Originally posted by: BrhannadaArmour
I got a notification that you quoted me. Then you edited your post to tag me so that I got another notification. It seems that you really want me to respond, perhaps specifically to your generalization about male creatives because you know I'm a man.
I am not an apologist for the thoughts of all men, any more than you represent a unanimous paradigm of "Indian values."
Until you make the effort to explain why you believe what you believe (what makes something "illegitimate" or "retrograde" or "biased"), it is a waste of my time to try to make sense of your post. You are free to express your opinions and blame either an individual like Ekta Kapoor or the entire male sex, whatever is your flavour of the day.
I am surprised seeing your combative reaction!
Yes, I've quoted you, later I realised that I forgot to tag you, so tagged you by editing my post.
It doesn't mean that I want you to respond, and more importantly, not because you are a man.
For me, there is no gender bias; everyone is an IF member.
Nobody asked you to make up or apologize for the transgressions or wrongdoings of all men across all industries. I am sensible enough to understand that we all have the freedom to share our opinions within the confines of the IF guidelines, and that each member is a special person with their own opinions on various subjects.
We frequently quote posts from other members to continue our discussions. Not that I'm looking for an explanation or an apology from the other person, please note that.
In fact, I truly liked and appreciated your familiarity with ancient history, that's why I quoted your post and that I expressed.
In the later part of my post, I simply expressed my opinion on the regressive and retrograde mindset of serial makers. I noted that, generally speaking, there are more men who work in the creative industries. It is not directed at you in any manner, and I am not hoping for a praise or an apology from you.
While interacting with your fellow members, it is always advisable to be soft and understanding, instead of agitating and retarding. Please note this.
84