Vivek Ganesan
Vivek Ganesan

An independent researcher

The Feminist Call for a Nuanced Debate about Atul Subhash - A PsyOp?

The Feminist Call for a Nuanced Debate about Atul Subhash - A PsyOp?

You must have seen feminists quoting The News Minute article titled 'Atul Subhash’s suicide must not be a no-nuance men versus women debate'

Summary

You must have seen feminists quoting The News Minute article titled “Atul Subhash’s suicide must not be a no-nuance men versus women debate”

Did you know that this piece is a great example of (non-military) psy-op conducted on Indian citizens?

Let us examine the claims in this article and determine if they are nuances or nuisance.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride ✈️

What does the article promise?

This article in question has a sub-heading:

“While it is extremely important to probe how men are victimised, it is also pertinent to see why the law offers more protection to women.”

Since this is the sub-heading of the article, any sane person would expect a minimum of 2 things from this article:

  1. Probe how men are victimized
  2. Show why law offers more protection to women

The article makes a malicious attempt to do (1) while completely forgetting about (2) above.

Let’s see how 👇

Who wrote this?

Naveddu Nilladiddare, a collective advocating for women’s and human rights issues, has now elucidated this in a detailed statement ….

For the record, this is not a piece written by a journalist, but instead a verbatim copy-paste of the statement released by a feminist group.

But, you don’t have to dismiss their claims just yet. At least, not before getting entertained by their displays of sheer logic.

Let’s get started - What are their claims?

The Claims

Claim 1

At one level it is by the police wrongly classifying certain crimes as ‘dowry harassment’ or ‘alimony dispute’.

The author says that women don’t put fake dowry harassment cases. It is the police that wrongly classify their complaints as dowry harassment. 😕

So, what would these innocent women have written in their complaint to the police? “My husband is NOT harassing me asking for dowry. Please save me?” 😂

And what kind of police classifies a crime as an “alimony dispute”? What section is that crime in IPC or the BNS? Indian law does not have any such crime (yet) 😁

The author’s agenda is to shift the blame away from fake-case extortionists and put it elsewhere.

Claim 2

Their [Police’s] continued inability and insensitivity to understand or accept domestic violence in its multiple forms unless it is linked to ‘dowry demands’ leads to … IPC 498 A in order to ‘strengthen’ the complaint even when there are no such demands.

According to the author, the police want to strengthen the case by adding ‘dowry demands’. Fake accuser women REALLY do not want to do that.

Also, “Boohoo! police cannot take the complaint of just domestic violence without any ‘dowry demand’ claims” 😭

Are you serious? Being a feminist group, they must have heard about PWDVA (Protection of Women from DV Act), no? Apparently, they haven’t heard of it. Very good feminist group 😅

Also, if the police add these sections themselves, why aren’t these saintly fake-case extortionists objecting to it?

Why did many of them have to come to court and spew the same memorized complaint statement as their evidence, only to be shaken in cross-examination?

Even educated women (engineers in IT companies perhaps?) are also gullible and don’t understand that they are being taken for a ride by the police, right?

At least, TRY to make some sense, please!

Claim 3

Faulty and over-enthusiastic implementation of 498a also leads to the unnecessary arrest of family members leading to mothers and sisters of the husband also languishing in jails, leading to more claims of misuse.

Does the complaining woman NOT demand the arrest of her in-laws?

Do the implementers (aka police) arrest the boy’s family for no reason?

And, the author says, just because of over-enthusiastic police, there are claims of misuse of 498a now 😐

Again, fake case extortionists are innocent saints and the blame has been shifted to the police. Mission accomplished! 🏆

Claim 4

… what is of deeper concern is that this tragic suicide, instead of pushing us to reflect more deeply on the emotional vulnerability of men … degenerating into … debate of ‘men’s rights’ vs ‘women’s rights’ …

The author agreed that some women misuse laws, yes!

But, without missing a beat, the author now goes on to talk about a ‘deeper’ concern - We don’t talk about the emotional vulnerability of men.

Why did the author shift topics suddenly?

If we don’t talk about that, then we will end up debating men’s rights vs. women’s rights like we do now, which will certainly affect their agenda.

Claim 5

A Lancet study showed that among social groups, daily wage workers were at a greater risk of death by suicide … From 13,944 in 2014, cases of death by suicide rose to 37, 751 in 2021 among men involved in daily wage work.

The author’s advice is that MRAs need to focus on daily-wage workers and not techies like Atul.

The numbers they quoted seem to be from this NDTV article

Can you guess the title of this NDTV article?

See the title in the picture and blow your mind, please👇

NDTV Article titled 'Suicide rate 2.6 times higher among Indian men compared to women'

Moreover, data for the above NDTV article comes from this study report by Lancet

Shocking points found in this very Lancet article are these [Each can be seen in screenshots too]:

  1. Analyses of unnatural deaths among adults show that men more frequently die from suicide than women Screenshot of the article

  2. SDRs (Suicide death rates) in men compared to women were twice common in 2014, which increased to 2.5 times in 2021 Screenshot of the article

  3. Women of all educational levels show a decline in suicide deaths, whereas men’s suicide mortality increased at all educational levels Screenshot of the article

  4. There was a 107.5% increase in citing family problems as a reason among men during 2014–2021, approximately two-fold of that in women Screenshot of the article

Wait! There is more!

  1. The SDR (Suicide death rate) among currently married men (24.3) was three times that of currently married women (8.4).

  2. Rising suicides among married men and daily wage earners, having frequently cited reasons being family problems followed by health issues, are highly concerning.

  3. Low suicide among women might indicate better coping mechanisms for dealing with stress

ALL this data clearly speaks about the deep shit that married men are in!

Still, the author cherry-picked the daily-wage workers stats and ignored married men, as a diversion tactic!

Nice trick, indeed!

Claim 6

As per data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) … one farmer/farm labourer dies by suicide every hour in India.

This is another textbook case of diversion. Why on earth would we talk about farmer suicide when we react to Atul’s death? He was not a farmer!

The author has highlighted how many farmers die of suicide per hour. The number is 1.

The same NCRB data from 2022 shows that one married man kills himself every 6.27 minutes.

Why doesn’t the author talk about married men’s suicide, when it is right in front of them? Think!

Also, this tweet adds more detail to this statistic about married men:

Claim 7

… while a few men might bear the brunt of the “misuse” of the laws … most women, girls, and gender minorities continue to bear the brunt of everyday patriarchal control and violence.

“Few” men are victims of law misuse. But, “most” women are victims of blah blah.

The feminist author is jealous of a man snatching the victimhood away from fake-case extortionist woman, even after he died.

The author knows - after all, playing the victim gives one the utmost power!

Claim 8

Cases of men being victimised by such laws should be dealt with separately and holistically and not be used to provoke knee-jerk reactions that lead to a watering down of the laws that exist.

Translation: “Men are victimised. But, don’t water-down the laws, please! Pretty please?” 🙏

No one is talking about watering down the laws.

We are all talking only about ADDING protections for men, not about removing protection for women.

Claim 9

The reality is that for one woman who goes to the police or Courts … there are thousands who continue to suffer different forms of economic, emotional, physical, and sexual violence, silently accepting it as their fate.

According to the author, 1 woman goes to court but thousands of women don’t.

The author hides behind the “unreported cases” excuse.

A dumb question: How do you know there are unreported cases, when they are not reported?

Have we invented a magical way to do that?

Feminists claim that the magical way is the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)

Reminder: NFHS is not a valid data source for domestic violence. It is a one-sided attempt to malign Indian men. See here for more details.

Claim 10

If the system is flawed and corrupt, it is not the laws that need to be challenged and changed. Measures must be put into place that ensure that this system … be sensitised, held accountable, …”

The author does not want us to touch the laws. They want us to leave them be, even when they are bad.

They want us to blame the ‘system’ that implements the laws instead - the system of over-enthusiastic police and misleading lawyers that they warned us against earlier.

For someone who wants to conduct a debate on the vulnerability of men, it is funny that they don’t want to change the laws to include men as victims of domestic violence.

Interesting, right? 🤷‍♂️

Claim 11

We understand the pain and anguish of marital distress and a child custody dispute that pushed this young man to take his life. This is exactly what we continue to witness with women who are victims and survivors of family violence.

For the easily-irritated, here is a simpler version:

  1. Atul was in pain due to his wife’s bad behavior
  2. Also, his wife used the child as a weapon
  3. This led to Atul’s suicide
  4. And, SURPRISE! This is exactly what victim “women” go through all the time.

Eh? 😕

Did these victim women have wives too?
Did these victim women bear child with their wives?
Did their wives use the child as a weapon?

I have SO MANY questions 😁 Sorry I cannot express all of them.

This concludes our fun ride!

What do we do now?

  1. Bookmark this link - This is an archive (dot) org snapshot of today. Don’t allow them to edit their article now.

  2. Anyone who uses NCRB, NFHS, Lancet data to discredit men’s rights - They deserve to be slapped with this thread. Do the honours!

  3. Ask your MLAs and MPs to protect you from misuse of laws by punishing the fake-case extortionists with jail term. Make it an election issue for them.

  4. Show men some love ❣️

Peace ✌️

PS: This article first appeared as a X thread here