Superb Questions by Krishna - Page 11

Originally posted by: lighthousepier

Brilliantly put KOOL

Feminism is about equality and human dignity it isn't and should never be interpreted to be about superiority and emasculation!

Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000

Thank u Light .😊 Thats precisely what i meant .

Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000

Is thar girl goon really coming ? That Angads sister ?

Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000

Soap bubble

You have misunderstood me my dear . I have not called the movement of feminism as faaltu . I have called Feminism wrongly comprehended as 'faaltu feminism' which many women conveniently resort to , to do gross injustice and manmaani . I am not even talking of Pratigya , a fictional character when I am explaining this sentence to u right now. Expressing feelings is not just the right of women , it is also the right of men .......in short , the right of eVERY human being . Demanding that everything shud be on the woman's terms alone cannot be real feminism in my opinion . Neither is insulting men . Women hate being slapped but resort to slapping men when they themselves feel justified , which is in my opinion unfair , as what is justifiable or not is a highly subjective matter . A woman may get in a crowded bus just like a man after 8 hours of a working day and may expect a man to get up and give her the seat due to chivalry but may not get up and give her seat to a man the next day if he gets in at the later stop . There the 'I am a woman after all ' thing comes in the picture . Thats what I call faaltu feminism , and I am NOT talking of a pregnant woman here .

Looking strictly at this serial , I felt , a lot of understanding has been shown from the man's side , in a rustic , crude , shambled way , of trying to understand a woman's psyche but none has been shown from the woman's side at all ..........the attempt to understand a man's psyche , inspite of she being blessed with a helpful tool called education that enables one to understand things better .

I have great respect for feminism ........I deplore chauvinism , and I cannot stand feminism comprehended wrongly [ what i called faaltu feminism] so I put it on the same leverage as Chauvinism . Krishna talks chauvinistically but his actions are egoless and bely his parrot like talks. He has no problem touching his wife's feet in the mandap , working with her in the kitchen , saying SARRY to her in private or public , placating her if he has miffed her . Pratigya's rigid , unbending stand and constant preaching and sermonizing comes across as 'faaltu feminism' ...........in real feminism , one works together with the man towards achieving a goal . Anyways , Let us see what happens further in the serial .

Dear Dyehard

Thank you for your reply .

You said that all women who get married and demand time don't plan to play the eternal tease and femme fatale and frustrate the man . I agree . But in effect , doesn't that happen ?And thats why I asked , how long , in my post . A month , till she feels sexually comfortable ? A year ? Two years { here a man may start divorce proceeedings and I won't blame him coz a woman will do the same if SHE is not touched by the man for two whole years , and even if he decides to do so after two years , she may be so hurt emotionally that she will perhaps revolt at his touch and may not want him anymore .]

Originally posted by: Dyehard

Dear Kool,

A entirely equal relationship is an ideal. This "Equal music" is something we may all aspire to, and very few lucky ones will achieve. Still I agree that the fun is in the trying and that it must be aimed for.
Having said that, I have to say that the circumstances of every relationship are different and generalisations simply don't work.

About the KriYa relationship:
It is not something Pratigya entered into with good heart. She felt coerced into the relationship, almost as a last-ditch sacrifice to buy her family's happiness. (You may argue that there were several options but we know that every fictional narrative has certain compulsions and we have to go with the flow.) So she is unhappily married to a man she hates; she believes that she has been coerced into the relationship. She can't stand to be touched by him, she states this fact. Is that so bad? She has even told him that he may have her by force if he wills but not her love or willingness. Does she have no right to do this?
More recently she realises that he is not responsible for half the wrong-doings, and she softens towards him. She evens feels a bit quilty for judging him so harshly. She has decided to give the marriage a go. A REAL GO! not a compromise to secure a moderately save future with a powerful man for a husband. But a real marrige with a real person who she has just begun to see. She has certain ideals of friendship, sexual trust and yes! even LOVE. She knows it will scar her heart to be coerced before she is ready. She understands this about herself. She conveys this understanding hoping to be understood in her turn. She is lucky to find a man who DOES! Because whatever Krishna may say in words, he knows deep down that pratigya needs to be an equal partner in their love-making and not a sacrificial-lamb who is righteous in her Patni- Dharm.
For that matter do we want Pratigya to give herself for any reason other that LOVE? Or is she to be one of those scores of righteous women who let their husbands use them in exchange for the security and shelter they offer. Do we want her to be Kesar?
Does Krishna's love not deserve an Equal Love?

Coming to the general idea of arranged marriges:
Like Soap Bubble pointed out, arrange marraiges are not accompanied with great sensitivity. Women and MEN are expected to get on with it at the word go! This is true of several traditional cultures around the world. But India is at the crux of change. People do get married in the old manner but their motivations and expectationas are changing. All lot of women who get married in this way don't mean to play the eternal tease or femme fatale and frustrate a man or renege on their marital agrrement, but hope for just a little time to adjust to the phisical proximity of a man and build a little bit of trust. Unless there is a violent atrraction ( sometimes even when there is!) the woman takes a bit time to adjust and be comfortable emotionally. Added to this, we cannot forget that she has just faced an huge upheaval in her life, left her former life- family and friends- behind to share the life of a relative stranger. (a dozen meetings in cafes and mobies and drives don't make people emotionally close, constant proximity does)
Today a girl does not have to lie down and think of England or the Indian cricket team, she has the option of enjoying her sex life too. So if she feels sexual trust will help her towards a better marriage, why should she not say so? Several good men lose the trust of their wifes for life by being very aggresive and selfish new husbands. Sexual callousness in a budding relationship is hard to forgive and difficult to set right. Is that not a pity when couples could have had a lifetime of trust and happiness, for a little patience?

One last thing, I am myself many times embarrased by the aggression of women in demanding seats on buses, but inspite of this i shudder to think of the plight of women in jam-packed buses if the had not been given special (even unfair sounding) privileges. It is something of a necessary evil IMO.
But to compare this kind aggression and some of the womanly viles and teasing ways for which women have been condemned for centuries, with the fears and reservations of a newlywed wife is grossly unfair.

Dyehard