Hope that efforts to remove women fails

Women have to fight every day, at home and outdoors. Women cannot even survive without fighting. When the environment is anti-woman, with patriarchy in control, women are on the battlefield right from birth. Men too fight to survive, but women have to fight twice as much. Yet, to everyone’s surprise, Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat stated: “In this country, the battlefield is still not for women. Women have many problems in getting into combat situations, beginning with maternity leaves. Furthermore, Jawans are not yet quite ready to accept women as commanding officers in battlefields.”

The General wants to say that the battlefield is for men only, not for women; women need maternity leave and for that reason, it is appropriate that they are not commanding officers in a battlefield. People do need holidays during illnesses, no one has any problem with that. But not accepting women for important jobs with the excuse that they need maternity leaves is not new. Maternity leaves are long; when the leader of a unit goes on that vacation, another would be assigned to lead that unit. Introducing this provision in the army is not particularly difficult. The problem mentioned is not impossible to solve. Besides, nowadays women do not give birth every year but produce one or at the most two children. All countries give maternity leaves as a rule. In many countries, not only the mother, but arrangements have been made for both parents to get such leaves. In civilized countries, especially in North European countries, if women get to leave for six months, so do men. It has been observed that less educated parents spend their leaves together over the same period, but couples with higher education take their leaves in tandem, one after the other. The father takes his paternal leave after the mother has spent the maternal leave and joins her work. Less educated folks believe that the main responsibility of fostering a child rests on mother, the father takes his leave at the same time as if to merely help the mother in her child-rearing. But the educated believe both parents’ responsibility in rearing the child to be equally important; the responsibility of raising the child is not the mother’s alone but the father too bears equal responsibility. That is why the father’s role is not merely to help the mother raise the child but his responsibility includes raising the child. Research has shown that children, who receive equal attention and care from both parents and even equal rearing-time from both parents, grow up to be healthy and well rounded. Studies have further shown that infant death rates are the lowest in countries where mother and father both take part in fostering the child. Civilized countries believe both parents have equal responsibilities toward their children and hence paternal leaves are as important as the material. The question could then be raised that do men lose their fitness to be commanding officers in battlefields because they enjoy paternal leaves? They do not. By the same token, women do not lose their eligibility as commanding officers in battlefields just because they take maternal leaves. Anyone leaving for vacation can be replaced by another assuming her work. All the women in the army do not get pregnant at the same time. Here the real problem is not with vacation per se but with the gender needing the vacation. Men do not consider persons with female gender as human beings as if their only job is to sit home, produce children and raise them.

General Rawat has further said: “If a female officer dies on the battlefield, and she has children, just imagine the consequences her family would suffer; they would be ruined. Besides if any Jawan peeks in on a lady Officer in battlefield changing clothes that would be even more trouble. Then the female officers would have to register repeated complaints to the authorities. Denying maternity leave on grounds of duty might cause an uproar.”

Death of a female officer at war might indeed ruin the family. But a male officer dying at the battlefield might ruin his family in the same way; is that a reason not to send male officers to war front? I do not see any rationale to stop female officers from going to battle in case some Jawans peep while they are changing clothes. Men and women officers both register complaints to the authorities all the time for various reasons. One hundred and one of these reasons pose no problem, only the complaints about peeping Jawans causes all the problems. If such complaints convert boorish Jawans into civilized humans then it must be a useful one. Peeping by Jawans might also occur while male officers are changing. Even the male officers might feel uncomfortable while some female officers might not feel any discomfort due to Jawans’ peeking. As a matter of fact, feeling discomfort is not necessarily gender-based but depends on the individual. Also, peeping/prying is not the characteristics of all Jawans but of only a few. Isn’t there a system of court-martial for punishing those who commit crimes? Is the system broken?

The Chief of Staff has observed: “A majority of the army jawans come from very far remote villages near the borders. Would the Jawans agree to go into the battle on the orders of a female officer? I wanted to send women into battle, but we had to take all these different issues into consideration.”

Listening to General Bipin Rawat one gets the feeling that Indian forces are not yet fully ready to send women into battlegrounds. There is no objection to women’s presence in the army as Doctor or Engineers. But the time to combat the enemy with weapons in hand, he says, has not come yet. Time does not drop from heaven; one has to usher it in,. Have the women ever said that they do not want to be commanding officers? They have not. The General has said that the Jawans from villages do not take women’s commands seriously. In that case, rather than stopping women from taking command, educating the Jawans seems to be a priority. Jawans have to be taught the lesson that the commanding officer, male or female, has to be obeyed. In the army not willing to obey a direct order from a higher officer results in a court-martial. Disobeying a Female officer’s command should have the same consequence; if not, then there must be some kind of flaw in the application of rules in the army revealing administrative weakness. If the culprit Jawans escape punishment, Jawans are not to blame. The fault lies with that influential, misogynist inauthority who want to achieve their heinous objectives while putting the blame on the Jawans. They want to see women as housewives, not as warriors. They want to see women with children in their laps and cooking pots and utensils in their hands. They do not want to see women as equally competent to men in all fields of work. They want to see women as soft, weak, dependent on others, scared beings. The truth that they can equal men in physical and mental strengths, firmness and sharpness – is not tolerable to such men. It does not stand to reason that just because Jawans have come from villages, they would not change even with a good education. One should not treat them with such contempt just because they are villagers. How many city-boys would willingly accept commands from women? Just because they are unwilling, should we deprive women of the opportunities to work in all fields? Absolutely not. Depriving them would make the misogynists victorious and we would only prove that it is quite easy to displace women from different workplaces. We should instead try to remove the immense hatred and jealousy from the minds of women-hater misogynists. Only then an unequal society could be transformed into one of gender equality and fairness.

At a certain point in time, our society was not willing to let women even be educated and objected to their working outside the home. When women slowly progressed ignoring and disobeying the opponents, even then they were kept under control with restrictions to prevent them from this or that work. If the misogynists’ opinions were valued, women could not be Doctors or engineers even today; they would remain as school teachers or nurses. That is why I say, listening to women-haters would destroy the society – the more you defeat them, the better.

Women are banned.

I like what an English journalist said,’The Unites States has routinely criticized some countries for the disenfranchisement of women and human rights abuse. It, however, does not criticize its close ally Saudi Arabia for its blatant discrimination against women.’

Saudi Arabia covers women’s bodies, from head to toe. Now it wants to covers women’s eyes, the only thing women have been allowed to keep uncovered. Women need to have eyes open because they need to see things, for example, the traffic signals while they walk in the streets. The essential eyes are now banned, because Saudi dicks get erected if they see any little body parts of women including eyes. Saudi men would rape women if women do not hide their bodies,and eyes.

Women are banned in Saudi society. They are invisible, ignored, insulted and terribly hated. Their eyes are banned too.

I don’t understand why Saudi Arabia keeps women alive. Why don’t they let all women die? Is it because Saudi men need to fuck them?

Bikini banned in Goa?

Oh My Goosebumps! Goan minister says, no bikinis, no short skirts, no pubs. He says men get crazy for women, law and order problems occur if women wear bikinis. What should be done? Ban bikinis. Very simple. Instead of banning bikinis I wonder why they don’t punish those morons who don’t respect women and create law & order problems? Or, why they don’t ask men to be blindfolded if it is too hard for men to control their sexual urges after seeing women on beaches.

The minister is saying that wearing bikinis is not Goan culture, so women must stop wearing bikinis. Misogyny rules. Women are not allowed to wear bikinis today. They will be forced to wear burqas tomorrow. Misogynists belong to every religion and every culture. Woman’s body is the property of patriarchal society. Men decide what women should and shouldn’t wear. One of the biggest tragedies of mankind is men’s culture and honor lie in women’s breasts,buttocks,vaginas. I pity women-hating cultures!

Another patriarchal festival today in India. Bhai Phonta or Bhai Dooj.

There are hundreds of patriarchal festivals in India. People are celebrating Bhai Phonta or Bhai Dooj or Bhai Tika or Bhai Beej today. On this day, sisters put a sandalwood paste or a vermilion mark on the forehead of their brothers and pray for their brothers to have long and happy lives, safety and success. There is no Bon Phonta or Bahen Dooj for sisters.

I changed the system when I lived in Kolkata, West Bengal, in 2004-2007. I made my fans and friends to celebrate Bon Phonta. We girls and women were given Phontas, and gifts by men,. Men wished for our well being, happy long life, our safety and success.

Here are some of those pictures:

DSC02609

DSC02613

DSC02611

DSC02619

DSC02601

DSC02606

DSC02621

DSC02622

DSC02626

DSC02623

Bon Phonta was completely a secular celebration. No man prayed to any God. They wished us long life and good health.

I was thrown out of Kolkata in 2007. But Bon Phonta has still been celebrated every year in the city by a small group of people. Bon Phonta is a protest against patriarchal Bhai Phonta. If Bhai Phonta is not celebrated, Bon Phonta will not be celebrated. Men and women will wish each other good health and long life without any Phonta. But if Bhai Phonta is celebrated, Bon Phonta must be celebrated on the same day by the same people.

People should stop following patriarchal tradition. They should question it. And make the age-old tradition go. They should make cultures evolve. It gets filthy if it does not flow. Women have been treated as inferior beings in patriarchal societies, nobody has been concerned so far about women’s long life and good health, not even in the 21st century. My effort to celebrate Bon Phonta will not change the society today. But some people will learn how to question and how to say NO, and how to show the middle finger to misogyny.

Not long ago….

Once upon a time but not long ago, women didn’t have the voting right. Most people were against women’s voting right and their right to education. In some parts of the word, women had the right to education, even they had the right to work, but they did not have the right to vote. American women are telling us their stories.

Throughout history, there were people who did not want women to vote. Women would work, they would pay taxes, they would technically be considered citizens… but voting was for men. In America, when the right to vote was extended to include all races, all social positions, and all incomes, women were still not included. It didn’t matter if a man was illiterate, had been to jail, or if he was the town drunk. He could vote, and a woman, no matter who she was, could not.

Women suffragists (suffragettes) began campaigning in democratic countries all over the world to change this, starting in the mid-19th century. Their campaigns were largely peaceful and dignified… at least by 21st century standards. But by 19th century standards, these women were abhorrent and indecent, making fools of themselves by demanding to be treated like men.

One of the most notable things about the arguments put forth by the anti-suffragette movement was how weak its position was. Anti-suffragette arguments relied heavily on emotional manipulation and downright hateful nastiness. Humor was a much-used weapon against suffragettes. They were easy to depict as embittered old maids, brutal scolds, and cigar-smoking transvestites.

Ophelia tells us how 20th century London was.

You can see what kinds of hatred misogynists expressed in their cartoons against women’s voting rights.

image

image
imageimageimageimageimageimageimage

image

image

imageimageimageimageimage

imageimage

imageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimage
imageimage

imageimageimageimageimageimage

imageimageimageimageimageimage

image

image

Men could not tolerate that women left home to join suffrage movement in the beginning of 20th century. They were so scared of taking care of their children! They feared that if women could get their rights, men would lose their’s. They still have this fear.

Women got the right to vote. They got the right to access to politics and to education. They go outside to work. They spend money they earn for their family. But still men don’t share chores and child care at home.

The feminists today suffer from the same misogyny the feminists yesterday suffered from. They are humiliated, hated, insulted, abused the way their feminist sisters were humiliated, hated, insulted and abused.

People get shocked today when they learn women were not allowed to get the right to vote and the right to education in the 20th century. People would get shocked tomorrow when they would learn that women were not allowed to get equality in the 21st century.

‘Burka Avenger’

Bina Shah is a Pakistani feminist writer. She expressed her opinions on Burka Avenger. Burka Avenger is a new TV cartoon series for children. The main character of Burka Avenger is a woman, mild-mannered schoolteacher by day, superhero by night, who wears a burka in order to fight villains in her village. The villains try to shut down the girls’ schools. Let’s read what Bina Shah wrote:

‘I’m especially pleased that the superhero is a woman, not a man. Pakistani society is hypermasculinized: children are used to seeing men in positions of power and authority, as leaders, military men, policemen, et cetera. They absorb this as the natural order of things from such early ages that it’s almost impossible to undo this conditioning later in life. Whereas the women of Pakistan are the silent heroes on the frontlines of the war we’ve got ourselves involved in today: schoolteachers, health workers and human rights activists are targeted by extremists and attacked and killed for going out and doing their ordinary jobs. It’s wonderful to see a woman being feted for something so true to life, and also to see that when her job is threatened, she doesn’t succumb to the aggression but instead fights back and triumphs. The children of Pakistan need this lesson as well.’

‘The superhero’s costume is such an integral part of his or her identity that it’s hard to escape from the question of whether or not the burka is an appropriate choice for Pakistan’s first female superhero. Yes, the burka is oppressive… the burka provides women with a modicum of agency. Women who would be confined to their houses are allowed to go out if they are wearing a burka.

I wish it weren’t so, but it is. Should we perpetuate the idea that women are strong when they put on the burka? Definitely not. Pakistani girls and women need to know that their natural state of being is not hidden away, shrouded by yards of black cloth to make their presence in society acceptable, safe, or halal. They need to learn that modesty can be interpreted in many different ways, and that a simple shalwar kameez and dupatta are good enough for us, because we’re Pakistanis, not Arabs. It will horrify me if little girls start wearing burkas in imitation of their hero, because that would be indoctrination of the worst kind.

My perfect ending to the Burka Avenger series would be that after the villains are vanquished, Jiya hangs up her burka in the closet and never needs to wear it again.’

Superb!
But the question is why should Jiya, the superhero, hang up her burka in the closet if she never needs to wear it? Isn’t it better if she just throw the burka in the garbage?

Salute to the brave girl!

11 year old Yemeni girl Nada Al Ahdal escaped arranged marriage.

My grandmother was given in marriage when she was 9. My mother was forced to marry when she was 10.
My grandmother could not escape her arranged marriage. My mother could not.
Hundreds of thousands of girls who are victims of child marriage can not.

I wish all the children in the world learned from Nada Al Ahdal and became brave. I wish all the parents in the world who didn’t believe in children’s rights learned from the little girl and became sane.

‘Women are like tamarinds’.

Allama Shah Ahmed Shafi is a very powerful man in Bangladesh. This Deobandi scholar has a huge followers. A few months ago he called for a general strike, half a million people came to the street to occupy Dhaka. In his new public meeting, he spoke against women’s rights. Speaking against women and their rights is nothing new in Bangladesh. Religious, political, societal, cultural leaders use their own fine languages to suppress,oppress,denigrate, abuse, humiliate women.

Allama said,

Women should take care of furniture, bring up children and stay within the confines of their homes!

“You women should stay within the four walls of your houses.
“Sitting inside your husband’s home you should take care of your husband’s furniture and raise your children, your male kids. These are your jobs. Why do you have to go outside?”

“Why are you sending your daughters to work in garment factories? She goes to work after Fajr at 7/8:00am and does not come back even at 8/10/12 at night.”

“You do not know which man she is hanging out with. You do not know how much zina [unlawful sexual activity] she is getting involved in. Through zina, she is earning money, which does not bring prosperity [Barkat].”

“Women go to schools, colleges and universities; let them study up to class four or five. After marriage, keeping record of their husbands’ finances is enough for them.
“You are spending lakhs of taka for sending them to schools, colleges and universities. But, after a few days, your daughter will get a husband of her own, enter into a love marriage or a court marriage and elope. She will not remember her father.”

“Students, both boys and girls, have mobile phones. The male students collect the phone numbers of female ones while female students go to schools and colleges and collect the phone numbers of male students. This is what is going on in the name of education.”

“Do not come out of your house. Do not roam naked on roads and at stations, markets and fields. Beware! Do not go shopping. Ask your husband and son to do the shopping. Why would you go? Ask your husband to bring this thing and that. You just sit and order your son. Why do you have to take the trouble?”

“If a small boy is sucking on a piece of tamarind…. when you walk beneath a tamarind tree… when you go by a tamarind shop in the market, it makes your mouth water; women are worse than that.”

“Seeing women, your heart salivates in desire — desire to marry them, to enter into a love marriage or a court marriage.”

“These women are like tamarinds. If you are studying with women day and night, your heart will not be able to control itself. You are walking on the streets and shaking hands [with women]; you will not be able to control your heart.
“No matter how pious you may be, if you shake hands with a woman, your heart will start having evil intentions. This is a Zina of the mind, Zina of the heart, and soon it will turn into a real Zina.
“If an elderly man tells me that he does not start having evil intentions when he sees a woman, then I will tell him: ‘Old man! You are suffering from impotency, your manhood has gone. That is why you do not get evil intentions when you see a woman.’”

In his sermon, Shafi strongly opposed family planning and birth control. He asked men to have four wives to increase the size of Muslim community.

I heard that many people in Bangladesh even who believe in Islam are angry with Allama because of his vulgar talk. But the truth is, Allama did not say anything that Allah didn’t say in the Quran or Muhammad didn’t say in the Hadiths. Allah suggested men to have four wives if necessary. Allama did the same. Muhammad asked women to stay at home, and to not go outside, so did Allama. Muhammad suggested women not to go in front of men who are not their close relatives. Allah and Muhammad both endorsed patriarchal system for society, which made men superior to women. Women are advised to run to their husbands whenever they called them for sex, it is women’s religious duty to do household chores, to bear and rear children, to take care of the house belong to their husbands and obey their husbands, their masters. These are from the sacred hadiths. I have no idea why the believers of Islam should angry with Allama. Allama promoted patriarchy the way Allah and Muhammad promoted. Almost all the people, from politicians to playwrights, promote patriarchal system. The difference between them and Allama is Allama is innocent and honest. He hasn’t learnt yet the politically correct language like other respected misogynist gentlemen.

Allama compared women with tamarinds, it is the only thing I found new in Allama’s talk. Women are often compared with fruits, flowers and vegetables by poets, artists and all kinds of people. Those fruits etc. may smell and taste better than tamarinds, but the purpose of comparison is the same, to treat women nothing but sex-objects.
Like other religious big shots, Allama believes men are the predators and women are the prey. Men like to fuck around, so women better cover themselves in dark burqas and become pathetic mobile prisoners. Allama didn’t invent burqas. Muhammad chose that bizarre garments for women, to oppress and humiliate women.

Why blame Allama? All he did in his life was learned the Quran and the Hadiths. So that he knows better than many others that Islam is not compatible with women’s rights. He says everything what Islam says. You are a hypocrite if you praise Islam but accuse him of abusing women.