More men victims of domestic abuse

Karl Marx said exploiters never gave up exploitation on their own. The exploited has to extract it by armed struggle.

Karl Marx was wrong. World history of the past 200 years shows that it was always the exploiters who gave up their rights due to changing ciecumstances.

I see here women are rallying against those who oppose pro-women laws although the laws came actually  due to the initiative of men.

I request the gents and ladies to take an impartial attitude. Justice is usually represented by a woman whose eyes are covered. She (or can be he also) cannot see the parties and whether they are men or women. She can only hear and gives her judgement on the basis of what she hears.

No new law is necessary as said by Ms.Avnish Kaur. All laws should be gender neutral. Also no new law should be open ended. The new Act itself should contain a provision for review after a specific number of years and decide whether the law should be left as it was, should be amended or repealed altogether.

In this ever changing world permanancy may be expedient for the law makers and for people who think that the law was for their benefit only. But it often does injustice to unintended persons.

mrs jytothi ,

“One of the biggest changes, though, has been to increase awareness of men as victims, Angelucci said,(senior member ,US Fderal Court ) pointing to a 2001 study by the Centers for Disease Control that showed women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence.”

Women are naturally greedy person and  are less tolerant compared to man . Humam Psychology studies states the   women are have more  jealousy ,greedness  and cruiel than men  !.

Why law is one sided ?

Women almost always win in the family courts system. If all this isn't enough for you, women can accuse men of rape, falsely or not, and the man's name and face will be splattered all over the evening news and the Internet, while his accuser will remain anonymous.

The question is why the law is one-sided. Here is the reason.

All would have heard of TADA and POTA. Why were they passed? Why there were objections and later repealed.

In normal jurisprudence an accused person should be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is proven. Also under the Indian Evidence Act, most offences require eye-witnesses.

In things like terrorism it is difficult to get witnesses. Either they will not come out of fear or they will get killed. Hence laws like TADA and POTA were enacted so that traditional evidences were not required.

The result was the police and politicians started taking advantage of these laws to wreck vengeance on their adversaries or even on innocent people. So there was a hue and cry and the laws were repealed.

There was a general feeling, true or false, that young women were made victims in cases of demand for dowry and of their husbands and/or mothers-in-law. The demand for dowry and domestic violence are difficult to prove even to file an FIR. So laws like DVA and 498A were passed, so that husbands, mothers-in-law or any other person in the house can hauled on a mere complaint from young woman concerned or her relatives. Some women started taking advantage of it as in the case of TADA or POTA.

If any Forum member has a solution he/she can post it here. Merely men blaming women members and women blaming male members is juvenile and only helps to bring down the standard of the discussions.

"  There was a general feeling, true or false, that young women were made victims in cases of demand for dowry and of their husbands and/or mothers-in-law "

in most of the cases, it is personality crash or crash of personal interest.

these crash shaped into 498a or dv etc.

media, newspaper, police, court works on the complain of women side only, for which it is one sided. it is not that the above instituions are pertial, but the acts itself are partial.

THESE PERTIAL ACT MADE BY PERLIAMENT ONLY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY GOES TO IT.

As pointed out by Ambika, the reply by Viswas on the one liner of Jyothi itself goes to show how men react to a woman who has just expressed her opinion.  This itself goes to show who is resort to to controlling tactics and abuse.  If in the forum itself Viswas cannot take a woman's opinion without resorting to abuse can you imagine him within the closed four walls of his home.  I'm sure everyone can.  

Mr Arup has hit the nail on its head. The overwhelming number of members in our parliament are men. Men thought that laws apparently favouring women were necessary. If now they find that there is misuse of the Acts, they may tone them down or even amend them.

Though there may be many misuse of the laws, there are many many women, who still suffer silently. If they resort to DV Act or 498A, that will be the end of their marriage. In our culture still many women and their fathers think that divorce or permanent separation is worse than widowhood. The laws have failed in their cases.

Again I request the members to stop this childish debate.

Mr. Ramani

Law making is not a simple process--you know as well as I know--that men sit in the parliament and make law--so many influencing factors are behind making of the law, I need not tell you. The women's rights groups and national commitments to international tresties like CEDAW have played a major part in influencing law making process which took care of the realities majority of women live in . 

So it is not as simple as that : men wanted it and did it, and men have realised something and change and amend it. 

Best way to stop the debate which we consider is childish or useless is not to participate in it...at leat in a web forum like LCI which is not moderated. 

Rajeevji its really true law is not taking care of males who is suffering. it is like the sufferer can know the suffering of others. Sorry females i don't have any personal problems. i respect all the females a lot.

A great poem, looks even greater, on LCI: Lawyers' club of India.....

LCI should be very proud of such beautiful piece of literature....

Clap clap clap....

Advocates of high scores and low scores, please give your opinions on these literary pieces...

Silence is not always the best policy....

I may have again reported abuse, but I will not this time

Last time when I reported abuse, it was for Roshani and Meenal 

since my name is involved this time, I take a stand and am not going to report abuse...

It is because such ornaments should not be stolen from LCI by LCI's own initiatives...

though the poem is nice but too much personal...

I received the poem by email, but I do not see it here. Probably it was removed by the editors. It was really obnoxious and in bad taste.

 I do not understand why Ms. Ambika should take offence. I have only repeated my post here on 20-02-11. I again say history shows that oppressors on their own, under changing circumstances gave up oppression. It is not that the oppressed fought and got it. If women are freer today, it is not because of the achievements of women’s group, but because their loving fathers gave their darling daughters more freedom and more education. Previously insurance advertisements used to advise young parents to save either for the education of their sons or for the marriage of their daughters. During those days there were many children in the family and parents thought of education only for their sons. Nowadays people are conscious of a small family and most families have either only boys or only girls. In families where there were only girls, parents started aspiring for the achievements of their daughters. Thus more and more girls started achieving things in life. How slavery got abolished?  It was not that former slaves fought and won their freedom. With the advent of machines, manual labour became less productive and uneconomic. That persuaded the slave owners to free their slaves, though it appeared as though those who did not have slaves fought those who had slaves and freed the slaves. The 20^th century has shown that contrary to what Marx predicted, labour did not achieve their freedom through revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat.

I remember there was an incident in which a boy, whose love was spurned, threw acid on the face of the girl. Active member of a woman’s organization wrote an article on the incident saying how men are possessive. Later there was an identical case, but with the roles reversed.  There was no word from any women’s or men’s organizations.

Generally women from failed marriages start hating men and start fighting for the so called women’s cause, not knowing that there are many successful marriages, which do not come in the news.

I had 5 sisters and no brother. It hurt me whenever any of my sisters had to suffer eve-teasing or suffer on any other count on account of their being women. They also loved me, because for them I was their brother and not just a male.  

Ms. Ambika I am not going to oblige and  leave this debate, because I want to say again and again, what I say, so long as I see members fighting childishly.

Honestly no offence Mr. Ramani. You are as free to voice your opinion, as I or any other person. The suggestion was to your earlier appeal to stop the childish debate. If you find my tone as bit out of order, then perhaps I was not able to communicate what I intended to communicate.  To me your perspective has value but I stick to my perspective also that progressive laws are not only the contribution of progressive men( none denies it ) but to a large extent the results of women's movement and international environment on pushing the gender equity agenda. I appreciate your views but at the same time I would not forget that there are children resisting and revolting and there are far more tradional families who are not on the same page with you. 

I may or may not agree with my views but I would not call them childish also. Rather it is an effort to understand each other's perspectives. Lucky ones are those whose brothers and fathers and mothers support girl children in their quest to realise their potentials and grow into a fuller human beings. 

I do not know how far we are justified in labelling women with failed marriage as a men haters. I fully agree with you that there are more successful or quasi successfull marriages than failed marriages. I would not brand a man as a woman hater if his marriage has failed....