Feminist Leslee Udwin murders innocent person for being both Indian and male

Another victim of Leslie Udwin’s brutal vendetta against Indian men:

Nagaland government has conveyed to the Centre that Syed Sarif Khan, who was lynched by a mob in Dimapur last week, did not rape the girl who accused him of assaulting her but they had consensual sex twice. (source: the shillong times)

Is the close proximity to the date of the release of BBC’s Leslie Udwin’s crappy film, India’s daughter, a mere coincidence? I don’t think so. The murderers who murdered this innocent person, hurling racist slurs (of being an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant, while he was actually an Indian from Assam) at him, weren’t uneducated, illiterate, or economically poor people, but teachers, and other educated folks.

Let’s see the story.

A random stranger, a woman, follows Khan into a hotel, and claims she’s willing to have intercourse with him for a sum of 5000 rupees. They do so, twice, and then this woman demands a sum of 5 lakh rupees, threatening to file a case of rape should he not comply. He refuses, and she, keeping to her “promise”, files a rape charge against him. He is imprisoned for this. One fine day, a mob bursts into the jail, grabs him, and drags him 7 kilometres from the spot, where he is accused of being an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant, stripped, beaten up, his scrotum cut open, castrated, and shredded to death. A few days later, he’s found to be innocent. There is no case filed against the woman.

Now, swap their genders. There would be millions of feminist blockheads across the world, screaming, blocking random streets and disrupting their nations’ economy for no particular reason, and 7 billion agitated people.

Is this the world that feminists wish to create? A world with no rule of law; a world where men are treated like slaves and discriminated against for their gender, serving women; a world where a sexist apartheid is clapped for by more than half the population?

Thanks Leslee Udwin.


This is why I detest feminism

I’m all for battling sexism. But feminists aren’t. Most feminists are sickening idiots who would like to promote sexism against men. Most feminists believe in sexual abuse of children, and are pro-rape, as long as the victims are male. They’re the people who cry over the dishonest claim of 20% lower wages for women, but wholeheartedly support men having 80% lower wages than women de facto, by having to spend for their family.

This is the criminal who bribed a rapist, his lawyers and the guards of a Delhi jail to get an interview which could potentially prevent him from getting a death sentence. Sick racist and sexist, calls 600 million people “sick” – double negative, check!
Ooh, so it looks like Kuwait’s lecturing us on women’s rights?
[TWO IMAGES HAVE DISAPPEARED, APOLOGIES] The image in the tweet, I mean. This is a well-educated professor of biochemistry in Germany, who has a doctoral degree in her field speaking.
This is not the first time that this same professor, Annette G. Beck-Sickinger has revealed her sexist, racist nature. And oh, no action has been taken against her by the university. Had the genders been reversed, and perhaps the nationality too, this would be an entirely different matter, with feminist groups all over the world screaming and blocking random streets for no reason.

I oppose proposal to make rape laws gender-neutral. We had opposed it when the government made child rape laws gender-neutral. After the feminist wave of the 1980s, many countries in the West made rape laws gender-neutral. But, they have realized these laws are harming women more than men. There is physicality in the definition of rape, there is use of power and the victim has a stigma attached to her. If made gender-neutral, rape laws will not have the deterrence value and it will make it more complicated for judges in court. – Flavia Agnes

So this feminist, and a very prominent one here in India, explicitly admits that their intention is to harm men, rather than achieve gender equality (by opportunity), or even to benefit women. She also explicitly reveals her pro-rape stance, as long as the victim is male, and that she spares not even children from her pro-rape views.

Here’s what Vrinda Gover, another prominent Indian feminist has to say about this issue:

Why should rape laws be gender-neutral? That would be making a mockery of what is actually happening in the country. There are no instances of women raping men. I don’t think men are facing serious sexual violence as women. Consider the brutality and intensity of sexual violence against women. Hope the home minister does not put out a bill that delays or obfuscates discussions on the issue

Obviously, providing justice to all rape victims, without discriminating by gender, is a “mockery”. Well, yeah it is, of her sexist crap.

Dear BBC, are you endorsing rape?

Dear BBC,

I seek clarification regarding your film, India’s daughter. Let’s make this clear, are you endorsing rape?

Yes, the Delhi state government and police did a bad mess-up and let you interview a rapist and murderer, and shame on them for that! But your actions could lead to a rapist going away scott-free, with tons of money, and spread propaganda in favour of rape.

You bribed a rapist Rs 40,000 to give you some psychopathic statements, statements which even such a disgusting criminal asshole of a shithead would not believe in, so as to support your shitty propaganda against India (there are a ton of racist, anti-Indian articles on your website, enough said), portraying every single one of 600,000,000 Indian males as a perverted rapist sexist psychopath. Let’s make this clear. You paid a rapist. You incentivised rape. You are hurting India’s daughter, not the 600,000,000 Indian males, a lot of whom areperfectly sane, respectful and rational. You are raping India’s daughter.

I bet you know, that by making someone, who wasn’t directly the rapist, but involved in the crime and a witness to it, confess the crime, in public, in an extra-judicial setting, without the presence of his lawyer, you are permitting the rapists themselves to cry that they weren’t given a free trial, so that no death penalty could be awarded, and in effect, they could go scott-free. You are hurting India’s daughter. You are raping India’s daughter.

Your director left India before the film was released, to save his shitty skin. You clearly saw that the victim’s parents protested against the publication of the video. You are hurting India’s daughter. You are raping India’s daughter.

Oh, and did you know?! The per-capita rape  rate of  the U.K. is a whopping 14 times that of India’s. And don’t even talk about under-reporting. 60% of rapes go unreported in the U.K. Your conviction rate? 7%. Ours is thrice of that. 97000 people are raped in your country, every year, and that’s just what’s reported. 85000 are women, 12000 are men. Under-reporting is much worse among men than among women. 5% of women under 60 have been raped, and 0.85% of men. If you go by the reports.

It’s pretty obvious, that you endorse rape, sexism against women, sexism against men, racism against Indians, and so on. Ooh, and look who’s teaching us about women’s rights:

Kuwait Times teaches India women's rights?
Kuwait is obviously the world leader in women’s rights.

Your pathetic journalism is harming the lives and careers of innocents.

The matriarchial remains of a former patriarchy

Feminism – The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Perfectly conveyed. Feminism is not a fight for egalitarian opportunities for the sexes. Feminism is a fight for women’s rights, and only women’s rights – no, not just women’s rights, but women’s EXCLUSIVE rights. Feminists do not care about the rights of men, the gender roles assigned to men, or the gender expectations from men. “Equality” is merely an excuse for the feminists to promote their cause. They gladly endorse any traditional privileges given to women, and mark it as a sign of women’s “enlightenment”.

Women are expected to stay at home and do the dishes? Men are expected to work to support their family single-handedly. Women are expected to be delicate and weak? Men are expected to be strong, rough, and have no physical weaknesses. Girls are expected to sing and dance? Boys are expected to play and fight. Women can get raped? So can men. All men are potential rapists? So are all women. All men are potential rapists? They’re also potential rape victims. Women get paid less for the same jobs (a lie)? Men are expected to spend their salary on their wives too. A woman is the sole breadwinner for her family? Billions of men doing that too. Women not allowed to take a few posts in the army? Men are forced into fighting in the army in countries like Singapore (which isn’t even threatened by war, and even if they were, they should follow the model of Israel, instead of implementing their own screwed up, sexist model). Female rape victims don’t get justice? Male ones don’t even have a law to protect them.

Here’s the best list I found from a simple google search: What are some common ways in which men face sexism?

Don’t get me wrong. I know that oppression of women is wrong. I know that women get oppressed more than men in society overall. However, I am only stunned by the hypocrisy of feminists. Urban society outside the Islamic world generally oppresses men much more than women. All a woman needs to do to ruin the life, career, and reputation of a man, is to file a false rape allegation.

I am also stunned by the sheer persecution complex of the feminists. They justify their beliefs by the ridiculous proposition that “women are weaker”. Even had this been true, then are we to make special laws for all the different races who are “weaker”? We should go about oppressing Sub-saharans because they’re physically stronger? And what about pain endurance, in which women are superior to men? Are we to go around accounting for every difference between groups? Women’s better memory, men’s better compartmentalisation of cognition and emotion, women’s better skills, men’s better perception…

Look at Singapore – it’s a rather sexist society that favours women. Women have lower standards for passing physical fitness tests at childhood, women don’t have to ruin their education like men do, for military service between high school and undergraduate studies, and so on. This is actually rather common in most urban areas, unfortunately.

There are lots of ways in which men are oppressed, and women have no counterpart for, that society refuses to notice. This starts at primary school, when the predominantly female cohort of elementary school teachers favour girls over nearly everything. I’m only half-joking. More seriously, most countries have no laws against rape of males, and many laws are severely sexist against men.

In India, a woman may refuse to be arrested by the police at night. Yes, you heard that right. Refusal to be arrested. Wow. Proof is not necessary for imprisoning someone for dowry (guilty till proven innocent). Oh, not someone, the male and his entire immediate family. What the hell is that? Oh, and by the way, the “entire immediate family” doesn’t include his sisters, though it does include his brothers. Wow, just wow. Upon divorce, it’s always the man who has to pay a maintainence fee to the woman, even if he was a “house-husband”. Oh, and no laws against male rape. None. Until recently, this included sexual violence against male children. This is what a prominent Indian feminist, Flavia Agnes, has to say about making rape laws gender neutral:

I oppose proposal to make rape laws gender-neutral. We had opposed it when the government made child rape laws gender-neutral. After the feminist wave of the 1980s, many countries in the West made rape laws gender-neutral. But, they have realized these laws are harming women more than men. There is physicality in the definition of rape, there is use of power and the victim has a stigma attached to her. If made gender-neutral, rape laws will not have the deterrence value and it will make it more complicated for judges in court.

In other words, rape laws should not be made gender-neutral, because women are intriniscally of greater value than men. Ah!

Other feminists, such as Vrinda Grover, outright deny the existence of male rape.

Why should rape laws be gender-neutral? That would be making a mockery of what is actually happening in the country. There are no instances of women raping men. I don’t think men are facing serious sexual violence as women. Consider the brutality and intensity of sexual violence against women. Hope the home minister does not put out a bill that delays or obfuscates discussions on the issue

I ask them how this is any different from Dharamvir Goyat’s claim that “90% of rapes are consensual”. Actually, it’s different. It’s more than 11% worse.

How egalitarian, right?! It seems that these feminists simply can’t tolerate males being as legally powerful as females. And guess what? These two feminists managed to completely overturn an attempt by the central government to make rape laws gender neutral! Do these feminists really deserve so much political power?

Good thing it looks like feminism is on the decline, this millenium.

This is not to say that there aren’t some “feminists” who truly believe in equal opportunity for the sexes. I prefer to call them “gender neutralists”, instead of feminists. I generally define political stances based on the actual political stances of the majority of those whom claim to practise the stance, and most feminists are just female chavunists, and thus in my eyes and ears, feminism and female chavunism are the same thing. These are the ones who managed to make rape laws gender-neutral in Europe. They aren’t the ones who clap for the matriachial Khasis. They are the ones who truly believe in gender neutrality, who truly fight against gender roles, patriarchial, and matriarchial.

Ironically, the present matriarchy is due to the past patriarchial situation, or from similiar untrue axioms and similiar flawed logic. Before it was Women are weaker therefore they need to be trapped in a house. Now it’s Women are weaker therefore they need special rights. Feminists like to hold males as the culprits for patriarchy. However, the entire society is to be held responsible for this. Patriarchy means putting men in power and women not in, this doesn’t necessarily favour men.

To be fair, nature oppresses women more than it does to men. For starters, the ability to pee while standing without taking off your pants fully. More seriously, women get pregnant, they need to suckle their young, and they have periods. There are more female-exclusive diseases than male-exclusive ones. But the solution is not to oppress men more to balance out this oppression. The solution is to use our intellect, and our technology to combat nature head-on.

Can’t pee while standing? How about 240 degree (4/3 pi) zips? Suckling your young? How about artificial human milk? Pregnancy? What about in-vitro? Female-only diseases? Eradicate those, period (pun intended).

Oh, and by the way – let me make this clear: I do not endorse any of those stupid men’s rights groups that told people to vote for the Samajwadi party. The SP stinks of sexism (against women), communalism (against Hindus), and socialism (against the economy, duh).

See also: Dear modern feminists, so this is what you’re saying? on SkepticInk.

The ongoing neocolonisation of Evernote

Evernote for Mac, Evernote for iOS. The only two evernote clients which aren’t unusably terrible. Some Evernote apps are only available for iOS or for Mac OS. Everybody stuck with the bug-sick green elephant! The grass is really gre- er… purpler on the other side at OneNote. Ironically, these people who just upgraded to 2007 design in 2014 (they were stuck at 2001 design till then) were awarded a design award from, guess who… Apple.

Evernote is all praise for Apple, such as in this document, where it hails Apple (and to be politically correct, and Evernote, not including Evernote) as a game-changer for education, something which will never be true, despite the sheer number of fools buying Macbooks and iPads for gaming in school and listening to music from iTunes in a coffee shop, also known as “Education”. The document is named, unsurprisingly as apple_edu.pdf and not apple_and_evernote_edu.pdf.

Actually, what they write makes sense. Writing “Apple and Evernote” is like writing “Microsoft and OneNote” or “Microsoft and Windows”. The relation between Apple and Evernote is similar to what was the relation between Microsoft and Nokia until Microsoft bought its Lumia phones division. Evernote is in the early stages of a neocolonisation by Apple.

Microsoft’s business model is:

Support them, Compete with them, Beat them, Kill them, Establish a monopoly, Get kicked hard by the Maoist courts for no particular reason

Apple’s is:

Compete with them, Reduce your competition with them, Eliminate your competition with them, Pretend to love them, Sue them, Fine them, Get them hanged, Give out your evil laugh, Resurrect your competition now that there is no competition remaining, Establish a monopoly, Go unnoticed by the courts

Beware, Evernote. Seriously, it’s annoying how Evernote ignores bugs in their web, Windows, and Android clients. Anyway, Evernote has no feature that OneNote does not. So, OneNote >> Google Keep >> Evernote. Evernote could have been significantly better than Google Keep, if not for the glaring bugs.

OneNote, on the other hand, is a full-fledged Microsoft Office beast. They could have gained a much larger market share if not for the undeserved poor reputation that Microsoft has (thanks to people associating IE6 from 2001 with Microsoft now in 2014, for no obvious reason).

Capitalism is about equal opportunity; Communism is about equal outcome

TL;DR – If you’re too stupid or too lazy to achieve what I did with the same opportunities, it’s not my goddamn problem. And anybody who suggests otherwise is a commie.

Communists love to shroud their true ideology under the name “egalitarianism”. But egalitarianism what? Egalitarianism of opportunity? Egalitarianism of natural abilities and provisions? Or egalitarianism of outcome? The communist ideology is, in fact, all about equal outcome, no matter how you would prefer to deny it. Granted, many self-proclaimed capitalists claim to support capitalism, which is about egalitarianism of opportunity, whereas what they really support is the discrimination of minorities.

What do reservations and quotas achieve for “equality”, economy, or science? The objective of reservations is clear. This is what their proponents say, “It’s to ensure that minorities don’t get under-represented in society“. Under-represented. What does this mean. That the outcome is fairly equal. It does not tackle real problems of discrimination; all it does is ensure that everybody gets discriminated.

Your child died in a car accident? So sorry, now I’m going to have to kill all children in car accidents, so that your child didn’t have to die. Oh wait, it doesn’t work that way. That’s just too bad. Because… I’M STILL GOING TO KILL ALL CHILDREN IN CAR ACCIDENTS! What, someone died? NOW I’M GOING TO MAKE THE HUMAN RACE GO EXTINCT! WOO-HOO!

What’s my problem, you ask? My problem is that:

  • It’s not my problem if despite having the same opportunities as me, you’re too stupid and/or lazy to achieve what I did.
  • Imagine a world with equal outcome. Now everybody will suffer, and no exceptional talents will arise. Yay <hi-five!>.
  • Socialism results in the oppression of people because their ancestors oppressed other people, and this cycle continues on and on, with multiple more communist revolutions, with a lot of bloodshed, economic destruction, and communal animosity.
  • Remember the competitions when the announcer would announce “Today, all of you are winners“? That’s of the same value as saying, “Today, all of you are losers“. The value of “winning” just gets devalued.
  • A good analogy for socialism is in stupid reality TV shows, in which the invited guests request that nobody be disqualified. That justs result in more people being disqualified in the next session. Sacrifice the future, for the present.
  • Communism encourages laziness. There’s been much said on this anyway.

Basically, socialism is about oppressing the ones with merit and supporting those with none. Even if they had the same opportunity.

Socialism is about equal outcome; Capitalism is about equal opportunity.

Socialism is about tasty painkillers; Capitalism is about medicines – bitter ones.

Socialism is about making voters’ life comfortable till the next election; Capitalism is about making people’s lives better in the long run. 

Socialism is about killing your child’s future to enjoy yourself; Capitalsim is about forgoing some luxury so your child can feed himself.

Socialism is about enjoying tobacco and killing yourself; Capitalism is about avoiding such to lead a healthier life.

Socialism is about discriminating against those who’s daddies discriminated against others; Capitalism is about equal opportunity.