Men’s Rights Movement opposes the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Law, 2010. The law is patently anti-men and does not take into consideration the views raised Men’s Rights Activist. The proposed Act is gender biased. It only takes into consideration the grievances raised by women, and wholly ignores the men victim of sexual harassment.
The Women and Child Development Minister Krishna Tirath said the objective was to enact a comprehensive legislation to provide safe, secure and enabling environment free from all forms of sexual harassment to every woman, irrespective of her age or employment status. But in effect the bill is making “workplace” a dangerous place for men to work.
The definition of the proposed offence is so wide that almost anything can be alleged as sexual harassment. It includes unwelcome sexual behavior, sexually determined behavior, conduct which interfere with work, humiliating conduct. These terms means different thing to different people. Even men face such behavior at workplace. In view of this definition of sexual harassment, there is no justification of making it a gender biased Act against men.
The proposed inquiry committee consists of senior level women committed to the cause of women, women employees committed to the cause of women, representative of NGO committed to the cause of women. If so many members in the committee are committed to the cause of women, such committee cannot be impartial in the inquiry against a man. We fear that inquiry by such committee shall be prejudicial to men, prejudicial to truth and prejudicial to justice.
The proposed Act gives anonymity to the complaint, but no such anonymity is being given to the man against who complained has been filed. It will result in character assassination of man, defamation of man and will result in grave prejudice to men.
The provision of punishment of false accuser is worded in such manner that false accusation cannot be established in any case. Further, no provision for complained by men against false complaint or intimidation of false complaint has been provided in the bill. Further, there is no provision for compensation for falsely accused man has been made in the bill.
Men’s Rights Movement demands that to stop menace of sexual harassment at workplace, a gender neutral bill be brought which provides for unbiased and fair inquiry. The law must punishes the wrong doer, and must also protect the innocent and compensate the innocent accused adequately.
Men’s Rights Movement opposes the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Law, 2010. The law is patently anti-men and does not take into consideration the views raised Men’s Rights Activist. The proposed Act is gender biased. It only takes into consideration the grievances raised by women, and wholly ignores the men victim of sexual harassment.
Feminist often ask us why we need Men’s rights. Here are a few reasons:
I need men’s rights because when she changed her mind the next day, I went to jail
I need men’s rights because I was the victim of abuse but nobody believed me;
I need men’s rights because I am less likely to go to college, and if I do, I will make less money than my female contemporaries;
I need men’s rights because the president sees the shrinking number of men in colleges across America as “a great success”;
I need men’s rights because people question if I am a predator when I am alone with my child;
I need men’s rights because a man’s appearance, height, and weight has a greater affect on his income than it does for a woman;
I need men’s rights because saying “it’s impossible to discriminate against men in our society” allows people to discriminate with impunity;
I need men’s rights because traditionally masculine characteristics are virtues not flaws;
I need men’s rights because the likelihood of my death coming by suicide is four times higher than it is for women, though I receive little support;
I need men’s rights because it is not considered bigoted or sexist to deny me a male safe space at my college by those who have possessed their own safe spaces for decades;
I need men’s rights because it is assumed that a meeting of men in a male safe space is automatically going to devolve into hateful sexism and violence;
I need men’s rights because broad gender-wide slurs against men are socially accepted;
I need men’s rights because my life, career, reputation and connection with my family can be easily destroyed by a single, false and anonymously whispered accusation;
I need men’s rights because when women stumble blame rests on society, but when men stumble it is their fault;
I need men’s rights because in my physically demanding career, I am expected to do much more work for “equal” pay;
I need men’s rights because it is fine to call me a “dick”, a “cock”, or a “prick” on the street or on television; a woman must never be called a “cunt”;
I need men’s rights because talk-shows think it’s funny if I am wounded or sexually mutilated by a woman;
I need men’s rights because while the rape of a woman is properly regarded as a crime, the rape of a man is funny;
I need men’s rights because mutilation of male infants is considered normal – and those arguing for the protection of male infants from mutilation are regularly slandered as anti-semites and bigots;
I need men’s rights because my sexuality is routinely characterized as violent pathology, rather than as a natural part of my human identity;
I need men’s rights because women assume it’s my fault if I am assaulted by a woman;
I need men’s rights because people think it is irresponsible to have me work around children;
I need men’s rights because I have the right to the same sexual sovereignty given to women;
I need men’s rights because I believe that the feminist idea that a woman in the United States is equally oppressed as a woman in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia in cruel and insulting;
I need men’s rights because I should not be ashamed of my sexuality;
I need men’s rights because women who find me unattractive will shame me can call me creepy for politely interacting with them, and they will be praised for this cruelty;
I need men’s rights because I was sexually harassed by several drunk women twice my age and everyone at the party thought it was funny;
I need men’s rights because my size and strength is commonly used to pretend that I am violent, which I am not;
I need men’s rights because if I am small or weak doesnt mean I have a Napoleon complex;
I need men’s rights because the type of car I drive does not give you the right to shame me or belittle me;
I need men’s rights because I have the right to associate with other men without legal action forcing me to allow women, too;
I need men’s rights because if I am assaulted by my spouse, and I attempt to seek help, I risk arrest, imprisonment and life-long censure – even if I do not defend myself, even I am seriously injured while she is untouched;
I need men’s rights because I earned my accomplishments; they were not given to me by a fictitious masculine conspiracy;
I need men’s rights because I have a right to be a father for my own children;
I need men’s rights because, as a man, I am much more likely to be physically assaulted than a woman;
I need men’s rights because I will be chastised as a coward, and a failed man if I do not sacrifice my life to save a woman in a time of crisis;
I need men’s rights because laws exist that demand harsher penalties for men for the same crime;
I need men’s rights because I have no lobbying voice in congress;
I need men’s rights because, as a man, I am more than 9 times more likely to be killed at work than a woman;
I need men’s rights because I am more likely to die young, and much less money is being spent on my health problems;
I need men’s rights because, if I am killed in an accident, people will care less than if a woman or a child is killed. News readers make this clear every time they utter the phrase “women and children”;
I need men’s rights because society believes that my life is worth less than a woman’s;
I need the men’s rights movement, because I am a human being.
And finally, I need the men’s rights movement, because when I attempt to address any of these issues, my co-workers, my government, my media, my peers, my family, and the larger society I am a part of rises in unanimous voice to condemn me as a monster – simply for claiming my humanity.
Men are human being too- and they have a right to fight for their rights as much as any group of people.
I am born to be a opposition member in a democratic society. Probably I expect too much from public authorities, or value too much the democratic ethos. But occassionally I support the government.
The recent statement of the Law Minister (I really respect Mr. Law Minister) that laws will be made gender neutral in next four years. http://www.ptinews.com/news/483175_Laws-will-be-made-gender-neutral-in-four-years–Moily
This is need of the hour. Various laws has become so lop sided in favour of feminism that India has become a dangerous society for men to live- be it workplace, home or street. Such laws are supported by miniscule vocal feminist minority whereas a large majority consisting of both men and women are suffering silently (this is one of the drawback of democracy- a vocal miniscule minority is heard more against silent majority). However, lately the masculist movement has started gaining strength due to severe misuse of dowry laws, rape laws, maintainance & custody laws, abuse of sexual harassment laws at workplace etc. The majority is no more silent, and hence the government has started listening.
But there is a danger. Miniscule feminist minority will raise hue and cry aginst any such change as their financing/receipt of contribution/government grant depends upon existence and perpetuation of such laws. The majority has to understand this and raise their voice as and when needed. Save Indian Family is doing their work deligently and I hope they shall be able to garner sufficient voices to support this endeavour of government.
Well done Mr. Minister.
Sexual Harassment at Work Place: Design for abuse of Laws
What is Sexual Harassment at Workplace:
In Visakha Judgment, the Supreme Court defines sexual harassment at workplace. The Vishaka judgement provides the basic definition of sexual harassment at the workplace. According to the Supreme Court, such behaviour “includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as:
(a) physical contact and advances
(b) a demand or request for sexual favours
(c) sexually-coloured remarks
(d) showing pornography
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature”
“Where any of these acts is committed in circumstances where under the victim of such conduct has a reasonable apprehension that in relation to the victim`s employment or work whether she is drawing salary, or honorarium or voluntary, whether in government, public or private enterprise such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem. It is discriminatory for instance when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment or work including recruiting or promotion or when it creates a hostile work environment. Adverse consequences might be visited if the victim does not consent to the conduct in question or raises any objection thereto.”
Thus the “act simplicitor” like demand or request of sexual favour, sexually coloured remarks, or any other conduct of sexual nature is not a sexual harassment at work place. Such acts may be an immoral act or illegal act and punishable under various other laws, these are not sexual harassment at work place. Such acts becomes sexual harassment, only when due to womens employment it becomes difficult to object, for the women may have reasonable apprehension that such objection may interfere with her employment. It needs to emphasise here that the concept of “sexual harassment at workplace” has nothing to sexual act per se, it comes into operation only when such acts interfere with the right to employment by creating a hostile work environment.
A plain reading of Visakha Judgment shows that the ruling has been made based on right to equality, right to life and right to livelihood. Although the judgment has been delivered in case of a women petitioner, the court throughout judgment emphasized gender neutral nature of the right.
The Protection against Sexual Harassment of Women Bill, 2005 (hereinafter referred to draft bill) is a dangerous piece of legislation, which will create more problem than it solves. I oppose the bill on the following grounds:
Firstly it is a gender biased laws. The act of sexual harassment at workplace can happen both against men and against women employee. It can be argued that more women are victim of sexual harassment, however that fact cannot disentitle the smaller number of male victims from legal protection. Thus I demand that the proposed legislation be made gender neutral.
Secondly, it is to be noted that in Visakha Judgment, the court was examining petition of a women, and hence the definition given by the court is women centric. There are situation where males face specific type of sexual harassment. Thus while allotment of duties in an organisation, risky and tough work is given to males employee which is a blatant gender discrimination and sexual harassment at workplace. In granting leave etc., discrimination is made against men, which is another form of sexual harassment. Another subtle form of gender discrimination at work place is prevalent. Many a times it is felt that women employee gain advantage over men employee by extending sexual favours to seniors. This is a blatant form of sexual discrimination against men. Thus the definition must include male specific form of sexual harassment at workplace. In equal opportunity laws of US, sexual harassment has been defined Sexual Harassment as – This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. This is a gender neutral definition, which takes into consideration various forms of subtle harassment of sexual nature at workplace.
Thirdly, it is seen from the definition of sexual harassment that the act has been defined as “unwelcome sexual conduct”. It is irrelevant as to whether such conduct is related to work or employment or not. Such wide and inclusive definition of offence will merely results in wild and false allegations which will hamper not only the accused individual and individual sense of justice, it will destroy the work environment in general and will result in closure of various businesses. When such false allegations will become more widespread, it will result in general distrust of women due to acts of some unscrupulous women and will affect women’s future employability. In this connection, I would like to point out that blatant misuse of dowry acts are resulting in same situation, where every complainant is being looked with a sense of suspicion.
Fourthly, the act can be a tool of extortion. The provision of dispute resolution prior to enquiry (Section 40) is creating a situation where it will become very easy for a women employee to make false allegations and then seek dispute resolution. As the person charged with allegations, even when innocent, is likely to loose his job, reputation etc., he will become a very soft target of extortion. An act which promotes such type of extortion needs to be opposed. It cannot be denied that a victim must be compensated, even monetarily if by the alleged act she has lost some material gains. But such power should be there at the hand of enquiry authority or disciplinary authority, who can award appropriate compensation if the situation so requires.
Fifthly, it is to be seen that the definition of the act solely depends upon a mental element, i.e. “unwelcome”. Thus if the sexual conduct is not unwelcome, it is not an offence. There is no definition of “unwelcome” or “communication of unwelcomeness” to the accused. It should be provided that when a reasonable person is expected to understand that the act is “unwelcome”. The alleged act should be made offence, only after communication of unwelcomeness by the victim. As welcomeness or unwelcomeness depends upon the mental state of the victim/accused, it is suggested that polygraph test may be applied in these allegations so that real perpetrators of crime can be punished and innocent persons are not harassed by false and motivated allegations.
Sixthly, it needs to be legislatively recognized that abuse of law exists and false allegations are leveled. Such false allegations are eating into the very faith of our judicial system. As the legislation does not make effort to discourage false allegations, every accused claim false charges and break the very faithfulness in legal procedure. Section 64 of the proposed Act is making same mistake. It gives immunity to false complainants. Further, it is giving real perpetrators of crime and excuse to level false allegation of false allegations. What should be provided that if the complaint is not found to be true, there must be inquiry into the genesis of the complaint itself and the complainant if found guilty, appropriate action should be taken against the complainant. I propose that the definition of sexual harassment must include “false charges of sexual harassment”.
In view of these, it is submitted that such changes in the proposed laws to be made to achieve the objective of safe and secure work environment. A work environment cannot be made secure for women by making it unsecure for men. Further, gender biasedness is such laws will result in division of society on the based of gender, a far more dangerous thing than division of society based on caste or religion.
Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Human society is evolving since million of years. In this process of evolution, at some time one organ of the society becomes important and at some other time some different organ of the society becomes important. Such shifting of importance can be based on geography as on macro level some countries were important in the ancient ages, some different countries in middle ages and still some other countries in modern ages. If we see on a class of professional level, we see the same dynamic process. When we see on a caste or race level, such shifting dynamics is obvious. Even on the natural species level, both in plant and animal kingdoms, we see changing level of importance of different species in different time frame.
When we look at the position of women in general in human societies, it is constantly changing. At some stage the human society was having matriarchy (it is till there in some tribal society), which was later evolved into a society based on patriarchy. With the development of modern society, after advent of industry and service sectors and with democracy, the position of women is improving in all sphere of life.
Feminism, on the other hand prophesies philosophy which has no scientific or academic basis. It is based on certain assumption, and makes such sweeping remarks that it is getting obvious that it has no relation to reality. However, due to certain cultural factors, presumptions of feminism have never been questioned openly. Such non questioning by the civilized society has given a undue credit to the discipline, which is creating havoc in the society. Thus it becomes important to question certain basic tenets of the discipline, so that the practioners of the discipline can question those tenets, which are taken as self proved and make amendments wherever required.
-Society view is Men’s View:
The fundamental presumption of feminism is that whatever society does and says is “Male view”. The basis of this assumption is that the society acts through its rulers, and for most of the recorded history, they are Males.
Rulers are neither males nor females- they are rulers. The society has to run itself. To run the society, rulers make certain rules for everybody- males and females and in that context the view of the society cannot be taken as Male view. Whatever decision Indira Gandhi or Sonia Gandhi takes, cannot be treated as Women’s view, merely because they are women. When a Male judge of Supreme Court says that husband should obey wife, it can not be said to be a Male view. This branding of “society view” is male view is not supported by any evidence and as such has no relevance. By dubbing such historical facts as male facts, the feminist have distorted the historical developments and thereby reducing the usefulness of their studies.
-Women are treated as Objects:
The society treats everybody- every individual as object. It makes norms for everybody- men, women, worker, journalist, judge, prisoner etc. Merely because there are some norms made for women, it does not mean they have become object. If such definition is accepted, everybody in the society is an object because there are certain norms for everybody.
The norms may be right of wrong. The norms may give privilege to some or may impose limitation on some. But they are norms. We may analyse what norms are right or wrong, we may criticize unreasonable norms- but mere existence of some norm does not make anybody object. If norms make anybody object, the every individual or every human being is an object.
Reading these two assumptions together, the feminist concludes that Society (read male) treats women as objects.
Apart from these two fundamental assumptions, there are minor assumptions like control of sexuality of women, women guilt, female experience etc. etc. It is important to examine such assumptions of feminism and develop theories which stood the test or rationality and objectivity.
I cant remember my name. Name, which my mother gave me, as a gift of her love. A name, which my father gifted me so that the world can recognize me with that name. Now everybody call me Angulimaal. But I know, my near and dear one didn’t call me with this name ever.
I am a bandit, a decoit. I rob and kill people. After killing them, I cut a finger of the corpse and have made a rosary of those fingers. In local dialect, this is called “anguli ki mala”. I wear this mala, and due to this rosary they call me Angulimaal. This is the name my ears are listening for last many years, so much so that I have forgotten my real name. I don’t even wish to remember that real name. How will I feel if I ever remember that my mother calls me “Bhola” or “Kishan”? How will I bear the pain that my mother’s Bhola has become Angulimaal? How will my father live after knowing that his Kishan is known as Angulimal? No. I don’t want to remember. I don’t want to remember my real name.
I don’t like robbing people. I don’t like killing people. They are just like me. They are travelers. Some of them are going to meet their loving relatives on that side of the jungle. They are innocent people. Yesterday I killed a person who was going on pilgrimage. He was accompanied by his 8 years old son. When I was killing the child, there was such a pity in the child’s eyes. I cant forget those eyes. I don’t want to kill anyone. But I have to.
I have to support a family. There is my wife and three children. I have no money to support them. I need money. My youngest child is ill. I have to arrange nutritious food for him. Sometime I take him to the doctor and need to pay him for medicines. Last month I worshipped for his life in the temple and I have promised to the goddess that I will give a feast if my son regains health. I have to keep the promise. My eldest daughter is already fourteen. I have to arrange money for marriage expenses. I want her to marry in a rich household, so that she can lead a happy life. I need money. It is my duty to support my family. If I will not get money, how will they live? Who will marry my daughter? How will my son be well and happy? My family will starve.
I am robust and healthy. I can live anywhere. I can survive in a jungle. I can do any small work and live. But children? Wife? I have to take care of them. I have to fulfill their requirements. Even if I have to rob people or kill people, I will do it. I will not allow any deficiency in their lives. I am a father, I am a husband.
I know killing people is a sin. The worst sin. I know I have to burn in hell’s fire for long to propitiate. I am ready to roast myself in that fire. I will propitiate all my sins. I count my sins. I count daily how much sin I have committed. That is why I have made this rosary. By counting the fingers in the rosary, I am able to know how much sin I have committed. I don’t like this finger’s rosary. It is there only to remind me of my sins.
“Well”, the saint said, “you are committing these sins for your family. Will they share these sins with you.”
“Off course, yes. On the altar of marital fire, my wife gave me sacred promise that she will share everything with me”, I replied.
“Why don’t you go and ask her once”, said the saint.
I ran towards my home. I knew there are persons, who love me. I knew, they are there to do anything for me. What is sharing, my wife will take all the sin on herself. But I will not give her all. I will only share. Even when we have to live in hell, we will be together. We will be roasted together in hell’s fire.
“Why should I share your sins honey”, replied my wife. “I didn’t tell you to rob people and kill people. That is your business. It is your duty to bring money to home. How you do it, it is your business.”
My Business! I was shattered. I ran towards the saint and fell on the feet of the saint. “My family will share only the fruits of my sins. They will not share the sins.” I sobbed, “show me the way, what should I do.”
“You know the way Balmiki. You know the truth.” The saint said.
“Balmiki, Who?”, I asked.
“You”. He was smiling. I also smiled.
I have smiled after a very long time.
For many decades, the political establishment of our country is ignoring men’s issues and under pressure from feminazis women, enacting laws which are blatantly Anti-men, designed to emasculate men, deprive men of their self-esteem, rights and property. The proposed women reservation bill is the latest measure, which should be opposed tooth and nail by men.
On face of it, such proposal is unreasonable. In Indian democracy women has always been adequately represented. We had women prime minister and still have women president. Indian legislature has approximately 10% women representative, which is highest in the world. This percentage is not there even in American or British parliament. This sinister design of women reservation was never applied in any of the developed nations. Then why this is being applied in India? What is the basis or rationale of this reservation in India? There is no answer.
The logic that only 10% women representative is there in parliament and so reservation is required is faulty. Not many women participate in politics. In any political party, at grassroots, hardly a few percentage points of the workers are women. When there are fewer grassroots women workers, obviously there will be few women members in legislature. What should have been demanded and granted is more places at grassroots level, which no women organization is demanding. This is typical women demand- let there be men grassroot worker in political parties, seats should be reserved for women in legislature. Men are beast of burden to do grassroot work, women will be members in parliament. Men are slaves. Men must understand this and oppose such design.
Whenever special provision has been made for women in law, it has been abused by women. Section 498A, Rape laws, maintenance laws etc. are burning example. Further, feminist politicians has supported such abuse of laws by women. When such feminist politicians will be in parliament, they will make more such gender biased laws and oppression of men will increase. We have to understand these sinister designs and oppose such reservation at the very outset. Otherwise, it will be too late.
Oppose these sinister reservations.
No Maintenance to Able Bodied Educated Women:
As per newspaper report (Times of India, 14.05.2009), the District Court in Delhi Refused maintenance to a wife who was found able bodied and educated. Justice Rajendra Shastri said,
“An able bodied person expected to maintain himself and family members depended on him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well versed cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case.”
The judgment is also took into consideration the applicant wife conduct like elopement of wife with his lover, abandonment of minor child and health of the husband. Nevertheless, the judgment is a step towards making maintenance laws, what it is.
Maintenance is not a bounty. It is not a birth right of a wife. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is for a women, who cannot maintain herself & who has done the duties of a pious wife, to claim from her husband. Any women who has not done the duty of a pious wife, must not be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. The other point is “ability to maintain herself”. A young healthy women, who is educated (even when not educated, can work as maid- many uneducated women are maintaining themselves that way) cannot be classified to be not able to maintain herself. The test is , whether a women of applicants ability is able to maintain themselves in the society or not- if yes, no maintenance- if no, there is a case for maintenance.
Maintenance laws needs to be applied strictly and in rare circumstances. It is usurpation of fruits of labour of a man in the guise of gender biased welfare laws. Such usurpation cannot be allowed to be made in a routine manner.
Rape Laws are the most vicious form of gender biased laws.
These are blatantly being misused by women. Abuse of these laws are destroying men, their self esteem, their family and society. I think there should be severe punishment for false accusation of crime, and it should be capital punishment for false accusation of rape.
Read this news story:
New Delhi, May 5 (IANS) Twelve years after being falsely accused of rape and later convicted, four men were Tuesday acquitted by Delhi High Court of the charges brought against them by a sex worker with the alleged connivance of some Delhi Police officials.
One of the men, Pankaj Chaudhari in his plea before the court claimed that he was “paying the price for opposing a flesh trade racket near his house in 1997″.
He was arrested, along with his brother Gunjesh, and two friends Jailal Yadav and Kashim Rain, on charges of raping a neighbour, who allegedly ran a prostitution ring.
They were jailed on July 28, 1997, and then convicted for gangrape in 2000, after police then manning the Hauz Khas police station – apparently at the instance of the s*x worker – decided to frame them for protesting against the racket which led to her business suffering.
Subsequently, an inquiry was ordered within the police department. The high court released the four men on bail in 2001.
“Due to allegations of rape, a stigma is attached to our names and we are facing great hardships in finding any job for our livelihood. We have been thrown out of jobs and are unable to live with dignity because we are called rapists,” they stated in their petition.
Justice S. Muralidhar acquitted the four, but reserved order on the plea of taking action against the then police officials involved in the case.
After they were convicted in 2000, their relatives alleged foul play, which led Amod Shastri, heading an NGO called Nyay Bharti, to probe the case.
Shastri’s efforts revealed that while the woman claimed she was raped at 9.30 p.m. by the four, another complaint in the same police station showed that she was arrested the same afternoon for indulging in flesh trade and let off at 10.30 p.m. on a bond of Rs.500. This indicated that she was actually at the police station at the time she claimed to have been raped at her home.
These laws have been enacted favourably for women, under the false presumption that women need special laws or special treatment in law. It is this abuse of law by a class of human beings, who act as victims, is pernicious and should be severely condemned. Protection laws must not be misused- for it will remove the very reason of protection laws in the legal system.
The problem of these gender biased laws is very basic which attacks the very root of civilized justice system. There is a concept called “corpus delicti” in criminal laws. It refers to proof of crime. Before starting a criminal trial, a court should ask for corpus delicti- an independent proof that crime has happened. A person should be put on trial only when there is independent proof of crime- independent proof in the sense that people not accusing the accused can say that crime has happened. Corpus delicti literally means, dead body. A person should not be put on trial for murder if there is no dead body (independent proof of crime).
In gender biased laws, there is no corpus delicti. In these gender biased laws, Corpus delicti is merely the view of the accuser women. Say, in an office, a male collegue approaches a women. If by chance women likes that collegue, it is proposal; if she does not like that person, it is sexual harassment at work place. Similarly, sexual intercourse between two adults may be making love or rape, based on the views of accusing women. Heated argument between husband and wife can be normal marital happening or cruelty towards women. It is very nature of these laws, which makes these prone to abuse. In these laws there is no corpus delicti, except statement of women. Hence abuse of these laws happens, not in the sense of accusing some innocent person falsely- it is accusing somebody, even when no crime has happened. That is why, these laws are sinister and should be opposed everywhere- in streets, in legislatures and in court rooms.
Why do women make false allegation of rape? Let us see a study- it throws some interesting facts- Quote-
The National Organization for Women , radical feminists, and Women’s Studies departments, often deny that women make false accusations about rape by asking the naïve, simplistic, and self-serving question: “Why would a woman lie?”
It turns out that there are plenty of reasons women lie about rape, either deliberately or out of desperation.
A U.S. Air Force study, “The False Rape Allegation in the Military Community (1983) investigated 556 cases of alleged rape, and found a 60% rate of false accusations. As part of the study, women who were found to have made false accusations were asked “WHY?”
Motivations given by the women who acknowledged they had made false accusations:
Reason – Percent
Spite or revenge – 20
To compensate for feelings of guilt or shame – 20
Thought she might be pregnant – 13
To conceal an affair – 12
To test husbands’ love – 9
Mental/emotional disorder – 9
To avoid personal responsibility – 4
Failure to pay, or extortion – 4
Thought she might have caught VD – 3
Other – 6
The study found that most false accusations are “instrumental” – they served a purpose. If the purpose isn’t avoiding guilt, or getting revenge, it might serve a more focused purpose, for example, telling her parents; “I didn’t just go out and get pregnant, I was raped.” Or, telling her husband, “I didn’t have an affair, it wasn’t my fault, I was raped.”
An unrelated Washington Post article, “Unfounded Rape Reports Baffle Investigators” (6/27/1992) also found a wide range of motivations to falsely accuse men of rape. Anger toward boyfriends was common. One woman had her boyfriend spend 13 months in jail before she acknowledged that she had lied. One woman accused her newspaper delivery man of raping her at gunpoint because she needed an excuse to be late to work.
Neither woman was prosecuted or even reprimanded for lying to the police and attempting to have a man frivolously imprisoned. In a recent US case, police say a young woman who admitted to falsifying two rape reports only wanted a day off from work.
All rape accusations need to be considered seriously, as, no doubt, rape does occur. But a balance needs to be maintained between the claims of the accuser against the all-too-often legitimate denial of the accused.
Women who are found to have made a false s*xual assault complaint should receive the same jail sentence as the male victim would have received if he had been convicted. That will put the brakes on fake rape charges.
Friends, we have to understand the reality. Society does not run on emotional rhetoric given by feminists. When we will see reported cases of rape in a newspaper, it is very easy to understand what is motivating the false allegation or whether it is real. Unfortunately Indian Media and people in general, do not have courage to say the reality. It is preferable to be called progressive by supporting feminist views, even when innocent lives are being destroyed with false allegations under gender biased law- or you will be branded regressive or male chauvinist pig or men threatened by women’s empowerment.
IT TAKES COURAGE TO CALL A SPADE, “SPADE”.
A Times of India Report says that 18% of rape allegations are false. Quote,
A little less than 20% of sexual-assault cases reported in and around Delhi are false, shows a five-year study. In almost every fifth incident, or, in 18.3 % cases to be precise, rape is used as a weapon to malign and attempt revenge, found a group of psychologists who assist Delhi Police in investigating sexual assault allegations.
The conclusion was drawn from 113 cases in the last five years. Anger towards the accused prompted allegations of rape in 25% of the false charges. An equal number of such cases were filed at the behest of family members. Every fifth false allegation was made by a minor `coached’ to cry `rape’ as an attempt to settle family scores. About 15% were situations of panic after clear consent, while the remaining 15% defied categorisation.
In September 2007, the Supreme Court had alerted lower courts to attempts at misusing the rape law, noting “the courts should bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon.”
Rajat Mitra of Swanchetan, the NGO that conducted the study, says the false cases can be complicated at times. He talks of a 16-year-old girl from West Delhi’s Dabri area who accused her father and another man of rape. The girl claimed insanity post-assault, saying she would see faces of men all around her attacking her. The girl broke down on being asked by counsellors whether the images were in black and white or in colour. She confessed her brother had asked her to accuse their father. With her father in jail, believed the girl, her brother would get the property and she would get to marry the person of her choice. In the end, withdrew the case.
Another case was of a medically proven rape of a 13-year-old in Dwarka. The girl had accused three men but the police found their investigations did not show these men’s involvement. After a quiet talking-to by psychologists, the girl finally got the courage to speak the truth. She said the three men who had raped her were family members who had threatened her. To protect them, and out of fear, she had accused three others. In this case, the chargesheet was filed against the real culprits.
Unfortunately Indian Legal system is ignoring this grim aspect of reality.
Marriage was treated as a sacred institution in India. The strength of Indian marriages was praised all over world. Many of the Indian expatriates, who are settled in foreign land for generations prefers to get married in India. However, due to recent shortsighted changes in marital laws in India has made marrying into India a dangerous affairs and it is adequate reason for Indian males to decide not to marry.
Marriage was always treated a social institution in the past. Now, the state with all its might is interfering in the institution of marriage. Unfortunately the state interference aims at women vote bank and not preserving the institution. Such vote bank legislations in India has made a marriage dangerous institution in India, to be shunned.
There are three reasons; firstly gender biased laws in India. Indian law is highly gender biased in favour of women and gives all civil rights to women in marriage. Secondly, it gives unfettered right to women in terms of maintenance and property and thirdly it gives power to abuse laws to women to force the man into submission of her extortionary and greedy attitude. In this whole spectrum of law, there is no right in the hand of men and in such situations he becomes a laughing matter in the society.
These are some of the reasons why should men refuse to marry:
1. Becuase man is being punished for marrying by Section 498A.
2. Because married man is treated like a criminal based on false allegation by unscrupluous women.
3. Beacuse law give no right to men in marriage.
4. Because men are treated as beast of burden in marriage- to maintain wife, even adultrous wife, deserting wife- without any obligation on part of wife.
5. Because the children will be in custody of wife but men will maintain them (beast of burden)
6. Because law is there to sent you to jail if you say anything to your wife. Your parents will be present their with you.
7. Because you will be ruined financially if you file for divorce to get out of bad relationship.
8. Because you will be ruined financially if your wife files for divorce to marry her lover. 9. Because chances that you will be sent to jail for marrying is increasing day by day, with newer acts coming day after day.
10.Because you can loose your livelihood, home and reputation just by a call from your wife.
Marriage has become a slavery for Men- a slavery of wife- A legal slavery. Marriage is a dangerous institution for men. It is not generalisations- it is a reality. A sad reality which one understand only when he or his relative faces the music of marriage.
Laws are there to examine suicide by woman- Section 304B of IPC, Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act. Further, the laws will punish you, without any fault from your part, because of presumption cause. However, if men suicide due to torture of women, there is no redressal. Rate of suicide in men is more than twice in men than women. Many of the married man commit suicide due to harassment by their wives- through comments like 1.You dont earn much.
2.You cant keep your parents with you.
3.I will meet my friend (euphemistic name of lover).
4.Force your parents to transfer this matrimonial home in my name.
5.Man’s mother should work like a servant in the house. etc.etc.
And there is no law to check such abatement of suicide by men. If the husband speaks, he is sent to jail on the false charge of dowry. He looses is livelihood, reputation. His vioce is not heard or heeded in court. Police get a case to extort money. Sadist woman constable get a victim to torture. If man has not suicided early on wife abatement, he will suicide now, after his tryst with law.
Men are weak. Men cannot fight for their honour. Men cannot force the judiciary to change its prejudice and also hear the grievance of men. Men cannot force legislature to think beyond votes and make just laws. Men cannot force police to be impartial investigator.
At least men can refuse to marry.