Everyman is a potential rapists - Nandita Das. - Page 7

Originally posted by: Mighty-Zeus

Nope you werent mistaken , you just didnt decipher the two separate statements ..

Here is a simplified version -

" Nandita may have been misquoted , but people who actually support this heinous generalization - "Every man is a potential rapist " in isolation by applying various absurd permutations & combinations are downright wrong for doing so "

There is absolutely no excuse for justifying such an offensive generalization ..

Moreover , i was only giving Nandita the benefit of the doubt & that is what i meant by 'support' ..

Originally posted by: BollyFanLuver

she already denied it on twitter. She needs to sue them & force them for public retraction & apologies

Nandita Das @nanditadas Mumbai, Maharashtra

I'm being falsely quoted Never said all men are rapists. What kind of a stupid generalisation is that? sad that 1 have to even explain this.

• RETWEETS669
• FAVORITES306
• 

1:32 AM - 2 Apr 2015

Originally posted by: KhatamKahani

Okay, then again I stand by my original points. I think her statement is not wrong if it's said in some context. And my first reply to you stands as it was apt.

I have already explained it, and I think it is true. Women in matters of safety and precaution do many times and in fact are encouraged to act as if every man is a potential rapist.

And I stick to that you want to call it some absurd excuse to justify an offensive generalization, go ahead.

As for Nandita Das' quote. The fact that she's calling a changed version of the quote as the false quote, and not addressing the actual quote itself as a false quote, is enough for me to guess that those words themselves aren't a false quote. "Every man is a potential rapist." Misquote as in not given in the right context, yes. But false quote, no.

Originally posted by: Mighty-Zeus

There is no "going ahead" , i am already past it .. 😆

Sure you are entitled to have your opinion , but do keep in mind that women too could be subjected to such offensive generalizations and that will only make everything that much more messier.. 😆

On a serious note , you say it is about "women's safety & precaution" , do you think such a disgusting generalization is a necessity to felicitate "women's safety & precautions" ? ..dont you think there are better and saner ways to do the same ?..is demonizing men & inculcating hatred and fear among women against men right way to do it ?.. but then again what's modern feminism without a bit of man hating , isnt it ?.. and then feminists wonder why they are judged for being irrational lunatics .. 😆

Originally posted by: KhatamKahani

And you are missing my point. Did I say such a statement can just be said generally with no context behind it? No. All I said was if that sentence was used within a certain context, it is not in the least unacceptable.

And no you are not past it, because you are just going even further. The irrational lunacy I see is where people want to jump and want to go on anti-feminists tirades and seeing not being able to see beyond the so-called 'man-hating.'

Keep it up!