNATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN AND BOYS AWARENESS Month. This initiative is the brainchild of Mrs. Uma Challa, a Gender Issues Thought Leader, humanitarian, author and India’s Coordinator for International Men’s Day. The USA International Men’s Day Team endorses Mrs. Challa’s initiative. Violence against Men and Boys creates a psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually toxic environment in our homes, our communities, and our world. INTERNATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN AND BOYS AWARENESS Month — October 2015 — is a key “piece of the puzzle” to bringing healing to Men, Boys, our families, our communities, and our world and transforming our psychologically, emotionally, spiritually toxic and dysfunctional environment into a vibrant, loving, and nurturing oasis.

We urge all girls and women, boys and men everywhere to join us in this effort.

Boys are stupid throw rocks at them

vambam bad good

“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!

Speaking against feminist biases – Social acceptability versus social responsibility

poster_from_postermywall

Published by MyIndMakers

The inseparability of male and female entities in the Universe was recognized by Indians as early as the Vedic times. This beautiful sentiment is manifested through the representation of Goddess Parvathi and Lord Siva, the “parents of the Universe”, as Ardhanareeswara.  This representation indicates that while both the female and male forms have their own individual identities and strengths, they are still interdependent. They complement each other and, it is only by combining their individual strengths that they are able to create and nurture life in the Universe.

Feminism is not only at odds with this timeless wisdom, but it also denies women the freedom to celebrate the natural gifts and privileges of womanhood. Feminism propagates low self-esteem, self pity, and self-centeredness among women. Feminism promotes the practice of blaming men and the society for all the lapses and failures resulting from its own irrational ideas and practices. Feminism thrives on spreading hostility against men and family.

The feminist movement is responsible for the passage of a slew of anti-male, anti-family laws. By using the vulnerable damsel in distress as its poster girl, it managed to unleash legal terrorism in the country. A look at India’s suicide statistics will reveal the gravity of the situation. The number of suicides by men past the age of 18 has been steadily rising in the last 15 years. Even the most recent data published by the National Crime Records Bureau* (for year 2014) shows that up to the age of 18, the number of suicides of boys versus girls is more or less equal. However, there is a significant rise in the number of suicides by adult men. Every year, twice the number of married men (59744 in 2014) commit suicides compared to married women (27064 in 2014). Anti-male attitudes and laws, and the lack of a system to help men suffering domestic abuse, false allegations, blackmailing and extortion are responsible for this tragic trend.

My campaign against feminism is met with instantaneous disbelief on the part of men and constant disapproval from the feminists. I was even threatened of dire consequences once on a live TV program by a feminist organization. However, a great number of men and women acknowledge the truth behind my assertions and cheer my efforts. To me, calling out feminism and its anti-male, anti-family biases is more about social responsibility than social acceptability.

Having worked in this area for close to a decade, I have seen the print and electronic media reflect and stoke the misandry prevalent in the society. I have also seen a section of media transform from being blatantly anti-male to genuinely sympathetic towards the sufferings of men. The judicial system has acknowledged the need for amending all women-protection laws to curb their misuse. However, there is still no acknowledgment of the fact that men also need equal protection under law. As we celebrate another year of Indian independence, the Government of India should free itself from the pressure tactics of radical feminist groups, look beyond gender-based, vote bank politics, and take measures to liberate our men. I also hope that more people will overcome issues of social acceptability and start speaking against anti-male biases of feminism.

*See http://swarup1972.blogspot.in/2015/08/ngo-for-men-why-suicide-increases-when.html for a summary of the NCRB statistics.

  • Uma Challa is an author and family rights activist.