Posted:
Why is anyone surprised? Ranveer was never a feminist really. I always found a regressive chauvinistic attitude hidden behind all his 'respect' for women and 'equality' talk.
I feel a few people are missing the purpose of this thread.
The term 'marriage material' is an archaic outdated one. There is no such thing. It is utter bullshit. When it comes to marriage the only criteria is compatibility. All that matters is the two people who want to be together are compatible - right person, right time, right place.
Of course 'marriage material' is used to describe men and women. However, in most of India it applies more to women than men. Even when a man is not considered to be this so called "marriage material" his family does not see him as a liability. They know that when he wants to settle, some desperate family will gladly give him their daughter. When a woman is not considered "marriage material" it gets complicated. Many times her family sees her as a burden. Even society start to see her as problematic. Very few men are secure enough to stand by a woman who they are compatible with but is not perceived to be "marriage material" by society.
Irrespective of gender though, the term should be discarded from our lingo. At least educated, progressive people should think twice of using the term. It is not as much about male vs female - but a matter of why a so called self proclaimed progressive man, especially one who claims to be sexually evolved would view women in terms of marriage material rather than compatibility and use such archaic terms.
Mannat Har Khushi Paane Ki
Mahadev And Sons
Cricket
5