Females thumbs-up! But what about males?!

[unni]

The laws are made so as to bring everyone on an equal social standing. That's the basic premise behind it.

If we go by that logic, we can even take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor, isn't it?

The new divorce laws that the government is planning to implement takes a good share (depending on the judge's mood) of the husband's property, his share of parent's property etc in the name of helping the woman. Why is it that acceptable? I don't see any problem in giving half of everything the couple earned during the marriage, or even more depending on who gets the custody of children? I will never marry a woman who will not work. I will never take dowry. I would share half of all the house hold work. So I would expect to be treated reasonably during divorce as well.

If taking dowry at the time of marriage is illegal, why giving money at the time of separation is ok? Its not my responsibility to take care of a person whom I would probably hate more that anything else in my life at that point. I would rather burn all my money than give even a single paisa to that woman. To me, the new law reduces marriage to nothing more than a really expensive and risky 'prostitution + womb for rent'. A law that takes money only from men, that too during one of the most difficult periods of his life isn't something I can agree with. That too when the government themselves pay peanuts in the name of widow pension. Unfortunately, the only thing I can do is not to vote for the party who brings such a law into practice ever again.

 

[blkrb0t]

@unni Enjoy your current privileges and stay behind the "Privilege Blindness" when you chant that mantra. Also, the slippery slope fallacy in the first sentence is splendid indeed.

Your "Just-World Theory" arguments may work in an utopian world, but not in the real one.

Moreover, if you think a law can have an effect on marriage and reduce it to " a really expensive and risky 'prostitution + womb for rent'," then... no further comments.

 

[TEUser2K1]

All theses theories and fallacies are applicable to women too.

False cases behind Delhi's tag of rape capital: Court
http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/...capital-court-397821?pfrom=home-lateststories

...women's right's lawyer Flavia Agnes points out, a third of rape cases in India are filed by parents against boys with whom their daughters have eloped...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-21796944

It is just that ridiculing men and waxing up women is a new 'fad' (like hippie-ism which damaged many individuals and families) with some business interests /nefarious designs. Though a good percent of earning is done by hardworking men, above 70% of shopping is done by women. So businesses will find ways to exploit them. Sheeples will take illogical cues from these media gimmicks and cause harm to those who are immediately around.

And it is easy to exploit weak minds this way which can benefit interested parties in many ways.

 

[unni]

I request you to watch this NDTV discussion: YouTube
I can't help seeing this law as similar to the forced sterilization the government implemented back in 1975.

@blkrb0t
Honestly, I didn't understand most of the things you linked to. Its way too high for me to process.

However, every time a guy tries to complain about something like this, it has become a common tactic to try to shame and silence him by saying things like
a. Stop whining and man up
b. Stop being gay
c. You are a male chauvinist sexist misogynistic pig/dog/chicken/cow (just kidding)
c. You are privileged, women are weak and require society's protection
For the time being, lets forget all that.

Assume that I get married. Five years later, either the wife or me initiates divorce for some reason. At that point, my savings are as follows:
1. Inheritance
2. Savings from my job before marriage
3. My savings during marriage
4. House
5. Car
6. Other purchases
7. Loans

I would expect 1 & 2 to remain with me. Unfortunately, as per the new divorce law, I will lose half of 1-6 (depending on the judge). I don't get anything from wife's savings or inheritance. There is no guarantee that I can even have part of the house (or an equivalent share). On top of this, I will definitely have to pay for child support, and there may be monthly or one time maintenance payment as well. As per the feminist's admission in the above video, custody of child goes to the mother in 80% of cases (*1). So basically, I end up with nothing to gain from marriage, and stand to loose an awful lot. Not to mention the years of associated depression, possible job loss, jail term if I default on monthly payment (which in turn would cause me to default more *2) etc.

*1: Need evidence-I think as per Indian law, male child goes to the dad.
*2: It really happened in India within the last one year. The guy was put in jail since he couldn't pay the money, and he ended up killing himself.

Two wrongs never make a right-the first wrong here being the gender based discrimination faced by women, the second being the state sponsored robbery of men. Asking a man to pay post-divorce is like asking the woman to come and do the house work, cooking etc. Its not a man's job to be anybody's ATM machine or body guard or war machine.

This is a quote from a book titled "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)" where the author talks about what happens during divorce. If anybody is interested, I can post the entire section.

Couples who part because of clear external reasons—say, because one spouse is physically or emotionally abusive—will feel no need for additional self-justification. Nor will those rare couples who part in complete amicability, or who eventually restore warm feelings of friendship after the initial pain of separation. They feel no urgency to vilify their former partner or forget happier times, because they are able to say, “It didn’t work out,” “We just grew apart,” or “We were so young when we married and didn't know better.” But when the divorce is wrenching, momentous, and costly, and especially when one partner wants the separation and the other does not, both sides will feel an amalgam of painful emotions. In addition to the anger, anguish, hurt, and grief that almost invariably accompany divorce, these couples will also feel the pain of dissonance. That dissonance, and the way many people choose to resolve it, is one of the major reasons for post-divorce vindictiveness.

If you are the one who is leaving, you also have dissonance to reduce, to justify the pain you are inflicting on someone you once loved. Because you are a good person, and a good person doesn't hurt another, your partner must have deserved your rejection, perhaps even more than you realized.Observers of divorcing couples are often baffled by what seems like unreasonable vindictiveness on the part of the person who initiated the separation; what they are observing is dissonance reduction in action.

Now some interesting points:
1. Women initiate 60%-90% divorces in US (source).
2. Men twice as likely to experience depression after divorce (source)

 

[sharktale1212]

Pretty good discussion, but what I fail to understand is that how does making gender (caste/religion) specific laws help in encouraging equality among genders or for that matter castes or even religion.

The same way caste based reservations have helped bring social equality and after 66yrs we can abolish it.........

Oh wait!
Instead we have a host of castes who are now bent on proving themselves to be backward. Just so that they can latch on to reservations. They surely must have not got any fair chances to grow.

It must be cognitive bias when I say many government posts are now occupied by the same people the law was trying to help. Now they wont give up the power so easily. I mean who would've thought - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ( who will watch the watchers?)

 

[blkrb0t]

It must be cognitive bias when I say many government posts are now occupied by the same people the law was trying to help. Now they wont give up the power so easily. I mean who would've thought - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ( who will watch the watchers?)

Provide data about that.

It's not only cognitive bias, but also reeks of arbitrary generalisation of a group which you don't belong to.

THEY won't give up power? The same logic upper-castes use to deny equality? No wonder in spite of those laws, casteism is still prevalent and kicking.

Guess who is hell bent on not giving up the privileges and power they hold?

 

[sharktale1212]

Provide data about that.

It's not only cognitive bias, but also reeks of arbitrary generalisation of a group which you don't belong to.

THEY won't give up power? The same logic upper-castes use to deny equality? No wonder in spite of those laws, casteism is still prevalent and kicking.

Guess who is hell bent on not giving up the privileges and power they hold?

And you keep giving strawman arguements to support your claims. It just reeks of super trolling. And for sake of God, dont randomly quote things without reading:

Six decades of democratic statehood have attempted to correct the imbalances of the past through “reservation” — job and education quotas for the so-called backward castes, like the Dalits. This program has been effective, in a fairly hit-or-miss fashion. Some say that nearly all university seats are reserved for lower castes, effectively blocking Brahmins from higher education. Others point out that the vast majority of high paying jobs are still in the hands of the top three castes.

So why do we need another reservation for that matter? I know, so that next day another guy doesn't sit on the rail tracks making life hell for everyone else, just so he can have his share of reservation.

FYI, I belong to the one of the lower caste you are referring to as weak. Similarily, I know many women who would rather not have the stacked law, specially when they demand equality from men. I guess they must be men hiding in women's clothing - cognitive bias, slippery slope and what not.

 

[blkrb0t]

And you keep giving strawman arguements to support your claims. It just reeks of super trolling. And for sake of God, dont randomly quote things without reading:

This was not a straw man argument, but a demand of proof to justify the bold sentence in your statement:

The same way caste based reservations have helped bring social equality and after 66yrs we can abolish it.........
Oh wait!
Instead we have a host of castes who are now bent on proving themselves to be backward. Just so that they can latch on to reservations. They surely must have not got any fair chances to grow.

It must be cognitive bias when I say many government posts are now occupied by the same people the law was trying to help. Now they wont give up the power so easily. I mean who would've thought - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ( who will watch the watchers?)

FYI, I belong to the one of the lower caste you are referring to as weak. Similarily, I know many women who would rather not have the stacked law, specially when they demand equality from men. I guess they must be men hiding in women's clothing - cognitive bias, slippery slope and what not.

Now, this is a straw man argument.

 

[sharktale1212]

This was not a straw man argument, but a demand of proof to justify the bold sentence in your statement:



Now, this is a straw man argument.

Oh God, you dont even understand the fallacy of arguments. Simply copying links, are we? Let me explain:
"My friend, you have quoted a wiki page. And not everything you read on a wiki page is true. "

Now that was a strawman argument - I try to argue a point which has never made but create an allusion that you are wrong. "to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position" - from your wiki link.

And then again you use another faulty argument. Just because I said the law has made those people powerful enough that it was trying to help doesnt necessarily mean I cant be one of them. Its not an all inclusive statement. I dint feel it was right to tell my "caste standing" until you assumed that I was of high caste. I mean
Why cant a person say something bad about the standing they belong to. We Indians do all the time, dissing our country and politicians all the time (some justified, some not). You will find instances of Indians dissing India without saying they are Indians.

But you had to assume I was of high caste standing from what I said. Talk about cognitive bias you keep quoting.

As for why your arguments have been straw man - how do you even prove I am biased towards women if I say the law is unfair? I maybe a pro-feminist for all you know. Why cant I have a different opinion on a law which really is draconian? By saying and quoting umpteenth time that there is something called cognitive bias, you are using straw man arguments. You have not refuted my position. I'll ask you the same thing you asked me. Do you have any proof this law is any good? If you have lets hear it. Saying cognitive bias, slippery slope and privilege blindness is not going to cut it.

And in the end I can say is this - Let others have a say what is their opinion. Don't diss them as biased, privileged without even living in their shoes. You made your point 2-3 pages ago then let it be. No need to call out every one who disagrees with you, even if this is something you strongly believe in. If not, then still your call.