@@Olivia-ep5mi yeah, a lot of people are doing this.

@M.Com: Men'sCommission India !#Equality women cricket boundaries are shorter and ball,bat used are lighter.

@M.Com: Men'sCommission India !#Equality 😂😂 Even some were calling Neeraj Chopra toxic masculinity etc...I mean they have literally don't have brain or sense and on other side some are busy sexualizing him on internet... Just imagine he is a disciplined sports personality... He wanted to be acknowledged for his talent not bcz girls want to have F*** with him

This is happening from ages... it’s nothing new buddy

@@Olivia-ep5mi Feminists fight against equality. No real feminist fights against equality. Those people aren't real feminists. The following is a very informed and highly reusable comment by Karen Straughan in response to a feminist who thinks the many blatant sexists among feminists aren't real feminists (American context but still): So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousandssof members all of whom call themselves feminists.. they are not "real feminists That's not just "no true Scotsman'". That's delusional self deception. Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. Ive been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one. But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating" and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, 'we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls. You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discussit Would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist. You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape. You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male. You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate. You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum Could not be met and the bill died then and there. You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender. You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands. You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands. You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history" You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is 'not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders theres a "legal way to rape them. And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based. You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

@@Olivia-ep5mi did u even read my comment😂😂

@@Olivia-ep5mi hitler was leading the nazis. No body care what his army men think. Similarly the feminism torch bearer is looked upto and not what other think. And since the the ground reality is anti men culture by feminism, so be it.

@@Olivia-ep5mi yes I did bcos its a gud reply to 'comment section real feminist'

The fact is that women should and are getting laws for them in india .

This is one I can disagree on. Criticise women, not feminism. Ok, many will come at me and say feminism made the women strong and gave her rights but the point is feminism didn't advocated for how u should use those rights. That's the question of ethics and morality, not of feminism. Feminism was simply giving equality so u put men and women on same pedestal and judge their rights or wrongs according to only biological identity not their social differences. When any rape happens , nobody criticises MRAs, everyone criticises men. Similarly criticise women, if u r criticising a movement like feminism, expect a defense from that movement. Feminism has every right to defend itself from the irrational edgelords disguised as critics. Saying lets talk about that man is the prime issue but plz, feminist won't participate if u say that feminism is responsible for this. If u're starting this debate, expect them to say why feminism isn't responsible.

Not true Scotsman fallacy.

@@Aman-qr6wi feminism is a movement but it gets enacted by its people. Feminism is just a cover now for misandrists

@@Olivia-ep5mi what does feminism have to do with this ? The girl in question is a self proclaimed feminist, just like the feminists who are claiming authority of the movement and invalidating her claim. In short, shrugging it off rather than addressing and condemning it. Thus, leading to a decline in the credibility of themselves and the movement/ideology that they claiming to defend. Because actions speaks louder than words, and the definition of the movement in its initial years loses its value when the actions contradict it. You might not be able to see through it, but the rest do. There's a reason why women are distancing themselves from the movement in record numbers, you can either try to fix it, or call names to those who don't agree with you.

True, we are not supposed to say 'not all men' but if they say 'not all woman' or 'not all feminist ' it is right. Hypocrisy

@@Olivia-ep5mi thas why i said 'or' not 'and'

@@thenoobinvestor6930 🤣🤣🤣

@@NiteshKumar-mb1ni my brother❤️🍻🍻

Wouldn't they name it equalism though? And.. when people say black lives matter they don't mean that white lives don't.

@@r.i.t.i.k.a patriarchy means that male on top of hierarchy that doesn’t mean women can’t 🤔

@@NiteshKumar-mb1ni Honey the literal definition of a patriarchy is that men hold the power while women are excluded from it. At this point you're either incredibly stupid or you're just trolling. And honestly. Why do you love patriarchy so much? If you really like equality why do you advocate for patriarchy?

@@r.i.t.i.k.a did he say he loves patriarchy? Maybe u shud stop assuming things

@@thenoobinvestor6930 He did.. in another comment section.. maybe you should read more

Even rohtak sisters case the judge has left them saying both parties have gone through a lot🤷‍♂️

She is all equalists pride❤️💯

Sympathy SE kya Hoga ? Uski toh life kharab ho gyi ab 😑 .

@@Olivia-ep5mi If there are differences that means that men and women are not equal as there are two different standards for men and women. Also in a relationship the men lead women follow.

Men are physically stronger. So he is supposed to protect the family. The man is supposed to be the breadwinner of the family because women date up in socio economic status. So if he has such responsibilities then he also should have the authority. Women seek a superior and that's why men should lead in a relationship.

@@Olivia-ep5mi Woman are born with value , and men have to create there value. Men do so by dedicating almost all of their life to there career so that they can reach to a certain respectable position in the society. If men and women were equal , the world would have been perfect for every individual but guess what it isn't . The point is that we view the world very differently woman usually think that loyalty of man towards woman is not to have intercourse with another women but really loyalty of a man towards a woman is to provide for her and protect her . Men usually do not say this bcz they have a fear that the woman around them will lose respect for them eventually ghosting them.

@@Olivia-ep5mi luk I kno u r a gud person but u have to understand these physical and psychological differences also is a reason why they can't be equal. Woman tend to lean towards 'people' jobs and men tend to lean towards 'things' job. There are many differences which doesn't make it equal. If u know feminism enough u will know that its in their core belief that its because of patriarchy. They even kicked out James damore from Google for pointing out the differences in a memo

@@thenoobinvestor6930 govt has opened position for women in mining industry but still we don’t see there presence in huge number ? Why is it so ? Is this not opportunity ? Why no feminist talk about it? Why don’t they encourage women to be a part of it. I know I may sound rude here but that’s a valid good question.

Bro just search for Lucknow girl on utube u will find out

@@thenoobinvestor6930 Found it. Thanks.

Thank you so much, I don't have a podcast at the moment haha

@@equalistaastha I didn't thought you would get back to me. Thanks though, keep up the good work! 👍

@@equalistaastha Hello Aastha, your opinions on this matter is much appreciated. If you dont mind, can you kindly mention or post link to the videos which have come in defense of feminism in response to this incident. Thank you

She is not criticizing woman she is criticizing feminists. Instead of actually saying the girl was wrong they are busy defending feminism. If slapping 1 girl gets and entire series why is slapping a guy so many times so trivialised. Why is she not arrested on the spot? You are the using logical fallacies here

they think men are evil and women are victims everywhere, they want to divide the genders

@Swapnil Chavan police goes numb also when a woman files an fir against rape, violence or assault of any kind.

@Swapnil Chavan if the girl would have been a poor fellow, things would have been different. Police would have kept mum also if the person were a rich guy instead of that woman.

@Swapnil Chavan also, such cases of woman hitting or using their power of any kind ( definitely not feminism) , are rarest of the rare but quick enough to be reported. Whereas most cases of violence against women are not even reported. The woman should anyway be punished as a man would. But the point is, people are using this case to defame feminism which means gender equality and not what today's narrative portrays it.

@@dancelikedytto8325 And this is why people like me have to constantly say the same thing over and over: They are not doing these things under the veil of feminism. Feminists are doing these things under the veil of "being about equality". This is something people sometimes find very difficult to understand. Feminism is not just its dictionary definition. I mean, not to go all Godwin, but in the 1930s, I bet the German dictionary definition of Nazi was: "a member of the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Planks in the party platform include discouraging smoking, universal state-funded health care, a strong economy and promoting civic responsibility." And no, I'm not saying feminists are equivalent to Nazis. I'm demonstrating how a dictionary definition can be incomplete, and what is left out of that definition can actually be the most important part of it. To understand feminism as a movement, you have to understand the theories. Perhaps in their minds, even the very bad ones are advocating equality, but this is based on a very skewed worldview. Feminism's grand, unifying theory is "the patriarchy", and they have spent a lot of time and effort describing what they think it is, how they think it operates and who they believe is ultimately harmed by it. Patriarchy is basically just a bastardized marxist model where "bourgeoisie" is replaced with "men" and "proletariat" is replaced with "women". If you were to take the Declaration of Sentiments of 1848, arguably the first feminist political manifesto, and replace "bourgeoisie/proletariat" with "men/women", it would read like the simple "oppressor/oppressed" model of class conflict on which marxism is based. While I do think there is some value to the marxist model when it comes to things like class and even race (in terms of explaining how things work), the male/female gender system simply doesn't work that way. Both men and women have more consistently positive feelings of affiliation for women than for men, for instance. This is not the case when it comes to race or class, is it? Anyway, the body of feminist theories describe how the world works, at least in terms of the relationship between men and women within society. I can tell you right now, the theory is complete hooey. It's based on incomplete information, emotional reasoning and all kinds of cognitive biases. For instance, feminists claim that violence against women is a global epidemic. Why? Because 1 in 3 women, at some point in their lives, will be physically or sexually assaulted. The numbers for men are higher. I expect that at least 2 in 3 men have been punched in the face at some point before they die. Feminists claim that for women it's different. As the oppressed group, women are singled out for violence because they are women, and because "patriarchy" condones and normalizes violence against women. But then, you ask, why when a village is being attacked are the men expected to die defending the women? Why do we even have a Violence Against Women Act, if we live in a patriarchy that condones and normalizes violence against women? Why is it that, no matter whether the perpetrator is male or female, violence is more likely to be perpetrated against a male, all the way back to toddlerhood when mothers start hitting their sons 2 to 3 times as often as their daughters? If patriarchy normalizes violence against women, and we live in a patriarchy, how do you explain the entire canon of western literature, where the villain can be instantly identified by his willingness to hurt women, and the hero by his willingness to avenge them? Why, within English Common Law centuries prior to Blackstone's Commentaries, were married women ensured the "security of the peace" against their husbands, enforceable through courts of equity? Why are there hundreds of years's worth of cases of abused women seeking redress from the courts, and hundreds of years' worth of court decisions sentencing batterers to public flogging and other punishments? Didn't you feminists tell us all in the 1960s that up until you guys came along, wife-battering was not only legal, but perfectly acceptable? Why, when a man is hit by a woman, do people mostly ignore it, but the moment he defends himself, all of a sudden everyone's concerned enough to intervene? Why are men called upon to be the protectors of women, when writing laws, when enforcing them, and even when acting as bystanders? How, in my grandfather's time, could a man find himself punched in the face by male bystanders for using vulgarity in front of a woman, let alone laying his hands on one? You have to realize, all of their views about violence against women (that it's condoned and normalized) are filtered through that oppressor/oppressed model. To them, a man hitting his wife is someone powerful hitting someone with no power. A woman hitting her husband is the violence of the oppressed, and therefore justified as a form of self-defence (even if he has never laid a finger on her). As such, it isn't really violence. It's as contextually different as a slave flogged by his master for failing to pick enough cotton is from a master beaten up by his slave during an escape attempt. The former is an atrocity, and the latter is justice, and feminists vehemently believe that women are historically the equivalent of slaves and men the equivalent of masters. (Which is beyond absurd, considering that even the slave codes of England and France had provisions written into them protecting female slaves, but not male ones, from the most extreme forms of violent punishment and abuse.) This is why despite the fact that women are the least likely demographic in society to be victims of violence (and that includes children), and even though have their own special laws protecting them from violence (in most countries, not just the west), feminists are consumed by the false notion that violence against women is normalized and condoned by society. And this is why they have consistently suppressed any and all data regarding spousal and sexual violence against males, especially when perpetrated by women. Since 1971, when the first data was publicized that women were as likely to be violent in their relationships as men were. Since 1979, when the first major peer-reviewed study was done on intimate partner violence that asked the same questions of men and women, and resulted in gender symmetry. Since later studies that definitively demonstrated that domestic violence almost never has anything to do with "patriarchal notions of masculine dominance and the subjugation of women," and is more often a function of generational violence, substance abuse, poor coping skills, mental illness and inadequate conflict resolution skills on the part of both men and women who are violent with their partners. Since other studies found that lesbian relationships have the highest incidence of partner violence (including sexual violence), and gay male partnerships the least. That information cannot be assimilated into the theories they've constructed. Many of them are true believers in "patriarchy theory". Others are too deeply invested in it to entertain contrary data--if you'd spent your life devoted to a theory of society, earned power, status, respect and a cushy position at a university based on it, would you be willing to admit you were wrong, even if deep down you knew you were? Would you be willing to not only give that up, but face the public scorn of having essentially been exposed as a crackpot? More than this, would you be willing to admit you had caused so much harm? Wouldn't it be easier psychologically, on some level, to keep on believing? When you see a study that says when men call police for help when their wives are attacking them, they're more likely to be arrested than assisted, and you were partly responsible for making that happen, wouldn't it be easier to say, "he was actually the abuser, he got what he deserved" than, "holy shit, what if I was wrong and hundreds or even thousands of abuse victims have been arrested instead of helped"? And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but feminism has never been a noble movement for equality. As I said, from the Declaration of Sentiments onward, it's been tainted with a false model of how the world works. I have no doubt that even many of the most radical feminists honestly believe they're advocating for equality. But in the objective sense, this is simply not true. They've misdiagnosed the problem, ignored half the symptoms, and are applying a cure that is worse than the disease.

@Swapnil Chavan exactly no media cared if not due to social media trend. I can even assume how much one sided narrative they have laid when the main stream media was the only source of info.

Copied comment?🙄 Not from me of course 😄 But still feels like one.....

@@BlandBloke Not from KZfaq. The No True Scotsman definition is from a website about logical fallacies. The Karen Straughan quote is from Reddit. She said that in response to a, "tHoSe aReN't rEaL fEmInIsTs" feminist.

@@brianm.johnson4438 I agree with what you said but it just seems as if you have this entire thing already copied in your clipboard 😛..... thats all

@@BlandBloke Well, I can't just rely on memory when I need counter arguments.

@@brianm.johnson4438 so ...............in short you agree with feminsm being cancer right?

I posted about this on Facebook 2-3 days ago...I'm far more active on Facebook & Instagram about current events :)

@@equalistaastha Facebook is collecting more data on you . Post here also please 😜

Yep

Feminists feed into the narrative that men are evil oppressors who are always responsible for women's actions. They came up with the Duluth model.

@@brianm.johnson4438 Are police really that helpless in this issue. Even a common man on the street would know that if a situation/ fight arises on streets, they should intervene, stop them and punish the trouble maker and not the victim. But here even the police took a seat back and became the audience rather that law enforcers! Police should have known better... I do see your pov on why general public may not want to intervene due to their assumptions n I hope people have learnt something from this incident to be not biased. Again it's not feminism that is to be blamed, but set of assumption people have (probably cuz most preparators are men). N if that assumption has to go, crime rate against women would actually have to come down..

@Swapnil Chavan I think so too. But atleast I hope, from this one incident, the police will turn more aware and equipped to handle a situation like this ..

@@aparna5868 Until you can convince me beyond any reasonable doubt that if the policeman had intervened, feminists wouldn't have framed the woman as the victim and gone, "This is clearly an example of how pervasive misogyny affects women everyday." and gotten the policeman in trouble, feminism is to blame.

No being equalist like aastha didi is the solution💯

Boy go find someone else.

When people react after this incident saying "where are the feminists now" they are not entirely wrong. But u also have to understand that people who really understand feminism and are feminists will never support this woman's behavior.

What people hate right now are 'feminazis' not feminists. They just don't know the difference between the two

@@saaniyanetravalker3864 1000 % agree with you..honestly I just wish people would understand what feminism mean

@@Olivia-ep5mi u know i can paste that comment here again if u want

@@saaniyanetravalker3864 this goes same way for "real men" as well. A "Real men" is man of ethics and he never do anything to hurt anyone consciously or unconsciously. But i see feminist attacking it day in and out. That make me think are the feminst endorsing bad men ?

I agree with you on everything but you can't blame it on Aastha

So after being completely obliterated while you tried to defend feminism, you delete your comment and then accuse all of us of being misogynists (because you can't come up with an actual argument).

@@Olivia-ep5mi I don't blame it on Aastha either. But her using the word "equalist" makes misogynists think that they are right.

@@brianm.johnson4438 Oh honey it's funny how you're so overrated to yourself. I deleted the comment bcaz I wrote that comment while I hadn't completed watching her entire video (which I had said in that comment). And what I had to say was later already said by her. And yes.. You are a misogynist. If you pick up every possible opportunity to trash on feminism then you are a misogynist. Honestly. Do you even care about the guy who did get beaten up? No. Caz I don't see any of y'all talking about the actual guy. You're just shitting on feminism.

@@r.i.t.i.k.a look what I have found a toxic feminist

Are you mallu 😃

@@thomasshelby7482 aahda .. ninne enikk ariyam.. mallu rationalist sub alle .. comment boxil kaanarund