Why men should refuse to marry?

All said and done- Rohan what counts is vote.

We know various psuedo women empowerment leaders in all formations- UPA, NDA, Third front- who are likely to contest elections this time. Lets us collect their statements in last five years and distribute that in their constituencies among men to see their views on men. I am sure, they will see the effect of their statements.

Can Save Indian Family do it?

Surely, it can be done. But I think we should discuss it at length. I don't think men will wake up with mere statements. They need IPC 498A and DV to wake them up!

Anyway, its nice that you are interested to do something. Contact my pesonal ID ROHANDHARESH@yahoo.co.in

Yah, the laws which are being misused are related to marriage, hence discussion is to avoid marriage and not women.

Lately s*xual harassment at work places laws is also being misused, hence women should be avoided as work colleague too in that context, to save yourself from abuse from that law.

The logic is simple- avaoid a transaction in which law declare you a looser. Will you enter into a contract if law says you have all the responsibilities and no rights? The discussion is as simple as that. But it takes time to understand very simple things.

 well mr. rajesh kumar ..........by reading all that discussion i can very much sense that frustrated male ego which cannot bear upliftment of women.........women are far more sensitive than men..........there may be cases where the empowerement laws are being misused.........but have u ever been at the place of a woman then u could have understand .the need is proper implementation of laws..........and awareness among people as today also many females are harasses as usual and dey r nt even taking the help of law but is bearing all that happening with her..................today also i have seen all those women suffering because to be very frank ........................even after giving birth to a child of their own husband not  even 2 months have crossed and their husband wants to fulfill his physical needs..........inspite of the fact that her body is not ready for it................is it not cruelty ...............and dis happens everywhere............men is not sensitive enough to understand the problems of a women and i agree this is vice versa too..........................so it actually depends on person tp person and not the whole male or female beings......................dats a person choice whether to get married or not....but marriage can only be successful with love,comapatibility ,understanding and a bit of compromise for the sake of each other's happiness.............................if u people are not ready for that then its better not go for marriage.........................coz a woman of ordinary prudence will never humiliate his husband by the hands of law if he understands and tries to solve out the problems in  a rational manner.

neither women nor men can exist without each other........................so it s better to understand each other as though v have to live together but are not even physically different but also mentally.

thanx all,

regards

ritu bhadana

 just on the sake of a law being mis-used it cannot to repealed.

if the point of mis-using is dere then in my opinion every law should be amended or repealed coz i think their is always two sides of a coin one is using it n other mis-using.

In view of so many obligations of the law imposed on the man for getting married, it is always better to stay away from marriage. thts the reason in west couple stay inLIVE IN. Even Chidren could be raised in such relations.

Ritu's arguments are very convincing on the face of it. Hence it is needed that her arguments should be examined in detail, to bring out real meaning of women empowerment argument.

-When men say, "law should not be abused against men", it is frustated male ego which cannot bear upliftment of women? Look at the two aspect of this argument- 1. abusing law is women empowerment and 2. Talk of men's right is frustated male ego.

Well Ritu, I reject this argument and assure you that in course of time more and more men will reject this argument.

- "Women are more sensitive" & "men are not sensitive enough". I reject this argument as generalised myth. I think that the opposite if true.

-"Have you ever been at a place of a women?". This is opponents attempt to close a dialogue. I can never be at a place of a women. You can never be at a place of a man. So, no discussion, no arguments. Such arguments are not even arguments, it is a way to close discussion.

- The other argument is "every law is misused and misuse of a law cannot be a ground to repeal it". Thus she accepts allegation of misuse of law levelled by us, but reject any redressal. Read it with the term "frustated male ego", even talk to this misuse is branded frustation of male ego.

I leave on other men to think on this women empowerment argument.

-It is a personal choice to be married or not. Yes, I agree with the argument and that is what i am advocating. To exercise this personal choice without being effected by social conditioning.

-"marriage can only be successful.........". Well, I am not bothered by success or failure of marriage. If the institution of marriage will not serve the purpose of justice, it will not survive. If the institution of marriage will treat men as salves and criminals, it will not survive. If the institution of marriage will give all rights to women and all duties to men, it will not survive.

And last argument- neither men nor women can exist without each other. I have not thought on this issue but i sincerely doubt the veracity of this argument. I think it is possible to exist, and very soon science will establish this truth.

Ms Ritu,

If the article is an outcome of frustrated male ego, what is the women's rights movement? Frustrated female ego? What has misuse of laws and biased laws got to do with male or female ego? Its all about fundamental principles of jurisprudence and laws, basic tenets of practices and equality. If men complain about equality and you blame it on their ego, women have no right to talk about oppression as it is also a consequence of the female ego.

Men cannot bear the upliftment of women? First amend the alimony act, child custody act, maintenance act, domestic violence act, adultery act, and many more such acts where men are discriminated. Start paying men alimony and maintenance. Let no women be married unless she gets a job of Rs30000/- a month. Let women start guarding the border and protecting the nation from Pakis and terrorists at sweaterign heat of 55 degrees and biting cold of -15 degrees on Siachen. In short, let they pay for the equality and change of culture that is happening. Lets see whether men are frustrated or women are. Right now, 94% of deaths that happen in the course of duty, in wars, attacks by enemies, even accidents are of men, not women. In the recent Mumbai terror attacks, all 350 Commandoes were men. All 20 cops who died were men. But strangely, no feminists complained of patriarchy and male domination. Why? Where were the women?

Ritu, if women are far more sensitive than men, then let them start paying alimony to men, maintain them, guard the borders and counter the terrorists like men are doing. When an army jawan dies, his wife gets all the benefits of his insurance, etc. even if she re-marries. Time for men to claim that from women. So, be sensitive and start paying up!

Nobody is denying that women are not harassed. But the problem is that you don't accept that men are equally harassed. I can show you many cases. This is not equality. This is female domination.

Lastly, if feminists claim that marriage is an anti-women institution, lets ban marriages altogether. Lets have live-in and live-out relationships. Sex without strings attached is the best!

Ritu,

If you are a good Lawyer, you should know that when a law is formulated, it should have three things into consideration. 1. The need for the law. 2. The implementation. 3. The misuse clause.

Further, it should adhere to the principles of equality as in article 14 of the constitution and to the fundamentals of legal practices all over such as the right to be held innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial.

None of these laws adhere to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. Nor do they hold an accused innocent until proven guilty. Nor is there a fair trial. There is no misuse clause either.

This is obviously a violation of human rights of men. Now, we men have woken up to the new-age women who want men to lose all their rights. Feminism is Talibanism in reverse!

We will oppose this. And as more and more men start getting affected, they will wake up. History is repeating itself. There was a time when women were over-empowered as is happening now and then the men paid with their lives. Then, they disempowered the women.

Nobody is asking for a repealment of the laws. Everybody is asking for it to adhere to the fundamental rights, legal and ethical practices and the right to a fair trial.

If Ajmal Kasab, the notorious terrorist, has the right to a fair trial, and the right to be held innocent until proven guilty, why are Indian men held guilty until proven innocent and there is no fair trial merely on the  basis of a woman? Are Indian men worse than terrorists? Are Indian women angels from heaven?

Gagan,

Interaction with women in any form is a risk as the laws, society and media are all against you. For example, a woman can shoplift goods worth several thousands and the Shopkeeper cannot do anything because she is a woman! If there are other women around working in his shop, he is saved. Or else, he always stands the risk of being accused of molestation of attempted rape or s*xual harassment.

Now this is just one example. Just replicate this all over and in all situations. I know of two cases where women have cried molestation on innocent men.

Ritu,

She's a 11 Timer

https://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=1&contentid=200904042009040401312215243047ff1&sectxslt=

"Kausar has married 11 men and deserted them within a short period of time. Her family purchased a Rs 2 crore worth bungalow in HBR Layout. Where did the money come from? She even got married to a nawab of Hyderabad and he had to eke out Rs 50 lakh when she threatened to lodge a complaint against his family members,” Hasham told Bangalore Mirror"

So much for the sensitivity of women!

WOMEN EMPOWERMENT:

Ritu has raised very important point of women's empowerment. I just want to comment on this topic, at the cost of digression from the topic.

In the very early stage of human civilisation, when earning livelihood was physically difficult and often dangerous to life women was very happy to work inside the home. In course of time, through technological advancement brought by men's labour; earning livelihood has become easier- hence women want equality. When working in mines, factory was difficult and dangerous- there was no demand of any empowerment- gender roles were well defined and accepted by both the genders- when participation in manufacturing becomes easier, demand of equality. When warfare was tough and dangerous, army was for men only; in this world of warfare on computers- women should get equality.

There is a very clear trend- when the activity becomes easy, less taxing physically and less dangerous to life- women should get equality in those activities. As long as the activity is tough or dangerous like things Rohan just mentioned like comando operation, siachen etc., there is no demand of any equality. When these activites will become easy, and non dangerous by effort of men only- women demand equality by alleging that men are discriminating against women. Such allegations are not only false and misleading, it is betrayal.

Marriage is an institution which was made for the protection of women, when protection & security & even food was difficult to procure. Now, these things are not difficult to procure, even for a women. Thus the institution of marriage is not very important to them also. When you will see the composition of 498A, divorce and DV cases, you will find that a large proportion of these cases are being filed by working women. For that category of women, marriage may not be very important for livelihood.

Men have always been working for welfare of whole humanity, including womenhood. They should keep on doing that even now. It is the effort of men, which has made life on this planet easier, both for men and women. Men started marrying women, for their welfare. If that welfare institution is not required now by womenhood, in the present context, there is no reason for men to marry.

Well, that is another reason for men to refuse marriage.

 well i completely agree with all of you .if women are equally treated in the society then its a right time that equal rights must be given to a male also................generally even i have noticed this thing that in buses whenever the question arises of giving seats to old age people its always young men who are criticised but never a young women is asked to offer seat.................i completely agree with all u ld. people.................but my only contention was this that though many women are making fun of and abusing the powers given to them but still there are many females who are abused by their husband's and she is bearing that silently. marriage is a sacred institution for those who consider it to be and not so for those who dont....................so its an individual's choice...............

 i agree with rohan but when the question arises of guarding the borders then i must tell u that none of the forces in india allow women to do so.still women are recruited on short service and not allowed to do so like men.even i agree to this point also marriage is for the safety of women.but i have already stated this also that neither men nor women can exist without each other so marrying or not marrying is an individual's choice and not an obligation.