“So why do we wear clothes again??”

‘I wish one had the liberty to slap these kids to senses and send them back to kindergarten to be taught…”Why do we wear clothes again??”’ (From J’s comment here)

So why do we wear clothes?

1. For protection from heat and cold? Most civilisations that did not need protection from cold did not have rigid rules for body being covered up.

Did traditional Indian clothing have blouses or shirts? Men and women wrapped a dhoti or sari, children generally wore nothing. Body was decorated with flowers, ‘alta’, turmeric, sandal wood paste, kohl and jewelry, wanting to look good was not considered inappropriate.

When invaders arrived from locations where clothing was necessary for protection from extreme heat or cold, they also brought along the concept of ‘shame’ and modesty. In ‘Chokher Bali‘ the newly wed refuses to wear a blouse with sari, because it was too British (modern).

Once the society starts covering women up, Margaret Atwood describes how the threshold for what is found sexually attractive changes, soon even a glimpse of an ankle becomes sexually provocative.

One example: Pakizah has the hero falling in love with Meena Kumari – after he sees her beautiful feet. Was that love?

2. Do we wear clothes to look better – to look sexually attractive?

Was there this fear that if women did not cover up, men might stop finding a mere glimpse of a part of a woman’s body attractive? (Margaret Atwood, Handmaiden’s Tale)

Mr Balvinder Singh’s experience in Nagaland shows making rules about covering up a woman’s body, is the beginning of objectification of women, to ensure ‘excitement’ does not ‘turn into monotony’.

“The men wore only a loincloth and the females wrapped just a shawl below their waists. The women folk of all ages were seen working in the fields, carrying fire wood or hay for the animals, pounding barley, washing clothes at village water points, knitting on hand looms (almost every house had a hand loom where the women would knit shawls etc) or attending to other such daily chores of life, wearing nothing on top.

While a small cleavage visible under the thin dupatta or through the pallu of a woman’s saree is certainly a pleasant sight for any man worth his salt, without harbouring any malafide thoughts in the mind, but there in the villages of Nagaland it was an anti climax to see the dangling pairs of bare boobs, available to look at in abundance in all shapes and sizes. Initially they were a cause of some excitement, which was natural , but gradually the excitement turned into monotony. I was reminded of the words of a famous poet that the ‘beauty that is veiled looks more beautiful’.” [Click here to read the entire article]

3. To prevent offending the sensibilities of those who think covering up is a religious/social/cultural/safety requirement?

This is extremely subjective.

Some people find even the glimpse of a woman’s eyes offends their religious sentiments, some find sleeveless blouses offensive, for many only traditional clothing no matter how much it convers or reveals is acceptable.

Some think it’s okay to wear anything so long as one can ‘carry  it off’.

Most people simply resist any change. So in most places,  there are rules regarding not just skin, but also how much of which clothing should not show.

So the sight of boxers and bra straps offends some people.

For many other people’s legs (shorts, bermudas), calves, arms (sleeveless) and knees (skirts), midriffs (saris, lehengas), shape, curves (fitted clothing) are offensive.

In  India showing one’s back and midriff is acceptable when one is wearing a sari, but not if the outfit is Western. Nigeria disagrees! Read Nita’s post – ‘Sari an immodest garment?’

So it seems what’s okay in some societies is not acceptable in some other societies and the rules change with times, all the time. Most societies seem to accept and rigidly follow their current – generally unwritten norms.

How do these norms get created? And how do they change?

How is it that more of these rules apply to women?

Could these rules be a means to control women’s sexuality?

Why do you think do humans wear clothes?

Related Posts: 

The way a woman dresses.

No Jeans for an Indian daughter in law.

Not just a pair of jeans.

All teachers except Indian women can do their job well enough in Western clothes?

Advertisements

Even if Poonam does not run naked, she should be punished?

Model Poonam Pandey’s plan to strip if India beat Sri Lanka Saturday has angered the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) women’s wing which has sought police action against her.

“Indian women are revered and respected since time immemorial…”

How exactly do we show this reverence to women? Please do compare this to how we show respect to everybody else.

Can threats be called ‘respect’?

I have so much respect for you; don’t ask to eat with the rest of the family. Your happiness lies in seeing us enjoy the food you cook.”  Is that respect?

So basically,

If you disagree we can’t respect you.

Don’t try to give your point of view, we won’t be able to respect you…

Little girls earn this respect by respecting the fact that they are always second to their brothers. “What’s wrong with that, don’t they love their brothers?

It’s more like a Terror of Respect.

Do as you are told or else we will not ‘respect’ you.

Dress only the way we permit or else…

Don’t choose your life partner or else…

Let your husband and his family abuse you, or else…

Give us a male heir or else…

Don’t enter the temple, you are impure…

And worst,

Don’t complain if you were sexually harassed, molested or abused or else no respect.

So, when it comes to women, it seems respect is more a means to control than a privilege.

I would say the only kind of respect that matters is the respect we have for ourselves. Or Respect that is given in return of respectequal and mutual. All other forms of reverence and respect are not too far from ‘honor’ and ‘honor killing’ or honor related abetted suicides.

Kelkar objected to Poonam ‘sullying the image of Indian women before the whole world.’ (Read Bhagwad’s objections to granting Poonam such powers)

Another man thinks her actions can sully the name of his caste. So obviously this lawyer believes there are no Brahmin rapists, child abusers  and murderers? Or these crimes don’t insult Indian culture?

“Even if Poonam does not run naked, she should be punished as she not only gave a wrong impression of the (Brahmin) community but insulted Indian culture,” The case will be heard April 5. (Today)

We live in an India where some people can legally express their arrogant, sexist and casteist opinions and offend my democratic and tolerant sentiments. I find it difficult to understand or ‘respect’ such frivolous objections. Are they doing this for free publicity? In a country where rape victims have to wait for years for justice, aren’t such cases a waste of time and resources?

Thankfully we are a civilized, democratic society. Poonam Pandey, Rakhi Sawant and Mallika Sherawat are generally free to ignore these opinions or react (if required) through a civilized, legal process.  No stoning. No anti-blasphemy laws.

And that is something I respect about my country. 🙂

Women who value the respect they have for themselves more than the respect of every wannbe politician, publicity seeker, neighour’s third cousin etc are able to fight back.

Sraboney shared this video where this Pakistani actor Veena Mallik is fighting back against similar allegations. Makes me wonder if hypocrites are the same everywhere.

A Sari to make you a Respectable Indian Teacher.

A local government college in Bhopal has banned jeans pants for lady teachers instructing them to wear saris while in the campus.

A spokesman of the management of Sarojini Naidu (Nutan) College said that the decision was taken to instil Indian culture in the college.

He said that till now, teachers were wearing salwar suits, kurtas and jeans due to which it was sometimes difficult to distinguish between them and students.

The spokesman said that a similar decision on enforcing a dress code for students would also be enforced from the next session.

“A dress code for students cannot be enforced during the middle of an academic session,” he said.

Or watch the news here.

“There is a personality of a teacher. You are standing wearing anything, or jeans that look vulgar, that is not right. Even students do not respect you as they think. So, this is very important,” said Pandit. (A teacher)

Should colleges be telling the students that traditional clothing can make a female wearer look ‘respectable‘? And so not wearing a sari does exactly the opposite?

Why is a salwar kameez – very much a traditonal Indian outfit, less respectable?

One assumption could be that the sari makes a woman look older. Also traditionally, in some parts of India, all married women must wear sari. I have blogged about meeting someone who thought that married women who do not wear sari are doing it behind their in laws’ and husband’s backs.

Bombay High Court held that a marriage can’t be ended over a sari.

The college could to be trying to say that a teacher in a sari is seen as older and ‘respectably married’ (or at least marriageable).

This is how stereotypes are created.

Is it okay for a college to ask the students to associate ‘respect’ (or honor!) with sari and vulgarity with Jeans?

“In thousands of ways, our culture has conditioned us to anticipate rape as a natural consequence of violating social norms”. These misconceptions are responsible for women blaming themselves for sexual crimes against themselves (…makes it easier for those who don’t care to take action).

The male teachers are not expected to wear dhoti and achkan. Doesn’t the college think the students need to respect the male teachers too? Why teach the students that double standards and gender bias are acceptable?

Has the college really given this a thought? There are many who think sari is ‘sensual’.  Jeans are actually seen as comfortable and easy wear, and saris as ‘dressy’ by many others. Many others feel sari is not easy to maintain or move in, and not weather appropriate, while jeans and salwar kameez are.

Also consider why is it so essential for the female teachers (if at all) to look ‘different from students’? What if a teacher continues to look like one of the students (i.e. young and unmarried) no matter what she wears?

And most importantly, shouldn’t an adult female wearer (like the rest of the population) be trusted to decide what is appropriate for her to wear?

Compare this news from Bhopal to this news from Lahore,

Jeans, Body Hugging Dresses Banned in Lahore College fearing Terror Threats.

Related Posts:

Not Just a Pair of Jeans

No Jeans for a Indian Daughters in law.

The way a woman dresses…

Provocatively Dressed.

Three Saudi youths were arrested for attempting to sexually assault a teenager…

Teenager escapes rape attempt (in Taif,  Saudi Arabia)

Did you find this news difficult to believe? I did.

Is the victim going to be stoned for attracting the molesters attention?

No.

“The victim told police, after  escaping from the youths, that while walking down the road a car with three men pulled up and invited the victim to join them. When the victim refused to get in, two of the men tried to drag the victim  into the vehicle, but the victim resisted and managed to run away. They had also taken the victim’s mobile phone.

With the help of a Bangladeshi worker, the victim called police and described the car the attackers were driving.

A police patrol detained a car matching the victim’s description when it passed through a checkpoint later in the night.

After being interrogated, the youths admitted to trying to sexually assault the victim. They also confessed that they had sold the victim’s mobile phone for SR300 in a nearby market.

They took the police to the shop where they sold the phone and officers interrogated the shopkeeper.” (News from here with minor changes, to make a point…)

Can you guess why this victim is not going to be blamed for this (attempted) crime?

How do you define Sin?

Dr Siras was filmed inside his house, participating in a homosexual act with a willing partner, for which he was suspended from the university.

Allahabad High Court issued a stay order against his suspension.

A week later he was found dead under mysterious circumstances.

And Aligarh Muslim University has an ‘intelligence unit… that spies on students and teachers‘ personal lives…

I wonder if somebody somewhere is feeling guilty about this death. 😦

*

Our Pink (or Saffron?) Chaddi Guys will find a like minded soul in Iran, in Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi. “Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes,” [Link]

[And a much better link ;)]

*

Would Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi  say these men in Afghanistan are incited by little boys?

Bacha bazi is an old Afghan tradition of taking young boys, dressing them up like girls, and making them perform for older men in tea rooms, weddings, and other private venues. The boys are “owned” by single or married men who trade or keep the boys as concubines. According to reports, the boys’ ages range from eight to 19, when they “age out” of the practice and are released.

“The bacha dancers are often abused children … one boy was sexually assaulted by a mechanic in his town. The boy’s family blamed him and turned him out. He was forced to live with the man who attacked him. ” Now I am with someone else, and he taught me how to dance,” the boy, now 16 years old, said. [http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2010/04/12/a-deal-with-the-devil/]

Thanks for tweeting these links Nisha.

*

A 15 year old in Faridabad walked to a nearby park at 2 am, to abandon her  daughter  minutes after the baby was born. Because she wasn’t married. [Link]

Khushboo, a South Indian actor was taken to court for recommending contraception for girls like her, because teenage sex bothers some of us.

*

A 12-year-old Yemeni bride died of internal bleeding following intercourse three days after she was married off to an older man, [Link]

“A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.(Manusmriti, IX.94)

*

Can something that hurt nobody be sinful?
Is it sinful for some of us to claim to know what is best for the rest of us? Even if we bring god into it?

What I love the most about my country.

I receive email links from a reader who signs as  ‘Moral Police’ 😆  Moral Police complains I see nothing good in India. 😐

Moral Police is mistaken.

I love the fact we are basically a tolerant and peace loving nation.

I love the colours we love, amongst my favorites is the Pink of Pink Chaddies.

I love our arts (which include Hussain, beaded necklaces sold on Janpath and Khajuraho),

Our dance and music (including bhangra rap and Bollywood remixes),

Our culture  of inclusiveness… where cricket has become an Indian game.

I love how we can ignore our moral police’s politicians’ worries over our  ‘Pub and Mall culture’.

I love it that we have activists who can take on our politicians.

I love how we love to look good. Men too.

I love our  food and sometimes I tweet my breakfast menu. I love the fact that it’s so mouth-wateringly easy to be a vegetarian in this country. I love it that a chapati made from whole wheat atta is known to be the healthiest of all breads. (But I don’t own the chapati or the art and culture and I don’t think my loving them gives me any special rights over them.)

But what I love the best about my country is it’s Constitution. I am glad it has acknowledged me as an equal citizen. Can’t thank Jawahar Lal Nehru and Dr Ambedkar enough for this.  I am glad Khushboo, You and I can voice our opinions.

I love the fact that it has empowered me to marry or live with whoever I choose, no matter how much some well meaning local citizens’ sentiments are hurt. Sania Mirza has this right too.

I am glad I cannot be chopped into pieces by those well meaning people  for marrying the one I like. I am glad if someone does that they can be hanged.

These headlines in The Times of India made my day today.

CHANDIGARH: In a blow to the Taliban-style caste panchayats of Haryana, a sessions court in Karnal on Tuesday sentenced five people to hang until death for killing a couple from the same village and gotra.

But does loving one’s country mean one has to be an ostrich? Does acknowledging the fact that parents in India feel they own their children mean one sees nothing good in our country?

Do we have to live in denial to prove our love for our country?

And who does one submit these claims of patriotism to? To the moral and cultural police who has been taught a lesson by what I love the best about my country?

Why exactly do we disapprove of Live-in relationships and Premarital sex?

Supreme Court has supported individual rights and made it very clear that premarital sex and live-in relationships are not criminal offences.

“When two adult people want to live together what is the offence.” [Link]

“The argument of the counsel was …that endorsing pre-marital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people leading to decay in moral values and country’s ethos

Allegedly actor Khushboo ‘endorsed pre-maritial sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005‘.  [Link]

Without talking about morals, god, culture, custom, religion and traditions can someone explain exactly  why do we disapprove of pre-marital sex between two consenting adults?

In the times when there was no way to confirm paternity,  the institution of marriage was created where a man (virgin or not) married a virgin. The institution was perhaps created keeping the interest of the men in mind – marrying a virgin protected a man from raising another man’s children.

In order to ensure that the man was the father, it was necessary that each man should have one (or more ) women exclusively for himself. (Ownership perhaps came into being like this?). So a girl’s virginity became extremely important. As a result, over a period of time, her being sexually active, came to be seen as  a sin.

Let me try to explain. Most societies have had almost no problem with men having sex before or even outside of marriage, (and not always consensual).  Their partners – Concubines , Mistresses, Geisha, Rakhail, Prostitutes, slaves or Keeps etc suffered social stigma, sometimes with horrific consequences.

Today Chinna veedu (Click to read, it’s still prevalent) in Tamil Nadu, Sighegh or temporary marriages in Iran [Read more] have religious or social sanction, or at least social acceptance. And the rest of the male population, if they so choose, can generally afford to ignore the lack of social sanction.

This line has the answer to my question as to why does premarital sex bother some of us so much.

‘The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any girls eloped from their homes after the said interview.’

As usual the concern was not premarital sex per se  –  but  premarital sex for girls.

Do such taboos protect girls in any way?

How would life have been for a girl if her virginity or sex life was nobody’s business but her own? Then this little girl would not have been too scared to complain against the nine men , relatives and neighbours who raped, filmed and blackmailed her for one and half years. And there are thousands more like her.

And that isn’t the only reason why equal, adult citizens should be the only ones to decide what is right for them. Personal lives of (equal) citizens and their views about who they sleep with and when, should not concern these self proclaimed guardians of our morality.

Bikini vs Burka: The Debauchery of Women

I have received this link more than once. My first reaction was to ignore it in disgust, but when it landed in my mailbox a second time  I realised ‘Bikini vs. Burka: The Debauchery of Womenby Henry Makow Ph.D. was being taken seriously by some.

What Makow says is in black, my response is in red. I wish I could make this post shorter, but nearly every sentence made some baseless claims and required responding.


On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.

The bikini should be compared to the burkini.

The burka can be compared to a pair of jeans, a sari, a salwar kurta, a dress or a skirt. This is what women who do not wear burka wear when they go to shop, work, fetch water or drop their children to school etc.

One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed.

One has a choice to wear anything she finds comfortable, the other can be flogged for as much as showing a strand of her hair. These are the two extremes.

These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called “civilizations.”

Civilisations? More of a clash between a civilisation and another society that needs to stop flogging and stoning before it can be considered ‘civilised’.

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture.

It’s time the rest of the population was given the opportunity to protect and be at the heart of their own cultures. I am sure Muthaliks of the world would love to set good examples by respecting women and  leading peaceful, non violent, democratic lives.

Apart from stealing Arab oil, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about stripping Muslims of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

You mean women are forced to go grocery-shopping in bikinis? Or are they permitted to acquire education, take up jobs and if they choose to, give up their burkas without fearing a flogging or stoning?

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.

Women’s wish and women’s convenience, not your love for their feminine beauty, should decide if they wear or reject the burka. The ‘feminine beauty’ happens to have a thinking mind and a heart full of (unfeminine?) desires.

Your love for feminine beauty having the power to decide how they dress is called objectification of women.

For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

The dictionary meaning of ‘consecration’ is…  a solemn commitment of your life or your time to some cherished purpose ”

(religion) sanctification of something by setting it apart (usually with religious rites) as dedicated to God”

Does the ‘privacy and exclusivity of the domestic sphere’ help a woman live a life of her choice/liking (with the freedom she deserves as a human being)? What if she dreams of a lot more from her life?

Are dreams of running free on a beach (may or may not be in a bikini) considered condemnable or does she have a choice like any other individual? And if she does choose to run on a beach, does it mean that she’s any less ‘dedicated’ to the ‘domestic sphere’?

What if she is forced by circumstances to seek employment or self reliance? Does her ‘exclusive’ status come in the way of her achieving as much success as the next person with equal ability?

And what about the husbands ‘exclusivity’ to the wife.

The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the “nest” where her children are born and reared. She is the “home” maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

This was expected from women everywhere. As we became civilised, we started realising that women also need a partner who shares the nurturing and training of her their children. And ‘providing refuge and support to’ a partner frees both men and women from rigidly defined gender roles.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV.

And this bikinied woman knows she can continue to work, have children, marry and live even after thousands of male eyes have fallen on her bikinied self. And strut.

A woman is more than her skin and curves. She is a person. And every strand of her hair, every drop of her own blood, and every inch of her skin is all her own.

She can display it or cover it, feed a family by marketing it – it’s hers. Nobody is free to abuse her because she displayed more of herself than they approved.

A feminist, she belongs to herself.

Who should she belong to? To a man with a whip? Or to the moral police?

Wearing a bikini does not make a woman a feminist. Knowing nobody else can dictate what she wears makes her a feminist.

Feminists are well known for being against both beauty pageants and burkas, as both are seen as objectification of women.

And in a fair and just society, each one of us must belong to ourselves. Nobody is anybody’s property. Nobody must be taken for granted.

In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.

She is in control of her own life and body. She can auction herself or she can buy the auctioneer.

It’s her life, her choices. She knows, like anybody else, she can even afford to make wrong choices.  She knows a single mistake would not be the end of her life.

Western culture doesn’t collapse if one woman displays more skin than some other equal adults can handle.

In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

Not just in the West, women are under pressure to fit into local ideas of beauty/sex appeal all over the world.

In traditional societies where a woman’s life revolves around her husband and family, looking good or being fair is considered very important and since this is not something a woman can always control, this can be traumatic. In a civilised society a woman should be able to lead an independent, happy life no matter how unattractive her husband thinks she is.

As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to “hook up” furtively rather than to demand patient courtship, love and marriage.

Britney doesn’t need to teach her ‘she will be loved only if she gives sex‘. Something along these lines is actually taught to women in all cultures. This 1960s lesson in UK would be  still acceptable in the Middle East, even in India today and in many other parts of the developing world too. Many societies do not see marital rape as wrong even today. To find out how much she can ‘demand patient courtship, love and marriage’, watch this video. 🙄

As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does.

Assuming this applies to all the women who do not wear err… ‘modest clothing’ – how does it help a girl to know nobody until she meets her husband? How does it help her live a happier, more fulfilling life? How does it make her a better, more self satisfied individual?

There is more to a woman than who she sleeps with. She is a real person with dreams, fears, passions, ambitions, anger, humour, whims… can we stop seeing her as an object of sex please? Female Genital Mutilation is another form of this same obsession with sexual-exclusivity, virginty and sex life.

And I wonder why doesn’t the virginity rule apply to the rest of the population.

She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed.

Noorjehan and Cleopatra – amongst the most charming women in history, were not ‘innocent’.  Both married emperors. Both had been married more than once.

The same ignorance that is said to add to her ‘charms’ puts her at the mercy of the not so innocent and worldlier humans.

I wonder, how is innocence lost when knowledge is gained, or from meeting people, or even from sexual experience? Does she loose it then, once she is married? Does that mean she becomes boringly experienced or ‘charm-less’ after she is married?

A guy who demands innocence is probably missing the person behind the charm. Intelligence, wit, humour, confidence, poise and knowledge (and not innocence) seem more reliable and longer lasting even if ‘charms’ is what a girl requires to ‘receive his seed’.

I suspect this is a convenient brainwash to ensure she never becomes ‘hardened and calculating’ enough to question or walk out of a miserable or abusive relationship. She may never learn what she is missing (warmth, support, humour, camaraderie) because she never meets any men except her husband.

And most importantly isn’t there more to a person than her ‘charm’ and ‘innocence’ and being fit for ‘receiving her husband’s seed’?  Can we stop objectifying her?

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.

This is what little girls and boys are taught to believe, and it leads to a lot of trauma because a vast majority finds it difficult to fit into these rigid stereotypes.

This article, for example has no reason or logic (E.g. Men treat their partners or children like a hunter treats a prey?) – but it is written by a man. I have also read similar articles written by women. ‘Lack of reason’ I am afraid, has no gender.

Feminism deceives women to believe femininity has resulted in “oppression” and they should adopt male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.

Why not just be oneself? Why ‘adopt’ any feminine or masculine behaviour?

The society needs bold, confident women and gentle, caring men. There is place for everyone. A healthy society allows each individual to be their best, without forcing them to fit into stereotypes.

Hypocrisy and deception doesn’t work. How long can a person pretend to be someone he/she is not?

Women (or men) who do not wish to be parents should not become parents. Every baby should be truly wanted by the parents.

This is the goal of the NWO social engineers: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the “brave new world,” women are not supposed to be mothers and progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered, autonomous sex objects.

Liberating women is often given as an excuse for the war in Afghanistan. Liberating them to what? To Britney Spears? To low-rise “see-my-thong” pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? If they really cared about women, maybe they’d end the war.

Liberating women means liberating an entire society from the rules made by a few for their own convenience.

Women (and men) should be empowered to take personal decisions. Members in a healthy society do not (and should not) force their views on all other members. There is no compulsion in religion but all societies use religion as an excuse to control individual lives.

A healthy society would not condemn a teenager to prostitution if she is seen wearing low rise ‘see my thong’ pants or if she is pregnant before she is married. The purpose of civilisation was to ensure happier lives for all. In oppressive societies everyone is compelled to follow rules set or interpreted by a few.

Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: creating and nurturing new life.

Parenthood was err… prevalent even before ‘human development’ 🙄  Only after ‘development’ did we restrict it to matrimony.

All living creatures become parents, so perhaps they all become God’s surrogate…  🙄

The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain single: stunted, sex-starved and self-obsessed.

Pornography can never substitute for marriage, because marriage is much more than just sex.

Self obsessed? As in  Live-in relationships or same sex relationships? Forced marriages and child marriages worry me, but never self obsessed singles.

We are not meant to have a permanent “private” life. We are meant to remain lonely and isolated, in a state of perpetual courtship, dependent on consumer products for our identity.

This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming “independent,” she is not likely to find a permanent mate.

A permanent mate is equally important for both men and women, and yet if one is to live a happy life, one must not depend entirely on finding this ‘permanent mate’. If one does not find or if one loses a permanent mate, life must still go on and happily too.

If a woman’s happiness depends on the presence of a ‘permanent mate’(husband/ boyfriend/ partner) in her life, it can make her insecure and unhappy. This insecurity can lead to an obsession with looking young. A woman, like anybody else, needs to be seen above and beyond her ‘sexual attraction’ and the ‘function of her fertility’.

Her long-term personal fulfilment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.

And if she is divorced, widowed or remains childless then she has no fulfilment and happiness? Why not allow her to find a little more from her own life, just like everybody else does?

Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.

Feminism has given women the right to vote, it has made it easier for them to be self reliant. Feminism made women equal partners to their spouses, it got them custody of their children, it provided them the courage to fight against sexual harassment. It has made it possible for them to walk out on a man who has been unfaithful or abusive –  Feminism is good for the society. No religion and no civilised society can find anything wrong with any of these.

Modesty is subjective and obsession with forcing women to be modest and dignified (Izzat) leads to flogging, stoning, stripping and honour killings etc all over the world. Their obsession with a women’s clothing, sexuality and bodies  might make an average god-fearing citizen suspicious of religious leaders. 😐

The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The two cannot be compared 🙄 One has to walk on egg shells hoping she breaks no rules, the other can strut on a catwalk and knows, if she is wrong she can try again, and if she is right, she can rewrite the rules.

Comment moderation is enabled.

A guy who expects innocent charms is probably missing the person behind the charm.

What would you not change for love?

I have been receiving email links that accuse Indian women of dereliction of duty, when they marry men from other faiths. Indian women are solely responsible for the honour of all Indian religions and cultures so these accusations are not new.

Love Jehad [Do read this link] should not become another tool to control women.  As an adult, a woman should remain free to marry anyone from any religion. And if she chooses to, let her convert.

But my personal opinion is that love and marriage should not require either of the partners to stop being who they really are… simply because they can’t.

1. I feel one should not need to convert to a partner’s religion.

2. I feel one should not need to change names or surnames. It is inconvenient and unnecessary, but even if it was convenient, it’s based on the principal of ownership of another human. So the very premise, in my opinion, is wrong.

3. I feel one should not need to change feelings towards one’s own parents and family. Unfortunately girls are sometimes expected to do this; especially in joint families… Marriage should add to your life, not take away from it.

4. Friends and family are a support system, nobody should be asked to give them up.  Also isolation of the victim is common in cases of Domestic Violence. (Now, the Domestic Violence Act has made it an offence to stop a woman from meeting her family).

5. One should not need to change one’s Personality. For example, no extrovert should be asked to become an introvert. That’s controlling.

Everybody, including women, must have some interests of their own, and some me-time, so if she is asked to stop interacting with the world (to protect her!), she better watch. Insecurity and mistrust are not good signs. And…

6. Trust must include faith in and respect for her judgement. Giving in to the spouse’s unreasonable wishes does not improve a relationship. Such controlling might be the beginning of Domestic Violence – verbal or physical.

7. The woman should be trusted to decide how she must dress, and not her husband’s grandmother’s cousin’s daughter’s brother in law.

Do you think we should need to change ourselves for love or marriage? And how much? Is it true that we can find happiness in our partner’s happiness (after the first few months of a relationship), or do we need our own happiness too?

Liberal waywardness and degeneration!

To a commenter on Thank God for small mercies who says...

… .the pubs now. Only Mangalore seems to rankle in liberal minds, but let’s look at the issues.

* Under-age drinking. I have not seen a single liberal question the fact that children as young as 16 are now allowed to drink… Which liberal questioned the fact that these students were in a pub during the day, instead of in college? I’m against what happened but that’s hardly a case to close one’s eyes to the issues at hand.

Under age drinking is a big problem in the slums in my neighbourhood, semi literate goons are not authorised to deal with either them or with women in Pubs.

The only thing to do here is to inform the authorities. If the individual is more than 21 (legal age for drinking) then you are in no position to ‘take the law in your hand’, not even if the person is a woman. Not even if she is dancing with someone who you suspect is not her husband. No point trying to call her parents, if she is more than 18, she can marry or live with anyone of her choice.

Bothers you?

We may all live in one country, but we have many different lifestyles and cultures [Please read this linked post], and we are not qualified to teach other equal citizens how to spend their free time.

All radicals and fanatics think they know best how citizens, especially female citizens, must live, and if we don’t mind our attitude, there will be no difference between us and the Taliban.

* Watering holes used as a conduit for prostitution.

Prostitution, mainly when the rich are involved, is a big worry for all moral police. (The morals of the sex workers on the streets are neglected making one wonder if the concern is genuine.) Anyway here again the eager to protect macho goons will have to let the equal citizens decide for themselves. Unless they have comitted a crime, they continue to be free to frequent the places of recreation they wish to.

Also, prostitutes have legal rights too.

2. Accusations of prostitution are also used to discourage supporters. Those who kill women for ‘honor’ would rarely  utter a word to support a girl who is accused, even indirectly, of being involved in prostitution.

What I would like to see liberals do is talk about responsibilities rather than rights. Who picks up the tab when the costs become exorbitant?

One responsibility here is to create awareness against such crimes. We can’t allow a talibanisation to take over our Democratic values.

…Men with their liberal waywardness are party to such degeneration.

Read about what happens when nearly every man gets drunk every evening in the slums and in villages in many parts of India, here. The terrified, hungry children, the helpless mothers, the helpless alcoholic, the family trying to hide their bruises and their problem, or families beyond caring who learns of their ugly problems. That’s degeneration.

Women drinking and dancing in clubs is just another way in which our vast nation and its diverse people celebrate life.