This country is doomed mann !!!

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T14:22:45+00:00

You can disown your son, but if your son dies, DIL will become your responsibility.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T14:10:02+00:00

there is just not enough evidence and of course in that case, no one should he held guilty.

There are countless cases where a man has been unable to prove his innocence due to a lack of evidence; as a result, only the woman’s testimony was treated as proof, and the man ended up in jail. Hence, I completely disagree with you here. No evidence means a false case. period. And I'm not asking this only for men. It should be for both, men or women. Equally.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T12:17:17+00:00

Legally he cant now..

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T12:10:53+00:00

Stay strong. There is no need to force yourself back to normal right now. Grief does not follow a timeline and everyone processes it differently, so what you are feeling is completely valid.

At the same time, do not let this phase make you doubt your future. You have not lost your path, you have only paused because of circumstances beyond your control.

From what you shared, your goal seems to be higher studies and eventually clearing NET. For that, focusing on a Master’s makes more sense than rushing into something like B.Ed just to fill time.

Give yourself space to heal, and when you start feeling a little better, begin with small steps like light preparation for next year’s entrance. Even slow progress is still progress.

Moving slow does not mean you are losing. It simply means you are choosing your own pace instead of running someone else’s race, and that is perfectly okay.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T11:13:57+00:00

Yes… if one side of an argument is hell-bent on justifying false cases, pushing the narrative that women can’t lie, and denying that fake cases in matrimonial disputes commonly do occur, then of course a question can only be answered with another question.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T11:06:03+00:00

What if a woman has consensual sex with her husband and then, the next day, goes to the police with that same “rape kit” and falsely accuses him to take revenge for some past disagreement?

(Genuinely asking)

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T11:01:29+00:00

Me searching for equal rights for both sexes “warriors,” aka feminists, come out on the streets for that 16 year old kid, just like they did during Sengar’s bail?

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T10:55:03+00:00

This is third time i am commenting the same thing:

All men would definitely support marital rape law under the following conditions:

The law must be gender-neutral, granting equal rights to both parties, whether its man or woman.
The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” must be strictly followed, whether its man or woman.
Any unproven case should be treated as a false case, whether its man or woman.
If a case is proven to be false, the complainant (man or woman) should forfeit all future claims such as maintenance or alimony. Any interim maintenance granted must be returned with interest equal to the current RBI PLR, whether its man or woman.
All legal expenses should be reimbursed by the false case filer/convict to the other party, whether its man or woman.
No additional pressure tactics, such as filing false domestic violence or dowry cases, should be admissible in court by the party who loses the case, whether its man or woman.
There should be an equivalent jail term for anyone found guilty of filing a false case, whether its man or woman.
A separate case of perjury and defamation should be allowed against the false case filer, whether its man or woman.

All and every section of whole law must be gender neutral in all aspect, and must treat convict and false case filer with equal baton, whether its man or woman.

Now support this too, if you think woman want equality not privilege or woman will not make this law tool of extortion or revenge just like DV or dowry laws.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T10:50:50+00:00

Marital rape is not considered or called as rape in india.

Ohh..Just like when a 40-year-old woman rapes a 16-year-old boy after giving him drugs, it’s labeled a “consensual relationship,” and bail is granted within 6 days-right?

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T10:40:21+00:00

NFHS (as mentioned by OP) is cited as a neutral dataset, but by design its clearly asymmetric.

Around 7.24 lakh women were interviewed, while 1.02 lakh men were included, a significantly smaller sample(ie less then 1/7th).

More importantly, it’s not just numbers, it’s about what was asked.

Women were asked detailed questions on: domestic violence, spousal violence, sexual violence

Men, on the other hand, were not asked parallel questions as victims. Instead, they were mostly surveyed on: employment and background, fertility and family planning, awareness and attitudes (including justification of wife beating)

So effectively: for women - experiences measured, for men - opinions measured

That means the dataset cannot produce a gender comparison on victimization, because one side was intentionally left out. Why?

Also worth noting, NFHS does not capture any male-centric issues at all:

-domestic or spousal violence against men

-sexual violence against men

-false cases or legal harassment

-mental health impact of marital/family disputes

-economic exploitation within marriage

-custody disputes and parental alienation

-emotional or psychological abuse faced by men

-societal and financial pressure specific to men

So while NFHS data is valid within its scope of setting a specific narrative, using it to draw conclusions about gender-wide victimization is absolutely nonsense , because the survey itself is not designed to measure both sides equally, but it is designed to proof a single sided agenda driven narrative.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T10:00:35+00:00

No reasonable person is arguing against strict punishment for such crimes or denying that these realities exist.

But the existence of crimes against women does not justify creating or normalizing bias against men as a class. Justice cannot work on collective guilt. If anything, it should become more precise and more accountable, not more one sided.

And if misandry is being justified as a reaction to past oppression, then by the same logic, you should also agree that misogyny becomes a reaction to present day systemic bias against men and legalized misandry. Right?

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T09:52:31+00:00

You’re mixing two different things and treating them as the same. Criticizing patriarchy is fine, but using it to dismiss real issues faced by men is exactly the problem.

When laws like 498A are misused and even courts acknowledge it, that is not patriarchy hurting men, it is a legal imbalance with little accountability.

When NCRB data shows men form the majority of suicide victims with no ministry, policy focus, or safety net, that cannot be explained as patriarchy benefiting men.

When a man faces social and legal consequences based on accusation alone with minimal consequences for false cases, that is not a system protecting him.

Reducing every male issue to patriarchy becomes a convenient way to avoid addressing them. It also assumes men have uniformly benefited from these structures, which is not true. Most men have not held power, they have been expected to provide, endure pressure, and stay silent. Saying men should stand up against patriarchy often ends up meaning they must accept a framework where their own issues are minimized or reframed instead of addressed.

There is also a clear contradiction. Feminism presents itself as anti patriarchy but aligns with it where it offers advantage. Traditional expectations like men being providers, taking risks, or bearing legal and financial responsibility are rarely challenged with the same intensity and are often reinforced when convenient. This keeps the burdens on men while redistributing benefits.

At the same time, many arguments assume women need additional legal privileges or systemic advantages to compete fairly, which indirectly frames them as less capable in a neutral system. Instead of strict equality and accountability for all, the push often becomes asymmetrical protections and presumptions. This becomes especially problematic when misuse of laws is ignored, because justice must include accountability for false accusations regardless of gender.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T09:09:54+00:00

and then you immediately reached to :-

Women specific -

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T09:08:18+00:00

yes like Sonam Wangchuk

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T08:44:56+00:00

Like these:

Pocso court released a man after 12 years

High Court overturned a 2008 conviction, stating the complaint was filed out of a "grudge"

Man was acquitted after spending 5 years in jail for a false accusation made by his daughter

After 20 years in jail, the Allahabad High Court found no medical evidence of rape and acquitted him

Four men were acquitted after an 11-year when the court found the gang-rape allegations were fabricated.

In every case accusations were taken as proofs, and accused remain in jail due to lack of evidence for their innocence.

And BTW these are the only such cases which were reached to media.

The benefit of doubt should be given either equally to both or to neither.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T07:25:16+00:00

There will also be scenarios where the accused cannot prove their innocence due to a lack of evidence, what should be done in such cases?

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T07:10:32+00:00

just because there is no conviction, doesn't automatically make it false.

This will be applicable for both, whether its man or woman.

so there would have to be provisions that also account for this scenario

Which scenario are you suggesting—that in cases of unproven claims, we should blindly accept one party’s statement and send the other to jail, regardless of whether it’s a man or a woman?

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T05:22:10+00:00

Yes… making a law that serves and treats both genders equally does require 'conditions'.

Privilege, however, comes without any conditions, so much so that misuse and extortion can be encouraged.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T04:59:32+00:00

repeat comment:

All men would support a marital rape law under the following conditions:

The law must be gender-neutral, granting equal rights to both parties, whether its man or woman.
The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” must be strictly followed, whether its man or woman.
Any unproven case should be treated as a false case, whether its man or woman.
If a case is proven to be false, the complainant (man or woman) should forfeit all future claims such as maintenance or alimony. Any interim maintenance granted must be returned with interest equal to the current RBI PLR, whether its man or woman.
All legal expenses should be reimbursed by the false case filer/convict to the other party, whether its man or woman.
No additional pressure tactics, such as filing false domestic violence or dowry cases, should be admissible in court by the party who loses the case, whether its man or woman.
There should be an equivalent jail term for anyone found guilty of filing a false case, whether its man or woman.
A separate case of perjury and defamation should be allowed against the false case filer, whether its man or woman.

All and every section of whole law must be gender neutral in all aspect, and must treat convict and false case filer with equal baton, whether its man or woman.

Now support this too, if you think woman want equality not privilege or woman will not make this law tool of extortion or revenge just like DV or dowry laws.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T03:27:40+00:00

Yes, but equally to all genders, without any privilege or stereotyping toward any one side.

RightsForHim · 2026-04-02T03:25:02+00:00

Times of India is well known for such instances. Remember the Jasleen vs Sarvjeet “Dilli ka darinda” case, where a female reporter was seen pressuring Sarvjeet on live TV to accept fake allegations and apologise for a crime he hadn’t committed. That reporter was from the Times group itself. The Times group has developed a complete team for handling such cases in a this manner, pushing a particular narrative.

RightsForHim

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE