code of conduct - Page 8

mod has already close topic of one of jaan thread

My earlier post was a general observation in the thread and to no particular person.

So, if someone says that he/she doesn't think that an extra-marital relation is bad or if they say that the woman is not to be blamed - I think that's where we should exercise our freedom of thoughts and respect someone else's thoughts. We can give our responses and further musings on that. Not resort to abuses/expletives. I support that.

Originally posted by: rohini55

@<font size="3">monamie</font>

</div>

<font size="3">You shd be hating the whole of bollywood : What are Hema malini's children by this definition? She was elected to the Rajya Sabha. </font>

<font size="3">As I said, I don't condone Gauri's act. That is the problem on this forum. Itis always : If you are not with me, you are against me. That is George Bush's view of the world.and I'd like to believe we are more evolved than that.. </font>

<div><font size="3">If someone is being awful, how do you become any different by being awful yourself?. Didn't Gandhi say: An eye for eye will make the world blind?</font>

Why should we discuss hema malini here? Is this world marriages status forum or balika vadhu forum?

Originally posted by: surabhi01

mod has already close topic of one of jaan thread

sadly more are being opened 😭 hadd ho gayi hai.. no other topic than JAAN or ANSH.. God save us!

@manismat

if you scroll back rohini's post adequately addresses the issues you raise. She points out how certain words over time come to be associated with derogatory connotations against certain social groups - whether woman, lower castes , hispanic africans etc. She covers the grounds under which terms become abusive because of their use in the past to discriminate against another body of persons and hence requires sensitivity in the way they are used to address others . Even the indian constitution curbs the right to freedom of expression under certain conditions- when it infringes on others right to dignity and when it incites hate, hurt, social reactions etc.

The term mistress is not a proper but a common noun and can be invested with socially regressive connotations which are deeply offensive to female sensibilities.It is not rue that mistress was not used in case of single men.It has been brought out in atleasts hundreds of historical documents ( if u want i'll give you a proper bibliography by evening) when in case of royalty/aristocracy even before the men were commited to any woman or relationship in matrimony , the women they kept and PAID for but could NEVER marry because they belonged to a different social class , were called MISTRESSES . And that is why in a patriarchal feudal society an entire class of woman from socially underprivileged and non royal backgrounds existed , who were their patrons 'keeps' much before they ever entered matrimony with any other woman sometimes purely for the purpose of building alliances with other woman of their own class. So in this system while woman all round suffered , including these wives from noble families - they atleast had social status, dignity and rights of a wife. But other woman - who because of custom were always condemned to be just mistresses by virtue of their class and because of their inferior and lowly material and financial conditions - which forced them to agree to such conditions- were called 'mistresses'. This is exactly why in a patriarchal society today the word MISTRESS has these degrading class and chauvinistic connotations. If we were not living in a patrirchal male dominated society, then use of the word mistress has very different connotations - but we are - the hindi equivalent here is 'RAKHAIL' and it is considered to be a deeply abusive word - Again because of this aspect of being kept...and society really looked down upon these women- considered to be no better than prostitutes . That is why the progressive term for people in extra marital relations or multiple relationships or open relationships is 'partners' - whether male or female

So i'm sorry but more than about moral aspects of a man being committed to one and having a relationship with another - mistress has multiple connotations which are not necessarily associated with merely being attached to men committed elsewhere . IT can be used for both situations simply because the dictionary meaning implies both the aspects technically ( and incidentally the meaning only claims it can be usually a married man and makes no reference to any other form of commitment while it makes a CLEAR allusion to the generally kept aspect because of exactly this historical context) - it does not mean it cannot be offensive to a certain class of people if employed in another social context where it can be considered demeaning for a partner against whom it is used simply because she is a woman. And i know the satisfaction which people derive from calling other woman mistresses comes from these connotations in the past which have imbued them with a negative dimension. If we were living in an equal society and the term had been historically employed in context of just woman living in with committed men - only then these negative connotations would not arise.

Besides, different terms might have different connotations for dfferent people - but if they have clearly socially abusive subtexts for some people - it is not undemocratic to point that out and request, as rohini, had done that these terms not be used in public forums where they do not have universally unambigous connotations for all. Thats all.

Also if the term did not have this connotation of being kept - then some of what u say about letting people use a term meant to describe a relationship and then expressing our differences in terms of whether such woman did anything wrong or not or whether such women are necessarily bad or wrong would apply . But here there is a clear precedent where it was used in a way in which the term was used to denote a woman's inferior position in a feudal patriarchal set up ( ironically SINGHS in BV beong to the same set up!) in a way which was not necessarily linked to just the nature of the interpersonal man , woman relationship in terms of commitment etc...

If G was not MISTRESS thn can anyone define her Status. pls don't say it was TRUE LOVE. 😉 For me she was a MISTRESS after divorce she turned in his GIRL FRIEND in live in relationship and after breakup she is SINGLE and in future if she will not kill the child or marry thn SINGLE MOTHER 😆

I've read a word "concubine" for this...

I read some post, where people don't want to go with dictionary but with historical facts. why to do go in history, if we reject dictionary definition, thn in practice their r even more harsh words for such status, I don't want to mention here 😉 Mistress is most respected in comparison 😉 such status still defined in society but only changes is in modern society its not abuse and as hateful as it was earlier.