The Other Side Of The Coin

Jayasala, the other side of the coin is still discrete and not tricky to perceive, so the apt figurative in this case could be the "embedded" side of the coin like the spinning dancer, also known as the silhouette illusion, designed by Nobuyuki Kayahara. Why? The sight of a dominating perspective diminishes the other. Both co-exist. Intriguingly, challenging to uphold both the visions as one takes prominence the other fades away.

(Is she spinning clockwise or anti-clockwise?)



These hot-button topics are like those optical spinners challenging to demonstrate the other and messier side in the same representation. I understand that your post is to be mindful of that "embedded" fallout. Within the clockwise empowerment is ensconced the anti-clockwise exploit.

However, akin to the beguiling spinner, the articulation of a chosen percept is considered as the trivializing of other's sidedness. (I see it clockwise! But I am trying to say that anti-clockwise also exists! But it is mostly c/w. But within it is a/c/w)

You, a blogger in your advancing years, and I, an eccentric contributor, have little to lose in reputational crisis in our online discretion. Just wanted to tell you ..intrepid of you to write about the sides less talked of along the roads less taken.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

A very informative article, Jayasala mam.

Every coin has two sides and both the sides are real and indisputable. But...the societal structure and our accepted system of a woman moving to her marital house, not being eligible for a share in the parental property(**even though the Hindu law gives her equal rights, seldom it is implemented in rural areas), unemployment, lack of financial freedom etc make women weaker and undoubtedly, in many households they are regularly subjected to mental and physical torture. These factors are undeniable.
(** too many ifs and buts here)

In general, when a high premium is based on saving marriages, women are forced to put up with a lot of ill-treatment including accidental deaths while cooking or drawing well water!!!! Often societal pressure makes her parents also turn away. When these women approach police, their cases aren't even heard or recorded unless an influential social worker or some educated persons accompany them.

I think the law is misused by some wicked or educated urban women. Their misuse shouldn't make the court or government withdraw this last ray of hope from scores of really deserving women.

Stringent punishments for those who misuse laws must be implemented.

I disagree with the highlighted sentence. Both cases cannot be compared. Any wrong action committed by anyone is wrong. A newlywed woman in joint families gets no support and all the members of the husbands home have natural freedom to criticize or abuse her and she is expected to 'adjust.' In comparison, even a bad son-in-law gets good treatment in his in-law's house. Only when the torture becomes unbearable and her parents also support her, that she dares to go to the police station.

Only some scorned or vicious women misuse the provisions provided by the law and harass the husband and his family. I came across some statistics in the following link that can be generalised as, against an average of 8000+dowry deaths per year, 4000+ cases of false complaints against men were made. Here they are talking about only dowry deaths. Harassments, abandonment and other atrocities against women haven't been mentioned. How will they? Most of these cases never go out of the four walls!

http://www.questjournals.org/jrbm/papers/vol6-issue1/A06010108.pdf

While some male victims lose their jobs and get harassed by misused law, female victims by default own nothing and lose everything including their lives!

Well done, mam.

Recently someone said that her decently placed husband offered her a compensation of Rs 2 lakhs as settlement sum if she agreed for mutually agreed divorce! In a known family, when the husband realised that his wife planned to seek maintenance, he resigned from the job to prove the court that he was unemployed! In yet another family, the moment the husband realised that his wife would drag him to court and seek alimony, he disposed off his property which was on his name and bought another in his brother's name. His wife couldn't claim anything in property! How clever these men were!

I believe that both men and women come in all shades; but by natural design, women are more vulnerable.

Beautifully summed up!

 

The underlined part in Italics - You are kidding right? Please tell me are kidding.

How? How is it more serious? A wrong is a wrong, if you had said equally bad - I would have agreed with you. HOw can it be worse? If a handful of men suffer at the hands of women misusing the law, is it worse than thousands of women being burnt alive? How is a "boy" losing his job worse than a woman losing her life? If old parents are not to be arrested, how are these old parents capable of burning a human being?

 

How can justice be rendered if people believe the suffering of the two men is far more serious than the suffering of the many women who are being abused in their marital homes.

30 vs 2 and still people want the rules to protect the lives of young women to be diluted.

The rules have been changed enough to make sure men and their families are not arrested without proper inquiry.

 

Dear Jayasala,

Reg: the breakaway reflection from your earlier post which I quoted in my earlier response

Since you have uttered that out loud, the analogy of that spinning dancer is not (case vs case) in your subsequent reply but (intent vs intent) of your gumption. Here the intent is writerly and readerly intent. I meant my analogy as, it is tricky for anyone to write about an arousing topic that is embedded within another topic because of the nature of that topic, least to do with how it has been thoughtfully framed. The representation of such knotty topic is trickier than other writing that elicits ready consonance. The realization of a clockwise spin collapses the intricacy of the anti-clockwise spin. Similarly, when a blogger says something to the effect "x exists", it is unceremoniously indicted as "y does not exist, then?" by another examiner of the same spinning dancer.

The representation of both "x" and "y" to mutually exist is unsustainable to behold.

I insinuated my participation as: 'someone at the desk asked me to write up a column on this topic, I might refuse because of my inability to word up the contention through bipartisan appeal.' Such tindery topics, no matter how you word them, are wont to critical misunderstanding. Even the most diligent writer might employ a phrase or a construct which is only indicative (I am just trying to say ...) which could upset or offend someone of uncharitable scrutiny (but you said that word!).

Perhaps, I should have announced my stray intrusion better in my previous post.

These 'spinning dancer' topics are prone to incompatible misunderstanding.

You have been "intrepid" [mentioned in my previous post even] to have chosen this vulnerable musing. You have also been cordial despite the unruliness of the topic to incite predisposed participation. I could never muster that enterprise of you to disseminate the other side of a spinning motif. Hence, your snippet was noteworthy and your goodwill is esteemed.

That was all I intended restricted to your 'breakaway reflection' in my out loud exchange. Nothing "for" or "against" the writing itself but the effort and constituency behind the write-up.