All Men are NOT Dogs All Women are NOT Angels

Times change, people change, situations change, perceptions change. Times have changed, so have men, and so have the women. Laws have changed, so has the news, and so have the views.

Perceptions have changed, so have the uses, and so have the misuses. The deeply embedded patriarchy is facing stiff competition from the newly surfaced Feminism. It is 2016, and although the change in thinking among men is still not drastic, one cannot completely rule out the fact that a certain section of the Indian male youth forms a not-so-pervert party, and hence, the notion that all men are dogs also needs to change.

The transformation of ‘male chauvinism’ into ‘male feminism’ might be racing with the senile snail, but it is very much there in the race that is taking the Indian society one step closer to the utopian world.

While the ‘use’ of these changes is heading us towards a bright future, the misuse, sadly, is like a dark cloud that is filtering the rays to such an extent that the potential of these changes remains scarcely utilized.

A careful analysis of the evolution of laws for women suggests an angel-like image of women and a caveman attitude of Indian men.

But as a man writing for a ‘Feminist’ magazine, I would like to make one thing crystal clear: All Indian men are not anti-feminist, just like all men are not gentlemen.

The society has somehow been conditioned into believing that one must have her (and even his) emotions bent towards the woman because the Indian naari was born abla and would continue to remain abla till the day ‘man’ brings the world to an end, and this is where we go wrong.

Today’s women are as strong as men. Today’s women are as ambitious as men. Today’s women are as competitive as men. And before you expect some more bombastic adjectives that eulogize you, forgive me for shattering your hopes with a gruesome reality that SOME women are as callous as SOME men, and that is what drains out the entire essence of feminism, and that is what causes infanticide of the newly born ‘male feminism’.

Before we delve deeper into the topic, “I do beseech ye” to not to count me among the anti-feminist men.

The sole purpose of this article is to make you aware of how the misuse of provisions by SOME women is creating high hurdles in the aforementioned race to utopian world.

Before we go on to read unbelievable instances, let’s rewind to the moment we boarded the train at Kashmiri Gate this morning, after successfully coming out alive from the Blue Line at Rajiv Chowk. Kudos to the guards at these stations for ensuring queues that do not have gender bias for the non-pink coaches. The average Indian man smiles with glee as after failing to enter two overcrowded trains, he is finally well ahead in the line. The train approaches the platform and all of a sudden the women standing behind him march to form their own queue, pushing him with her elbow, while proudly uttering the legendary “hum ladies hain”. Little did he know that to be born as “a ladies” makes someone class apart. Women lead a tough life, agreed. But you also have to agree to the fact that being a man is also not a cakewalk.

Feminism refers to equality, and not superiority, between men and women in ALL respects; it is NOT a matter of convenience. Let’s not even get into ladies having made their right to the seats reserved for senior citizens.

Greed for dowry is a nationwide pandemic in India, wherein, I believe, the boy is ‘sold’ to the girl’s family, and yet, for some weird unknown reason, his family takes pride in it. Not just as a Feminist, but also as a law abiding citizen of this country, and more as a sensible inhabitant of this planet, I strongly condemn this exchange of marriage vows in exchange for money. And I am sure even you do. I mean the sanctity of marriage is such that the husband and wife complete each other. Brides need not carry a bag full of cash to be called ‘Ghar ki Lakshmi’. Women are self-dependent. They are not a liability for men. They can earn a living for themselves.

But then why do we get hypocritical in a case of a divorce when it comes to getting alimony from the husband? Why does it always have to be the husband who has to pay the alimony? Shouldn’t it be the well-to-do spouse (which is not always the husband) doing that?

And if we oppose the system of dowry, why do we support the system of alimony? This rhetorical question in NO WAY implies that we must support the dowry system. The wife was self-dependent at the time of marriage and will continue to remain as capable after divorce too!

The provisions that were made for the welfare of women are slowly turning into luxuries for SOME. Section 498a of the Indian Constitution acts as

Section 498a of the Indian Constitution acts as agent of women who want to frame the husband in a harassment case. Hence it is not always the man who is at fault — all men are not dogs.

While most of these cases are genuine, women who misuse this provision make one question the authenticity of any such case, thereby posing a threat to the rights of women in genuine cases.

The recent case of the Rohtak sisters had praise pouring in from across the country, but every story has two sides. If eye witnesses are to be believed, it was the girls who were at fault. What is the reality? Who knows? But ‘public trials’ are always meant to frame the men because the society has been conditioned into believing that all men are dogs and all women are angels.

Before the feminist in you reading this article mentally fires two bullets at me, let me reiterate that I am not an anti-feminist. I just want today’s feminists to have an identity and thinking of their own which is well above what society has been conditioned into believing over the years.

It is 2016, when all men are not dogs and all women are not angels.