It Gets Better/Rights of the Silent Majority: Marriage Vows and You

The FAMiLY LEADER recently released it’s presidential candidate pledge to defend marriage. It’s purpose is to record the personal convictions of each presidential candidate regarding marriage. Only those who agree to “defend marriage” may be endorsed by this group.

The wording is to protect the judeo-christian idea of marriage and fuck over everyone else, the agreement is barbaric and actually goes back into the past to strike at the simple rights of women. This is not a set of rules that defends marriage. This is a set of rules that disenfranchises everyone but straight judeo-christian men.

And Michelle Bachmann in her infinite ability to prove to us that she isn’t a feminist has signed it. This alone should raise warning signs.

Let’s delve further into it’s depths to learn about what Michelle now stands for.

“Presidential Candidates who sign the Marriage Vow will sign off on support of personal fidelity to his/her spouse, appointing faithful constitutionalists as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and divorce law. The Marriage Vow also outlines support for the legal advocacy of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), humane efforts to protect women and children, rejection of anti-women Sharia Islam, safeguards of all married and unmarried US military personnel, and commitment to downsizing government and the burden upon American families.”

It’s a good summary. It specifically points out that it’s doing this for the women and children. After all women have to be married to happy right? And they say they wish for faithful constitutionalists. Will they reverse the freedom of black people? The rights of women? The emancipation proclamation?

Ah but let’s remember that they wish to bring in faithful constitutionalists. This bit is important (and highly embarrassing since it’s a brit showing off his knowledge of american law which is utterly butterly daft.)

The actual document begins with this -

“Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by the Jewish and Christian scripture, by Classical Philosophers, Natural Law and by the American Founders – Upon which our concepts of creator – endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.”

There are many flaws with this section. For starters if you are a constitutional purist then you are sworn to remember that the US constitution then separation of religion and state is entombed in it at a very early stage. Thus voiding the judeo-christian viewpoint of this and the whole designed and purposeful order. Classical philosophers often were bigamists or practiced homosexuality themselves. The american founders were also deists who didn’t believe in gender equality or racial justice on accounts that the american constitution did not allow women any rights to vote until much later and treated black people as inferior to white in so much as they were kept as fucking slaves. The American Founders themselves had black people as slaves. Property. They had no goddamn clue about modern rights, racial justice or gender equality. And neither does this document as we delve deeply.

Natural Law are the laws of nature where rape, infidelity and incest are common enough. We aren’t followers of natural law because pretty much everything humans have done since we first took our earliest steps on this long road to being awesome has been “unnatural” as we have not relied on natural process as much as our brains to enforce our development. The fact is that you wear pants which is unnatural. The fact is that unlike the birds my method of flight is to place myself in a metal tube and compress air by the mechanical contrivance of a jet engine and hurl myself at 500 MPH along the sky flicking the Vs at gravity and stupid birds while sipping red wine and watching a movie. And nature is filled with polygamy and homosexuality.

“Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families and the liberties of all Americans under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure with the transmission of personal virtue from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anaemic condition of marriages in their own community. Unmistakably the Institution of Marriage is in great crisis.”

What we see here is a “why won’t you think of the children?” argument. Children are fine in happy homes, happy homes require happy parents. If parents aren’t happy with each other then the home is not happy and the children suffer. If splitting up makes parents happy then the children are happy. Do you think kids don’t notice the lies and misery of their parents? They are children not goldfish. If your dog can tell when you are upset then they can.

Vulnerable women are generally vulnerable because of the bloody husband. Majority of vulnerable women are those in the sex trade (we shall see about that later), the poor (bad advice! What’s the difference between sex for money and sex for a comfortable life?) or the chronic abuse cases. Preventing them from leaving their husbands does not help chronic abuse cases. And how is reducing the liberties of gay people and women supposed to be increasing liberty for all?

The USA is not an exceptional nor is it a free society. It is one of many other societies. Personal virtue is acquired not by adherence to a book but by the acquisition of wisdom and experience to use that. It isn’t innate. A child is virtuous only by the idea of innocence, that the child’s lack of knowledge is endearing. It isn’t it’s endearing because a child is harmless. The gap of knowledge must be filled. Virtue is the application of knowledge to do things that are appropriate. Not to follow faith blindly. The average american is no different from the average person in the rest of the developed world.

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.”

Are these clowns suggesting that black people were better off as fucking slaves? Property? Chattel? Do you guys even know how to make a real argument?  The child being born to two slaves is many orders of worse of than a child born to practically anyone else. You would have to be Josef Fritzl to make that child’s life worse than slavery.

“The out of wedlock birth rate is 41% of white people and 70% of black parents – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race and ethnicity”.

 Really? Being born to single parents is the cause for poverty not being born to poor people? Bloody hell! We are obviously going about it wrong. Ecoute bien s’il vous plait (Listen very carefully for I shall say this only once!) correlation does not imply causation. Poor people may just be less likely to marry because they don’t see the bloody point of it.

Pathology? You mean single people are
more likely to bloody die? No they aren’t poor people are in your nation because they don’t have access to proper healthcare. The big issue is that people are poor, not that they aren’t married. That’s like saying that the biggest issue of someone dying of thirst is that he isn’t baptised.

“About 1 million children suffer through divorce each year – the outcome of about half of first marriages and 60 percent of remarriages, disproportionately affecting economically vulnerable families”.

Why are the children suffering? Surely living in a unhappy home is equally suffering? Would you rather a million children suffered in unhappy homes than made a clean break out of it? Sometimes loves in a marriage goes away. Sometimes it doesn’t work out. Should we punish both parties for all time?

And I think children are not selfish little dicks who only care about their own happiness. If mum and dad are happier apart and with new lovers then the kids may not understand why dad had to go away… but they will understand that their parents are happier and that leads to them being happy.

“The tax-payer borne social costs of family fragmentation exceeds $112 billion a year, especially when all the costs to the justice system are recognised.”

The research is by the incredibly biased source of the Institute for American Values. I would place that figure under contention. A quick question though. How many tax dollars are lost in tax breaks for highly unconstitutional marriage which is only of the Judeo Christian model?

And I am highly skeptical of this cost. Majority of divorce is by mediation rather than court and shouldn’t cost this much.

“Social protection for women and children have been evaporating as we collectively debased the currency of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery, quickie divorce, physical and verbal spousal abuse, non comittal co-habitation, exemplary infidelity and unwed cheating among celebrities, anti scientific bias which holds in the absence of empirical proof than non heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye colour as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empiricle evidence, that homosexual behaviour and sexual promiscuity in general optimises individuals or public health”

Social protection for women and children have been on the increasing. You touch a child and you get to go to jail for child abuse. Women’s empowerment has been marching on despite the efforts of these people. Women don’t need social protection like this. This is akin to the purdah or the burkha. It protects women from “real abuse” by lumping that in with other non abusive things. That’s like saying we will prosecute rape on women harshly and then proceeding to ban them from driving cars.

Adultery is no different from cheating, it is an act of thoughtlessness and one that harms those we love by the betrayal of trust and love. It’s not some mythical sin that tarnishes the soul, it is just a thoughtless move. Quickie Divorce is actually what sane people call “no fault divorce”. The ability to sit together and mediate a painless divorce is one of the best things that has happened to women and men. If one person is miserable under the old system they had no recourse till things became so toxic that they couldn’t even stay in the same room to decide on how to deal with life. Now 95% of divorces are no fault divorce and are settled amicably with both sides being generally happy with the settlements allowing them to move on with their lives rather than be forever yoked to a bad situation until it ends horribly.

Gay people seem to like people of the same gender exclusively. I don’t see why it would be a choice. You could parade a thousand sexy men in front of me and I wouldn’t even bat an eyelid. I don’t see the attraction. I expect gay men would respond the same way to women. Even if it were a choice, it wouldn’t matter one iota about what they did. At it’s heart it is love. Love is just two people realising they are right for each other. Physically and mentally. It isn’t some forbidden thing, it’s just people seeking companionship.

Sexual promiscuity is at the heart of 1970s feminist drive. It is at the heart of the liberalisation of culture regarding women and part of female environment. The idea to realise that a woman can seek pleasure in sex just as a man can. Safe sex is actually better than victorian values. Because victorian values are a sham. You have so many hang ups about sex that boys and girls behave weirdly. Safe sex actually makes the public safer because it is blatantly obvious that loyalty to one person and no contraception doesn’t work. We see this in places like the Philippines where promiscuity still occurs despite “values” with devastating consequences. And no these aren’t threats to public health. You know what’s a threat to public health?

Incomplete medical coverage caused by a privatised healthcare system and non universal healthcare. Things your stance is for.

The list of candidate promises come up next, but we do have to laugh at some of them.

  • Personal fidelity of a spouse is appreciable but what does that have to do with competency to rule a country?
  • Surely respecting the marital bonds of others means accepting that gay people can get married? Their marital bond matters too.
  • Election of constitutionalist judges is a faulty idea. The entire point of the constitution is it is a living document. The original constitution is pro slavery and anti women. Progress is improvement of the ideals of freedom of the 17th century to the modern version.
  • If the institution of marriage is mandated by the judeo christian god then it is illegal to provide government support as it is a religious institution. 
  • Marriage is failing because people get married too early without realising that love is sadly transient. When it exists it is beautiful, two people whose lives and minds interact in an unfathomable way unique to each one. But it eventually can die. Widows and widowers do remarry. Waking up one day and finding out you no longer love the person you are now forever yoked to is a damning thought. We all think we are the love that lasts the ages and even the universe, but most of us fall short. It is better to move on and be happy than to be miserable or worse delusional. 
  • Married people? Well not really. People in relationships tend to have all that because relationships make you happy and happy people live longer and take care yourself better. People in relationships tend to raise kids better simply because there are two parents available to care for the child. Not because there is some mystical properties of marriage.
  • Anti-marriage welfare policy includes alimony, tax breaks for single parents, divorce law and extended “cooling off/second chance” periods. Bollocks. Those are necessary for a modern society and women’s rights. Holy crap do you want abusive husbands to go back to their wives to see if they can “work it out”? Force unhappy people to sit together without mediation for x months before they get divorced and expect them to think about it sensibly? If one partner doesn’t want to be in a relationship then there is no point forcing them to stay in one. No fault divorce is a product of that. 
  • DOMA and the definition of marriage are backwards. My marriage to a woman is not going to be tarnished by sharing the moniker with some gay people. I hope to find the woman of my dreams one day. I work daily for that very day, but I would be a complete arsehole if I declared that others may not experience the love I feel. Gay or Straight or Bi or queer, everyone deserves th
    e chance to love and marry. And I am an atheist, if Judeo/Christian marriage is the norm, then my marriage is not protected. I come from a Hindu culture, I would want a hindu ceremony as well and therefore it wouldn’t be protected.
  • Human trafficking, Sexual Slavery, Coercion into sex are all sad problems. But not ones that can be solved by this stupid rule.
  • Pornography is healthy if it is produced by willing people. I see no problem with people producing videos of their activities for other people. You may not like it but that’s your problem. If I don’t enjoy a church service, then I wouldn’t go to a church. I would declare churches banned. It’s freedom of expression. If prostitution is banned then how will prostitutes put food on their table? Oh wait, by being prostitutes. All you are doing is reducing their protection. You want to protect women? Then legalise prostitution. Fight pimps. Let the girls keep their money instead of funding crime. Keep the girls healthy, let them move out of their slums and away from the abuse and the crack and the disease.
  • Abortion and Infanticide are being used together here. Here is the thing, abortion is part of the whole “sexual health of women”. All pro life movements have done is increase the number of abortions courtesy of reducing education. And abortion actually increases when banned with horrifying effects as women taking matters into their own hands. Innocence isn’t being stolen, it is being replaced with wisdom. 
  • Miltary policy being bandied around is barbaric. It assumes that all gay men want to sleep with straight men. It assumes that all men want to sleep with all women. I love women, they are ace but I have no interest in lesbians or indeed most women. I can work with women without trying to sleep with all of them. And banning women from front line combat is a stab in the back for women who qualify for front line combat. They aren’t delicate flowers, if they are good enough to serve then they are good enough to fight for the roles they qualify in.
  • Sharia Islam isn’t a real thing. And the laws stopping you from spreading your religious nonsense as law protect the rest of the USA from Sharia law. Infact this piece of legislature is more anti-woman and anti-human than you realise.
  • Robust Childbearing does not improve the USA. It is a first world nation. Having more people than jobs doesn’t actually work for Indian and China (the only two nations on this planet with more manpower than the USA.) they are actual detriments to be corrected. China’s brutal policy is having an effect. India’s policy is simply so out of control that it is damaging the environment, infrastructure and economy. Nearly 60% of children are malnourished. Demographically it is not helpful. Economic wise it just means more unemployment because jobs must match people. Strategic? Are you planning to march people into the teeth of guns in human waves? Then wanting a billion americans is a fucking pointless exercise! The USA’s army’s strength is small size and high technology. Actuarial? Security? These points don’t make any sense apart from atrocious policy designed to wreck american economies by overcrowding.
  • Downsizing government means loss of government oversight which protects american families. The biggest cause of bankruptcy in the USA is healthcare costs from the lack of coverage of medical care and the cost of privatised medicine. Not big government. Naturally that defence budget won’t drop nor will the salaries of politicians. And lack of oversight caused the economic downturn. 
  • I am sorry the First Amendment covers pornography (Flynt) and the separation of church and state and actually stands against your definition of marriage as it is solely a biblical world view you are pushing. Not a human one. 
Ultimately it is terrifying that Michelle Bachmann is so blinded that she thinks that signing this protects women or is in any way justice. It hurts women and it hurts marriage.

Marriage isn’t something that cannot defend itself, its a human institution. Giving gay people the same rights as us straight people isn’t the downfall of marriage, it is just the correct thing to do as it is equality.

Women don’t need you to hold their hands. They are fully capable of being equal to men. All this legislature does is remove their rights to a sane relationship. This is a step back, not a step forward. The manifesto indicates the sheer idiocy of the republican stance and how fundamentalism poisons your perception.

When a british man in India can point out a flaw in your own plans and the rules of your own constitution then you have lost perspective. 

Aminah Abdallah and Freedom

Aminah Abdallah is a lesbian syrian blogger who wrote an extremely brave account of her and her father standing up to people who threatened to rape her (to correct her behaviour of all things).

She has been kidnapped, possibly by supporters of the regime and is part of the violence that has become so endemic to Syria.

My hope is that she is released unharmed, and that I wish I could do something to genuinely help rather than raging ineffectively against her incarceration. 

It Gets Better – Or maybe not?

Gary Cass certainly thinks it gets worse.

I don’t see It Gets Better as a pro-gay campaign, I see it as an anti-bullying campaign. All manner of people go through school being bullied be it for what they look like, or what they are or what they have said or what people think of them. I don’t see why the message shouldn’t apply to some kid being bullied because he cannot play sport well or maybe because he likes something considered a bit effeminate.

It’s there to give people being bullied hope that some day they don’t have to take that nonsense and that most people grow up. That it will get better when they leave the confines of school.

Gary Cass, certainly has not grown up. He is still a giant pillock. A douchebag of epic proportions, waging war on an anti bullying campaign that I know isn’t just for gay people but also for every single other person being bullied. Gay children need it the most because it is they who are most easily bullied. By their peers, by their teachers, by parents, by priests and by society. We are changing but it will take time.

“God created human beings “in His image” as male and female complementary halves of one whole and designed human civilization to rest upon the foundation of the natural family, protected by the covenant of marriage. (Source: Allan Carlson, Paul Mero, The Natural Family: Bulwark of Liberty, 2008; Harry V. Jaffa, Homosexuality and the Natural Law, 1990)”

We are products of evolution. And even if we were created by God, then surely gay people are part of his creation too? By this logic it’s not just gay people whose marriages are not protected. It’s muslim, hindu, jewish and indeed atheist marriages that aren’t protected since none of those were declared by the same god.

The argument of our opponent is a slippery slope argument, if we legalise homosexuality and accept it then eventually we will fuck dogs and children. By that logic if we refuse to fight for homosexual marriage then eventually all our own rights to marry will be up for question because we do not fit into the biblical model.

“Both church and state have agreed throughout the centuries that a society based upon the natural family, protected by the institution of marriage, is necessary for civilization to thrive and that the worst enemy of the family is permissive social attitudes about sexuality. (Sources: Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010″

Both church and state also backed slavery, the institutional oppression of women and ethnic minorities. “Natural Law” was cited then as the west carted around Savages to display. Natural Law shows homosexuality is common and even normal in a lot of other species. It’s not just us.

Yes. I will agree. The worst enemy of family is permissive social attitudes to sex. Permissive social attitudes to sex are linked directly to the liberation of women. And liberated women do not have to listen to the old patriarchal model of family. If people are unhappy in a relationship they do not wish to simply force themselves to be in one. Now what we have is choice. Yes choice to either get divorced or to stay together.

“The homosexuality-affirming movement robs children of their inherent, inalienable, and self-evident right to be raised whenever possible by their biological parents. Government-sanction of homosexual unions constitutes the radical endorsement of the deliberate creation of motherless or fatherless children.”

Bollocks! Most kids used to be raised in extended families. Many would be sent to boarding school and many would be apprenticed off at a young age.

No. Improper sex education fosters the creation of motherless and fatherless children. Gay people mostly adopt and ensure kids in the overworked foster system are given a home with love. A few gay people use surrogacy but ultimately most adopt.

It is a lie that homosexual conduct is not a choice. Although same-sex attraction may be involuntary, one’s response to it is completely voluntary. All sex is voluntary except rape. Further, all people have the obligation to resist temptations, no matter how strong, that lead to personal and social harms.”

Even if homosexuality were a choice I would have no problems with it. All this argument is doing is producing a strong case for us to ban alcohol. After all homosexuals are at best 1/20 of the population, but alcohol? I mean it causes all the social ills of violence, of abuse, of alcoholism. It causes personal damage by wicked hangovers and cirrhosis… Alcohol is more deadly than “being gay”. The biggest problem amongst homosexuals is the rapid spread of HIV through their populations due to their small population and lack of use of contraception as gay men simply assumed (and still assume) that condoms stop pregnancy but no the spread of HIV. Education is the key.

And not all gay men enjoy anal sex. It’s the same as in straight women (or indeed straight men), not everyone enjoys it. Those that do indulge, those that do not simply don’t have anal sex. Assuming all gay men enjoy it is just a stereotype. If that’s the issue then we should be campaigning against bumming, not agai
nst gay people! More straight people have anal sex than gay people anyways.

A point in case is most of this research comes from really really old medical research. Like Issue 18 of the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (published around about 1950)

The lies posted on this site are phenomenal. They really are. They assume that homosexual lifestyle is one that recruits and that we glamourise it. Quick show of hands gay people, how many of you were bullied by people. How many of you think that we display a life free of prejudice and suffering to kids? It seeks to flood people with the idea that gay people are dysfunctional.

All that has happened since the 1960s is that women have started to see sex as something enjoyable and to seek enjoyment in it. This frightens the church. Women have slipped out off the leash so as to speak. The new bitches are gays and the church wants to milk the fear of them.

If me and a woman one day (I need to find a a woman willing to do this first!) decide to marry. I hope it would be for life, but if we should realise that it was not meant to be then I would want a divorce. If you think you should remain together for life then “don’t bloody get a divorce”. Just stay together and be an unloving relationship. I mean if you really are sleeping in separate beds then you have the same relationship as me and a flatmate not husband and wife. No piece of legal paper or magic words spoken by the clergy will change the fact that your relationship is dead and that what you possess is a sham and that you both would be better off moving on rather than living in such idiocy. 

That is the greatest travesty of marriage, it is meant to be a celebration of love between two individuals who hope to spend their little piece of eternity together. That’s what it means to us in the west. To most people across the globe it’s to validate the formation of children. Duty. Marriage is a job to most christians world wide. In a lot of people it is there to secure the livelihood of their children with women being married to men who earn a lot of money and men marrying women who look pretty and can do the washing up.

Who cares if both the individuals are the same gender? It’s not affecting the rest of us in any shape or form. What my future marriage will hopefully mean is not demeaned just because two gay men believe in the same ideals. That’s like saying cars will be ruined if gay people drive them. Is christian love so weak that gay love would destroy it? 

If marriage is indeed (as the church says) Ordained By God, then it is in breach of the First Amendment (For shame, a bloody limey knows that much!) and thus all the christians have done is make government support for straight marriage illegal.

But I hereby declare Gary Cass to be nothing more than an oxygen thief. The greatest threat to love and to marriage is not gay people, but it is this berk. 

It Get’s Better – Sipping on the Haterade

If marriage is such a fragile jewel of art that even the slightest of additions can cause it to crumble then perhaps we are doing marriage wrong. I cannot see how homosexual marriage actually affects the lifestyles of the straight married people. I must be getting insufficient amounts of Haterade in my diet. 

Delicious and Balanced with Hate Ions.
So in response to Gay Rallies? We have Rallies to defend “Traditional Marriage” and “Family Values” despite the irony that traditionally marriages were arranged by parents and that families were extended or joint families with many members of one family living in the same household. The nuclear family (by name alone!) is a recent social trend. 
We don’t realise it but this battle has been fought throughout history as people gain rights. And there have always been people who have stood in the way of rights. Things we regard as normal today were fought with the same fervour as the gay marraige debate with the same arguments being made. 
Women’s Votes
And the arguments against.
And in the the 1960s? People fought against the rights of black people.
And the argument against (Blacks, Taste, Fashion – You name it the KKK hate on it!) 
It is quite scary to note that religion excused all these hateful actions and actively was used to encourage bigotry. We just need to remember, that the people against gay marriage will one day be regarded as the hateful bigots even if they are respected pillars of the community today. 
It Gets Better.

(pictures are from Joe My God – The entire collection can be seen on his Picasa page.)

Monogamy is also against the word of God. Also the great american pastime of bacon. 

If it is a godly institution it cannot be protected by the US Constitution as it voids the First Amendment.
Nor can it receive the benefits that it obtains from the government.

Yes. We should also re-enslave the black people as owning slaves and indebtured labourers was part of what the USA was all about.
And In case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, She will not go out in the way that slave men go out;
If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he does not designate her a concubine but causes her to be redeemed; (Exodus 21:7 – 8)

Rights of the Silent Majority – The Peacock and the Strawman

 On an evening last year in February, Neetu Solanki was travelling home in a conservative west Delhi neighbourhood via auto-rickshaw (a three wheeled equivalent of a taxi in India) when she was harassed by some young men. Her response was to stop the rickshaw and grabbed one of the young men’s collars in order to yell at him. She was picked out because she was wearing western clothes, a top and a pair of hipster jeans revealing a peacock tattoo on her lower back rather than a more traditional salwaar kameez.
In India there is an amusingly named crime called Eve Teasing, named after the biblical idea that women cause men to sin by their lack of modesty. It involves men usually in groups harassing women with inappropriate comments and often very inappropriate groping. A crime born out of gender bias, a lack of sexual equivalence and the objectification of women. Yesterday a woman leapt from a moving train to avoid “eve teasing” losing her leg under the wheels of the train. 
Neetu Solanki was found dead on the 11th of February with her throat slit and dumped into a suitcase which was left at New Delhi’s railway station. The tattoo became a talking point around which a string of tales about her love life, her dress sense, her habit of returning home late from her job at a call centre. The man she was allegedly cohabiting was missing and believed to be the suspect. India is a large nation and chances are he has gotten away with it.
Neetu Solanki is what a lot of Indians regard as wrong with today’s generation. The fear is that women are becoming like “Western Women”. To the conservative older generation of the middle classes it is a shot across the bows. Women prefer jeans and tops to their traditional outfits and even their traditional outfits bare a lot more skin than they used to as fashion marches on. India is seeing the beginnings of a sexual revolution with couples beginning to cohabit more. Arranged marriages are dying in number and even now the modern arranged marriage is akin to the Jewish Match Maker where the boy and girl meet for dates rather than the traditional idea of the event. Some Indians even have sex outside marriage. Indian women even have come to understand that sex can be fun.
One of the biggest Indian authors in India is someone I would consider a feminist. Shoba De, writes trashy chick lit, a world of crummy plots, gaping plot holes and a lot of sex. This is not a bad thing, it is the Indian equivalent of a harlequin novel. And it is a kind of revolution. Indian women who traditionally married out of compulsion (it was the done thing to do)often to men who had no clue and indeed no attraction to them were learning about love and more importantly lust. Like Anais Nin’s work for feminism in the west, Shoba De raised the important idea in women’s subconscious. That it is possible to have an orgasm and to explore sexuality beyond the concept of birthing children if you are an indian.
The sexual revolution in the west marks a point where feminism began in earnest. Across the western world women realised that they are just as important as men and can demand the same rights, building on the work of the suffragettes. In addition their cohesiveness was supported by men who didn’t really believe in the ideology of their parents and the conservative ideas of the period.
These developments are not seen as progress in India. These are seen as something terrifying, of an assault on traditional mores that have kept women under control for millennia. To the conservative, the blame firmly rests in a straw man called the Western Woman.

“The western (usually Americans/british) woman is not like Indian women. Indian women are chaste and well behaved. Western women often are rude, badly behaved and are half naked. They have affairs and divorces and sleep with many men. Indian women are too chaste for that and should not become like that.”

The ideas is that back home in the UK (for me) and indeed across Europe and America women have all the freedoms imaginable, they are free to associate with who they like, set their own goals and to live an independent life away from male influence either parental or spousal. And that in order to do so the woman has to be a slut, that women’s freedom comes at the price of clothes, morality and tradition.
However the issue is what is immoral rather than the immorality of western women. The straw man is built over what people find immoral and shocking, which is the lifestyle of the west because they assume that giving freedom to women results in orgies and women dressing like prostitutes. The Victorian standard applies, an indian movie is a charged affair with dance sequences replacing the sex scenes. Women prance around in skimpy outfits that no one in their right minds would wear in the UK unless participating in a rap video.
The attitude is that it is better to protect a woman’s honour than for her to lose it through equality. That men will always be fools and that it is upto women to dress sensibly so as to not encourage men. That if allowed to do what she wants like the western woman, she will be seduced by nefarious men. And thus she must be kept under supervision, she is free to do as she wants but without affecting her modesty.
The western woman is used as a method of scaring men and women into following the old ways. The Men are scared of the western woman because she has the choice and the independence both mentally and financially and that most Indian men know that they may not measure upto her demanding standards. The women are scared of her comparatively raw sexuality which is regarded as vulgar. They portray her life as empty and pointless, with no greater purpose but sexual gratification. They see the western woman as prostituting herself for her freedom which they are quite rightly not willing to do.
Remember, the freedom comes first, then the sex. 

The Silent Majority: A few good men

The university of Montana ran an event called Walk a Mile in Her Shoes. An admirable event if only for the fact that men paid $5 to walk a mile in heels, which I understand is a killer process which I can tell you from research done aged 8 with my mother’s relatively small heels. The reason for this was to raise awareness of rape, sexual assault and violence against women. 
I will raise my hands and accept that heels are designed to make women’s legs look longer and thus more attractive. And it works on me. I would be a liar if I said that it does not. But speaking from experience with female friends and a few exes, heels are murder on your feet and am genuinely impressed by the scheme which shows a sense of humour in recruiting men to do this.
If by bare minimum this event has raised the awareness of other men who were not part of the walk, I figure that if a man is willing to wear high heels to raise these issues is probably aware of them. But the intention is to raise awareness. For every step forward we move, there are forces who attempt to reduce the freedoms of women not just at home but all across the globe. It is easy to say, well atleast those women have it good in the USA and Europe when compared to say Afghanistan, however women’s rights are being reduced in the USA as we speak with the passing of various restrictions on abortions. The greater the social equality that women possess in Europe, the easier it becomes to fight for their rights abroad. It provides women out in places like India and China an example to aim for. It provides a core of feminism that can be used to campaign for rights in places like the Middle East and Afghanistan and Africa. 
However delving into this has caused me to run aground on another reef that haunts the smooth waters of internet use. The anti-feminist/male rights movement is a weird thing. It is an extension of the pick-up artist mentality, that women are simply vaginas with a combination lock and nothing more. Once you break the lock you are in, and that you’re entire look and persona should be geared towards having sex. The more and more I read the more and more disgusted I am with them and with the women who fall for their nonsense.
I hold no pretence of feminism, I have no understanding of what it is like to be a woman. So I cannot make any judgements on what to do beyond the simple hope that I don’t balls things up. I have been called out on sexist jokes in the past (stated in complete and utter sarcasm. If it was in real life as opposed to online, the person it was aimed at would have burst into flames. I have a degree in sarcasm from the Blackadder school of Mickey taking).
So ladies, your support from me is just one as a man. Of utter disgust that people assume that the majority of humanity is somehow incompetent at things and shouldn’t do certain jobs. That women themselves often cripple their own progress or that of their peers and junior by buying in to the idea that they cannot achieve anything that a man can solely due to the possession of a uterus. 
I have seen heart wrenching things in India aimed at your gender. It is a frontline of a war on sexism across the world.  I have had teachers (often women themselves) state that women cannot stand for long periods of time. I have seen a blatant disregard for educating female students in surgery and other mainly male dominated fields with the reverse being applied to male medical students in gynaecology for example. Women on my course have stated that they wouldn’t want to do surgery because it is a boy’s field. A lot of them are in the course to improve their marriage prospects (seriously).
My fight for women’s rights is that they are being reversed back by men who either don’t see the issue (I hope this is the case) or worse actively dislike women having rights as seen in my posts about Afghanistani women.
So, if men have to walk in heels for them to raise awareness of the plight of women’s rights? Then so be it. I wouldn’t mind joining you provided someone can lend me some heels. 

Rights of the Silent majority – Danielle Deaver

All across the world we as human beings are fighting for the rights of the “silent majority”. Women tend to outnumber us men, and rather than make grandiose comments about how useful/useless the other gender is, I would rather there be a world where there is no discrimination on gender at all.
Afghani women are fighting for the simple right to let foreign groups run their halfway houses for abused women. Because the afghani government thinks those houses are encouraging women to run away and be difficult. The republican party fights against basic rights of a woman to decide when to terminate her own pregnancy.

With this in mind I submit to you the case of Danielle Deaver

I am quite inured to suffering. Medical students learn to empathise with our patients then shelve it away somewhere so we can sleep at night or have lives. It’s not always perfect as the medical profession is one of the professions with the highest affliction of PTSD and various stress addictions but we try our best. I have seen and smelt an autopsy (the pristine surfaces of CSI would quickly become a charnel house of blood and decomposition gases). I have held to date 3 infants who died in my hands due to something completely out of the mother’s control. But the worst thing I have seen is the anguish that a mother goes through while making the decision. I am of the opinion that we need the truth, The abortion law should extend to 28 weeks and late term abortions be a medically sanctioned procedure if the baby or mother is at risk post 28 weeks. We should inform her of the alternatives to ensure she knows. In addition we should ensure our children know what sex is like and what happens and how to use contraception from a sensible age.

There has been little to no drive by the medical profession to weigh in on the topic, we know very well when the various parts of the body develop. It was taught to me after my anatomy classes and is vital to understand how the body develops and how common birth defects occur. Calling a foetus a human being that requires a right to live is all well and good but you forget that we also have a right to die. And in a lot of cases that right remains with the mother.

It does not matter if the baby is alive in utero, what matters is what it can do outside. Not having lungs is a no brainer. 28 weeks was stated because that is where the baby can viably survive outside amniotic fluid. 
This child died painlessly but traumatically. Let it die in peace, let the mother have no excess nightmares and let doctors be allowed to give relief.