Shantanu – The King of oppressed men may be a mythological story of an oppressed man, but it is no farther from truth, as mythologies are also inspired from realities. Today’s oppression of men and the resulting skyrocketing suicides and nose-diving life-expectancy as explained in Male Disposability – Myth or Reality might seem like a recent development.
However, as they say, “Truth is stranger than fiction”, indeed truth is stranger than fiction. Victimization of men is neither a purely mythological concept, nor a recent social development. How to be a Spartan? Clearly explains the enormous amount of violence, physical torture and emotional castration that boys had to undergo in Ancient Greece in order to master their role of protector and unpaid bodyguard when they grow up as men.
I came across an interesting judgment by the Bombay High Court under the erstwhile British Raj in India. The judgment can be found at link. Highlights of the judgment,
- It is a 1927 judgment about a marital tiff.
- Indian man was married to a British woman.
- The wife was not able to adjust in the Indian weather, so after a few trips back and forth between India and London, finally decided to stay back in London while the husband was in India.
- When she finally left, the husband gave her money enough to maintain herself for a year and wrote to his brother-in-law about the same. The brother-in-law in turn, did not accept this and threatened the husband with false cases of desertion which were eventually filed with a volley of false allegations.
- The court while admitted that the allegations were false and the husband was put to great hardship due to that but still ordered maintenance to be paid to the wife from the husband.
- The husband also proved that he had been sending money to the wife, which was returned back twice, which means she did not need the money, yet the court insisted on the husband giving money to wife.
This judgment is not a one-off case. Men are often made to undergo the dubious torture of fighting a false case and punishment for being a man more often than not. In this particular case, it was clearly NOT a case of desertion as presented by the wife against the husband and she went to the extent of killing the trust in the marriage – the foundation on which the institution rests – by leveling false allegations against the husband and the judge yet admitting the situation, did not spare the husband and rejected his plea.
The case clearly shows that men in bad marriages should not expect any justice from the system and this situation was equally bad way back as 1927. Often, champions of women’s causes, popularly known as feminists often cite “tortures on women in the past”, from a past that the current generation has neither witnessed, nor is responsible for that.
And that argument of a “bad past” is used to justify current crimes by women and bigotry. But this judgment has to be awarded the “Whistle Blower’s” award. It successfully and evidently blows the whistle on imaginary oppression of women as propagated by feminists and which has formed the basis of not only rampant misandry in the society but also male disposability and unconstitutional, anti-male laws leading to blatant victimization of men.
This judgment points to a gruesome fact that victimization of men which is a chronic social disease has unfortunately been trivialized so far and is continued to being trivialized in an invisible manner, courtesy “Male-Disposability” syndrome.
Even in the current judgment, the problem faced by the husband is not actually being forced to pay maintenance, but a “listening” problem. Judiciary is no different from the society as they have grown up in the same society and are equal prisoners of societal attitudes towards men – numb and insensitive to abuse of a man, completely disconnected with the male experience of circumstances and situations, and alien to the male world.
This behavioral pattern is completely visible in the judgment. Inspite of all the facts being right there in front of the eyes, the judge is not able to comprehend the fact that rather than the wife, it’s the husband who is being victimized and upholds punishment to the husband. The judge does accept the wife lied against her husband, dragging him into unnecessary litigation. Yet, the judge forces the husband to maintain a liar wife who is neither ready to comply with her marital obligations nor ready to be truthful. What more a victimization of men could ever happen than this?
The genesis of the problem lies in the “Listening Problem” as mentioned above. Feminists must share a lot of credit for developing this listening problem against men. By accusing men in power of bias towards men for “Listening” to men, an atmosphere completely against the male experience has been grounded in not only modern times but since time immemorial of which this judgment, 83 years old is just a peripheral evidence or at best the tip of the iceberg.
The fraud played by feminists is not coming to light for the first time. Ernest Belfort Bax, in his book, “The Fraud of Feminism” has enunciated the same way back in 1913 – 14 years before this judgment was passed and 97 years ago from today’s times. And despite this treatise speaking truth, the mere fact that misandry still exists in forms of male-disposability and unconstitutional and anti-male laws clearly shows the foolproof existence of “Victimization of Men as a Chronic Social Disease”.