SPOILERS thread 4: BTS and upcoming arcs - Page 26

Originally posted by: Tenochtitlan

His reaction felt unconvincing. If his reaction is still based on that one sentence of Viaan then, it is unconvincing.

I could have understood anger, but not violence. It's been almost a year. Ye itna gussa ab tak kaise hai??

Originally posted by: Anj_01

This was problematic since the beginning. In yesterday's episode katha just repeated it. She clearly said it to vanya that this whole man of the house thinking got aarav protective about her and he over reacted. Thats why all the fuss.

I don't see why this is problematic in the beginning. It is getting problematic now but, don't understand about the beginning.

Children often assume the role of higher post. In families, eldest brother and sister assume father/mother like roles and mother/father are protectors as well. So, its natural and it happens and tells how strong your bond is. It is one way to show your affection. It also shows how well invested you are with your family. Stronger the bond, stronger the role you play. And, you know how strong Katha and Aarav's bond is for obvious reason. Also, they lived in close proximity for 2 years.

It is something natural and can't be stopped. Take Viaan and Ehsan for example. The Bromance they share, it is not normal for any male pair but, close proximity and strong bond makes that possible. Now, because of that bond Ehsan thinks Viaan should move on and is being assertive a bit, does that mean their Bromance was problematic from the very beginning? It will be wrong to discredit their entire Bromance.

Originally posted by: Eternalallure

I don't think except this incident Aarav has actually ever behaved like the "man of the house" like everybody keeps saying. I don't think even here Aarav has behaved like some "man of the house" by calling the shots for them both. Katha saw this as a chance to keep him away from Viaan, give him a family, give ruhi and Raghav a family and took it. It was not Aarav's doing. She could have easily said no but she didn't

I don't see why people find a child's love and protectiveness for his single mother wrong or unnecessary or "over". Objectively would it also have been wrong if Viaan was not in the picture? If his behavior was not hurting Viaan and if he wasn't suffering because of his anger? Ya uska reaction tab sahi hota?

Its not about Aarav's love for his mother is over but its about the tag, man of the house and how they don't use it jokingly but seriously. And it does have effects on Aarav. The child kept seeing his mother struggling throughout his illness. He already felt kind of guilty to put his mother through all this and then this tag gave him this overbearing attitude.

Aarav caring for his mother is ok but he thinking that he is ultimate decision making authority in their life and katha letting him do so is wrong. Because he is just a child. He should not be burdened with this.

And aarav in the past also overreacted because of this tag. Remember when he was missing and security guard of school thought viaan was Aarav's papa. Aarav had literally screamed his lungs out for no reason because apparently he is the man of the house then how come some random guy be called his papa and have access to their life without his permission. That time viaan was not even in picture.

Aarav didn't like ehsan so he tried to trouble him. Aarav liked viaan so tried to persuade his mother to marry him. In all of this, where is katha's choice? It seems like it all begins and end with what aarav wants. From where he gets this attitude? His own mother has been subtly feeding this in his mind since the beginning.

It was never about love. Every child loves his mother but every child doesn't react like aarav. Ruhi is also raised by single parent. She also loves her dad a lot and dislike the fact that her real mom hurt his dad. Is logic se toh if katha decided to cancel the wedding phir ruhi ko bhi mental breakdown mein chale jana chahiye aur katha se nafrat karni chahiye.

Originally posted by: Tenochtitlan

I don't see why this is problematic in the beginning. It is getting problematic now but, don't understand about the beginning.

Children often assume the role of higher post. In families, eldest brother and sister assume father/mother like roles and mother/father are protectors as well. So, its natural and it happens and tells how strong your bond is. It is one way to show your affection. It also shows how well invested you are with your family. Stronger the bond, stronger the role you play. And, you know how strong Katha and Aarav's bond is for obvious reason. Also, they lived in close proximity for 2 years.

It is something natural and can't be stopped. Take Viaan and Ehsan for example. The Bromance they share, it is not normal for any male pair but, close proximity and strong bond makes that possible. Now, because of that bond Ehsan thinks Viaan should move on and is being assertive a bit, does that mean their Bromance was problematic from the very beginning? It will be wrong to discredit their entire Bromance.

I had already shared my pov about this,I am quoting it again-

this whole man of the house thing becomes all the more cringeworthy because FL is single mom who was independent, took care her ill child, managed everything from finances to emotional support.

And after doing all that as a proud single mother (woman) she gives the whole concept to her son about there has to be a man of the house otherwise they are incomplete. And to add to the irony her 10 year old child assumes that role and also start behaving like one and she doesn't find anything wrong in that.

I find its derogatory to even use this term because this term stands for the patriarchal mindset of society that household is run by man, all important decisions are taken by man and women are just there to nurture children and cook food.

And its problematic because it did give aarav overbearing attitude in this very young age which actually proved to be detrimental to his mental health.

Aarav wanted to punch Viaan? What type of up bringing is this in the name of mera beta man of the house hai?

Disgusting mother Katha. She failed in every department. Disgusting human being, she doesn't deserve Viaan at all.

You can't teach basic manner and you have guts to say "I am always right"

Originally posted by: Anj_01

I had already shared my pov about this,I am quoting it again-

this whole man of the house thing becomes all the more cringeworthy because FL is single mom who was independent, took care her ill child, managed everything from finances to emotional support.

And after doing all that as a proud single mother (woman) she gives the whole concept to her son about there has to be a man of the house otherwise they are incomplete. And to add to the irony her 10 year old child assumes that role and also start behaving like one and she doesn't find anything wrong in that.

I find its derogatory to even use this term because this term stands for the patriarchal mindset of society that household is run by man, all important decisions are taken by man and women are just there to nurture children and cook food.

And its problematic because it did give aarav overbearing attitude in this very young age which actually proved to be detrimental to his mental health.

@Red

This is not related to the show but, something in general. Why does it become derogatory when some word acknowledges the importance of general role of male? Isn't it true that in 90% of households a man is the breadwinner. If I am acknowledging this important role of men in the society, it doesn't mean women are useless.

Problem with the Patriarchy is its rigidity. Patriarchy exert cultural pressure on women to stay at home and for men to be the sole earner outside the home, and they will have excuses such as 'it's God's will' or 'it's your biological destiny' or 'it's unnatural for a man to do housework and a woman to earn' or 'it's tradition' or 'the children of working mothers will grow up to be psychopaths' or 'men who rely on a woman's earnings are weak and unmanly' etc etc etc.

Problem is that breadwinner was given more importance than homemaker. Ideally, it should be a partnership. Both the tasks are equally important for a sustainable relationship.

I find it problematic that now people see that women who are homemaker as sacrificing because they aren't paid. If Home makers are sacrificing then breadwinners are also sacrificing their minds and the family and all the joy in life so that they can earn bread for them.

Husband used to treat wife a servent/object in 18th century, so whoever revolted against it and made it easy for us now, shouldn't have done that, right? Because society was like that in 18th century. They should've have accepted their fate and cry in the corner instead of facing cruelty for revolt.

Kya logic hai 🤮

Some people here have a habit of cherrypicking a word, refuse to understand context, refuse to ask explanation, refuse to use brain, refuse to give explanation and then comeup with a wildly unrelated conclusion. If you have to give conclusions then, what is the point of discussions then?

Aditi's family model is impressive. While Aditi is working, her husband takes over household while she is not working, she takes over household and her husband works.

Making Aditi the primary breadwinner is wise move because she can make money more effectively than her husband can. She is much more popular than her husband. Their partnership is impressive.

Nowadays most of the husband wife works, handle kids together and cooks food together except some exceptional chauvinist. Ismey impressive toh Kuch bhi nahi