Original view points of Rajan Mogha: an avid reader, a book enthusiast and a true feminist.
 

The term feminist men sound oxymoron at the outset but if we go deeper we find a different meaning in this. As they say there is a man in every woman and vice versa. These two are not adversary but complementary to each other. The term feminism has got a negative connotation now-a-days                                       

If we see full definition of feminism as per Merriam Webster’s dictionary; this is what we see: 

1:  the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of genders

2:  organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

The main theme here is equality in all spheres i.e. political, economic and social.                            men-feminist

Political equality

This comprises of women’s participation in all the political activities. In panchayats they have reservation. In parliament the bill is gathering dust and it is unlikely it will see the light of the day. The same condition is of Dalits but surprisingly the so called intelligentsia supports women’s reservation but they oppose the idea of Dalit reservation. Weaker sections like women and Dalit need protection then reservation for both is required or no reservation even for women or Dalits should be there. When the debate was held in the constituent assembly these points were discussed but now the situation is such people scoff of at the idea of Dalit reservation whereas they sing eulogies on women’s reservation.

Social equality

This is one of typical thorny issues. The society has defined certain roles for women and she has to adhere to that otherwise she is called a deviant. Not fit to be a moral woman. Girl should behave in a certain manner. Dress code for them is strict. Especially in the Muslim community they should wear hijab and burqa all the time in public. A girl should be docile. She should not wear short clothes or enjoy herself. Drinks and smoking is a total no no. if she does that she is termed as a tramp. She could not mingle with boys. If she does that she is no longer marriageable to an eligible bachelor. On the other hand a man can do all this and be eligible.

To quote Rebecca West

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.” 

A girl should not be independent or should have her own opinion. In childhood she should listen to father and brothers, in youth to her husband and in old age to her sons. She is not allowed to have independent thinking. Then girls should also conform to the society image of beauty. She should be beautiful, slim have curvaceous body so that she can be traded in the market of marriage. There are beauty contests now a day Miss India, Miss Universe, Miss World etc. where there is naked display of their body and nothing else matters. She is just a piece of flesh to be paraded in front of lecherous bored millionaires. These are calendar’s girls who pose in skimpy clothes and this serves no purposes. Even our ad world is stereotyping image of women. Either she is a smiling house wife or a bimbo who is mad after any person who applies doe or have a flashy car or bike. This is crass objectification of women as a body.

Economic equality

Dr BR Ambedkar said that political and social equality is meaningless in absence of economic equality. That is why provision of reservation for weaker section was inserted in the constitution (as promised in Poona Pact. The Poona Pact refers to an agreement between B. R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi signed on 24 September 1932 at Yerwada Central Jail in PuneIndia. It was signed by Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and B.R. Ambedkar and some other leaders to break the fast unto death undertaken by Gandhi in Yerwada prison to annul the Macdonald Award giving separate electorates to Dalits for electing members of state legislative assemblies in British India.) It is all good to say that we have given franchise to women and treat them as equals but if the purse strings are in women’s hand the equality is meaningless.

This is an invisible glass ceiling in case of women employment and every effort is made to keep them in menial or at the most mid-level management jobs. Only some poster girls like Indira Nooyi reach the top, and for that the amount of guilt she carries due to family obligations is huge. Even MS Nooyi said it is a very tough take. Education of women is the biggest tool which can ensure equality and many efforts are being made. But right now the thrust is on education them so that they find a suitable boy.Dowry is another tool which keeps them away from economic equality. It is simply a tool to sever all ties of girl from her ancestral property.

Organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

Now the end is defined we should talk of the means. The means can be many and here men and women feminist may differ. Women feminist may ask equality but sometimes go overboard and ask for superiority. The tone become shriller and they see every man as their adversary and they say men are dispensable. Sample this

  • 50 reasons why a woman DOESN’T need a man: Claudia Connell’s
  • You Don’t Need a Man to Be Happy, SINGLE AF, and By Crystal Crowder
  • Reminder: You Don’t Need a Man to Be Happy SINGLE AF by Crystal Crowder
  • We can create babies without men, claim scientists, By BEEZY MARSH, specialists have found a way for women to have babies without men.

It involves a cocktail of chemicals acting as an ‘artificial sperm’ to trick a human egg into forming an embryo. The stunning discovery has alarmed medical ethics campaigners, who described it as turning nature on its head. Researchers say the ground-breaking technology could be used to help women whose husbands are infertile but who do not want to use donor sperm. Any babies born from the process would be female and genetically identical to their mother.

In an age when immense technological advances have created lethal weapons which could be, and are, used by the powerful and the unprincipled to dominate the weak and the helpless, there is a compelling need for a closer relationship between politics and ethics at both the national and international levels. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations proclaims that ‘every individual and every organ of society’ should strive to promote the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings regardless of race, nationality or religion are entitled. The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation’s development. A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success. Without a revolution of the spirit, the forces which produced the iniquities of the old order would continue to be operative, posing a constant threat to the process of reform and regeneration. It is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights. There has to be a united determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences of desire, ill will, ignorance and fear.

Saints, it has been said, are the sinners who go on trying. So free men are the oppressed who go on trying and who in the process make themselves fit to bear the responsibilities and to uphold the disciplines which will maintain a free society. Among the basic freedoms to which men aspire that their lives might be full, freedom from fear stands out as both a means and an end. A people who would build a nation in which strong, democratic institutions are firmly established as a guarantee against state-induced power must first learn to liberate their own minds from apathy and fear.

Always one to practise what he preached, Aung San himself constantly demonstrated courage – not just the physical sort but the kind that enabled him to speak the truth, to stand by his word, to accept criticism, to admit his faults, to correct his mistakes, to respect the opposition, to parley with the enemy and to let people be the judge of his worthiness as a leader. It is for such moral courage that he will always be loved and respected in Burma – not merely as a warrior hero but as the inspiration and conscience of the nation. The words used by Jawaharlal Nehru to describe Mahatma Gandhi could well be applied to Aung San:

‘The essence of his teaching was fearlessness and truth, and action allied to these, always keeping the welfare of the masses in view.’

Gandhi, that great apostle of non-violence, and Aung San, the founder of a national army, were very different personalities, but as there is an inevitable sameness about the challenges of authoritarian rule anywhere at any time, so there is a similarity in the intrinsic qualities of those who rise up to meet the challenge. Nehru, who considered the instillation of courage in the people of India one of Gandhi’s greatest achievements, was a political modernist, but as he assessed the needs for a twentieth-century movement for independence, he found himself looking back to the philosophy of ancient India: ‘The greatest gift for an individual or a nation: fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but absence of fear from the mind.’

Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more precious is the courage acquired through endeavour, courage that comes from cultivating the habit of refusing to let fear dictate one’s actions, courage that could be described as ‘grace under pressure’ – grace which is renewed repeatedly in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure.

The wellspring of courage and endurance in the face of unbridled power is generally a firm belief in the sanctity of ethical principles combined with a historical sense that despite all setbacks the condition of man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material advancement. It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute. At the root of human responsibility is the concept of perfection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to find a path towards it, and the will to follow that path if not to the end at least the distance needed to rise above individual limitations and environmental impediments. It is man’s vision of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity which leads him to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power.

So the guiding principle should be truth, justice and compassion. There is no foe here. All are on the same side. I am the first one if my mother or sister is in trouble. I am on your side sisters. Hold my hand and guide me to your path of struggle. I am always with you.

Conclusion

Men are no better than women and vice versa. I am not saying I am better than you neither I am ready to accept you are better than me, we both are equal and that is it. All human are created equal.

Pin It on Pinterest