Killed men is no big deal, raped women is so bad!

Yes only feminazis can argue in that kind of ‘logic’.  The societal structure of male disposability says that a male’s death is not to be worried about because:

1. In case he was a criminal he only got what he deserved.  It is no one’s consideration to figure out how he got to become a criminal in first place.
2. In case he died in line of duty as police or soldier, then again he died for family, society, country and so on.  So we can pay respect to the martyr and move on.

It is not bad that a 100 men die, but a woman must not die.  It is up to men to wake up to the stupid propaganda.

http://guyinism.com/?p=575

my eye immediately focused in on a single-sentence paragraph in the middle:
“In Iraq, women serving in the military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.”

No mention by Valenti that that deaths of American military guys in the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has outnumbered female military deaths 4,754 to 116.   That’s right:  guys have  been in more than 95% of the body bags.

Vallenti’s ludicrous comparison, which among other flawed logic equates rape with being killed, prompted my comment to the Post:  “Of course, if the military had been using women in hand-to-hand combat, those stats would surely have more than evened out.  Somehow I don’t think that’s [Valenti's] point.“  I went on to again propose that our military become all female, in fairness to the women who were not allowed to get killed and maimed in wars for the past 200 years.

Apparently, the Post pulled my comment.

Do men see societal structures oppressing them?

There is a nice article here on discussion about structures in society and how feminism is able to exploit discussion around societal structures well to benefit their cause.  Why are men unable to look at some of societal structures as being harmful to men or putting too much burden on them?  I guess the reason is men are trained to be self-reliant and in protector and provider mindset most of the time.  So read about some of the societal expectations about men (some of them true more in West) as given in the article.

In the field of gender issues, this means that the only way to combat misandry and the prevailing perception that men are a privileged group that willfully oppresses women, is to describe how cultural and societal structures keep men stuck in their own kind of straitjacket:

• It is a man’s job to keep society safe. This cultural expectation means that men are expendable in wars and in dangerous jobs.
• Cultural expectations of men are narrow. Be successful. If you have a family make sure you support it. If you fail at these tasks, there’s no place for you in society. This in turn leads to men being 3-5 times as likely as women to be homeless or commit suicide.
• The societal structure that is our educational system produces far more women than men who go to college and university.
• Men’s harsh reality under the current structures leads large amounts of random street violence between men.

Husband can’t rape wife, but you can marry woman you raped!

No.  I did not make that one up.  Read the news below, and figure out for yourselves:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_husbands-can-t-get-away-with-marital-rape-government_1356512

Should a rape victim be allowed to marry the man who destroyed her self-esteem? “Yes,” feels chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan. “No,” indicates popular wisdom.

As the world celebrates International Women’s Day on Monday, the government plans to protect women from all possible tormentors, including their husbands, by introducing “marital rape” as a separate provision under the proposed new law against rape and sexual assault.

I could say as in the IDEA advertisement -- “kya idea hai sirji”, except in this case it is hardly funny.

If one thinks about the 2 diametrically opposite views expressed by experts above, it will become clear the the sole idea is to allow women to express their choice without legal repercussions, howsoever reprehensible that choice may seem by social standard of conduct.

For example, a woman can file rape case on a man in case of broken promise of marriage.  But a man cannot file any case of fraud, cheating of money on woman in case of broken promise of marriage, leave alone rape.  The woman is now being given the option by judiciary of changing her mind again at judicial stage and get married to the rape accused!  Why I always loved my rapist!

A married woman can accuse man of rape at any time of marriage.  Of course, there was no notary public present at the time the alleged event happened, so the man will be made to run around to arrange bail, then to prove his innocence, and so on.  And the woman could always condone the rape against husband based on some settlement, say some property or money in her name!  After all, judiciary is quite open to condoning non-marital rape, they will only be too glad to condone an alleged marital rape.

A man who is forced to give presents or money to wife who does not fulfil her promises cannot accuse her of marital robbery, or marital cheating, or marital fraud etc.  But a wife will now be allowed to accuse husband of marital rape, because her rights must be protected.  And her rights are whatever she wants at the moment, there should be no reciprocity of rights when it comes to man-woman relationship, that is so 19th century ….right?

Saner voices on women representation appearing now

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article231543.ece

Shiv Sena, an ally of NDA, which voted for the Women’s Reservation Bill in Rajya Sabha, on Thursday said it will oppose it if marshals were called in and force was used to pass the measure in Lok Sabha.

…

…

Senior party leader and former Lok Sabha Speaker Manohar Joshi said the party is not opposed to 33 per cent reservation for women but constituencies should not be reserved and instead it should be made mandatory for the parties to give 33 per cent reservation to women.

It is becoming evidently clear to all MPs that the lottery based system of reservation of constituencies is probably one of the most lunatic ideas to be tried in a democratic setup anywhere.  Certainly a large country like India with 16% of world’s population cannot afford to try such a system of elections.

Sharad Joshi in Rajya Sabha has valid points against WRB

 

NEW DELHI: The only member in Rajya Sabha, who voted against the Women's Reservation Bill to provide one-third of all seats in India's parliament for women, was Sharad Joshi of a little-known party Shetkari Sangathana of Maharashtra.

He said he supported women's empowerment but the bill would only prove fatal to Indian democracy, as two-third of the elected representatives would be inexperienced.

He also stressed that the two-third of the MPs and MLAs would lose interest in serving their constituencies as they would be unsure of a second term, and that includes all female representatives. It will be fatal if the MPs and MLAs lose interest in public service, the cause for which they enter politics, he added. "Has the reservation actually ever benefited any of the targeted communities? Our experience has not been very pleasant," Joshi affirmed while advocating a system of proportional representation instead of a party list that would solve all the problems linked with reservation.

Rotation: Joshi said the bill provides for a rotation system that will create practical problems and damage democracy, adding that the idea that was ignored by the advocates of women's empowerment.

"Moreover, once a woman is elected, she would know that she does not stand a chance of getting the `woman reserved constituency' again. Therefore, she would not be equally enthusiastic about serving the constituency," Joshi said, pointing out that the same would be the case with male MPs and MLAs as half of their constituencies would be reserved for women in the next elections. A major effect of this predicament would be that all the constituencies would be poorly nursed. This kind of reservation will make it impossible for any House to have more than 33 percent "repeaters" anytime, he added.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C03%5C11%5Cstory_11-3-2010_pg7_38

Benefits of patriarchy – boy gets counselled instead of rapist female teacher

It can happen only in India.  The feminists are always up in arms against any kind of patriarchy they deem to be oppressing women. 

What do they have to say about the benefits of patriarchy to women, when a 15 year old boy is held responsible for running away with his 21 year old female teacher!

15 year old boy gets counselling for eloping with 21 year old female teacher!

Police says there is no proof of the two getting married.  Wow!  I wonder what the police will say if the story was like this:

15 year old girl runs away and gets married with 21 year old male teacher!

Surely the male teacher will get slapped with all kinds of charges including rape of minor, abduction, illegal confinement, and so on. 

But the feminists will never want women empowerment to reach a stage where women can be held responsible for their actions and crimes.  After all, it is female supremacy they are after, not women empowerment.

Women do have their uses

Celebrities get attracted to feminists’ propaganda of women empowerment but are unable to see the sinister undercurrent of male hatred and female supremacy.  For example, in news below, Suhasini Maniratnam says that “men do have their uses”.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/05/stories/2010030562721400.htm

Actor Suhasini Mani Ratnam spoke from her own experiences: “I was born in a part of Tamil Nadu notorious for eliminating the girl child. I was the third daughter born to my parents and I have my mother to thank for deciding that I was not an unwanted child.” She acknowledged the men who played a positive role in her life, including her husband, director Mani Ratnam: “Men do have their uses!” she said.

Of course, it was men who did not stand in the way of ‘women empowerment’, but if women continue to propagate their hatred of men in garb of women rights, then the day is not far when men will start to proclaim – “women do have their uses” with a smirk on their face.