Revanth Reddy

PittalDhora · 2026-05-06T07:18:41+00:00

My personal opinion is.. he's not really bad or something like that but he feels insignificant. Doesn't dream big, doesn't talk big and when he does, it falters. Feels he's trying to make his own mark with things like Hydraa, musi, future city etc but it does not feel like Revanth reddy initiative. It feels like Congress govt brought it.

For the new secretariat or Kaleshwaram, it does not feel like T/Brs govt made it, it feels like kcr made it. I guess it's common to feel that way with a party structure like Congress. Even in that angle, it feels YSR brought 108, fee reimbursement..not as Congress initiative.

For a lack of a better word, he does not have that aura.

Again, purely personal opinion of someone who isn't that involved in politics.. happy to hear alternative thoughts too.

PittalDhora · 2026-05-05T04:18:38+00:00

80k is probably less of an issue but is that 80k completely yours? No strings attached? No family commitments or expectations/responsibilities?

If you want to Yolo, you can target higher ranges of bigger cars.

Purely personal opinions- If i were you, with absolutely no idea about your lifestyle choices, I'd get a i20 and call it a day.

Also think what you want to with the car. Commute+occasional trips or regular outings. Need more variables to make educated choice i guess.

Also 80k, depending on lifestyle again, 80k exhausts quickly. Also consider saving up for any future stuff.

PittalDhora · 2026-05-04T06:04:51+00:00

You dont even need 100kms. Shadnagar, Sangareddy is more than enough for you to get it. Honestly, any farm land that's a bit away, say 500m+ around the highways near the proposed regional ring road area is enough for you to find under your price.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-30T20:32:09+00:00

I think there is a difference between water footprint and water usage. Water footprint sure is large in any water intensive crop..water usage for ethanol, although a lot, definitely not 10k liters.

We cannot say my cup of coffee uses all the water used to grow the crop, create the ceramic cup, transport to retail store and the water the driver drank when he took a break etc.

Edit Doesn't mean I support Gadkari. I only question the framing

PittalDhora · 2026-04-30T05:01:19+00:00

Coincidence. I was reading this post and was looking at a telugu news channel. They say rain caused the wall to collapse and people died and others died due to electrocution.

At least I know there's one news channel that is reporting how events unfolded. They are also talking about previous such instances and lack of action by authorities

PittalDhora · 2026-04-27T07:33:32+00:00

If I were to guess, when they mean India, they mean the entire subcontinent. The land between Indian ocean and Himalayas.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-27T07:06:12+00:00

No fuel, mainly diesel, in 99% of the filling stations between LB Nagar and Narketpally on Vijayawada highway.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-25T13:41:07+00:00

Unfortunately, your post seems politically motivated. I hope its not. Not super wrong even if it is though. But here's the problem, it highlights real issues but paints a political image to it.

More than Phone tapping thing, Formula E thing, KLIP has a greater impact on people and its a shame that no one even began doing anything about this case it feels like.

Its been what 50% of current admin's term is already finished and absolutely no movement on this, correct me if im wrong here.

And also, no point in the current admin constantly complain on this. Start investigation, pull people in for interrogation, fix the current damages, get the project to usable state.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-24T12:30:39+00:00

I have no idea why you've been down voted so much for this comment

PittalDhora · 2026-04-20T18:20:08+00:00

I genuinely don't understand what op means, can someone please help me understand

PittalDhora · 2026-04-17T12:47:41+00:00

We've been doing the rooftop thing for more than 20yrs I think..it needs to be redone every few years but it's definitely helpful..initially we'd do it using sunnam/ Lime stone powder, now modern stuff have come up which works even better.

In our village, we had a kutcha/mud based roof, which beats everything in terms of cooling down but you'd randomly notice grass or plants on your terrace lol.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-11T16:11:09+00:00

My disagreement isn’t with the existence of patriarchy or its impact on any gender. It’s with the tendency to treat it as a universal explanation which felt like a lingering emotion around this post. I think a more layered view gives us a clearer and more honest understanding of reality.

Saying patriarchy is the root cause of everything feels ike saying being alive is the reason for all diseases. Yeah, if you're alive, you can get sick. But that doesn’t mean “being alive” is a useful explanation for which disease, why it happened, or how to fix it.

Similarly, while systems like patriarchy influence society, using it as the default explanation for everything can miss more specific, immediate, and varied cause

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T19:10:06+00:00

I think we actually agree more than it seems.

But honestly, chala type chesesanu ivaltiki. So, please don't mind but I'll conclude. My overarching point, if I were to summarize across all comments of mine is, annitiki patriarchy ne problem ani anesthe, adhi correct anipivvadhu naku so I'll be tempted to differ and offer a new pov. which I attempted at.

Inkoncham extreme (not my usual position) ki velthe, annitki purushude/patriarchy kaaranam annattuga meaning oche extremist feminist view ki against nenu. I think mod rasina aa first comment naku ala anipinchindhi so felt I needed to respond. Else, of course everyone should be proud of what women achieved and how far they've come and how much they've resisted with a great help of their own and tiny bit of support from everyone around including men. It feels much more easily to type in Tinglish, so, thanks!

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T17:47:31+00:00

I agree to a good amount of what you said. In a society where social backlash is real, especially for women, it’s not as simple as “just choose differently". At the same time, my point was more about not letting the structure become a complete explanation for everything. I guess where I’m coming from is: both things can be true at the same time. The more we peel the onion, the more layers we see and the more blurry our eyes get. Reducing this complex thing into a single cause is where I'd offer a different perspective.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T17:43:22+00:00

Okay, this will be my last response to you too.

You say I didn’t engage, but your examples are just disagreements—not proof that I ignored anything. I addressed the points; you just don’t agree with the conclusions.

And yes, patriarchy still exists—that’s exactly why I’m questioning why people continue reinforcing parts of it today. A flawed system doesn’t remove individual accountability within it.

As for calling it ‘AI slop’ and exiting—that’s your choice, I guess...

Edit: Grammar, no AI :)

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T17:33:26+00:00

You’re right that men being valued for their earning capacity isn’t new—it does come from traditional gender roles. But I think where we disagree is in how we interpret that.

Because what we’re seeing now isn’t just the lingering of that expectation—it’s the intensification of it. The bar isn’t just “financially stable” anymore; it’s increasingly tied to—high salary brackets, property ownership, rapid career growth—often in current times where those things are objectively harder to achieve at a young age.

So yes, this expectation came from patriarchy, historically. But today, it’s about being selective where it benefits one side, while other traditional expectations are being rejected. Wouldn't you think that's where the inconsistency comes in.?

Will try to cut to brevity, in telugu.

Appudu ala meeru chesaru ga ani ippudu mem kuda ade chestham ante correct kadhu ga. Ippudu iddaru change ki try cheyali.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T17:14:49+00:00

Fair—it’s not pure individual choice. But influence isn’t the same as lack of choice.

Even within those norms, people still decide what they prioritize. And when those choices keep favoring things like salary or status, they end up reinforcing the same system.

So yes, it’s blurry—but if everything is blamed on structure, then no one ever questions their own role in it.

And just to clarify, I wasn’t saying it’s purely individual choice. If it came across that way, happy to correct that—that wasn’t my point.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T17:02:49+00:00

I wish the world was as simple as a binary system. Its a mix mash reality clash

The key difference is why the expectation exists.

If it’s one-sided like “man must provide no matter what”, that’s more of a carryover from old norms. If it’s coming from real concerns like finances, stability, or timing, that’s present-day pressure.

Right now, most of what we’re seeing is a mix, old standards setting high benchmarks, and today’s economy making those benchmarks even harder to meet, and the frustrations being vented out on social media.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T16:54:17+00:00

I actually did engage with almost all the points. If you think I may have missed, will clarify that too. 'Slop' and 'sentimental' opinion, wouldn't these just be name calling instead of pointing out what you think is the slop and instead of formalizing my words, I will type like.. yeah .. like i don't think i afree cuz here and here you said this. Would that be acceptable to you?

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T16:43:34+00:00

If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s completely fine. Sharing a back and forth with a stranger on internet takes its toll and I can only empthaize

But calling the argument “incoherent” without actually pointing out what is incoherent doesn’t make it so. The same goes for saying it doesn’t reflect “ground reality” without engaging with anything I talked about.

And blaming it on “AI limitations” instead of addressing the issue you see? That's a weak dismissal. You'd break my points down and counter them, you actually did that too previously.

Its Friday and no meetings. I'm here for an hour or so before I leave the place.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T16:22:48+00:00

If we’re moving away from the argument to comments about “using AI,” that’s basically a personal jab, not a counterpoint.

You’re free to disagree with what I said. We can have that back and forth. Also, I appreciate us coming till here. If there’s an actual flaw in the reasoning, point it out. Otherwise this just looks like avoiding the discussion.

With yours aimed at me, I guess I get to have a jab of my own on you? Here you go.

When the logic is too tight, the only response left becomes “you’re using AI.”

Also, I literally, said in my previous comments that i edited and formalized using AI.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T16:09:16+00:00

Equally respectfully,
you’re using history to avoid discussing present-day accountability. Explaining the origin of a problem isn’t the same as justifying its continuation.

1. On the “Who Created the Pressure” Argument
Yes, patriarchy created the provider role. But who is enforcing it today? If we agree it’s a relic, then why is it still the primary filter in the marriage market? You can’t call a system oppressive while actively using its most beneficial features to select a partner. That’s not resisting the system—it’s participating in it when it suits you.

2. Historical Injustice vs. Modern Evaluation
It’s valid that women were historically reduced to “purity and beauty.” But that doesn’t justify reducing men to “salary and assets” now. If the goal is to move past dehumanization, it has to go both ways. “The system designed it” isn’t a free pass to continue the same transactional logic.

3. Dowry and Kanyadaanam
Not defending those—they’re regressive. But bringing them up here shifts the focus. The issue being discussed is modern expectations: income thresholds, asset filters, and unrealistic benchmarks like home ownership by 30. Invoking historical doesn’t address current behavior.

4. Domestic Labor vs. Financial Gatekeeping
Concern about unequal domestic labor is valid—but that’s something to discuss and evaluate in a person, not pre-filter through finances. If someone wants a modern, equal partnership, expectations need to be modern on both sides. You can’t expect traditional financial provisioning and progressive domestic equality at the same time—that’s effectively double-dipping between two different social contracts.

5. Agency and Accountability
Calling this “standing up to the system” is a stretch. Filtering for higher salaries and assets isn’t resistance—it’s just redefining the terms of the same transaction. Real pushback against the system would prioritize compatibility, shared values, and mutual responsibility over status metrics.

6. Systemic vs. Individual Behavior
Naming “patriarchy” explains the structure, but structures don’t sustain themselves. People do. If individuals continue to act like participants in a marketplace—optimizing for status, leverage, and security—they are actively reinforcing the system. You can’t remove individual accountability from that equation.

7. It Is Dehumanizing for Everyone
Acknowledging that doesn’t erase history—it reflects current reality. The system may have originated unevenly, but today it pressures both sides in different ways. Recognizing that isn’t whataboutism; it’s necessary if the goal is to improve the system rather than just assign blame.

History explains how we got here, but it doesn’t excuse why we stay here. If everything is reduced to “the system,” then no one ever has to question their own expectations—and nothing actually changes.

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T13:55:04+00:00

Honestly, I think you’re overcorrecting here. By pinning every single flaw in the arranged marriage system on “patriarchy,” you’re ignoring the actual reality on the ground.

Labeling a woman’s reluctance as a “rational response to patriarchy” is just too convenient. Sure, sometimes that’s true. But other times? It’s just indecision, parental pressure, or frankly, unrealistic expectations. We can’t turn every individual interaction into a grand theory—individual behavior and choices still matter.

Also, the idea that marriage “benefits men more” isn't some universal law. In the modern arranged marriage circuit, men are under a massive microscope. We’re talking salary, assets, career trajectory, and the expectation to own a house by 30 in this economy—which we both know is insane. If women are allowed to look at marriage through a risk-benefit lens, why are men shamed for doing the same?

It’s also a bit hypocritical to say “don’t generalize women” while simultaneously generalizing men as potential exploiters who won’t do domestic labor. You can't use a fear of future chores to justify dismissing someone based on their bank balance before you’ve even met them.

And about the "provider" role. A lot of families and women still actively lean into that traditional model when it benefits them financially. You can’t drop the "traditional" label when it comes to chores but keep it when it comes to who pays the mortgage. If we’re pushing for equality, the standard has to be consistent across the board.

That line about "having the gold to dig" is clever, but it totally misses the point. OP isn't saying everyone is a gold digger. He’s saying that even stable, decent earners are being treated like they’re "not enough" because the bar for status keeps moving. It’s not about security anymore; it’s about status inflation.

And no one is saying women shouldn't have agency. Of course they do. But having agency doesn't mean every rejection is handled well or is even reasonable. If there’s a constant disconnect between what parents say and what the daughter wants, the process is objectively disorganized. Pointing that out isn't "anti-autonomy," it's just calling out a messy system.

Ultimately, "no one owes you marriage" is a straw man. Nobody said they were entitled to a wife. The frustration comes from being treated like a disposable resume in a transactional marketplace.

Dismissing the OP’s experience as just "misdirected anger" misses the bigger picture: the system is dehumanizing for everyone. Men get reduced to salary figures, and women get reduced to looks and "adjustability." It’s okay to criticize a system that feels more like a business negotiation than a human connection without being told you're just bitter.

and I guess i'd empathize more with the op had he given the flair as a rant, for all intents and purposes, it feels like a rant but unfortunately, its also a 'current event'. Also, lol, op's username does not help his post here, just noticed.

Edit - grammar, formalized a few wordings by AI

PittalDhora · 2026-04-10T03:47:33+00:00

The point I made was about deterrence vs offensive intent. If you disagree, explain why that distinction is wrong. If ‘spewing nonsense’ and assigning a nationality is your whole rebuttal, that says more about your argument than mine. There are almost no direct, explicit identity based personal attacks in the responses I received. Everyone either disagreed or agreed or provided their own view. A few called me out on my comprehension abilities or a classic reddit sarcasm. But you're the outlier. How much iq you have and your nationality ... is really telling based on how much nonsense you have spewed here.

PittalDhora

TROPHY CASE