Ayesha Siddiqui could have tried trapping other men in past

And after news of demand of 1.5 crore (the 10% cut) from Ayesha Siddiqui, the saga deepens further:

Ayesha Siddiqui could have framed other men too in past

Chicago-based businessman Feroze Jalal says Ayesha Siddiqui is no pained wife, and that she tried to con him the same way she ‘framed’ Shoaib Malik.

Hyderabad is my hometown —which I will soon be visiting, probably in June. I’m currently settled in Chicago with my wife. When I read the news about Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Malik and his alleged link up with the Hyderabad based-Ayesha Siddiqui, what immediately struck me was the name of the woman — since I’ve known her, and had a similar experience, many years back. And in light of that experience, I feel that Ayesha may well have framed Shoaib. What has happened with Shoaib is very sad, and I can understand it better than most because I have gone through similar trauma, because of what Ayesha had done with me a few years back.

In 1997, while I was in Jeddah, I started receiving some crank calls on my phone. I found out that it was my ex-girlfriend’s friend who was making the calls. I then got to know her name —Ayesha Siddiqui. Yes, the same Ayesha who supposedly has just ‘divorced’ Shoaib Malik.

I was only 20 years old at that time. I would keep getting these crank calls everyday. Finally, I decided to speak to her. She introduced herself as Ayesha Siddiqui. Slowly, we both started talking. Sometimes, we’d talk over the phone for hours and hours. She has a typical Pakistani accent. One day, I asked her if she would meet me, and she readily agreed. We decided to meet at a super mall in Jeddah. When I reached the mall and waited for her, a slim, beautiful girl walked up to me and introduced herself, saying, ‘Hi, I’m Ayesha.” We sat and chatted for some time, but after she left, I realised that her voice didn’t sound the same as it did on the phone. I had my doubts. I therefore got in touch with one of my friends, who was Ayesha’s neighbour. His description of Ayesha was very different from what the girl I had met looked like, and he also told me that the girl who had come to meet me at the mall was not Ayesha, but a friend of hers. The next time that I asked Ayesha to meet me, she didn’t turn up at all.

On the phone, Ayesha would cry, and ask me to marry her all the time, and I would refuse. She was crazy and madly in love with me, or so I thought. I finally got irritated of all this and stopped attending her calls. Our relationship lasted only for about six months.

Finally, later, I got to know about Ayesha’s real identity, her family, etc, through a common friend. I got to know that she had been calling other boys too, and talking to them the same way, and trying to somehow force them to marry her. In fact, one of my close friends, whom I’ll just call K (since his family doesn't know about all this), who was at that time staying in Hyderabad, had started receiving similar crank calls from Ayesha. When I told K about Ayesha, he also gave up talking to her. He is now, fortunately, happily married and settled in Australia.

I strongly feel that Ayesha needs proper medication. She seems normal to speak to at first, but she is not quite a ‘normal’ personality. I think she is just looking for fame and money. What appears stranger is that her parents seem to be supporting her in all this. She has probably trapped Shoaib and framed him.

And yes, I’m saying this all on record, as my wife is fully aware of this episode.

Women organisations and Domestic Violence industry exposed in Shoaib Malik case

So you could never believe that many claims of domestic violence by women are nothing but a way to extort money from men using helpful legal fraternity, media, and judiciary to their advantage?  You need proof, right?  You are an intelligent person, who can think for themselves, and you care enough for women empowerment to waste your time listening to this lunatic fringe of so called men rights activists who have coined the phrase domestic violence industry?  So read the story below.

Mediators in Shoaib-Ayesha settlement want share of 15-cr pie

People who came across as well-wishers during her moment of crisis are turning tormentors for Pak cricketer Shoaib Malik's first wife Ayesha Siddiqui. Reason: They think Ayesha made Rs 15 crore from her ex-husband Shoaib Malik and they want their pound of flesh.

…

…

Shiraj Sareen Khan, president of the United Women Front, who had filed a suit with the State Human Rights Commission on Ayesha's behalf, says she expects 10 per cent of the rumoured Rs 15 crore settlement for her crucial role in resolving the crisis.

Kyon paisa paisa karti hai? Shiraj Sareen Khan, president of the United Women Front said she wants the money for her organisation, not herself. Pic/AFP

"I don't want money for myself. All I want is a donation for our organisation, which is fighting for vulnerable women like Ayesha. I heard that Shoaib gave Rs 15 crore to Ayesha before he signed the divorce papers. If this is true, at least 10 per cent of the amount should be donated to our organisation," said Shiraj Khan.

So she does not want money for herself, but donation for her organisation!  Great, such selfless thoughts on her part, right?  DEAD WRONG.  This is exactly how the domestic violence industry works.  These women organisations ‘help’ women to file false cases of domestic violence, child abuse, any worse possible cruelty you can dream about which can be done to women/children.  They again ‘help’ during the extortion negotiations and take their cut or share of the final money paid by the hostage who pays the ransom to free himself/ family members from false cases.  You will never know how that money will be divided amongst the members of that women organisations.  Basically, a few top members along with some lawyers probably will take the lion’s share of the whole sum.  The rest will go to fund propaganda, organise activism etc to ensure that more women in future can be attracted to approach this woman organisation and can be ‘helped’ in similar ways.

Shoaib episode: Indian feminists rubbing their hands with glee

In Sania Mirza-Shoaib Malik episode, some people think about it as marriage of celebrities, some think about whether it will do something good to Indo-Pak relations and so on.  But there is a curious species on this planet which only seems to be interested in getting men behind bars – and you guessed it right, it goes by the name Indian feminists.

Friends find Siddiqui family’s tactics strange

From the above news story, this is what a women’s organisation representative has to say:

Women activists Deccan Herald spoke to agree it is a complex case and they are happy they don’t have to deal with it.

It is a complex case and they are happy they don’t have to deal with it.  Am I surprised?  When were feminists dealing with issues of substance, except heaping insults and hatred on men in general in the name of injustice to women?  Further this is what a woman who works for tribal women and children has to say:

Dr Rukmini Rao who heads Gramya that works amidst tribal women and children said if Ayesha is to be believed that she had undergone mental torture as Shoaib wanted her to lose weight, then under Indian law he could be arrested.

So this woman and child empowerment expert thinks in her expert opinion that if an Indian man wants wife to lose weight, then her wife is right in filing a “mental torture” (better known as IPC 498a) case on husband, and husband can be arrested!  Bravo…. hope you are doing some real good work for the tribal women and children.

“If Shoaib was an ordinary citizen, if he was not a cricketing star and and not a Muslim, he would be behind bars.What he has done is absolutely illegal and unwarranted. Being an icon he should set an example,” she said.

So the feminists have given away their secret sauce which they use to repress Indian men’s freedoms and liberty.  One – you should be ordinary citizen, Two – you should not be cricketing star, Three – you should not be a Muslim; and going by these criteria at least 80% of Indian men will be eligible for special treatment made for men by Indian feminazis.  There you have the perfect ingredients for any Indian woman to torture and repress his husband using Indian laws and judiciary to her advantage.

Feminists’ myths about domestic violence being busted

Newer Perspectives on Domestic Violence

That domestic violence is a preserve of men is demolished by this data on lesbian couples:

Nor is the incidence of DV among lesbian cohorts minimal. In fact, abuse among lesbians occurs with far greater frequency than among heterosexuals (given as 24% by the study above), and far more frequently than male-on-female abuse. Estimates of abuse have ranged between 47% and 73% (Coleman, 1990; Bologna, Waterman, Dawson, 1987; Lie. et al. 1991) among lesbian subjects who responded to questionnaires assessing prevalence of some form of physical, sexual, or emotional-psychological abuse in at least one relationship. Estimates of verbal abuse in lesbian relationships have been as high as 95% (Kelly & Warshafsky, 1987). About half of lesbian subjects who participated in research surveys indicated they had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents during their relationships, and about three-quarters had experienced 6 or more (Renzetti 1992).

That men are more aggressive than women is probably only a convenient stereotype associated with physical aggression of men.  The study has to say this about differences in aggression behaviour between men and women:

In a paper from the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Anne Conway⁶ summarizes her important study on “Girls, Aggression, and Emotion Regulation” as follows: “Many studies have demonstrated that boys are more aggressive than girls (see J.D. Cole & K. Dodge, 1997, for a review) and that emotion regulation difficulties are associated with problematic behaviours. However, recent findings indicate that gender differences in aggressive behaviour disappear when assessments are broadened to include relational aggression—behaviours designed to harm the relationship goals of others by spreading rumours, gossiping, and eliciting peer rejection of others (The author has heard the term “Soul Murder” given to such behaviours and the results can often be deadly.) Moreover, although difficulties regulating emotions have been reported for physically aggressive children, little research has examined these processes in relationally aggressive children.”

And goes on to demolish the myth of women being always peacemakers and men always being violent from point of view of anthropology:

In her seminal study, Male and Female, the renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead¹⁴ states the following: “There are even those who have argued that women are inherently more peaceful than men. On further examination, it would seem that there is little evolutionary basis for this argument. There seems very little ground for claiming that the mother of young children is more peaceful, more responsible, and more thoughtful for the welfare of the human race than is her husband and brother.”

Delhi High Court does historical justice to women by invoking the constitution

In a major boost to women’s rights, the Delhi High Court has ruled that any alleged wrong done to a woman at any time in history can be set right by provisions of Domestic Violence Act  (PWDVA).  Read excerpts of news below:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_domestic-abuse-case-can-be-filed-any-time-delhi-hc_1362252

Allowing Ms Bhanot’s appeal, the court underlined the ‘historical reality’ — that women in our society have been subjected to discrimination, misbehavior and ill-treatment not only outside their house, also inside it.

“Even a working woman — from a construction worker to a qualified professional — is not always treated with respect at home,” Justice Jain said.

The judge has for obvious reasons declined to comment on whether the same situation of discrimination, misbehaviour, and disrespect of women prevails in homes of judges too or not!

It is immaterial whether the “aggrieved person” was living with the husband when the offence was committed.

The important thing is that the woman should feel aggrieved, all other points are trivial in face of ‘historical injustice to women’.

Another news below throws up has some more interesting points:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Domestic-Violence-Act-applies-retrospectively--HC/594239

There is no difference between the women who were subjected to domestic violence before 2005 and those who were later, as any differentiation would tantamount to denying the right of equality before law guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution, the court held.

From henceforth all judgments for all laws in force (esp for women) will be held in retrospective effect from the time the woman was conceived in the womb irrespective from when the law came into force. 

However currently, the courts will not grant relief for grief a woman may have felt in one of her past lives.  The Supreme Court is expected to suggest to government soon to make a constitutional amendment in all women related laws.

Why marriage is a losing game for urban men?

The social reality for any kind of marriage has changed in India, I think after year 2001 or so. (Maybe it coincided with large scale job creation for middle classes).

Now, a woman who earns 1/3rd income of husband and gets housework done through maids etc paid for by husband; still thinks she is in some way superior to husband.  This is the effect of financial freedom (read parasitic freedom) and easy social environment for women in large cities at least.

Some women may actually be doing good work in managing both career and household, but the point I am making is not about contribution to family, but about respect for both spouses in marriage.

For example these days in urban areas, if a woman earns 5K per month, hubby earns 15K per month.  The power equation is not same as if woman earned 0, and hubby earned 10K.

Taking another example, a woman earns 15K per month, hubby earns 45K per month.  The power equation is not same as if woman earned 0, and hubby earned 30K.

In all such cases, woman has become more powerful, due to influence of like minded earning-women, and constant media talk of woman empowerment.  The gender biased laws are the final weapons for unscrupulous women which give them that audacity to go out to police and courts, and create havoc.  Much larger is the number of women who do not openly threaten their husbands but are simply dominating, and disrespectful to their men.  Men at the receiving end of such relationships may continue to suffer the abuse because:

1. They are used to the marriage, marriage is a one in a lifetime affair for most Indians, and no one is prepared to even think about life after a broken marriage.
2. Men with children fear for future and upbringing of children in a broken marriage.
3. Many men are somewhat aware of the gender biased laws which wives/in-laws can use and make men run around courts, lawyers for long time to come, given pathetically slow justice in India.
4. Men have the burden of manhood thrust on them by society.  A broken marriage casts automatic suspicion on man of being not manly enough in some way to be able to ‘control’ his wife.  Imbecile may be too strong a word, but many men worry about being labelled something close to that if their wife leaves them

========================================
Coming back to the analysis, how is a woman earning 15K vs hubby earning 45 K /mth become more powerful than hubby?
========================================

Well if she is one of feminist supremacists, she is.

She can file for DV, maintenance etc and expect to get 12-15K per month as maintenance.  Or more likely she will get hubby to knees by threat of legal and criminal cases and extort some financial favour and property etc.

So after maintenance case wife's income: 15K + 12K = 27K
And hubby's income: 45K - 12K = 33 K

Now they have come close to each other in terms of income.  And woman still has sympathy of society because no one is ready to believe yet that Indian women will tell outright lies about marriage.

If she has child with her, she can extract more in name of child, so she now becomes financially equally powerful as husband.

Most Indian courts will give custody to mothers unless the mother does not want custody and leaves child(ren) with husband.  So a man is set to lose both money, property, and children in case a woman is determined even a little bit to stick it to him.  The rest is taken care of by greedy lawyers, corruptible mediators, and a meek judiciary who cannot bear to stand up to women organisations’ (read feminists’) propaganda.

The laws and social reality in cities has tilted in favour of married women who want to bend the system to their will.  The system is ostensibly created to support needy and oppressed women, but in reality laws like Domestic violence act (PWDVA) etc were always meant to be abused to favour female supremacists’ agenda and create income for lawyers.

CEDAW: or how I invited UN to destroy my family and country

The flyer below from RADAR gives the basic information about the nefarious designs and activities of organisations affiliated to United Nations.

http://mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-CEDAW-and-IVAWA.pdf

CEDAW is a treaty promoted by the United
Nations. CEDAW stands for the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women. 

CEDAW has a committee of 23 U.N. “gender
experts” that enforce compliance with the treaty.
These are some of the enforcement actions the
committee has taken in recent years:
•  Told China to de-criminalize prostitution.
•  Criticized Ireland for the role of religion in
society.
•  Censured Belarus for observing Mother’s Day.

Concerned Women for America warned, “CEDAW
is fundamentally flawed…The United States should
not give our prestige, nor subject our citizens, to
CEDAW.”

When a UN’s convention aims to de-criminalize prostitution and also censure Mother’s Day at the same time, you know who is behind it – the feminazis and female supremacists.

And the Domestic Violence industry (the bureaucracy, lawyers, judiciary) wants us to believe that families are the worst oppressors of women:

The Department of Justice reports that only 2% of
aggressive incidents between partners involve
married couples who live together.

The intact family is the safest place for women and men.

But the well-financed domestic violence industry
wants you to believe the opposite – that the best
way to stop abuse is to break up families.

The most tragi-comic incident is hardly credulous, but you have to stretch your beliefs when dealing with the feminazis:

Talk-show host David Letterman was accused of
committing domestic violence against a woman that he
had never met or heard of. A New Mexico judge
granted a restraining order against Letterman on the
grounds that he had harassed the woman with mental
telepathic messages and televised facial gestures. The
case was eventually dismissed.

i-VAWA is all Woozles

The RADAR organisation has published several flyers against international VAWA (Violence against Women Act), an act which aims to export the much-successful policies of family-breaking and social upheaval of western feminists to other countries, now that their captive markets have seen saturation and backlash.

http://mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-IVAWA-Foreign-Policy-Based-on-a-Woozle.pdf

What is a a woozle:

A “woozle” is a one-sided or fictitious claim
designed to influence public opinion. Many
woozles are found in the proposed International
Violence Against Women Act:

The Woozles from above flyer are:

1. Only women are victims of domestic violence
2. When women engage in partner violence, it is typically done in self-defence
3. Domestic violence is caused by abusers’ need for power and control
4. Society condones violence against women
5. There is no cause for concern for violence against men