I'm Not a Feminist, I Believe in Equality: Kareena Kapoor Khan

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#111

Originally posted by: flipfl0p
Please educate me. What extra does "feminism" cover, which is not covered by "human rights" (which campaigns for equal rights to all and equal opportunities for all)?

Here is how I perceive it - http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4990835&PID=147322181&#p147322181

If "human rights" were so universal and self-evident, there would be no social movement to fight oppression throughout history.

Human rights and equality are ideologies. Feminism, civil rights, racial justice are tools to bring that ideology to fruition.

Quote

maal_u_have

@maal_u_have

Dazzler

Posted: 7 years ago

#112

Originally posted by: Kareenafanatic
My two words.

Feminism, of course, stems from unequal rights for women. If you look into literature, feminism as a movement had begun as early as the 1850s in England. In India, most of our literary and mythic texts empower women. In the USA, feminism is a rather newer phenomenon. Just look into some of the most sexist and derogatory adverts from as late as the 70s to realize how America was at the fore of this inequality among all developed countries in the world.
FYI

This is very interesting - which are our mythic texts that empower women?

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Karenina

@Karenina

Inactive

Posted: 7 years ago

#113

Originally posted by: HawasKaPujari

This is very interesting - which are our mythic texts that empower women?

The concept of Devi/Shakti as the supreme power of the universe. Samkhya Philosophy goes in depth with Purush and Prakriti, with Purush as a mere cog and Prakriti as the impersonal universe.

We also have the Puranas that highlight the sacrifices and roles of women in shaping society and violation of women's rights and honor bringing about destruction and degeneration to society. In Geeta, it's stated that dishonor to women and children is the first step towards degeneration of a society.

Mahabharata, Shakuntalam, even Ramayana to some extent have ample evidence of women's individual rights during those times. The most important thing is choice. Most of the characters could choose what they wanted and their husbands/family/society would oblige.

IIRC, there is no predominant text that advocates lack of equality between man and woman. When you look at Shakuntalam, it's the first instance of a woman marrying the man she loves *without* the consent of her father/permission. It's one of the first instances of a woman choosing her life partner at will and it was written 1700 years ago.

Kali is a symbol of raw feminine energy and the implications of oppression to women. Her strength is unrivaled and even Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheswar combined couldn't tame her.

Manu Smriti is one of the texts where women are given a "code of conduct," and that's where modern orthodoxy somewhat started. Almost all rules mentioned in Manu Smriti have been "violated" in classical texts like the Puranas and the epics - in favor of liberal feminism.

Quote

Male-Chauvinist-Pig

@Ur-Miserable

Stunner

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#114

Some on the posts in this thread can be summed up as:
"my feminism is my feminism, none of your feminism".

Quote

maal_u_have

@maal_u_have

Dazzler

Posted: 7 years ago

#115

Originally posted by: Kareenafanatic

The concept of Devi/Shakti as the supreme power of the universe. Samkhya Philosophy goes in depth with Purush and Prakriti, with Purush as a mere cog and Prakriti as the impersonal universe.

We also have the Puranas that highlight the sacrifices and roles of women in shaping society and violation of women's rights and honor bringing about destruction and degeneration to society. In Geeta, it's stated that dishonor to women and children is the first step towards degeneration of a society.

Mahabharata, Shakuntalam, even Ramayana to some extent have ample evidence of women's individual rights during those times. The most important thing is choice. Most of the characters could choose what they wanted and their husbands/family/society would oblige.

IIRC, there is no predominant text that advocates lack of equality between man and woman. When you look at Shakuntalam, it's the first instance of a woman marrying the man she loves *without* the consent of her father/permission. It's one of the first instances of a woman choosing her life partner at will and it was written 1700 years ago.

Kali is a symbol of raw feminine energy and the implications of oppression to women. Her strength is unrivaled and even Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheswar combined couldn't tame her.

Manu Smriti is one of the texts where women are given a "code of conduct," and that's where modern orthodoxy somewhat started. Almost all rules mentioned in Manu Smriti have been "violated" in classical texts like the Puranas and the epics - in favor of liberal feminism.

Thanks for the detailed answer 😊 The portrayal of devi as supreme and untamed power is impressive! Almost all rules mentioned in Manu Smriti have been "violated" in classical texts like the Puranas and the epics - in favor of liberal feminism. - That's amazing.. I think many are not aware of this..

Quote

Sultan

@I_M_SultaN

Master

+ 11

Posted: 7 years ago

#116

W*F y salman fans dragged here

Quote

the notebook

@the_notebook

Sparkler

+ 8

Posted: 7 years ago

#117

Originally posted by: Kareenafanatic

The concept of Devi/Shakti as the supreme power of the universe. Samkhya Philosophy goes in depth with Purush and Prakriti, with Purush as a mere cog and Prakriti as the impersonal universe.

We also have the Puranas that highlight the sacrifices and roles of women in shaping society and violation of women's rights and honor bringing about destruction and degeneration to society. In Geeta, it's stated that dishonor to women and children is the first step towards degeneration of a society.

Mahabharata, Shakuntalam, even Ramayana to some extent have ample evidence of women's individual rights during those times. The most important thing is choice. Most of the characters could choose what they wanted and their husbands/family/society would oblige.

IIRC, there is no predominant text that advocates lack of equality between man and woman. When you look at Shakuntalam, it's the first instance of a woman marrying the man she loves *without* the consent of her father/permission. It's one of the first instances of a woman choosing her life partner at will and it was written 1700 years ago.

Kali is a symbol of raw feminine energy and the implications of oppression to women. Her strength is unrivaled and even Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheswar combined couldn't tame her.

Manu Smriti is one of the texts where women are given a "code of conduct," and that's where modern orthodoxy somewhat started. Almost all rules mentioned in Manu Smriti have been "violated" in classical texts like the Puranas and the epics - in favor of liberal feminism.

This is an amazing post!

And indeed, Kali is so powerful. When Kali gets too angry, Shiva calms her. They are closely linked and it's beautiful. Also, the power of many Gods come through Kali. She is the ultimate.

Edited by MrBiebersWifey. - 7 years ago

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#118

Originally posted by: --Pro.vo.King--

This coming from someone who has once defended "spectrum" of feminism ... 😆

I thought you were of the opinion that feminism is a "social concept " which has evolved over the years & as such it will by default have a spectrum and that it cannot be defined with a single definition of "equal rights for men & women "

I do believe that feminism is a spectrum. It is a movement that has evolved socially over time. It means different to different people.

But I also subscribe to the undeniable fact that the very definition of feminism is "equal rights for men and women." The spectrum and social variance come in how people interpret the words to mean.

We have to factor in fairness and merit with equality, and people disagree what the right balance is. The perception of what is a right and what is a privilege varies. And sadly, many people disagree nowadays on the definition of men and women itself.

So as the understanding of "equal rights for men and women" has evolved, feminism has evolved. We've had five waves of feminism so far. There are radical feminists. There are trans-exclusionary radical feminists. There are white feminists. There are intersectional feminists. There are queer feminists. Some feminist views, I can stand by and get behind. Some feminist views, I think are problematic or even borderline misandrist.

Every social justice movement for equality has a spectrum. Every social justice movement evolves over time and perceptions change with time. Once upon a time, it was the French Revolution to bring equality between the bourgeois and proletariat, today it would be called anti-national rioting. Some humans believe socialism is the only means for economic equity. Some humans believe capitalism is the only fair way to run a market.

Originally posted by: --Pro.vo.King--
People need to stop pretending like "feminism = equal rights for men & women " ... Granted that's how feminism started off but it no longer embodies its true purpose in modern times .. The concept has been tarnished beyond recognition

Feminism by definition is equal rights for men and women. It is a movement that focuses on undoing gender inequality, wrongs of the past and truly placing all genders on an equal playing field.

I know and acknowledge that some feminists do behave in problematic ways. Some have taken it too far to the point of misandry. TERFs are hostile to transgender women and they create a bad impression of feminism. Straight cisgender feminists often alienate LGBTQ and gender non conforming feminists. White feminists tend to alienate women of color.

Some of the problems associated with feminism are no fault of feminism itself. It is the result of several decades of patriarchal conditioning. People don't like change and tend to be hostile to movements that force a change. Equality feels like oppression to privileged groups. They tend to be hostile towards movements for equality. Many people believe that women being sexually active is very bad for society and blame feminism. Many people believe women working, being independent, getting divorced from unhappy marriages is very bad for society and blame feminism. Many people believe that women wearing what they want is bad for society and blame feminism. Hence feminism sometimes gets a bad reputation even when it doesn't go awry.

But the movement itself is based on a very noble thought and has done a lot of good since its inception. The right to vote, the right to own property, the right to be educated, the right to work - these are all accomplishments of feminism. There is still a lot of work to be done as well. Some countries still practice FGM and forced marriages. Menstrual health is unheard of in many parts of the world. Women still cannot be sexually active without being judged. Women with kids still cannot work without being questioned about their family and work/life balance. A few decades of feminism cannot correct centuries of patriarchy.

Originally posted by: --Pro.vo.King--
There are people who do not wish to be associated with it and strongly believe in equality, you are just going to have to deal with it .. Forceful branding is a wishful thinking .. You ll surely get an audience on a platform such as this one but that's about it

Because of the positive meaning, impact, and potential of feminism; I believe that we should reclaim the word. I feel that people like Kareena with their wide fan base should help in bringing awareness to the positive connotation of feminism.

I wholly understand that I cannot force ideologies on people. But there is nothing wrong in criticism to bring awareness. There have been people like Taylor Swift who used to "not be feminists, but believe in equality" but have changed their mind with better understanding of the term.

Some social justice movements need to exist even if they encounter some problems. People may think Antifa is too violent, but being against Fascists is a good thing. People may disagree with taking a knee or the Black Panther Movement or even BLM - but racial justice is still crucial.

Originally posted by: --Pro.vo.King--
Speaking of forceful branding :
I believe in peace. But I am not a Muslim. ( You can be a Muslim who believes in peace , but you don't necessarily have to be one to believe in peace )

I am a pure vegetarian. But I am not a Jain. ( Jains are pure vegetarians but you don't necessarily have to be one in order to be a pure vegetarian )

I believe in equality. But I am not a feminist. ( Only radical feminists believe that you can't believe in equality without being a feminist 😆)

This is some really bizarre convoluted analogies you have here.

Atheism by definition is disbelief in God. All atheists do not believe in God. All who don't believe in God are atheists by definition.

I am not an atheist, but I don't believe in God. It's ironic because you fit the definition but don't subscribe to it.

Peace by definition is a belief in non-confrontation and non-violence. Some humans believe in peace. Some humans don't. Some Muslims are peaceful. Some Muslims are violent. Some homosexuals are peaceful. Some homosexuals are violent. Some Americans are peaceful. Some Americans are violent.

I believe in peace, but I am not a Muslim is a statement that makes no bloody sense. Its a shit analogy. The correct ironic analogy would be. I don't believe in peace, but I really dislike violence.

Similarly. I am a pure vegetarian but I am not a Jain is another bad analogy thats such a pile of horseshit. The correct ironic anaolgy would be. I am not a vegetarian, but I follow a strictly plant based diet.

I have no idea who you are as a person, but your propensity for ironic statements is as stellar as a piece of dry toast. 😆

Originally posted by: --Pro.vo.King--
Feminists claim you can't believe in equality unless you label yourself a feminist.

I cannot speak for other people.

I believe that if you believe in the equality of all gender identities and act on it, you are a feminist. I wish people wouldn't treat feminism like a vile f-word. (Thanks Deadpool)

----------

"I'm not an atheist, but I don't believe in God" is a ridiculous statement. So is "Thank God, I'm an atheist."

And even though I do not believe in God, I've often felt compelled to say "I'm not an atheist." A bit dumb and ironic. I often twist it with some convoluted logic saying, I don't believe in God, but I believe in a higher power in the universe. But then my definitions of "higher power" are "anti-God." I don't believe in creationism. I don't believe in any entity vested in human interests. I believe all things happen because of random probability. I believe the only truths are laws of nature.

It's just that atheism sometimes has this negative connotation. India is very religious, so is the United States. There is so much emphasis on God. f**king thoughts and prayers. f**king one nature under God. Thank God. Oh my God. Dear God. I pray to God. God willing. God forbid.

There is also this perception that atheists have no moral compass or reason to be compassionate. That without religion or faith a human is just aimlessly wandering through life. So I'd awlays explain my beliefs in facts, nature, and random probability of the universe as belief in a "higer power" but not atheism.

The truth is that I'm a f**king atheist by definition. My mental gymnastics to redefine it are a fool's errand.

Edit: Changed my font to blue due to quoting issues.

Edited by return_to_hades - 7 years ago

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#119

Originally posted by: Kareenafanatic

The concept of Devi/Shakti as the supreme power of the universe. Samkhya Philosophy goes in depth with Purush and Prakriti, with Purush as a mere cog and Prakriti as the impersonal universe.

We also have the Puranas that highlight the sacrifices and roles of women in shaping society and violation of women's rights and honor bringing about destruction and degeneration to society. In Geeta, it's stated that dishonor to women and children is the first step towards degeneration of a society.

Mahabharata, Shakuntalam, even Ramayana to some extent have ample evidence of women's individual rights during those times. The most important thing is choice. Most of the characters could choose what they wanted and their husbands/family/society would oblige.

IIRC, there is no predominant text that advocates lack of equality between man and woman. When you look at Shakuntalam, it's the first instance of a woman marrying the man she loves *without* the consent of her father/permission. It's one of the first instances of a woman choosing her life partner at will and it was written 1700 years ago.

Kali is a symbol of raw feminine energy and the implications of oppression to women. Her strength is unrivaled and even Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheswar combined couldn't tame her.

Manu Smriti is one of the texts where women are given a "code of conduct," and that's where modern orthodoxy somewhat started. Almost all rules mentioned in Manu Smriti have been "violated" in classical texts like the Puranas and the epics - in favor of liberal feminism.

Very true. Ancient Indian mythology and scripture is very progressive. Not just in terms of gender equity. It was very progressive in terms of gender identity and sexual orientation as well.

There are many non-gender conforming characters like Shikhandi and even Arjun spent a year in exile as a Eunuch. Vishnu and Shiva are gender fluid. Vishnu has female avatars like Mohini. And a form of Shiva is ardhnarishwar. Then there is Murugan who is the son of Shiva and Vishnu.

One criticism I do have (and thats more on society than the scripture) is the notion of Devi/Shakti gets interpreted as the Madonna/wh**e dichotomy. If a woman is not perfect like the Devis in scripture, she is less than and does not deserve respect.

Quote

807116

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#120

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Here is how I perceive it - http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4990835&PID=147322181&#p147322181

If "human rights" were so universal and self-evident, there would be no social movement to fight oppression throughout history.

Human rights and equality are ideologies. Feminism, civil rights, racial justice are tools to bring that ideology to fruition.

I don't consider human rights and equality are just ideologies. It is a movement by itself. Which bracket should we place Annie Besant? Feminist? Civil right activist? Or racial justice?

To me, each one is a part of human rights and equality.

If I say, "I stand for equal opportunity and rights for all humans", do I need to specifically say "I stand for the rights of women", "I stand for the rights of gays" etc?

Why can't I say "all human beings" and stop at that?

In what way, these branches (say for example "feminism") extend the ideology or movements of human rights? It should be more than attention seeking. If not, I would prefer to stick to human rights. Or else I am afraid, it will aid some attention seekers (don't want to name) than real fighters for justice and equality.

Quote

1 ... 8 9 10 11 12

Kareena Kapoor

Reena Kapoor

I'm Not a Feminist, I Believe in Equality: Kareena Kapoor Khan - Page 12

Related Topics

Explore Topics