Save Indian Family Foundation, strongly and severely condemns the Derogatory Ad being telecast at the behest of Kitply Industries. The ad shows a young timid man getting married to a woman and on the first night the bed crumbles. The wife asks the husband, “Kitply nahi laye kya?” (Have you not bought Kitply?) and slaps the husband.
Openly, brazenly and cold – bloodedly this ad not only depicts Domestic Violence on men but also promulgates it, inspiring women to do it and telling men that this is a way of life. World over international studies have proved it beyond doubt that Domestic Violence is not a gender specific issue and is a matter of equal concern for both men and women.
The situation is far worse in India wherein gender biased, lopsided, avaricious, pernicious, draconian, anachronous and unconstitutional anti – male marital laws fail to recognize the presence of Domestic Violence and acknowledge the same for men. Yes, Domestic Violence laws in India do not consider the fact that men too could be victims of Domestic Violence the way women are presumed and prejudiced to be and the Domestic Violence law in India does not allow men to make complaints of Domestic Violence in India.
This despite the fact holding true that as per Government records i.e. suicide date published by National Crime Records Bureau, every year 56, 000 married men are committing suicide which is considered as a social service in a great country like India, where 82 % of taxes are paid by men. Neither do men have a Men Welfare Ministry for them nor a National Commission for Men to look into their grievances, whereas animals do have. The condition of Indian men is worse than animals in India.
To add to the woes men are subject to the constant fear of being dragged into false cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence draining them financially, socially, morally and spiritually in addition to being victims of Domestic Violence as well at the hands of their vindictive and vicious wives and in – laws who do not forget to file false cases of dowry harassment on the innocent men and their families and drag them to police station and court and unleash Legal Terrorism on them and extort money legally from them.
As if all this was no less, when corporates like Kitply Industries rain on men and promote Domestic Violence on men as a norm and when confronted for the same, shamelessly claim that it has been shown in a humorous mood, and shrug away from accountability. The contention that the ad was shown in a light spirit is subject to critical analysis and not becoming of a brand name Kitply Industries.
Save Indian Family Foundation, the single largest umbrella NGO for about 15 different NGOs fighting not only for men’s rights but also for Gender Equality and Family Harmony, severely condemns such derogatory ads and demands apology from Kitply Industries, failing which Save Indian Family Foundation will be forced to issue legal notices to them to respond properly.
One can only imagine the kind of euphoria that would have been generated if they had shown a man slapping a woman in similar manner. So when activists championing the cause of Equality for Women are crying foul, why are they now silent when Gender Equality is critically endangered and its existence seriously jeopardized with such derogatory ad content. This only depicts the hollow goals with which such activists work and want to rake in the mullah in the name of Women Empowerment and feminism but do not believe in actual equality based on truth and justice.
Save Indian Family Foundation re – iterates its demand of an apology from Kitply Industries and once again puts this question to the civil society and the government that how long are they continuing to consider men as second class citizens in their own country?
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Alimony - The Trojan Horse of Matrimony
Irony defining life it seems has become a norm in today’s times. And it does not seem to spare the most controversial social institution, working as first step towards familial life, aka the INDIAN MARRIAGE. The irony here is that what starts as a pompous celebration and extravagant spending ends with financially, emotionally and spiritually draining litigation with mud – slinging from both sides aka the DIVORCE. And ending a marriage is very costly for a man, not only of because the fear of false cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence against him but also as he is liable to pay alimony or maintenance pedante lite to his wife.
The concept of alimony, although was designed with a noble intention of prevention of stranded and protection of destitute non – earning spouse, the same has increasingly become the single largest motivating factor for girls to break their marriages at the slightest sneeze of discomfiture in the relationship with their husbands. And in order to gain a beneficial and an empowered bargaining position in the negotiation for alimony they even do not refrain from filing false cases of Dowry Harassment against their husbands and in – laws and getting them arrested to plant fear in their mind to make them succumb to their heavy demands of alimony.
Thus, in today’s dynamic socio – economic scenario, alimony has become the Trojan Horse of matrimony. Girls know it very well that the moment they start losing control in the marriage or over their husband they can always walk out of it by entangling the husband in false cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence and harassing him so much that he agrees to pay the heavy ransom girls demand to release him from the forced slavery and give him the costly freedom called divorce.
Was ever alimony in divorce meant to be an easy route to tax – free money? Never. But with the existing rampant corruption amongst the police, judiciary and the legal system, men are made to pay heavy alimonies to their estranged wives for settling the false cases and everyone involved in the settlement gets a share of the pie. The practice is thriving like a flourishing business which is so anti – male in nature that every year 56, 000 married men are committing suicide, unable to bear the brunt of fallacy called, The Bad Marriage.
As its definition stands, alimony is subsistence – allowance which allows a non – capable spouse to maintain oneself post divorce. Spouses who are earning or are capable of earning based on their qualifications are not entitled to alimony. One might contend by the above definition that for working women / substantially educated women opting for divorce, as they are not entitled to alimony, their husbands need not worry, but it will be imperative to state here that increasing number of such cases are coming forth where either women have hidden the income and the fact that they earn or deliberately left job to squander money from husband.
Even if the woman is not able to maintain herself, then more than the husband, the parents of the woman are a greater culprit for not properly empowering their daughter with proper education and making her dependent on someone else, expecting that the marriage of their daughter with that person will last for eternity. And is it not the daughter’s right in her ancestral property, her legitimate due that she should get? Why are girl’s parents shrugging away from this responsibility of theirs and discriminating between a daughter and a son when distribution of wealth comes into picture? Why is it expected that only the husband is responsible to maintain the woman even when they are not staying together? Why the girl’s parents are not held responsible for such a condition of their daughter? Will the civil society at least think over these questions if not answer them?
The concept of alimony, although was designed with a noble intention of prevention of stranded and protection of destitute non – earning spouse, the same has increasingly become the single largest motivating factor for girls to break their marriages at the slightest sneeze of discomfiture in the relationship with their husbands. And in order to gain a beneficial and an empowered bargaining position in the negotiation for alimony they even do not refrain from filing false cases of Dowry Harassment against their husbands and in – laws and getting them arrested to plant fear in their mind to make them succumb to their heavy demands of alimony.
Thus, in today’s dynamic socio – economic scenario, alimony has become the Trojan Horse of matrimony. Girls know it very well that the moment they start losing control in the marriage or over their husband they can always walk out of it by entangling the husband in false cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence and harassing him so much that he agrees to pay the heavy ransom girls demand to release him from the forced slavery and give him the costly freedom called divorce.
Was ever alimony in divorce meant to be an easy route to tax – free money? Never. But with the existing rampant corruption amongst the police, judiciary and the legal system, men are made to pay heavy alimonies to their estranged wives for settling the false cases and everyone involved in the settlement gets a share of the pie. The practice is thriving like a flourishing business which is so anti – male in nature that every year 56, 000 married men are committing suicide, unable to bear the brunt of fallacy called, The Bad Marriage.
As its definition stands, alimony is subsistence – allowance which allows a non – capable spouse to maintain oneself post divorce. Spouses who are earning or are capable of earning based on their qualifications are not entitled to alimony. One might contend by the above definition that for working women / substantially educated women opting for divorce, as they are not entitled to alimony, their husbands need not worry, but it will be imperative to state here that increasing number of such cases are coming forth where either women have hidden the income and the fact that they earn or deliberately left job to squander money from husband.
Even if the woman is not able to maintain herself, then more than the husband, the parents of the woman are a greater culprit for not properly empowering their daughter with proper education and making her dependent on someone else, expecting that the marriage of their daughter with that person will last for eternity. And is it not the daughter’s right in her ancestral property, her legitimate due that she should get? Why are girl’s parents shrugging away from this responsibility of theirs and discriminating between a daughter and a son when distribution of wealth comes into picture? Why is it expected that only the husband is responsible to maintain the woman even when they are not staying together? Why the girl’s parents are not held responsible for such a condition of their daughter? Will the civil society at least think over these questions if not answer them?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Google Censorship
>>>Google Censorship<<<
The major search engines censor access to many web sites. 11 min
They all have internal organizations responsible for executing the censoring policies of their company. We can be confident that none of these organizations is called the “Censoring Division”. The people in these organizations may also sincerely believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of their users and that every single site that they block is “doing something wrong”.
The problem with Internet censoring is the same as any other form of censoring. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, once you start censoring it is very hard to stop. It is always possible to rationalize that people would be better off if they didn't have access to certain information.
Google has often censored some of my own pages. These pages have completely and utterly disappeared from their search engines. They do not exist!
(And please do not bother writing to me to explain that this might be because their 'blind' algorithms might simply have changed - because I have far too much evidence pointing to the conclusion that these 'algorithms' include site-specific and/or page-specific instructions and I also know the internet extremely well.)
You see; Google has a problem. And it is this.
Just like the telephone companies, Google claims that it cannot possibly have any responsibility for what information flows through its system. After all, in much the same way that the telephone companies cannot possibly monitor all the billions of telephone conversations that flow through their systems, Google cannot possibly monitor all the information on the billions of webpages that it lists.
Or so it claims.
And, on the surface, this claim seems to be a reasonable one.
BUT!
If Google is, indeed, censoring information (e.g. delisting pages from its search engines or demoting them in the rankings because of their content) then, quite clearly, it is monitoring this information.
And if it is monitoring this information, then it can surely be deemed to be liable for the presentation of it!
And if this was the case then, for example, this would mean that Google could be held responsible for any libel that appeared on webpages that it had listed - or, perhaps, responsible for aiding terrorists etc etc etc.
In short; if Google admits to monitoring, then it can be held to be 'liable'.
So, Google is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, it proudly proclaims to be a defender of free speech and that it would not dream of censoring (blocking, de-listing, demoting etc etc) any webpages of information, and it insists most strongly that, therefore, it cannot possibly be held liable for any of the content but, on the other hand, it does not want to upset governments; and it can only do this by doing what governments tell them.
And so Google has chosen to worm its way out of this dilemma by, quite simply, accommodating to the wishes of governments - and lying to the people about it.
Now some of my long-time readers might recall that the last time that I had a barney with Google - when, if you believe it, they removed all advertising from a single innocuous page concerning men's issues on my other website - I had to maraud around for three or four days demonstrating to Google that I would trawl the internet here, there and everywhere in order to spread the news about Google's heinous activities to whomsoever might seem interested - especially journalists.
And I think that what finally convinced Google to be more accommodating was me pointing out the fact that not only was I, clearly, a very energetic activist, but that rushing around the internet badmouthing Google would do absolute wonders for my site's traffic - and that, therefore, I would find the experience most rewarding - which meant that I was very unlikely to stop badmouthing Google hither and thither - week after week if necessary.
My ads came back.
Well, it looks as if I am now going to have to create a fuss over www.HarrietHarmanSucks.Com - because its pages have been disappeared into the abyss - having all first appeared for a few days hovering between pages 5 and 20 following a search for "Harriet Harman"
And so my plan is this.
I am going to write a piece about why Google needs to be 'controlled' and restricted in some way and explain how outrageous it is that it should have so much power.
And then I am going to start marauding around the internet again.
Because, ....
I will not be censored!
LOL!
(And you can forget all the BS about Google being a private company and so it should be able to de-list or demote whatever pages it likes, because it is illegal for companies to cheat people. And if Google is censoring my pages, then it is cheating the people most horribly!)
The alternative, I suppose, is to re-write the pieces so that they are less 'hostile'.
Hmmm.
I'll think about it.
Maybe if I grovelled to Harriet Harman in my pieces instead of castigating her Google would re-list my pages.
Grovel. Grovel.
LOL!
Huh!
I would rather that my missus be torn apart and devoured slowly by a gruesome herd of flesh-eating crocodiles.
(While I watched her writhing in agony, ate ice cream, and chatted to my new girlfriend, of course!)
Anyway. The piece above is very good indeed, and definitely worth reading.
+ We have private companies like Google deciding what we can and can't see based on their self-interested readings of poorly-drafted national laws, taking advice from unnamed and unaccountable Government agencies and telling nobody what is going on. Bill Thompson
And, of course, this is one of the ways in which western governments intend to stifle dissent.
This is the deal in a nutshell.
Government: "If you, Google, do not disappear from view those most effective pieces that are hostile to us, then we shall bring some kind of law to bear upon you."
Google: "Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir."
Government: "But you must not tell the people of this secret deal."
Google: "Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir."
There is no question in my mind that this is going on.
And this means that we do not have a democracy.
Of course, Google would not dare to nobble websites that were very influential - because too many influential people might get upset about it.
So, between them, Google and the government keep it all secret and under the carpet.
In other words, as usual, our own governments - and, in this case, Google - are cheating us.
And talk about hypocrisy! - with all our politicians forever criticising the Chinese government for blocking access to websites that are critical of government and its officials, when they are doing something very similar over here.
Indeed, our governments - through their officials - are lying to us all the time.
Furthermore, when, at the time, I did a whole load of research into the matter of 'adverts' and the 'blacklisting' of them, it became fairly clear to me that the sites that had lost their adverts were mostly on the right side of the political spectrum in that they were often anti-feminist and/or not politically correct.
So, as in so many other areas, my guess is that internet activists who are anti-feminist and/or not politically correct are also having to cope with the customary institutionalised biases against them; but this time, with the aid of Google.
But decent lefties must also be very much concerned about this, firstly, because it might not be too long before those who are pulling the strings are more right-wing and, secondly, because "men's issues" have precious little to do with being on the left or the right of the political spectrum; because when it come to issues of concern to 'men', the official left and right are just as bad as each other.
In other words, all men should be very concerned indeed about Google's underhand censorship because not only does this undermine the democratic process most seriously, it also means that those activists who are fighting the corner for 'men' (rightly or wrongly) are being unfairly treated and that the issues of concern to 'men' are - once again - being purposely sat upon and hidden.
The major search engines censor access to many web sites. 11 min
They all have internal organizations responsible for executing the censoring policies of their company. We can be confident that none of these organizations is called the “Censoring Division”. The people in these organizations may also sincerely believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of their users and that every single site that they block is “doing something wrong”.
The problem with Internet censoring is the same as any other form of censoring. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, once you start censoring it is very hard to stop. It is always possible to rationalize that people would be better off if they didn't have access to certain information.
Google has often censored some of my own pages. These pages have completely and utterly disappeared from their search engines. They do not exist!
(And please do not bother writing to me to explain that this might be because their 'blind' algorithms might simply have changed - because I have far too much evidence pointing to the conclusion that these 'algorithms' include site-specific and/or page-specific instructions and I also know the internet extremely well.)
You see; Google has a problem. And it is this.
Just like the telephone companies, Google claims that it cannot possibly have any responsibility for what information flows through its system. After all, in much the same way that the telephone companies cannot possibly monitor all the billions of telephone conversations that flow through their systems, Google cannot possibly monitor all the information on the billions of webpages that it lists.
Or so it claims.
And, on the surface, this claim seems to be a reasonable one.
BUT!
If Google is, indeed, censoring information (e.g. delisting pages from its search engines or demoting them in the rankings because of their content) then, quite clearly, it is monitoring this information.
And if it is monitoring this information, then it can surely be deemed to be liable for the presentation of it!
And if this was the case then, for example, this would mean that Google could be held responsible for any libel that appeared on webpages that it had listed - or, perhaps, responsible for aiding terrorists etc etc etc.
In short; if Google admits to monitoring, then it can be held to be 'liable'.
So, Google is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, it proudly proclaims to be a defender of free speech and that it would not dream of censoring (blocking, de-listing, demoting etc etc) any webpages of information, and it insists most strongly that, therefore, it cannot possibly be held liable for any of the content but, on the other hand, it does not want to upset governments; and it can only do this by doing what governments tell them.
And so Google has chosen to worm its way out of this dilemma by, quite simply, accommodating to the wishes of governments - and lying to the people about it.
Now some of my long-time readers might recall that the last time that I had a barney with Google - when, if you believe it, they removed all advertising from a single innocuous page concerning men's issues on my other website - I had to maraud around for three or four days demonstrating to Google that I would trawl the internet here, there and everywhere in order to spread the news about Google's heinous activities to whomsoever might seem interested - especially journalists.
And I think that what finally convinced Google to be more accommodating was me pointing out the fact that not only was I, clearly, a very energetic activist, but that rushing around the internet badmouthing Google would do absolute wonders for my site's traffic - and that, therefore, I would find the experience most rewarding - which meant that I was very unlikely to stop badmouthing Google hither and thither - week after week if necessary.
My ads came back.
Well, it looks as if I am now going to have to create a fuss over www.HarrietHarmanSucks.Com - because its pages have been disappeared into the abyss - having all first appeared for a few days hovering between pages 5 and 20 following a search for "Harriet Harman"
And so my plan is this.
I am going to write a piece about why Google needs to be 'controlled' and restricted in some way and explain how outrageous it is that it should have so much power.
And then I am going to start marauding around the internet again.
Because, ....
I will not be censored!
LOL!
(And you can forget all the BS about Google being a private company and so it should be able to de-list or demote whatever pages it likes, because it is illegal for companies to cheat people. And if Google is censoring my pages, then it is cheating the people most horribly!)
The alternative, I suppose, is to re-write the pieces so that they are less 'hostile'.
Hmmm.
I'll think about it.
Maybe if I grovelled to Harriet Harman in my pieces instead of castigating her Google would re-list my pages.
Grovel. Grovel.
LOL!
Huh!
I would rather that my missus be torn apart and devoured slowly by a gruesome herd of flesh-eating crocodiles.
(While I watched her writhing in agony, ate ice cream, and chatted to my new girlfriend, of course!)
Anyway. The piece above is very good indeed, and definitely worth reading.
+ We have private companies like Google deciding what we can and can't see based on their self-interested readings of poorly-drafted national laws, taking advice from unnamed and unaccountable Government agencies and telling nobody what is going on. Bill Thompson
And, of course, this is one of the ways in which western governments intend to stifle dissent.
This is the deal in a nutshell.
Government: "If you, Google, do not disappear from view those most effective pieces that are hostile to us, then we shall bring some kind of law to bear upon you."
Google: "Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir."
Government: "But you must not tell the people of this secret deal."
Google: "Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir."
There is no question in my mind that this is going on.
And this means that we do not have a democracy.
Of course, Google would not dare to nobble websites that were very influential - because too many influential people might get upset about it.
So, between them, Google and the government keep it all secret and under the carpet.
In other words, as usual, our own governments - and, in this case, Google - are cheating us.
And talk about hypocrisy! - with all our politicians forever criticising the Chinese government for blocking access to websites that are critical of government and its officials, when they are doing something very similar over here.
Indeed, our governments - through their officials - are lying to us all the time.
Furthermore, when, at the time, I did a whole load of research into the matter of 'adverts' and the 'blacklisting' of them, it became fairly clear to me that the sites that had lost their adverts were mostly on the right side of the political spectrum in that they were often anti-feminist and/or not politically correct.
So, as in so many other areas, my guess is that internet activists who are anti-feminist and/or not politically correct are also having to cope with the customary institutionalised biases against them; but this time, with the aid of Google.
But decent lefties must also be very much concerned about this, firstly, because it might not be too long before those who are pulling the strings are more right-wing and, secondly, because "men's issues" have precious little to do with being on the left or the right of the political spectrum; because when it come to issues of concern to 'men', the official left and right are just as bad as each other.
In other words, all men should be very concerned indeed about Google's underhand censorship because not only does this undermine the democratic process most seriously, it also means that those activists who are fighting the corner for 'men' (rightly or wrongly) are being unfairly treated and that the issues of concern to 'men' are - once again - being purposely sat upon and hidden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
