There seems no guarantee that absolute empowerment of women thru feminism will improve the social balance and not give rise to new social problems. How true??!!
This is the unedited answers (in blue) by me of the questions raised by a popular feminist blogger-IHM (in red) regarding the email(in black & edited by IHM) I sent to her which she posted in her blog site on 15th of July, 2013.
Anybody interested are welcome to comment, debate and express their views about the issue. Just please, don’t use abusive language, because that will be edited by me before getting posted or rejected if I find it too tedious a job to edit. So, please spare me the useless pain. I’m very new to the blogging world so please try to be patient and tolerant with my responses. My responses are not meant to hurt the sentiments of any particular individual or group. Hope you understand that. I’m just starting to learn everything out here.
link for my email posted by IHM:
https://indianhomemaker.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/can-anyone-guarantee-that-absolute-empowerment-of-women-thru-feminism-will-improve-the-social-balance-and-not-give-rise-to-new-social-problems/
Dear IHM,
I’m not a blogger or a social activist and neither intend to be one but after reading a number of posts in your blog (to which I accidentally came across), I have mixed emotions and opinion for your posts. In most of them I agree with both you and the feminist commentators, but in some of them my mind and heart simply refuses to accept your opinion, so much so that I couldn’t stop myself from writing to you. I am not a feminist or a follower of patriarchy. I’m a person who likes reacting to a situation or an individual by applying his knowledge, experiences, logic, reasons, and rationality.
I wanted ask a few questions which strikes my mind after reading your blogs. I would feel extremely privileged and thankful if you put these in your blog as I want to see people’s reaction and comments. Finally I would just like to thank you for inspiring me to be more socially aware and to feel free to write/say what you think.
So the questions are as follows (my questions don’t mean to harm or hurt the sentiments of any individual or group.):
1. Is feminism a practical approach at its purest form towards relationships, gender issues and life?
IHM: There cannot be a more honest, fair and practical approach.
In its purest form, ‘feminism is the radical notion that women are human’ (just like non-women), with human aspirations, feelings, failings and rights.
Ans: I feel that injustice anywhere can be fought only by promoting and advocating justice in society, which is why I respect IHM, because though she is fighting with a wrong weapon (feminism), but fighting for the right cause. I have problem with feminism(with everyone bending and forming their own definition out of the word according to their convenience and wish which as a result confuses the masses and brings forward a deformed ideology which is not specific or constant everywhere with everyone) not with justice regardless of gender. Most of you would say both to be the same. Literally yes, both are the same, as beautifully quoted by IHM – “feminism is the radical notion that women are human”. Correct. Agreed. But had I been the quoter (Cheris Kramarae – don’t know who the guy is or ever heard his name or what is his contribution towards society until IHM quoted him. Let’s just hope for the time being that he was some great women rights activist or someone very near & dear to the feminist society) I’d just have added by saying that – “feminism is the radical notion where both men and women are human”. Now, do you see any difference?
The moment you, me or anyone else, while speaking of such sensitive issue like gender equality or justice, completely rules out or corners out a whole gender by not talking about them or their problems as well, or calling them as ‘non-women’ instead of simply ‘men’, it conveys a very negative message implying that men are not being considered as a part of women liberalisation/freedom movement (i.e. feminism) or men who (even politely) try to critically question your stand are resented by feminists.
I know IHM, that your intention while mentioning men as ‘non-women’ was just to clarify your statement in a better way than to be misunderstood. Whatever I wrote above was just to make you and your readers acknowledge and understand that I or any other blogger or email writer, who is not a professional writer or novice in blogging or expressing themselves in as perfect way as you people, would appreciate if you and your readers would try to take a look at the notion of the writing instead of picking up a single line from the text and aggressively start criticising it. Anybody like me, who is politely, decently and critically questioning your stand as feminists, is not your enemy or resents women or anti-humanist or is not here to be misunderstood. I wrote to you because after reading your blogs and their responses, I was confused and curious. So much so that something inside me compelled me to write to you. I just hope this time you and specially your readers understand what or why I’m saying instead of taking it personally.
Finally, I’d like to know why do you not publish or edit my comments in your blog site even if they are not abusive or condescending while I can show you a number of people who may/may not be your supporter but have used abusive language in your website even thou in a mild tone? Is it because you want to project the image of your website as a place where all the hurt, oppressed and feminist people rant about how bad the Indian social system is in all the different ways they can and finally emerge as debate winners in front of the few allowed comments against the motion? Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to project a virtual victory thru your website? I think an appreciated, interactive, successful or healthy website is a place where both parties are allowed to have a healthy debate in order to judge the issue or situation in hand. I’m not requesting you to allow outrageous or abusive comments in your website. In fact, dare not allowing the ones which even you think are supporting your cause. I’m just asking you to allow people to convey their message and to have a genuine and healthy debate regarding the issues you want to put forward into discussions.
Thank you!!
2. According to feminism, is it justified/correct by any standards, if a woman claims to be in an otherwise unproblematic healthy love relationship (say married/in an affair/live in or any other kind if I’m forgetting any) with one man and while in relationship with him knowingly & willingly involves into frequent/occasional casual sex or an affair or spends too much time with another man/men in order to quench her physical/emotional thirst, because….
IHM: Only as justified and as correct as it is for any two people in any relationship, two men, two women, a man and a woman.
Feminism acknowledges that women are as human as anybody else, and as capable of dishonesty as anybody else. Women are not goddesses to be worshiped, or possessions/amaanat/paraya dhan to be ‘given away’, or honour to be ‘protected’.
Ans: since, you have acknowledged feminism as a practical approach towards life; I can completely understand where your answer is coming from and agree with you.
I’d just like to add that women rights activists like you who are playing an important role in creating awareness against injustice, should also focus your attention towards problems related to men and address them with as much importance as that of women. If you are trying to improve the status of women in society, you cannot simply ignore the other gender because the problems and solutions are related and co-dependent. Problems related to men are as much a big reason for problems related to women, and they should also be taken into consideration and talked about instead of just projecting majority men or even men from patriarchal setup as villains of society or feminism.
Please listen to what I have to say. In patriarchy there are a lot of things which I myself hate. Women are really looked down upon and have to face a hell lot of problems in their lives to live happily and peacefully. I accept whole heartedly that part of yours. But there is a huge underlying question behind empowering women thru feminism and giving them their rightful equality which may be they deserve (I don’t want to jump to conclusions ahead hand).
IHM: Everybody, even terrorists, child abusers and murderers have ‘human rights’, which is why they are sentenced only according to the laws of the land.
Ans: completely agree.
Why do you think should women have to ‘deserve’ ‘rightful equality’?
Ans: firstly, because they are minority by population and power to control as of now & will remain in that state for the next 10 yrs (was about to write 50 or 100 yrs may be, but let’s not fall into that debate now) at least in our beloved country. Secondly, there can be only either of the 2 consequences for a wish/action, i.e. success or failure. I think you might agree to the fact that if any individual or group or identity deserves and works hard enough in the right direction for any cause, success eventually kisses their feet. This I say from my personal experience, and any successful person or organisation would attest to my statement. So, if this is true and if since time immemorial after so much being talked, written and debated about women’s so called ‘rightful equality’, after nothing/negligible has been accomplished in regard to women freedom or liberalisation in this country or anywhere else, don’t you think it’s high time for you to rethink, analyse and change what went wrong with your revolution? (‘Rightful equality’ might be a wrong term used by me, try applying ‘freedom of women’s choice, opinion and action’ instead). Don’t you think that, since known history as well as in the present times, women, characteristically have sometimes or often come across as so much dominating/demanding/confusing/contradicting/complicating/manipulating/treacherous beings that they have failed to convince the masses/majority(/in your case men from patriarchal setup) about their ideals, consistency and character. So much so, that it is the belief of the majority that they (women) cannot be trusted with their freedom.
That is why I think that women in India should rethink logically, plan a proper strategy and act accordingly to first prove that they can be trusted with their freedom(of choice, opinion and action) and that they well deserve that freedom, to the majority of men, women or society who think otherwise.
Without considering this fact if you try to bypass the hard work and reach success, I’m very sorry to say this, but feminism or any idealism won’t take you much further, no matter how hard you try or die while ranting, neither would changing of law or harsher punishments for rape, until you start creating, educating and applying the change from the very grass root level.
Take my word for it. I’m very very sure about this.
And who ‘gives’ equality to women?
Ans: the majority of the society in India who resent or refuse to accept women being free to choose, be opinionated or act; simply because they don’t trust them or fear the change if freedom is allowed to women in their lives or outside or may be because women on a long run have not been able to be convincing enough with their arguments and actions.
How did ‘they’ become qualified to ‘give’ women (or take from women) their ‘rightful equality’?
Ans: they became qualified because they are in majority (much much much more in number than who support women freedom). The ratio will be something like 80:20 or may be even 90:10 or so. Look around yourself; we are a country with diverse cultures and hypocrite people. Even people who pretend to support women freedom in media or in public, much more than half of them never apply it with the women in their own lives.
Fun fact: the other day I was out with 10 friends (11 including myself, 5 girls and 6 boys, all aging from 26yrs to 33 yrs) and we were all discussing about the December Delhi rape case. After a argument which lasted for around 2 hrs and me constantly pushing them to continue, every single person came to the conclusion that “even if, given the situation, the several rapists who had the urge to have sex or rape that girl in that bus might be considered right or just, the brutality with which they raped cannot be forgiven”. Basically, nobody had a problem with the girl getting raped but everybody had a problem with brutality with which it was done. And these came out from the mouth of a handful of India’s educated so called middle class people who are engineers, doctors, lawyers, chartered accountants, company secretary, teacher and a business man. If ever asked in media or publically, I’m 200% sure that these people who think rape to be right treatment for a careless or foolish or otherwise characteristically any other kind of girl, will wear a mask of gentle men or women and advocate otherwise.
What do you have to say about this? Now do you see my point? Whatever I told you above was just a very simple and the most decent example of many similar encounters I have heard or been a part of in my personal life regarding women freedom translated and reproduced as decently and politely I could.
So, you see, we, the majority and even the educated Indians, are mentally not against rape, we just don’t want it to be brutal or physically painful to be precise to anyone, otherwise we are ok it and advocate that it is apt treatment for some individuals in some situations. How hypo critic is that? Not only this, i have also heard sometimes from many people that many women enjoy rape if it’s not brutal. Personally IHM, initially i used to be surprised but now I’m afraid & I can completely understand that may be what they say can be true because (u may not believe it) I know a few educated women from well-to-do families from my generation who willing went into a long lasting happy relationship with the person who raped them either when they were in the effect of alcohol or in their senses or were blackmailed into having sex. Some even got married and are now happy couples.
Did women give them equality? Who are these deserving ‘they’ who do not have to ‘deserve’ their ‘rightful equality’? Women’s parents? But one of them is always a woman. The society? Approximately 50% 45% of that is women too.
Ans: frankly, I don’t know if women being in the minority have given want to give/not or have the power to control the freedom of majority or give them equality. Then try showing me the 45% of women population of India that you so proudly talk about standing beside you or wanting a change standing shoulder to shoulder with you in your feminist revolution. Women or people have the capability to analyse the situation and take sides only when they are educated and aware of the situation and are willing to spend their time and energy towards that cause. That is why I say that feminism needs to come into debate in this country only after we have resolved the issues of poverty, education and health. If you start talking and create awareness directly about issues like poverty, education, employment, facilities and health of women instead of branding yourself with the tag of being a feminist and talking about complex issues like dowry, rape, divorce, marriage, pregnancy, prostitution, domestic violence, in laws conflicts and stupid kitty fights, then only you will be able to connect with more number of women in this country and will actually be heard by them. The average Indian citizen or women in India is still stuck with roti, kapra and makaan thing in their regular lives. Unless you resolve these issues first, nobody has got time to give their attention to what you are saying. The fallacy to tackle all the problems regarding women, if you really want to do that, is by eradicating their basic problems first and then start talking about the complicated ones. Rest I leave it up to your wisdom.
Why is the rest of humanity entitled to ‘equality’ – who are ‘they’ equal to?
Ans: as you said that this social system worships power, so may be 45% out of 55% of the male population and at least 25% out of 45% of the women population together becoming 70% of the total population which is majority and that is why they are entitled to ‘equality’ or should I rephrase it as ‘freedom’. ‘They’ are equal to no one. ‘They’ just have the power to exercise their freedom and don’t want the minority % of population to enjoy their freedom because ‘they’ resent and doubt their intention, opinion and result if ‘they’ allow otherwise.
Can anyone guarantee that absolute empowerment of women thru feminism will be healthy and efficient enough to improve the social balance and not give rise to any new social problems or be a potential threat in future?
IHM: What is this ‘social balance’ that cannot be maintained without oppressing half of the humanity?
What we have is a system that has failed to instil even basic human values in those who follow it. This ‘social balance’ tolerates parents and grandparents hating some of their own children, keeping them in dependence and forcing them to live with abuse and torture. We have a system that does not acknowledge that lack of basic human rights for half the population leads to a desensitized society where might becomes right. This ‘social balance’ worships power.
And what is ‘absolute empowerment’? Equal rights to seek happiness, justice, self reliance and freedom is ‘absolute empowerment’?
Ans: how about a situation where slowly and gradually more & more families in India become dysfunctional. How about a social imbalance where people marry several times in life and a child is brought up in an environment where he also stops believing in love or having family or being loyal to someone. Instead he/she learns to be selfish, characterless, money minded and to be master at being emotionally available to any other being. How about rise in population of gay and lesbian couples. How about people not feeling the need to get married or have babies, assuming it to be a worthless or non-profit investment physically, emotionally or financially? In your language IHM, imagine a society comprising of no shravan kumars, reproducing parents not expecting shravan kumars and a obedient daughter in law, no joru ka ghulams, half of shravan kumars turning out to be frustrated or gays or bachelors or gigolos, half of women in search of joru ka ghulams turning into lesbians or spinsters or prostitutes or frustrated unproductive citizens, half of functional couple not reproducing or not paying much attention to their upbringing due to lack of expectation, rise of STDs in India, rise of rape cases, molestations, eve-teasing etc…..and the list continues. In a process to improve the society and make it a better place for its citizens to live out here we will make it return to the dark ages again. History will then again repeat itself. Basically the whole society will turn out to be mechanical and materialistic. This is what I mean by breaking down of the ‘social balance’.
Yes you are right that the current social system worships power. But all I want to say is that feminism is not the right weapon to fight with it because half the population of India has got no idea about the term and the other half doesn’t fully understand it yet or doesn’t feel the need to give it a thought at least. I’m not even daring to Google into the statistics of the percentage of people having access to the internet or the literacy rate or ratio of how many people of India actually have ever thought or are aware about the term, its implications or definition and feel the need to be a part of it. The only solution in this scenario is dealing with it delicately, slowly, steadily and individually. I’ll post about this in detail later on when I’ve completed writing it. Idealising won’t help.
No, equal rights to seek happiness, justice, self reliance and freedom is not ‘absolute empowerment’, instead it is ‘optimum empowerment’ according to me.
According to me, absolute empowerment of women is a situation where the very laws, rules, regulations and facilities made to protect women’s freedom can be stupidly used or taken advantage of by women, against who-so-ever whenever women dislike or want to hurt. The idea must be to create a balanced law and order system which provides women a strong shield of protection but doesn’t act as a weapon according to their whims and cries, which in my opinion is very tough to create and so I fear there will be loopholes in the laws created in favour of women as well, just like the section 498(a) of domestic violence is many a times exploited by deceitful women because 498(b) is not that effective or advantageous for men in reality.
Because like patriarchy the idea of feminism also has many flaws.
IHM: Feminism is about human rights for women, children and men who do not fit into patriarchal gender stereotypes. What do you see as flawed in that?
Ans: I see nothing flawed with this ideology of feminism. It’s just that I feel that feminism as a word sounds resentful and confusing, especially to men and majority Indian population.
Besides, when i said that like patriarchy the idea of feminism also has many flaws, I wanted to ask all those people who advocate in your blogs that after marriage the daughter in law should not stay with the aged in-laws or be subservient to them if they find it uncomfortable, that, is that the way they think they are upholders of feminism or women freedom and is that how they think they are going to empower women? By escaping any slightest of the hard work they are not concerned about and just enjoy or relish the fruits of the seeds reaped by the elders or in-laws? Don’t they think that as too selfish an act? This is not feminism. This is escapist, ambitious, lazy, selfish, educated and dreamy women of this country trying to manipulate marital institution according to their wish and advantages, making sure that they get the maximum output with as minimum input as possible.
This attitude of a feminist woman is flawed, according to me.
Moreover do you really believe that men and women in India are prepared enough to go thru such major psychological and attitude change in near future?
IHM: If not now, then when? When every misogynist says they are ready to ‘give’ ‘equal rights’ to those who ‘deserve’ it?
Ans: first, misogynist is a person who hates or resents women, which I or most educated sensible men are not. I have had 2 beautiful relationship in my life with 2 beautiful women whom I don’t beat, tortured, ordered to cook for me, wash my clothes, clean my flat, pay my bills, or disrespect ever.
Secondly, yes I believe that there is a lot to be done by most women, especially by the current generation, so that they can be trusted as mature, sensible, rational, logical & responsible beings and prove that they deserve & are worthy of the freedom of choice, opinion and action that you are asking for them. Women should be allowed to execute their freedom when they are ready to handle it justifiably with a promise to not increase the chaos in our society.
All that is needed it for parents to value their girl-children – not possible until they see them as liabilities, – can’t change until daughters continue to be seen as ‘future daughters in law’, – can change if everybody sees self reliance and not marriage as their goals. Once marriage ceases to be the only purpose in Indian daughters’ lives and when parents start seeing them as their own children and not as paraya dhan/future dils/, they will take their rights (and crimes against them) seriously – and only then will the society start valuing women. It all begins with women being seen as people (i.e. humans) and not as future wives, future daughters in law, sister of men, mothers of men, ghar ki izzat, ghar ki lakshmi and paraya dhan.
I also think gender studies should be a part of school curriculum. Children should learn in school that no matter how their families treat some family members – everybody is equal.
Ans: this marvellous idea of making gender studies a part of the school curriculum won’t help much. Children should learn that they should not hesitate or feel biased to interact freely with the opposite gender, no matter how different they might seem to each other and always try to apply their sensibility and logic in whatever action they take right since their formative years.
So what could make even the average, selfish, money-minded Indian family welcome baby girls?
Ans: in this regard I agree with any opinion you can possibly think of like women should be taught to be self reliant, should have equal access to opportunities, etc.
I think boys in our country should be taught right from their formative years to respect women instead of just objectifying them like testosterone driven apes, not just by delivering lectures or holding stupid summer camps or by religious gurus or parent & family or thru books but by actually providing majority of them with a healthy family and society and making them realise the contribution of a women in our society and why they need to be respected for their choices, opinions and freedom. Basically, they should be able to see the bigger picture and the logic behind whatever is being taught to them and that women have got more to offer to a man than just being good at bed. Sadly, our country, society or family, moral or logical or analytical teaching system is far from being efficient to deliver such sense.
Also, I think that for the average, selfish, money minded Indian family to welcome baby girls (not applicable to all but majority, exceptions not included/applicable to), educated, capable, efficient, role models (celebrities whom other dumb women citizens sometimes/all the times follow or try to follow without reasoning) and independent girls or women in our locality, society or country should also try to set a good example and be more responsible, sensible, gracious with their personality, competent, non-hypocrite, non-opportunistic, assertive instead of trying to be dominant, non-compromising professionally or otherwise for mere benefits (if you know what I mean), and focused enough in life with conviction and clarity, instead of bullshitting all around the place (pardon my language) or being adulterous, tactful, manipulative, cheating, stealing, lying, or being illicit, in search of a better life or option to trap for their selfish needs in future, to improve the reputation of their gender and to be recognised as human first before being recognised as a woman. Mutual respect within genders cannot be achieved overnight. Respect is earned and not given/taken to/from someone like a commodity. Respect is something as far as I know, a feeling which comes from within a person for another person’s particular personality (power & position) or quality or act. So for men or the majority society to respect women’s freedom, women must do something to earn that respect in the same way as men are expected to be wealthy, obedient, supporting, well groomed, etc to earn the respect of women. It is a vicious circle. Aren’t the men who don’t fit into the above mentioned attributes rejected or cornered or are not respected and considered astray by the same women who call themselves as upholders of feminism sometimes or more often than not? If yes, which I’m sure and seen actually happen, then why should women be respected with their freedom for free? They should also work their asses out, so that they can produce a clean image which makes it easy for the majority society or men to accept and respect their freedom.
And if this happens, only then families or couples won’t hesitate to welcome baby girls anymore because they will be assured about the future well being of their daughters in any part of the society.
Do you think that women in India are well aware with the responsibility that comes with the effect of feminism in its absolute form, if and when it comes to effect?
IHM: The responsibility that comes with being seen as human?
Women need to be aware of this responsibility, only as much as the rest of the humanity, no?
Ans: agree with you.
Don’t you think that even if feminism has to come in our society it needs redefining in an elaborate way?
IHM: Maybe the media needs to talk a lot more about how nobody has the right to ‘give’ equality to equal others because we are all born equal?
About how each one of us owns our bodies, minds, lives, careers, opinions and happiness, and each one of us responsible for our own actions?
And maybe we need to talk a lot more about how harmful social hierarchies are?
Ans: agree with you.
3. According to feminists, is marriage an overrated or outdated or obsolete institution? What are the advantages and disadvantages of marriage for an average Indian? I know about the guys but what does a feminist girl bring to the table when getting married?
IHM: I am not sure I understood the question. What do those who are not feminist (women or men) ‘bring to the table’? What should anybody bring to the table?
LINK: Marriages are sold to Indian women in a glossy cover.
But I guess feminism for Indian women would mean more people marrying only because they want to marry, and only those who they want to marry. This could bother some people: LINK: Early and arranged marriages within the community prevent social ills?
Ans: ok. I’ll try to be lucid and elaborate with my question.
But first let’s see why do men and women in India who are not feminist get married anyway? According to the very limited knowledge and experience I have, I believe that majority of men and women in India who are not feminist get married/want to get married for may be some or all the reasons given below:
Possible expectation/s on the basis of which majority men marry or want to get married in India:
• To get a partner/companion for moral/emotional support.
• To get a helping hand for the household chores.
• To get a permanent partner for having sex.
• To get a child to propel the family genes or to have someone to take care of them in their old age or to just fulfil their wish of having a family of their own or to satisfy/fulfil any other selfish motive of their own.
• To get a companion who can take care of their responsibilities/liabilities when they are not there to attend the issue or if whenever they are dead.
• To get a partner to financially support or help if/when needed/wished in life.
• To fall in love and be loved.
Possible expectation/s on the basis of which majority women marry or want to get married in India:
• To have a partner who can be a good provider & protector to ensure a safe & secure future for the family/couple.
• To have a partner for moral/emotional support.
• To have a permanent partner to have sex with.
• To have children.
• Because they think they have to get married at some point of time in life so as to be seen as a respected woman with a good social image for the rest of her life.
• To have a partner to love and be loved for the rest of the life.
So, men and women in India get married keeping in mind some or all the above mentioned expectations. And IMO these are the expectations and attributes which those who are not feminist (women or men) try to bring or actually ‘bring to the table’ when a marriage is proposed to both the parties.
I want to know whether a feminist man or a woman has something different to offer to in the form of expectations and attributes when a marriage is proposed to him/her? Since feminism believes on cancelling out the gender roles in a marriage, I’m interested to know what are their expectations from the other party, if whenever they wish to get married? More precisely, what I want to know is that on what parameters are they going to judge/evaluate whether if a potential candidate is/can be compatible/fit or not as a marital partner in future?
I hope I have cleared out your doubt with my question.
4. Like patriarchy isn’t materialistic/selfish love being promoted/introduced in fashion in the mist of feminism and women liberalisation?
IHM: Shouldn’t people have a choice in whether or not they want to be unselfish? Forced unselfishness is abuse, not selflessness.
‘Materialistic love’ thrives when half the population is denied self reliance (in a million ways including through banning public spaces for them) and the other half is forced to be providers.
[LINK:The traditional arrangement is equal in distributing the responsibilities?]
Ans: for you to understand my answer clearly IHM, I want you to go back down the memory lane when you were a child and not an adult. Were you more often than not warned or instructed by your elders or parents not to do something even if you had a strong desire or urge to rather not follow those instructions, say e.g.- having several ice creams in winter, going outside after its dark, etc.? Will a 5 yrs old or a 10 yrs old ever understand why getting involved in a fight with some classmate is wrong even if they resent or dislike or feel angry about that particular person? U and I can understand that getting involved in a fight can hurt either party with unknown negative consequence, but not a kid who is not matured, logical, sensible, rational and thoughtful enough to understand the importance of the matter.
Similar is the case with women. Majority of women are considered by men as physically grown up pampered whimsical adamant kids with no or little sense of logic whatsoever. Now, the kid might want to be shaktimaan and jump from the terrace but it is the duty and responsibility of the parent to make the kid understand that it is a foolish wish he is making and that it is in his interest not to jump from that terrace. If that doesn’t work then the parent will be forced to lock the kid inside a closed room until he either realises his foolishness or forgets about the wish. But it is not possible to keep the kid in locked up room forever. Now say the parent after a few days when he is convinced that it is now safe for him to let the kid go out and play or may be allow him to go to school, he while at office, gets the news of his kid jumping from the terrace of the school and dying due to injuries, whom do you think should he blame for the incident? Himself, the kid, the school authorities, the serial, the media or the system?
Such is the dilemma which majority men have to face in India when it comes to handling a women in life, and thanks to handful of illogical, adamant and disoriented people like you (please don’t take it personally, by you I mean people whose words act as catalyst to make women rethink about their status quo and instigate an already confused lot of women towards a more liberated but spiritually dark future and making them more and more questioning, challenging, worthless and complicated personalities who are better be left alone than to opt them as life partners if one wishes to have a peaceful undisturbed happy life) that by poking, distracting and foolishly challenging the status quo of women in this country you people are increasing our problems, creating a more cut throat competitive market of relationships, and hence increasing the chaos day by day. You are just distributing free copies of a false dream like a yash chopra or karan johar movie to the women in this country which is never going to come true in their real life. The problem is that if by chance your movie hits the box office, and the changes which are being demanded are implemented, it will take years for people and specially women to realise the loss, and I’m afraid that in the process gender powers might be reversed instead of reaching a balance on a mass scale for a long duration, and once that is done it will b very tough to undo the mistake.
So the answer to your question is no, women shouldn’t have a choice in whether or not they want to be unselfish.
StRaIgHt SiMpLe SeLfIsH 