Wait, This Isn’t About Travel?


4 thoughts on “Wait, This Isn’t About Travel?

    • A regular Indian girl! says:

      Hi Regular Indian Guy! I guess you stole my name! πŸ™‚

      I can see where she gets her cause against feminists, or “people who call themselves feminists”. She is against the misuse of laws created for protection of women. Like sati (she gives an example where a suicide was made into sati and the family faced consequences, etc.) or domestic violence or dowry laws.

      I’ll put my point like this: If you know dowry is wrong and it shouldn’t be practiced, you ban it. The cause may be inheritence rights, and you fight for them too, but why say let us only focus on inheritence rights and dowry practice will set itself right? Dowry is wrong and hence, people opposing it are justified. Period.

      To me feminism is the right to be able to choose what I want to.

      And I laughed at this: Feminists are only sensitive to a woman in the role of a young bride. In every other role β€” a mother-in-law, sister-in-law, bhabi β€” we think of her as a tormentor.

      It is not true. I follow many bloggers who write about these issues we can broadly categorise under “feminism” but none of them ever say that a newly wedded bride is tormented and the mothers in law are tormentors.

      Feminism is against patriarchy. A practice where men have been in pivotal position, worshipped for ages. And a grooms family claims entitlement to a persons (bride’s ) basic rights. Where if a man comes home after work, he is tired and where a woman comes home after work, she has to take up home responsibility now because she was out all day. That is what is wrong. Feminism is about equality. If both husband and wife are working, why not share the responsibilities at home too?

      Patriarchy is when a woman is told “now you are married, stop talking to your parents daily, don’t call your friends, you can’t have male friends it is against indian culture, dont wear western clothes, put on mangalsutra & bangles, don’t spend on yourself, don’t have hobbies” and a married man continues doing all of the above because he has that male organ which makes him entitled to “no compromise”.

      Feminists are against that. Both for daughter in law, mother in law, bhabhi, everyone. It so happens that to prove her cause, she cites examples where good mothers in law have been wronged and to prove feminists cause, they cite examples where good daughters in law have been wronged.

      Objectively and from what I have experienced so far, wronged daughters in law are more and hence, I might stand by them and their cause, which does not mean I support daughters in law who torture their in-laws. Because I am a feminist, I am not a male hater. Being a feminist doesn’t make me inhuman. It is about equality, not about dominance.

      Thanks for the link though. I have heard her name, now I get a chance to know her perspective. I don’t know much about her.


      • A Regular Indian Guy says:

        Many Indian bloggers who were calling themselves feminists have, over time, started saying: “Maybe I should call myself a humanist after all”. (..you can check old posts of popular Indian blogs to find out about these women).
        Just as Marxism is not the answer to economic inequality and injustice, Feminists, with their extreme views (and a compulsion to mock Shravan Kumar), are not the answer to patriarchy or other evils of the society. Just my opinion.


        • A regular Indian girl! says:

          They prefer to call themselves “humanist” (this reference you will find in some of my posts too) because the word feminist has been so beaten and is now perceived to be a person who is an extremist, not for women rights, but for women dominance. Which is untrue.

          Feminism always has been a drive to get women equality. Not dominance. There might be women who claim dominance under this tag, but the word definitely doesn’t mean so.

          Hence, the term “humanism”.

          All feminists don’t hold extreme views. And a reference to “shravan kumar” might as well be an answer to “traditional bhartiya nari” and her sacrifices, submissiveness, pati-parmeshwar context. We should probably talk about both right? πŸ™‚

          Thanks for stopping by again! πŸ™‚


Any thoughts??

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s