A Voice For Me/Age of Kali – Dave Futrelle should Quit His Job

For the amount of MRA bashing I am doing this weekend?

A Voice For Men is not content to support the lovely Taliban and their policies in Afghanistan. It’s hard to top that for vileness.

But try they shall! 

This time they are back in India with Anil (Women get free entry to Nightclubs! Oppression!) Kumar. He was the lovely person who defended the rape culture of India post the Delhi Rape.

In India, 40% of people earn less than 2 dollars a day. If we normalize it using purchase power parity (PPP), then it would be less than 10 dollars a day in the USA. So, the current center-left Congress Party ruled government started a law called Food Security Bill, which is basically a food stamps act. The government plans to provide free or subsidized food to almost 67% of population of the country. India is not an importer of food as it produces enough food due to its tropical weather, good quality agricultural land, and rivers. Still, the government will spend more than 21 billion dollars in a year to run this Food Stamps program. This is the largest such program in the world. The president of India signed this ordinance, which has to be ratified by the parliament in next 6 months.

To be precise, 40% of India earns less than the International Poverty line which is $1.25.

Indian food production is woefully unbalanced. With large numbers of farmers being serf grade and almost subsistence. They lack the land, the technology, the infrastructure and the education to utilise the above. The problem being that India is industrialising and all industrial nations make that shift of economy where agriculture is done by fewer people and mechanisation is the norm which increases profit.

Intensive agriculture is a mug’s game when you are trying to be a first world nation. The west had the horrid nature of the industrial revolution, a period of exploitation of the poor that gave the world communism due to it’s mistreatment of the lower classes.

India is trying to soften the blow. Starvation isn’t the “somalian Kwashiorkar and Marasmus” alone or the wasted emaciated bodies of Auschwitz. Chronic starvation is just as bad. And Chronic starvation is rife in India.

 The law says that the eldest woman in the household will be the only official recipient of the food for the family. If a poor man wants food, then the eldest female member of his family has to show her biometric- identity card called “Aadhar card” and receive the food on his behalf. She will decide how the food will be shared in the family. As many poor people in villages still live in join family households, this creates a very dangerous situation for elderly men. For example, if a 30-year old woman is the eldest woman in a joint family household, she can easily deny this benefit to the old father-in-law and starve him, as she is the only recipient of this food. Even her 35-year old husband will have no say in it. This form of elder abuse can extend to the younger woman blackmailing the old man to transfer the farm land or house property into her name. Blackmail by women using law and policy designed for their protection is not unprecedented in Indian culture, with the results hitting extended family and even very young children. Last year, 13000 male farmers committed suicide in India, and poverty is not the only reason.

Dowry is still the norm in India, Many Indian women are still burned, crippled and killed for “dowries”. Very few women have recourse to the law because there are few men who would give up the dowry and it’s “easier to pay and get on with life” than go about fightiing the practice and dooming yourself to being “alone”. In fact, young men often ask for dowries because if they don’t the girl’s parents assume there is something wrong with the boy (AKA damaged goods).

The very irony of Anil calling on farmer suicides in response to a bill that is trying to give people more food. It’s reducing the burden of food for the poorest of Indian which includes the farmers especially during times of drought because the bill gives 35 Kg of food to farmers and then provides extra food at Rs. 1/2/3 per Kg depending on whether it is rice, wheat or pulses. 

This is a bill that helps farmers.

The reason why women are given the ration cards? It’s simple. 

Substance abuse in farming communities is rife. The work of a farmer is exhaustive and painful. Many turn to alcohol and other drugs to ease the pain. There are a lot of farmers who  have traded in their ration cards for booze money and I know people who have walked into the pawn shops and moneylenders and purchased back the cards to give it to the wives of these men.

Black Mail for dowries? It’s a minority of cases. The majority of women still tormented by dowry crime never get to utilise the law. More women meet with “unfortunate accidents” every year than accuse men of dowry crime for revenge.

Patriarchy and Matriarchy coexisted in India for ages. Now, the government has officially declared that the Indian Family has to be headed by a Matriarch. When this law gets implemented through the Government’s public food distribution system, it will define only women as recipients and one will only see women queuing for food. The woman will also have the freedom to sell the food that she receives and no man in her family can question her.

Er… The only matriarchal society of India are in the North East and Kerala. Most of India is “patriarchal”.

This just sounds like sour grapes mate. Oh No! Women now have power! What if they behave like we do!

As for selling the food? 

It’s Rs. 1/2/3 per Kg. What are they going to sell it for and to who? For what profit? Why aren’t those people with no food availing themselves of the SAME food. 

The law will cost the equivalent of 21 billion US dollars to Indian tax payers. Purchase power parity (PPP) conversion varies widely inside India between urban and rural areas due to huge rich and poor gap. Because of the difference in purchasing power, the ultimate gain for poor people will be disproportionately high. Their collective benefit will be the equivalent of more than 100 billion US dollars, based on the rural India PPP conversion factor of 5. All that food and money will go to women, both young and old.

Yes. The law is designed to benefit poor people and give power to poor women who are amongst the worst treated in Indian society. 

International feminist economists have already defined women as the predominantly poor in the world, notwithstanding the fact that 13000 farmers have committed suicide in India last year or there are more homeless men than women in India. India’s Prime Minister is an Oxford Educated Economist and a feminist ideologue. These feminists do not want the poor men to receive support from government as they have already defined only women as poor. A poor hungry man can’t go to a government public distribution agency and ask for food. He has to get a woman from his family or he has to produce detailed government documentation to prove to the corrupt officials that there is no woman in his family and he is a single old man. The semi-literate helpless poor men will not able to cross this big bureaucratic hurdle. Instead, they will starve and die.

There are more homeless men in India than women because there are more men in India than women.

13,000 farmer suicides have fuck nothing to do with women. It has every fucking thing to do with the way Indian agriculture is laid out and a population explosion. Farmers traditonally divided the land up between their sons. There is a generation of sons who “survived in large numbers” this means that the land has been divided into portions that cannot sustain agriculture. In addition there are agricultural businesses. Where a farmer owns sufficient land to use modern farming practices. This has driven the price of grain down which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good thing because people get food, bad thing because subsistence farming is a lot less viable and a lot of Indians are at that level. So these farmers have to make something work so they think about investment such as equipment or infrastructure or the cheapest one? High Quality Seeds. Now high quality seeds need equipment and infrastructure to function but the farmers go for the seeds first. The crop fails, they are in debt and they re more likely to kill themselves.

This has nothing to do with women. Their women aren’t spiking their food with OCP (Organo-Chloro-Phosphates the poison of choice for suicide in India),In fact this new law ensures that they can keep their feeding their families in times of need and guarantees nutrition.

All Indians are given a ration card. All Indians can go to a government depot and get “food”. Even the Prime Minister can  if he wanted to. 

There are specific schemes to benefit women such as the ICDS (Integrated Child Development Services) which provide supplementation to children particularly female ones and to pregnant or expecting women and run such schemes as the Vitamin A one. The reason being that female children and women are more likely to starve in India because they eat last. The men eat first and whatever is left the women eat. This means that poorer women are chronically malnourished which increases infant mortality and this doubly applies to young girls who’s childhood malnourishment affects adult development.

The government claims that this food stamp law will improve the country’s Human Development Index. Of course, it will. This index is created for the United Nations Development Program by two white knight economists from the Indian Subcontinent. This will also improve India’s rank in Global Gender Gap Report by World Economic Forum, which also paints poverty as oppression of women. The life expectancy gap is a major indicator of gender parity in this method of ranking. If 200 million poor elderly Indian men die of hunger much earlier than poor women, then India will celebrate as it gets a better rank in Global Gender Gap report.

India is in the worst 10 countries to be a woman. Sexual crime and gender apartheid is rife outside the cities. Women have to pay for the right to marry a man and often live in horrid abuse. My mum lived in that as did my aunt. 

The problem is for many women in India, Anil is the norm. Leave me out, I am a product of western interaction with Indian culture. These young boys live expecting to be waited on hand and foot who now suddenly are dealing with the sleeping tiger that is Indian women who are tired of this shit and want a change. Even their heroes are changing. The tubby heroes who seduce beautiful women are being replaced by a sleeker version. Men now have to put some effort and this scares a lot of them as women are demanding more and more out of their men. They want it all and India has been lying to it’s boys.

Which is why Anil sees this as a cynical method to kill of Indian men rather than give poor people food and empower women. He would rather be oppressed and have his fears validated than for one second realise that in India it is still better to be male.


  1. Al Dente says

    Anil, like a lot of MRAs, see feminism as a zero sum game. If the situation for women is improved then the situation for men must go down. He cannot imagine any other scenario.

  2. says

    The underlying premise of the law is that some subsegment of the population (male farmers in this case) is inherently untrustworthy. Progressives (and skeptics) typically frown upon that sort of logic; just look at the blowback regarding David Brooks and the sweeping generalizations he made about the people of Egypt.

    What specific circumstances/evidence allows us to accept such generalizations in this case?

  3. carlie says

    The underlying premise of the law is that some subsegment of the population (male farmers in this case) is inherently untrustworthy.

    Why do you say that? Aid has almost always been given out at the family level, because going to the individual level is so much more onerous in administration. It’s just that here, it’s being given to the woman of the family by default instead of to the man of the family. What specific circumstances/evidence allows you to say it should be given only to the man of the family?

  4. says

    Two things: When/where was it given to the man of the family? Also, not all families have a head woman, just like not all have a head man. If you restrict it by sex, you’ll make things a lot harder on a significant subset of families.

  5. says

    It’s not restricted by gender. It’s given to the oldest woman in the family. If there are none or they are under aged or are of a lower generation it is given to the man. Traditionally ration cards tend to be with the woman because they go shopping and because it was a way of creating “value” for women in a world where they had little.

  6. says

    My statement about trustworthiness is based on the following quotes from Avicenna’s post:

    The law says that the eldest woman in the household will be the only official recipient of the food for the family.


    The reason why women are given the ration cards? It’s simple.

    Substance abuse in farming communities is rife. The work of a farmer is exhaustive and painful. Many turn to alcohol and other drugs to ease the pain. There are a lot of farmers who have traded in their ration cards for booze money and I know people who have walked into the pawn shops and moneylenders and purchased back the cards to give it to the wives of these men.

    Assuming that the assertion in the first quote is correct this indicates that, by law, only women receive the ration cards. Avicenna let’s it stand uncorrected, so I assume it’s correct. The second quote, Avicenna’s explanation of the rationale, says that a lot of (male) farmers are selling their ration cards or otherwise not using the to support their family. This quotes, taken in conjunction, strongly imply that only women are allowed to receive the cards because men cannot be trusted to use them correctly.

    I don’t think that only men should receive the cards; neither gender should be excluded by legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Hence my question for Avicenna as to what’s the evidence/circumstance.

  7. smrnda says

    I wanted to add that the notion of men eating first and women eating whatever was left afterwards hasn’t been confined to non-Western cultures. You can read about it in the UK in the book “The Classic Slum” by Robert Roberts. Just wanted to point that out since some people try to make a case that in the Christian West, men have always behaved in a heroic and sacrificial faction, unlike men from other cultures.

  8. angharad says

    @smrnda: it’s still alive and well in some Western areas. I went to a large gathering of my husband’s family once when I was heavily pregnant. There wasn’t enough room for everyone to eat at once, so they fed the children first, then the men, and then the women. I was starving (note heavily pregnant part) and not happy!

    It’s become pretty standard practice in aid-giving to give aid predominantly to women, because that way it tends to be passed on to the children. This is not some assumption about the nastiness of men, but based on observation. It used to be that aid would be given to the head of the household (usually a man) but they didn’t pass on it, and giving aid to women has been more effective. It’s the same with those micro-loans that are so popular now. Women pay them back far more often than men.

    If it helps, it may simply be the circumstances of the families in question. In many African countries, for instance, it’s fairly common practice for the women and children to stay on the family farm, while the man goes into a town or city to work in a factory or do other work. In that case food, agricultural or educational aid is far better directed towards the woman.

  9. says

    Nice post. I was checking continuously this
    blog and I am impressed! Extremely ueful information specifically the last parrt
    :) I care for such information much. I was seeking this particular information for a
    long time. Thank yyou and best of luck.

    My page :: vivactil

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>