On Friday, I attended a discussion organised by feminist friends about laws that are biased, and one-sided, against women.
Agreed, there are laws of this kind, which are one-sided, biased, and anti-women. On the other hand, even a simple search would throw up that there are some Indian laws (which also apply to Goa) which are also anti-men. For instance: * Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (father of deceased cannot inherit property, only the mother can); * Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 (boy entitled to maintenance till 18, a girl till she gets married); * Sec 497 (only a man can be prosecuted for "adultery"); * Sec 375 IPC (man having sex on pretext of marriage and doesn't marry treated as a rapist); * Sec 375 IPC (boy under 16 having consentual sex with a girl of his age is treated as a rapist); * Sec 498A IPC (woman alleging physical or mental cruelty can have husband/family behind bars); * Sec 354A IPC (man can serve 3 years in jail for sexually harassing a woman, but no such law for women); * Sec 37 Special Marriage Act 1954 (only the wife can claim permanent alimony and maintenance, not husband despite the actual need); * Sec 304B IPC (if a woman dies of burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage, the husband is treated as accused). On an impulse, I raised this point during Friday's discussion. I thought the women speakers would agree that there is a problem -- on both sides. To my surprise, the argument was more about "looking at the social context", etc. Not a word of condemnation, or even concern, about such gender-biased laws (against men, in this case). If equality is the target, the gender-biased laws should be fought against... whichever gender they are biased against. Ditto for the laws biased against women. Or am I missing something here? FN -- FN* फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या * فريدريك نورونيا +91-9822122436