WARNING: ADULT THEME – SOME ADULT CONTENT (Viewer IN-discretion Advised).
Henpecked husbands require Madam’s prior consent …
A major step backward for gender equality; A giant leap forward for Male Enslavement: “Oh! Oh! Grab your ankles, guys! Here comes Dominatrix! Pray it doesn’t hurt!”
MAKING AMENDS FOR “MALE DOMINATION” AND “FEMALE SERVITUDE”?
The issues the ‘law’ sets out to abate are cultural fallouts of the medieval if not prehistoric era. Almost all civilized societies regard domestic violence toward women a serious and expensive impediment to progress; in fact, quite rightfully, a punishable crime.
The problem I see with this ‘law’ is in the manner in which it is written and the choice of non-standard locution that betrays gender biased intent. Women are not the exclusive victims of domestic abuse/violence. The crime is nondiscriminating and applicable across the board to all cohabitants (combatants?) regardless of gender and age. But with more and even more laws popping up that twist the interpretation of “Domestic Abuse”, “Domestic Violence”, “Aggrieved Victim”, “degrading” treatment, etc., etc., ad infinitum and commandeer its applicability as well as enforcement mandates almost exclusively to benefit women, therein is created a favorable climate for rampant abuse, extortion, corruption and imbalanced, carte blanc power to suppress voices in protest.
So, IS THIS ‘LAW’ LEGAL? Please read on …
I was recently approached by a lawyer acquaintance soliciting my input on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005; ideas on how to put some ‘bite’ in the Law (as if its claws, fangs, muscle and determination is coming a bit short of expectations). Below is a brief text of my response. Plz let me know if I’m way off the mark …
NECESSARY (CYA) WEASEL DISCLAIMER:
My thoughts hereunder should not be interpreted as advice of any sort; it is merely an opinion (and everyone has one of those!). The intent is to put it out to affected victims in the community and provoke some serious deliberations on this important legislation which, I believe, dilutes constitutional guarantees of Privacy, impacts radically upon one’s views about matrimony, and contaminates the integrity of the ‘traditional’ family unit – and, yet again, puts on exhibit the unique wisdom of our chosen legislators.
VASELINE COATED SPINOSE SUPPOSITORY: “Ouch”!
It seems that previous legislation of similar color, which were discretely tucked away in secret crevices of laws of equity (more notably the lopsided provisions of 498a IPC), have now shredded their outer dermis of purported sanctimoniousness, fair play, balance and mushroomed way out of proportion into a distinctly partial, menacing, gender-biased, reptilian Goliath slithering ruthlessly toward a sinister agenda; The agenda being far from achieving equality before the law, but discriminatory, gender-privileged treatment as a “lawful” right (sanctioned contrary to the spirit of law).
REVENGE BY PROXY: “How to be a self-serving control freak and mess up your home life in a few easy steps just like we did”!! by Pritti Predator & Assoc.
Even more ridiculous is the fact that the role-model torch bearers of this ‘law’ generally come from a background of failed, acrimonious marriages with an axe to grind, bequeathing their married kinfolk with strategic ‘Tips & Tricks’ and the ‘tools’ (whips and chains!) to create domestic harmony! Wouldn’t you say the intrinsic elements giving form to this proposal is facially flawed and a lot less credible than the treatise, “The Joys of Sex” if written by a virgin?
This ‘law’ reflects an authorship of embittered rejects from the institution of marriage taking yet another retaliatory shot thru’ yet another redundant ‘law’. Although the purported justification/social necessity, etc., influencing enactment certainly appear honorable and benign, the wording betrays deeper surreptitious motives and partisanship. Under this sly façade is concealed, not just the TRUE motives for gender one-upmanship, but far reaching social consequences that as yet have not been responsibly assessed or explored in terms of adverseness or collective benefit.
A cursory, unbiased reading of this “Law” (See Link: http://mahilaayog.maharashtra.gov.in/new/pdf/domestic_voilence_act_05.pdf ,
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/01spec.htm) , will convince anyone that it offers the woman a ‘free ride’: laxity, even exemption from her domestic/marital responsibilities, and blanket immunity from any manner of consequential remonstration whatsoever! Concurrently, it empowers her with near absolute entitlement to crack the whip at her husband and all other serfs in her newly seized domain; even have them ‘exiled’ (evicted) on any pretext and for any perceived objection, which the police and courts are enjoined to penalize long before a finding of guilt! (Let’s make room for another soiled item in the laundry list of ‘non-bailable offences’, and bid adieu to the few scattered remnants of the fundamental maxim of justice: ‘A person is innocent until proven otherwise’!).
IGNORANCE BREEDS BLISSFUL VICTIMS?!
Adolph Hitler once opined, “What good fortune for governments that the people do not think …. It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them ….” This observation is certainly applicable here:
Our ‘chauvinistic’ men folk, have customarily been but ‘pussy-whopped pushovers’, demonstrating a proclivity toward chivalry! But, in seeing to the protection, comfort, and security of our women (as one might accord to a domesticated pet?), have also been accused of stifling womens’ potential for intellectual growth, productivity, recognition, etc., etc., and securing their shackles to the divinely decreed role of the supportive housewife. But as we move on forward with time, and align ourselves to what’s in vogue and ‘politically correct’, we cannot help but voice agreement with the hue and cry of Feminists throughout history; that Providence’s choice on the designated role for women is intrinsically discriminatory and oppressive, and should be amended thru’ majority vote (after all, there are billions of us and only ONE of Him! Right? RIGHT!!).
“OF HUMAN BONDAGE”!
Why shouldn’t women be encouraged to venture out as well, and bust their derriere working for a living? The concept of the ‘I.T. era Wife’ has long since mutated from being ‘barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen’ to the Madam that ‘wears the pants’ in the family. Women ‘wearing the pants’ is just fine with most households; the problem emanates from the difficulty of her being able to relieve herself while standing masculine and erect without making a mess of things. Sexist statement? Not really; because it generates some understanding, acceptance, if not debate on the validity of traditional leanings on gender based social roles.
And, now, if the sacrifice in working for a living is too burdensome, why shouldn’t women exercise latitude to freeload off others in the extended family without so much as raising any defiant eyebrows, or usurp her husband’s residential property, as an exclusive, automatic bequeathal adjunct to matrimony? Pretty damn slick, Slick!
Doesn’t that appear to be the perfect scenario for a happy parasite? Not really! Most parasites are gluttonous; they want more, and even more until the host is drained of the last drop of livelihood and dignity. And then they move on to greener pastures: another unwary schmuck caught with his pants down!
This ‘law’ nurtures a tempting climate weakening any leanings the woman may have had on nobility, family honor, dignity, self-respect, etc., since it alters the very definition of those values and linked expectations. The PWDV Act 2005 …, masquerading as a reconciliation move toward domestic harmony, actually represents a strong-arm mechanism for predatory females to exact instant reprisal for their long years of perceived ‘servitude’ to ‘male domination’. Far from being progressive and socially productive, it possesses all the elements catalytic to empowerment of one gender over the other allowing plenty room for abuse in a nation where corruption is colloquially synonymous with justice.
ROOM FOR ARGUMENT:
I’ve always maintained there should be some room given for argument in close relationships. Arguments, within reason, are healthy for relationships. Through them, the other person is appraised of a different, alternate opinion and just how strongly one feels about it. Arguments are powerful means of communication, and a showing of one’s commitment to the mission at hand. Thru’ arguments and debate one recognizes the other’s private stance on a particular issue, learns to express themselves, and, in so doing, generates acclaim, self worth, and a rewarding feeling of participation and accomplishment.
But when arguments are let loose, un-tethered and unresponsive to reason; when, ‘communication’ is but a slanderous exchange of venom that lessens one’s worth and image, when healthy arguments are replaced by acts of intimidation, coercion, physical persuasion, cliquishness, bullying especially at a partner to whom a moral and ethical commitment was made assuring protection, security, care, we see the very same means which solidifies relationships has now assumed a frightening appearance.
With a staggering illiteracy rate, it’s no surprise such laws are routinely scrubbed into our cultural fabric with little or no attention given to consequences. To be fair, one can’t really blame our legislators; they merely reflect the voting public’s level of intellect. But, absent clearly defined standards in the ‘law’, what does our learned Judiciary have to go on by to avoid verdicts flawed by laxity and whimsical, personal prejudices that go against the grain of the Constitution they’ve sworn to protect?
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato. How very true!
WEAPON OF MASS EMASCULATION – TERRORISM:
The PWDV Act 2005 … is realistically a functional prototype of forthcoming progressively more sophisticated and discriminatory Weapons of Mass Emasculation disguised as law and should be recognized as such. It has almost unbridled potential for fueling misunderstandings, creating unrealistic demands, poisoning relationships, and widening the gender gap at whim! This is but one anticipated forerunner of yet others to come flaunting manicured claws, incisive fangs, and legal muscle to trample the spirit, dignity, livelihood of the majority group of tax payers (who happen to be men), and summarily stifle their indignant yelps because, now, any showing of protest is ridiculously easy to criminalize.
“Hats Off” (and “Pants Down!”) to a well planned conspiracy!
Please don’t read me wrong (Better yet, please don’t read me right!): I happen to be a card-carrying feminist to the core (VISA card) trapped in this ugly man’s body, just dying to break free from the shackles of testosterone! LMAO. Nevertheless, it is well recognized in the civilized world that such ‘Women Empowerment’ movements are vehicles of oppression piloted toward exacting perverted revenge on an entire group of individuals for error(s) attributed to some unfortunate bastard who may have ruffled the feathers, in the way distant past, of a (possibly deserving) misanthropic thespian flaunting designer crutches of victimization but set on a mission of castigation (castration?!). Why not just resort to accepted forms of political protest, e.g., bra/corset burning, for crying out loud – PRETTY PLEASE WITH A (popped) CHERRY ON TOP – instead of giving Feminism a bad name? Just curious ….
One must agree that such extraordinary, gender biased governmental ‘controls’ are undoubtedly sanctioned acts of consanguine Terrorism: an unconstitutional intrusion into one’s private nuptial chamber holding disastrous consequences. It is excessive to say the least, and detracts from the spirit of togetherness, marital unity, and reciprocity in trust. It infuses instead the overbearing presence of intimidation and allows easy ingress to extortion, blackmail, and the distinctive pong of opportunism – not to mention it being a serious impediment to intimacy and ‘conjugal gratification’! Look at it this way: How in heck can you perform with Big Brother choreographing and critiquing your every darn move, eh? Know’wum’Sayin’? Mercy, Dudettes!!
This “Law” is deliberately over broad, ambiguous, and vacillates to a wide range of non-standard colloquialism giving rise to inferences that are just as expansive, unfocused, and individualized; from the sublime to the ridiculous! For instance, what EXACTLY is ‘sexually degrading’ to an ‘aggrieved’ female cohabitant? Fellatio? (There’s already a law against that! It is viewed as “sex against the order of nature” per 377 IPC). Canine-Inspired Coition on ‘all fours’? (‘Law’ forthcoming, with a punitive enhancement for barking!). Un-reciprocated Genital manipulation? (Perhaps using gloves would be sufficiently impersonal not to render the act intimate or criminal!). Leaving the woman frustrated and in want? (Try the time-tested, “Oops!” or “Damn!” or “Sorry, Honey! I’ll try harder next time!”).
What sort of evidence would prompt a conviction: X-Rated DVD’s or the exclusive statement of the ‘aggrieved prosecutrex’ (in a similar vein as rape trials are often adjudicated) since ‘it is well established that a woman of honor will not subject herself to suffer embarrassment and public humiliation by admitting to nuptial horrors in court”? YEA RIGHT!!
TAINTED PROFITS – TRAVESTY:
The PWDV Act 2005 … has created yet another source for tainted profits by further sanctifying the entrepreneurship of extortion and blackmail. The corruption we’re finding commonplace and painful enough to deal with outside our residence, in government, ‘Justice’ Systems, etc., has now established a ‘lawful’ standing in our family relationships, our homes, and in our very bedroom!
So, what more crippling surprises are in store for the disillusioned male?
The PDV Act 2005 … is a travesty in gaudy gift-wrapping. There are already a multitude of laws covering almost all concerns the PDVA purports to address. But one must recognize the salient feature of this particularly irresponsible sham is that it is parasitic: it has annexed selected rights and protections previously accorded to all, and made them more applicable and exclusive to ‘aggrieved’ women, and their children who have not as yet developed the capacity of mature, independent reasoning.
Here’s some food for thought: Why limit these ‘protections’ exclusively to heterosexual cohabitants? Does the law consider homosexuals, lesbians, and other sections of productive society who’re inclined toward ‘alternate’ preferences as second class citizens, thus, unworthy of equal protection under the law as it has already decreed for men?
Oops! I almost forgot: existing statutes DO consider the practice of homosexuality/sodomy as being ‘against the order of nature’; thus, a punishable crime! I’m not too sure about lesbianism. It’s probably exempt from censure since it involves women trying to do a man’s job – and possibly being better at it! So go figure!
The PWDV Act 2005 … is a vague “law”: it stinks of arbitrariness: THEREFORE, IT IS NO LAW! IT HAS NO LEGAL WORTH, IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS, AND SHOULD BE SUMMARILY STRICKEN DOWN.
Also check out Links: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/article_list_detail.asp?article_id=585 and “Excerpts And Judgments To Fight Domestic Violence Act Cases”. Link: http://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/citations-from-judgments-to-win-dv-act-cases/
(And now I’ll proceed to tackle the pre-defined masculine chores around the house, starting with the dirty dishes; then cooking, sweeping, mending clothes, laundry, etc., and pray the ol’ lady don’t get to read what I wrote!!). “Coming, Dear …. and, YES! You’ve lost quite a bit of weight since the last time you asked me, two hours ago!”
HERE’S SOME WELCOME NEWS FOR SUBJUGATED MENFOLK:After the many years of being submerged by gender biased “laws”, cowering before female autocracy, but burrowing forward, inch by inch, toward some measure of equity, reasonableness, and justice, there’s finally a flicker of light at the end of the tunnel (no pun!). It seems someone in the Kerala Judiciary finally woke up to the cries of oppressed menfolk and anointed the PWDVA with a “Double-Edge Axe” status: they ruled that Women can also be held accountable for domestic violence and prosecuted under the Act. Other State High Courts in India (including the State of A.P’s.) are following suit.
So, what of those, fallen, victimized comrades and their kinfolk who’ve already paid a dear price at the hands of the Law (which was no law)? Should we consider them Martyrs for the Cause? Should we construct a Memorial for those unfortunate bastards? Should we reach for another beer and propose a toast in their honor …? Hmmm …So many questions that need some serious deliberation in the Men’s Room! This’ll keep me busy for a while.
I make no attempt to be politically correct or tone down my message diluting its potency, ‘in good taste’, thru’ fashionable euphemisms. If the price of ‘in-the-face’ blunt opinion is an appearance of proletarian vulgarity, so be it! As long as my opinion carries with it elements of reasonableness and some persuasive “Oomph”!
I invite you to make an unbiased, independent, informed opinion.
I recall this passage by Professor Graves, someone I admire: “We are all of us entitled to enjoy our lives in peace and plenty. There is no reason why we can’t all of us enjoy a bountiful life without conflict or want. Too often, however, our prosperity and joy are stolen from us by the effects of law. Too often law is neither fair nor sane. Too often law is a handmaid to those who have placed themselves as rulers over us, proclaiming by legislation and court decision what’s best for us, for our families, and for our friends. Too often law is corrupt. Too often law seeks the favors of a special few and, in the process, becomes a whore or coddles the favor of the majority and becomes a fool. Too often law is little more than the decision of a mob. Too often law is a tool by which elitists seek to re-make civilization according to their private view of what’s best for all. And too often we, the people, do nothing to resist or redirect these forces that seek to steal from us our heritage of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Courtesy http://www.jurisdictionary.com/
In this context, it would be prudent to take a second look at PWDVA and decide whether this ‘law’, and similar laws, are legal!