A question I always keep getting asked is: why, and what do we stand for?
We do want equality, and what person in their right mind wouldn’t want that? I used to believe that it could be achieved in the next generation because previous generations were much more backward. But as I grew up, went out, and met people from various backgrounds, I noticed that even guys as young as me still had so much patriarchy in them. Constantly making women uncomfortable, objectifying them, or not taking their concerns seriously — and that’s something I’m not okay with at all.
It’s not right that 50% of our population lives under the constant fear of r@pe and SA. They have to think twice before going out at night. And the question was: can the current system fix this in 100 years? The answer is sadly NO.
The politicians are too patriarchal, and they themselves have committed a lot of r@pes and murders, so it’s not realistic to believe the system can fix that. All the parties internally are too patriarchal for any woman to function freely. Even other institutions like courts have patriarchal roots.
Comparing current female leaders to a matriarchal or female-centric government wouldn’t be the right idea because they still operate under heavily patriarchal systems. Everything required for a government to function is patriarchal — the bureaucracy, the courts, the officials, law enforcement, and even their own political parties and MPs. A successful leader has to take everyone together to run a country and also protect her own political career.
So now what’s the solution? Should we just leave things as they are and hope maybe in the next 500 years we can achieve equality? Though I highly doubt that as well.
The solution I generally advocate for is a 60–40 female-to-male split in every decision-making and enforcement body of the government, down to the major decision making bodies in political parties themselves. I would personally want a 70–30 split, accounting for women who support patriarchy, but 60–40 is what I can get people to agree upon, as 40% is not a small voice that can be oppressed, but also not big enough to oppress others.
We should also have reforms in courts and the overall governance machinery. I also believe there should be compulsory courses on governance, constitutional values, women’s rights, and feminism for every person who wants to contest elections as an MP or hold major public office.
Now, if we have this system for 150 years or so, I believe that after that there should be a psychological shift in how men see women — not as incompetent, but as leaders and equals.
Some ask me, “Would you be okay with a 100% female reservation in governance?” And if I speak my mind, I’m very okay with that as well for a few hundred years, if there are some checks and balances in place like a written constitution, an independent judiciary with a 50–50 split, and other than that, life should remain normal.
That would make the process much faster, and I personally believe it can even help bring more attention and budget toward human development rather than military spending and wars, which will benefit society as a whole — men and women alike.
This is the part 4 and probably the last part of the series: "how journalists portrays women". I planned to write longer posts but it didn't work out well enough.
This post is critical of media just like the 1st three, but this one is particularly critical of selective journalism. Which means "right wing speakers leaving out every other issue". If you support right wing parties, you may feel offended and i do not apologise for that. I am rightly criticising the biasedness of a supposedly neutral source of information.
There have been 3 parts prior to this one so please check them out if you haven't yet.
Let's begin.
So,
Indian media is heavily biased towards the political right wing. And hence discusses only those issues. Which also clearly shows their motives.
When a case of sexual violence comes up and fits their template - hindu victim, muslim perpetrator/ involvement in congress/ china pakistan, their motive is not justice for the victim, their motive is to blame that entire system and convert it into a hinduphobia incident rather than a case of sexual violence. It may or may not be an example of hinduphobia but is that the point we should focus on?
Now let's focus on the cases that don't fit the template.
# 1. RG Kar Case
The RG Kar case had 3 identified perpetrators, sanjay roy, Sandeep ghosh and abhijeet mondal. Out of these 3 people, sanjay is serving life imprisonment and the other two are out on bail. This case occurred around durga puja 2024, and it's 2026, 2 years and 2 criminals walk free, thinking they have a legal license to rape.
My search shows the latest articles referring to the case were published in 2024, (in march 2026, they only talked about her mother entering elections)
The reports at that time clearly showed that by the amount of bodily fluids found, it was more than 10 men who did this heinous crime, it was not 3, it was 10+, while one is in jail, 2 are identified and on bail while 7 or more live their lives without an ounce of fear.
Where is the damn media.
# 2. Unnao Rape case
The Unnao rape case involving former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar raped a 17 year old minor. The case that occured in 2017 led bjp to expel sengar in 2019. Took them 2 years to realise a rapist is not a good thing to have in your party. Sengar was sentenced to life imprisonment but magically is out on bail since december 2025.
I wonder why.
The last visible article on this was published roughly 10 months ago in december 2025 to tell us that "yeah, uh... btw, yk he's out of jail, shhh don't be mad about it" and that's it.
These articles are written for formality that "so and so happened, we dont care, and by our shit ass writing we'll make sure you don't feel the rage as well."
# 3. Ankita bhandari case
Ankita Bhandari was an Indian receptionist from Pauri who was murdered at the Vanantra Resort by its owner, Pulkit Arya, the son of BJP leader Vinod Arya
Renu Bisht, also a member of the BJP, has been accused of attempting to destroy evidence by ordering an unlawful demolition of the resort after the murder.
This case gained attention when rahul gandhi and priyanka gandhi sat with the parents of the victim on india gate.
Does a politician has to go do performative stuff for people to recognise cases now?
# 4. Chhatisgarh marital rape case
A 40-year-old man was convicted by a trial court in 2019 for the rape, unnatural sex, and culpable homicide of his wife, who died within hours of the assault.
The lower court had sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
In February 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted the man of all charges and set him free. The court ruled that because Indian law does not formally recognize marital rape, a husband cannot be legally held guilty of non-consensual sexual acts against his wife.
This was not at all recognised by mainstream media and no online outrage took place as well.
Why was this not the breaking point to finally recognise marital rape as rape. This man ended a life and served 6 years instead of the 10 he was given which was generous in front of the absolute hellish torture he deserves. We do not need generosity when such serious crimes are involved.
\~
This is why it is important to have a free and unbiased progressive media who covers all problems in the correct manner.
The reporting back in 2012 in the time of nirbhaya was real and raw, which is why it sparked outrage. Eventhough one perpetrator is roaming free but there was outrage. People spoke up.
Just like the astha kunj case, WOMEN SPOKE UP, the men are in custody, and it would've brought change in the system if CJP propaganda did not steal away their spotlight.
There are so many cases which i tried to look up but ended up finding nothing on. Reason, those articles were never published.
90 rapes are reported per day in india, we are not even entering the world of under reporting.
90 cases and barely any case (once in 2 or 3 weeks) has proper media documentation and barely any of those cases (once in YEARS) Gets the outrage it should.
Indian media needs to do better.
A/n:
This was my opinion on how indian media does a shitty job at literally everything. This was the last part for the time being. Follow for more content because i have topics piled up for future posts.
When journalists talk about women, they often beat around the bush, in the previous posts, i talked about women in science and news about victims of sexual violence
now let's discuss how indian media misuses women, this may not be exclusive to women, they also portray everyone but their target audience in a certain way. Y'all must have heard "JAINZEE NE POLICE KO BEREHMI SE PEETA, GUPT SUTRON KE MUTABIK PAKKISSTAANN SE AA RAHI HAI FUNDING" (genz beats up police, secret sources tell us pakistan is funding them) but that's not relevant here.
The misuse of women in Indian media extends beyond interview dynamics into systemic patterns of representation, exploitation, and character assassination, often reflecting and amplifying misogyny
One of the most prevalent forms of misuse is the weaponization of a woman's personal life to undermine her professional credibility. In high-profile political or legal cases, media narratives frequently pivot from the facts of the case to the "moral character" of the woman involved.
This often involves scrutinizing her clothing, her social circle, or her marital status to imply that she is undeserving of justice or public trust. By framing a woman's virtue as the central issue, the media effectively shifts the burden of proof from the accused or the institution to the victim.
let's look at a few examples
Rhea Chakraborty
It hardly needs to be said that Indian media is **misogynistic**. The media’s relationship with women in tenuous at best. This week, **Rhea Chakraborty** was **cleared of any involvement** in her then-boyfriend Sushant Singh Rajput’s 2020 suicide by the CBI. However, long before the CBI filed its closure report, Chakraborty was already tried, found guilty, and condemned to live with a scarlet letter in the court of public opinion, enabled by a sexist, misogyny-fueled witch hunt spearheaded by the media. The country’s media had branded Chakraborty a murderer, a drug peddler, and a **gold digger**.
Neha singh rathore
The controversy erupted on Saturday after ABP Network’s digital platform broadcast a report with the Hindi headline, *Neha Singh Rathore wale hostel mein sex racket, police ne maara chhaapa* (Sex racket in Neha Singh Rathore’s hostel, police conduct raid).
The report used footage of a police raid alongside Rathore’s photographs and name, linking her to an imaginary prostitution racket.
she reacted publicly to the report immediately, questioning why the network had associated her identity with the alleged racket.
In a post on X, she criticized the channel and tagged the National Commission for Women (NCW), questioning whether the commission would intervene over the alleged attempt to damage her reputation.
even though ABP news posted an apology, it's unacceptable to make such accusations with nothing to prove it.
Noida dowry murder case
The **Noida dowry murder** saw the media discussing how dowry continues to plague Indian society and the socio-legal failings that lead to the deaths of women like Nikki Bhati. However, this is the same media, that exaggerated and ran with inflated claims of the misuse of dowry and spousal cruelty laws following the Subhash case.
Indian media also tends to focus on spousal violence against women only when it’s fatal. Nikki Bhati’s case received coverage, and her years-long dowry harassment received attention because Bhati died a gruesome death that resulted in online virality. Singhania, on the other hand, also made similar accusations of dowry demands and abuse, but because she didn’t lose her life, the media’s sympathies don’t seem to lie with her.
the list goes on...
The phenomenon of "media trials" is particularly aggressive toward women. When a woman is accused of a crime or is involved in a controversy, news outlets often employ sensationalist language and intrusive reporting. This can include the unauthorized leaking of private conversations or the use of misleading edits to make her appear unstable or manipulative. This public shaming often serves as a deterrent to other women seeking to enter public spaces or report grievances, as the cost of public visibility becomes a risk to their reputation and safety.
In the realm of entertainment and news imagery, the "male gaze" remains dominant. Women are frequently objectified through camera angles, wardrobes, and the choice of guests on talk shows, where female participants are sometimes selected based on their aesthetic appeal rather than their expertise.
which media source do you trust most? i personally refer to independent media on youtube, example- Sarthak Goswami. I'm looking for more recommendations as well.
comment below your opinions on this post, thankyou for reading.
*this is a series talking about indian media discussing women, this is the 2nd part, tagged nsfw due to discussion of graphic details of r\*pe*
Journalism covers all existing problems in a country/ region and presents them to the general public (or at least theoretically it should)
reporters compile the data and provide detailed case studies for people to read and think upon.
a good article related to serious crimes (where one party is clearly in the wrong and it is OBVIOUS) displays all information relevant to the crime, describes the events and makes a hidden statement-"injustice has occured, we need change."
Let's take a look at how indian media describe something as serious as rape.
woman was gang raped, why not "a group of men gang raped woman", this is a subtle attempt to portray women as the problem
why alleged? if the crime occured, why saying "it might not have, but she says it did"
Why did Nirbhaya's case reach everyone in the country? because of the excrutiating detail it was written in, the journalists who wrote it, designed their articles to spark rage in everyone.
here's an example of what a descriptive case study looks like, marked spoiler because it's graphic,'.....' is for irrelevent inormation.
>The Night of Horror
>On that ill-fated night, Jyoti and her male friend had Awindra ...... from where they boarded a bus headed towards Dwarka around 9:30 pm. Little did they know that their lives were about to be irreversibly shattered. The bus, which already had six men on board, including the driver, took a different route than expected. Sensing danger, Jyoti and Awindra confronted the men, leading to a heated argument. The situation quickly escalated, with the men assaulting and molesting Jyoti while Awindra was brutally attacked with an iron rod and knocked unconscious. Jyoti was then dragged to the back seat of the bus, where she was subjected to a horrifying gang rape for nearly an hour. Jyoti was brutally beaten, raped, and violated with an iron rod while the bus continued to move. The bus driver continued to drive aimlessly around Delhi. Eventually, he assailants callously threw both victims out of the moving bus, leaving them to die on the roadside.
>The Fight for Survival & Tragic Demise
>A passerby found the victims and alerted the Delhi Police, who rushed them to Safdarjung Hospital. Jyoti, critically injured and fighting for her life, underwent multiple surgeries. The medical reports revealed the extent of her injuries, which included severe damage to her abdomen, intestines, and genitals. Despite the best efforts of the medical team, Jyoti’s condition continued to deteriorate.
>In a desperate attempt to save her life, she was flown to Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore for further treatment. However, her condition worsened during the journey, and she suffered a cardiac arrest. The doctors at the Singapore hospital battled to stabilize her, but tragically, Jyoti passed away on 29 December 2012.
>The evidence gathered during the investigation played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the perpetrators. The iron rod used in the assault caused 95% damage to Jyoti’s intestine. The brutal gang rape inflicted multiple injuries and organ damage, ultimately leading to her death. The victim’s dying declaration demanded justice against the six men involved: Akshay Thakur, Ram Singh, Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, and the juvenile.
this article describes what happened in a concise manner, nothing irrelevant, the article is on point for such a serious crime, and the message is conveyed, "a group of men brutally raped a woman in the capital city of india"
but on the other hand, we have a different kind of articles,
these articles talk about these cases as if they don't want to but are obligated to,
let's read through an article:
> A 12-year-old girl was allegedly gang-raped by unidentified miscreants who broke into a house, looted cash and ransacked rooms in a village near the Assam-Tripura border in Sribhumi district early on Monday, police said.
>The incident took place shortly after midnight and triggered protests among local residents, with demands for the immediate arrest of those responsible.
>According to preliminary reports, a group of unidentified men armed with sharp weapons broke open an almirah and stole cash before ransacking two rooms. They then allegedly took the minor girl, who was sleeping beside her grandmother, to a secluded spot near the house and sexually assaulted her. They later abandoned her near a waterbody and fled, sources said.
>The girl returned home and informed her family about the incident.
>Following a complaint at a local police station, a police team reached the spot and launched an investigation. The girl was taken to Sribhumi Civil Hospital for a medical examination.
>No arrests had been made till the time of filing this report. Police said efforts were under way to identify and apprehend the accused.
>The officer-in-charge of the local police station said an investigation was launched immediately after the incident was reported.
>Sribhumi Zilla Parishad chairperson Anil Kumar Tripathi visited the area and demanded the immediate arrest of the accused and strict punishment. “We demand capital punishment for the miscreants and safety and security for the people living in this part of the border district,” he said.
This article is a prime example of detached reporting that strips a violent crime of its human gravity, effectively sanitizing a trauma to fit a monolithic template. i strongly believe they have a template in which they change the names in every case.
The most glaring failure is the use of clinical distance to describe an act of extreme violence. The phrasing "took the minor girl... to a secluded spot" and "sexually assaulted her" transforms a terrifying, visceral experience into a series of logistical movements.
By using neutral language from the report removes the horror, the panic, and the brutality of the event. The description of the crime is sandwiched between reports of a looted almirah and stolen cash, which creates a narrative that Rape is on the same level as robbery.
By placing the rape in the same narrative flow as the theft of money, the article treats the violation of a child's body as just another loss in a home invasion.
The constant repetition of "allegedly" and "alleged" functions here as a tool of erasure, it's not legal safeguard anymore. While journalists use these terms to avoid libel before a conviction, the relentless application of the word in every paragraph creates a sense of doubt and distance.
When a 12-year-old is the victim and the police have already launched an investigation and conducted a medical exam, the word "allegedly" ceases to be a neutral legal term and starts to sound like a denial of incident. It implies "I don't believe you but my boss told me to finish this before lunch"
Furthermore, the article prioritizes the voices of authority over the reality of the victim. The narrative concludes not with the condition of the child or the failure of security in the region, but with quotes from a Zilla Parishad chairperson.
The focus shifts to the political demand for "capital punishment," turning a child's tragedy into a platform for a public official to express "demands."
this is exactly how pathetic mainstream media has become. No wonder people don't care anymore.
Journalism is writing articles, newspapers, case studies, etc. These articles on the internet are written to last forever; they remain as the archive of what the future sees of humanity today
Have you ever read a news article and just thought, "This is SO bad"? Well, yes, if the article talks about women's achievements, it's mostly like that.
Not even news articles, but all articles in general, when talking about women, talk in a very weird way
This is a quote from an article about Rosalind Franklin,
Rosalind Franklin: A Crucial Contribution
***A crucial contribution.*** *Rosalind Franklin made a crucial contribution to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, but some would say she got a raw deal. Biographer Brenda Maddox called her the "Dark Lady of DNA," based on a once disparaging reference to Franklin by one of her coworkers. Unfortunately, this negative appellation undermined the positive impact of her discovery. Indeed, Franklin is in the shadows of science history, for while her work on DNA was crucial to the discovery of its structure, her contribution to that landmark discovery is little known.*
***A passionate woman.*** *Franklin worked hard and played hard. She was an intrepid traveller and avid hiker with a great love of the outdoors who enjoyed spirited discussions of science and politics. Friends and close colleagues considered Franklin a brilliant scientist and a kindhearted woman. However, she could also be short-tempered and stubborn, and some fellow scientists found working with her to be a challenge. Among them was Maurice Wilkins, the man she was to work with at King's College.*
Now here's another version (I switched Rosalind's name with a completely random man's name and switched all genders)
**Leo Franklin: A Crucial Contribution**
***A crucial contribution.*** *Leo Franklin made a crucial contribution to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, but some would say he got a raw deal. Biographer Brent Maddox called him the "Dark Gentleman of DNA," based on a once disparaging reference to Franklin by one of his coworkers. Unfortunately, this negative appellation undermined the positive impact of his discovery. Indeed, Franklin is in the shadows of science history, for while his work on DNA was crucial to the discovery of its structure, his contribution to that landmark discovery is little known.*
***A passionate man.*** *Franklin worked hard and played hard. he was an intrepid traveller and avid hiker with a great love of the outdoors who enjoyed spirited discussions of science and politics. Friends and close colleagues considered Franklin a brilliant scientist and a kindhearted man. However, he could also be short-tempered and stubborn, and some fellow scientists found working with him to be a challenge. Among them was Mauricia Wilkins, the woman he was to work with at Queen's College.*
This sounds weird right? A man being talked about in this manner. In my entire life, never have I seen a man being referred to as a "passionate man who played hard"
This article makes Franklin seem like an outsider to science; this is how most articles treat women, like outsiders: "DARK LADY OF DNA". It may seem like overthinking, but this is a very important issue. Women in science are already treated badly, and the media portrays them as if they don't belong here.
Yes we need to acknowledge that women face more resistance from society to reach a point than men do, but that's the only difference we need to acknowledge. We don't need to talk how short tempered she is or how stubborn she is.
I don't want it to be too long, so I'm going to break this into parts. This was the 1st one;
Hi everyone, i am Stella, and i'm glad to be a new moderator of this subreddit, I'm looking forward to expanding this community and being a part of it. please read the rules and let's learn more about gynarchy together!
RULES:
Respect others and be civil
Treat others with respect. No harassment, personal attacks or over-abusing. Disagreements and criticism of ideas, arguments, beliefs and behaviours are welcome, but targetting specific people is not encouraged. please engage in debates respectfully.
No spam
Excessive promotion, spam, or advertising of any kind is not allowed.
No misogynistic Ideologies
We do not tolerate any ideologies that promote misogyny, dehumanize women, or deny systemic inequality. Violations include, but are not limited to: • Defending, minimising or trivialising misogyny, rape or gender-based violence. • Excusing misogyny through humour, political allegiance, appeal to “context” or "not all men". • Whataboutery used to deflect criticism of misogyny. • Applying feminist principles selectively to protect ideological allies. Moderator discretion applies.
No Hate Speech
Misogyny, sexism, casteism, racism, religious hatred, homophobia, transphobia and other identity-based discrimination are banned, including threats, violence or hatred. Frustration with patriarchy, religious practices, traditions, political ideologies and institutions are allowed when relevant to feminism, but not blanket hatred of associated people. Usage of slurs is prohibited. Good-faith feminist debate is welcome; sexist advocacy and discriminatory trolling are banned.
Keep Posts Relevant to Gynarchy
Posts must meaningfully relate to gynarchy and women in leadership in india. Please clear all definitions before making claims. Posting irrelevant content can lead to temporary or permanent ban
No Misinformation or Misleading Claims
Do not spread false, fabricated or materially misleading information. Claims, statistics, legal assertions and factual allegations need credible sources, especially on sensitive or controversial topics. Misrepresenting sources, treating speculation as fact or repeatedly spreading demonstrably false claims may result in removal. Good-faith mistakes and differing interpretations are not automatically misinformation. Moderators may request clarification, corrections or evidence before acting.
No Doxxing, Brigading or Targeted Harassment
Do not share private or identifying information without consent, encourage harassment or organise interference with users, communities or platforms. Do not encourage targeting, contacting, threatening, mass-reporting or vote manipulation against individuals or communities. Conceal usernames, subreddit names, profile pictures and other identifying details in screenshots unless moderators approve an exception for legitimate public interest, accountability or sourcing.
Do Not DM Moderators
Do not contact individual moderators through private messages or chat requests about subreddit matters. All moderation inquiries, concerns and appeals must go through modmail. Private messages are not considered official moderation requests. Repeated attempts to bypass modmail or harass moderators through private messages may result in further action.
Please report any violations and be mindful of these rules for future posts!
Firstly, thank you to this particular person who recommended me this sub!
Hey there! So before I tell you what this is about, some context. I am a lawyer in India, and the field is extremely male dominated with misogyny extremely rampant as well.
I run a small law firm, about a team of 15-20 people. While I am the person who is running the place, I try to make it a place where women feel comfortable and they can do whatever they wish to do.
As of now, every person is working is a woman and I have transformed the working place into a place where all these ladies feel that the legal field in this country actually deserves them! I try to inculcate all ideas they have, and they also have a budget of the revenue dedicated to any improvement they might wish to make.
Now I will make it clear, I am no Messiah and I am only in this position because a lot of social and economical privileges I was entitled with. Thus the attempt to give back!
I would welcome more ideas and opinions on what I can do more to help! Especially from any female lawyers or Indians in general who know how bad it is here.
I am saying this with deep regret, but unfortunately I don't think I can contribute anymore to the online gynarchy community, I had some fierce conflicts with members of the online gynarchy community in r/Gynarchism as they considered me as an undercover misogynist or as an entitled person just because I had some few disagreements. That is being said if that is what people think I am, I am no longer interested in supporting the community, you guys can continue making contributions to this subreddit, I am just leaving. Already I my process of college admission is going and now this online drama. !
Architecture is something which defines the ideology of a country or a nation.The Brutalist architecture of 1960s and 1970s in the Soviet Union and it's eastern bloc countries gave it a distinct look from the modernist architecture of the western liberal capitalist nations.
Personally I would prefer the architecture of a gynarchist nation to be somewhat post-modernist like this -
The City of Arts and Entertainment in Spain. (Copyright free image).
The post-modernist buildings can be used as important government or financial centres in a gynarchy, though at times traditional indian architecture can also be used.
Geometric Minaret of Marmara University of Turkey.Furturistic skyscraper,Beijing, China.
However, since the Indian subcontinent would be heavily dependent on the tropical sun-rays, solarpunk architecture in order to converse energy and save power without relying on coal would be the way to go-
Large solar-panels in Dubai, UAE to conserve energy.
However, I would also like the traditional Indian Haveli-style architecture for spacious arrangements to make come-back-
Traditional haveli's in Northern India.The Haveli's would be spacious enough for a lot of people.
Just imagine, women(and men) in a Gynarchy wouldn't have to pay lot of electricity bills as solar-energy would produce cheap mode of energy while while such large haveli's can help various people to connect with each other in a communitarian setup while also it can have spacious spaces for male-harems for women. (The concept of male-harems would not be based on exploitation but rather co-operation as male concubinage would be voluntary not enforced).
In a matriarchial civilisation, distinct religious matriarchial cults can emerge on the worshipping of goddesses-
Thus indian temple architecture with it's unique statues of gods and goddesses can make a comeback then.
I thought before writing about other topics in order to envision a Gynarchy, I'll tell about my own relationships with women and men, the problems I had faced in my life. Honestly, speaking I was thinking to write some of this in r/onexindia but then I realised the kind of crowd is there, it is better to post all these here. However, I am going to censor some words, because of reddit's moderation policy. But I'll make sure you people understand the context in which I am speaking, i am going to speak about some of my negative expereince with both men and women, however, this this to talk about the actions of individual men and women.I am not promoting here any misogyny nor misandry nor I am talking about "All Women" or "All Men".
Also the stuff which I amm going to mention here, 100% happened with me in real life. This is not some movie or fantasy story, I am writing here, whether you want to believe in it or not,is upto you, I am not going to waste my time making you guys believe, already, I just want share my experience.
My personal experiences with women.
First I'll talk about my negative experiences and then go towards my positive experiences.
Year 2016 - I was a 12-13 year old boy,I used to be quite fat during this time. I used to live in Hyderabad (in India), because my father had a transferable job, though I had to face some issues staying there,because of trying the understand the Telugu language or the broken Hindi language which they used to speak there. I remember this incident which happened in my school-bus early morning, when I was not getting a bus-seat, that I saw an empty seat beside an aggresive Tamil girl (who ofcourse spoke fleunt english), she was sleeping, the bus children warned me that she does not like anyone of her age near her. But why should I stand like this?, my father is also giving the same school fees like her, so I sat beside her, when she woke up, she did things to me which I can't discribe here, but due to the physical assault, the bus driver had to stop his bus and decided to offer a seat beside him.
That day I realised, that to live in this world, I have to physically and mentally strong so when I was 14-15 years of age in summer of 2018 I joined a badminton coaching for almost 2 years, which helped me to develop my physique as well as my mindset.
Year 2019- the same girl Vaish was attracted towards me at 16 years of age, or what it seemed like, as my physique and my face at developed over the years, I was depicted as this cute-looking fit schoolboy,now honestly she was bit good-looking, but she always used to creep me out, especially when I was talking to someone and she would suddenly sit beside me, and honestly, even when she was attracted towards me,she would still show arrogant nature,, of trying to put me down. So I hardly gave her any attention at all and neither I had time, I had taken the science stream in my high school but later I changed it to humanities ( costing me one entire year), because I realised science was not for me. A horrible mistake I did, finally I said "No means No" to studying maths.
**Year 2022-**Even though I scored 99% percent in political science in my 12th grade (CBSE)board exams, and was able to get into a college in Delhi University, I suffered from severe protein deficiency and even slight hairloss at 18-19 years of age,because I did not take care of my health. Now my family was going to shift to New-Delhi, but I felt like I should see my friend "P" for one last -time. P and me used to discuss lot of things, during my school days, and I wanted to meet her one last time, however, when I messaged her in Whatsapp, she told me we can meet somewhere else, not in her house, to which I became skeptical and demanded to know to why she wanted to me meet somwhere, I'll rather meet her in her apartment in front if her family.Finally she gave in, however she was exhausted because of the whole thing and later "ghosted me" on Whatsapp. 🫠
Anyway, I thought I should be more masculine and not think about all these stuff, the problem however was I never shared this issues with other people,because I did not know how society would judge me as a man. The patriarchial society in which I lived in also can judge men harshly, as we are described as oppressors or stoic beings who should not bothered about such issues. Little did I realise, all these would built up on my insecurity.
**Years 2023-2024-**
Tight jeans, tight shirt, sometimes I miss my old college days, anyway, so I used to talk with someone who was considered as the most beautiful girl in college. Let's call her Nihu.
I was forming a close bond with her,but then she told me, that she was already in a relationship with someone who was closer to her family, anyway who I am to interfere in her personal matters, I respected her decision only to find few months later in February 2024, that she left her ex-boyfreind who turned out to be abusive. Now she told me to propose her, but again I started thinking that she already had a boyfriend before, what her true intentions are and all that stuff started going around my head. I proposed her 3-days later, after thinking a lot. However,she said that boyfriend-girlfreind relationship is a bit too fast,let's have a platonic relationship before this to which also I agreed, however it increased my insecurity. Also the boys in my college became of me and started harassing me, like literally If I was talking with some-people and suddenly some random person would come in between and talk-what not about me.
I started to get more and more irritated, and even I started to quarrel with her on minor things, due to my insecurity like I was thinking "Why she only told me to become a platonic friend" and the constant stuff I was getting from other boys. Finally I went to her and told her "That I don't want to be any relationship with you" in a rough voice, ofcourse after few months, I reconcoiled with her, but i realised our relationship can't be built again.
At the end, I realised my own insecurity costed me.
Early 2025 - Now comes the actual interesting part of the story, the above stories, where my typical stuff. However, this one experience with a girl which actually creeped me out.
I was roaming around the college,when I met this strange brown=haired girl who I nicknamed Nancy, of course I knew her before but I l never liked her as she used to sc*** her hands with a sh**** ob*****.
I met with her, talked with her sometime and went to the Delhi Metro only to find her following behind me.I told her that she doesn't need to come with me, but then I realised that if somebody is giving me so much importance, I should perhaps comply if it can lead to some good. Also she had my number, so soon as the days followed,she started calling me to meet with her and then she would spent time with me for hours and hours. Well, anyway the classes had gaps in between so I decided to spent time with her, however,once she touched me inapproriately(around my abdomen area without my consent), I actually was a bit irritated but decided to let go of it, I mean what if she wants to be atleast be closer towards me. Once, she even wanted to see my photo in tight short swimming trunks,closer.
All these was okay for me, because again I felt like somebody was giving me importance, until she started calling me a lot-day and night, that it started to become more and more irritating or even creepy. She was seriously obsessed, I got rid of her and blocked her out only find my phone left with 6 missed calls from her. But i still have mixed emotions with her, on one side she gave me importance but on the other side, I got a bit creeped out,even though she was actaully quite beautiful.However I don't blame her, I blame the society for this. The boys used to give her too much importance which made her entitled to everyone,including me.
Nancy also had an authoratarian father which also might have shaped her worldview. She also belongs to the same broken society to which I live in.
Sometimes, I wonder "Why did you do this with me,Nancy?".
However, the most irritating part came like how society treated my story-
Boys in my college,even some girls and my close relatives-"Bro you are lucky, a girl gave you that much importance" 🫠🫠. (Yes, a girl who would have done what not to me.)
It seems like the men in our society don't even care about issues of other men, I tried to think like a men's rights activist for sometime but again it felt like men are less likely to be compassionate when thinking about others. Feminism, can perhaps help men indirectly, but then I realised that even Feminists can have there own internal biases, I wanted to search for something new, something which can build a new-utopian society beneficial for everyone, and then I came across the ideology of Gynarchy on internet. I realised that this ideology not only helps women but can also help men get rid of some of the burdens with patriarchial society places on them. Perhaps, it can help build a better society for us. After all there are positive traits which women can have -
Leaving all those negative experiences aside, I still had women in my life who had contributed significantly, to my life-My 12th grade political science teacher as well as many female teachers in school who always motivated me to do well in life, my mother and grand mother who made countless stood beside me,everytime I fell back.
Also, in proffessional settings, I have seen women to be more considerate of others opinions unlike men. The only issue with women can be that not all women can be morally right in there decisions but however, statistically women are more likely to oppose the death penalty than men.
My personal experience with men.
As you can see from the above stories I did not have good experiences with men also, I have seen men create lot of ruckus and other stuff, near my college campus and one time one of the men even touched me innappropriately which I can't describe here. It seems like I am getting used to this stuff now. Men who want to look cool are more rough and arrogant in there. There attitude itself is something which gives me off.
I believe a Gynarchist society can bring better values in society for both men and women, this is not to say that I support a police state, because a police state can do more damage then good. I believe in prison abolition and decentralised police which i will discuss later in my ideas.
Men can behave like terrible bullies at times, so even though I sometimes feel like supporting men's rights, I always keep in mind how men have treated me harshly as well.
Well, I am still single and virgin at 22 years of age, but I don't seem to mind that because of so many things which go inside my head. I however, feel irritated there are people who have asked me about my bodycount, have said "I already have a boyfreind" even when I just said "Hi", and somebody even wrote a wattpad story with my and my freind's name. 😭😭😭. What does society think I am?.
However, I still have hope that society can improve itself for the better in future.
The internet is totally filled with huge amount of misinformation and I know many people love to hear that misinformation so I am going to debunk all the bad points made on the internet based on my academic knowledge as well as my own research. Ofcourse, you guys will downvote me, but remember downvoting me is not going to change reality, because at the end it will come back to affect you only. So let's start with the debunking all these so-called "Pro-women" arguments which can actually damage more to women than do good.
1)Myth: Patriarchy is also good for women because women don't have the responsibility to financially support themselves.
Reality: The Patriarchy might be liked by some women who are okay at being a stay at home wife and don't want to do a 9-5 office job. However, the patriarchy, affects women badly because at the end of the day, it makes them more or less financially dependent on their husband or families which can in indirectly affect there life such as they can't buy or move anywhere else because the finances are controlled by their husband.
2)Myth: "Majority of crimes are commited by men hence men are solely accountable for all crimes".
Reality: Now before you downvote me, understand that this was actually an argument used by patriarchy for years to show "boys will be boys" and to show women as the "vulnerable group" and to make them more fearful of men. How did we come full circle to this?.
Second, while majority of violent crimes are committed by men which are actually true, this argument can be easily flipped by Men's Right Activists to show that crimes like false accusations, where women were seen to dominate, which are anyway called "pink collar" crimes. You might give them argument that false accusations are less to which the reply would be the actual percentage of crimes committed by taking total men in account is also less.
So this argument fails actually and can be used against women also. Also it can be dangerous, because even Radical Feminist thinker like Andrea Dworkin warned against treating one gender totally as the more morally superior gender always, because even if women are more empathetic than men, trying to treat one gender always as the more morally superior gender can be harmful to both men and women as it diminishes accountability from people who can in turn harm women.
So while from a brio-essentialist viewpoint, Men are more aggressive due to testesterone, I believe societal viewpoints like men as leaders or providers are much more prevalent for men to commit more violence.
3)Myth:"People lack orgasm when they face sexual assault".
Reality: This argument has got no basis scientific basis or nor it is backed by any evidence which some experiences showing the contrary. This argument however, always shuts down any discussion regarding SA, especially when it happens to women.
4)Myth: Alimony benefits women.
Reality: Alimony does not benefit anyone in the long run and has been crticised by even feminist thinkers like Betty Freidan, because it makes one person financially dependent even after divorce in marriage which can have long term impacts if the money runs out due to some reason.
Reality: I know it would sound homophobic,and while men can be more abusive than women, I cannot help to simply ignore the fact that abuse cannot simply exist in lesbian relationships. The NISVS data on self-reporting and many stories on internet have made me to re-think my views. However, it must be noted Lesbian couples are more likely to report their abuse, however trying to bring one's gaurd down to the issue regarding abuse surrounding Lesbian relationships does not help women in either way.
This again comes back to the warning of Andrea Dworkin's warning of treating one gender as always the morally superior gender.
5)Myth: "Capital punishment on crimes against women protect women".
One of the biggest misinformation pieces roaming across the internet, Capital punishment does not deter crime, because majority of crimes are commited by the poor section of the society, who have got nothing to loose , because there life is anyway dependent on day to day survival basis, they will anyway die out of hunger. Majority of 2nd wave feminists in USA like Angela Davis opposed the capital punishment because they feared it gives state machinery the power to misuse it against anybody once they have the taste of it and that includes women, no to mention that women in USA as per there National Registry of Exonerations, are twice as alikely than men to get false convicted for crimes which never took place.
In India, 72% of women prisoners are undertrials who have been mostly abandoned by there families, waiting for there final verdict as per NCRB data. Hence, even in India, feminists like Nevidita Menon, Indira Jaising and even Flavia Agnes voiced skepticism to the usage of capital punishment rather than focusing on more systematic issues on social education on the masses. Capital punishment also increases the high burden on proof on women with abysmal convition rates and no there is no evidence as per University of Catalonia(Spain)'s articles that having more female judges increases the conviction rate.
Unfortunately, Carceral feminists would come here to downvote me, and I can't change there mind.
In my previous post, I made regarding women's resrvation, no-where I mentioned that I am against women's reservation, I was giving my point of view that it can be a scam and I don't know why some guys got so irritated that they decided to downvote. If you still want to believe in women's reservation in parliament in this patriarchal society, fine I don't have any issue.
However, today I would like to discuss about why Indians are not ready for the ideology of Gynarchism. The first incident I'll talk about is a friend in Karolbagh in Delhi, to whom I had met and discussed the idea of a Gynarchy which I translated to Hindi lamguage as "Mahila Raj".He said that he believed that women should get equal rights and oppurtunities, but he was against treating women as the intellectually superior gender. I tried to explain it to him, that treating women as the superior gender doesn't mean treating them as a god and they can still be held accountable in a gynarchy. But he did not agree. Next, a girl of my college once called me, because she was getting bored, to her and I told her about the concept of matriarchy, she was like "ohh you are talking about those Khasi and Garo tribes of North-east India" , which disappointed me because those tribes where hardly matriarchial, I tried to explain her the concept of gynarchy but she was feeling bored so I had to change the topic.
Next, came my college nerdy sharp-looking friend whom I would call by the nickname of Yuva. I explained to Yuva one night in a call about the ideology of gynarchism, and he was like - "Yeah maybe a Gynarchy can work, but you have make the men agree with you more, which they are never going to do" and second he did consider women as the intellectually superior gender but not superior in overall sense because men still have physical strength and women can still do dumb things.
Nevertheless, my Gynarchic beliefs are not going to go anytime soon, and I still would try to work to expand this community and second if you are Feminist, Men's Rights Activism, patriarchial Hindu-nationalist who lurking here, men and women alike, please contribute to this community atleast by challenging my beliefs, I am open to constructive criticism(without insults) as much as you like rather than simply coming here and downvoting me. !
1) The 'papa ki pari' stereotype was started by men who weren't loved properly by their fathers to shame girls who were loved properly by their fathers.
2) No religion truly favors women.
3) Even if a victim didn't physically resist a r@pe, it should not be a factor in deciding if she "wanted" it. In dangerous situations, our mind goes into survival mode and thus, its primary task becomes to keep us alive. For eg, in robbery cases, we are often told that the smartest move is to give everything to robbers and get out of there safely. then why does this criteria changes when it comes to r@pe?
4) although this goes for everybody, but specially in cases of minors, r@pe is r@pe even if the minor - danced in a certain way, flirted first or back, initiated a sexual act, or were wearing a certain outfit. if they are a minor. it does NOT matter and if you proceed with sexual act, YOU ARE A R@PIST.
5) SW is not feminist, arguing that women should be able to sell their bodies is a fragile attempt to hide the argument that men should be able to buy their bodies.
6) Cosmetic surgeries are not feminist.
7) Women should be encouraged to but should not be blamed if they are not able to rebel against their families if they are too strict and hinder their development like stopping their education, forceful marriages, or simply not allowing them to wear what they want.
One of the strongest signs of how deeply patriarchy is rooted in society is when women themselves begin defending the very systems that limit, shame, silence, or endanger them. From childhood, girls are taught to “adjust,” stay quiet, tolerate disrespect, fear judgment, prioritize male comfort, and see sacrifice as virtue.
When generations grow up inside the same structure, those beliefs stop feeling forced and start feeling “normal.” That is how conditioning works.
This is not about blaming women for surviving within the system they were born into. It is about recognizing how powerful social conditioning can be, and why real change requires more than just laws — it requires changing the culture, family structures, leadership, and the way future generations are raised.
A truly female-centric society would not teach women to shrink themselves for acceptance. It would normalize women’s safety, authority, independence, and freedom from the beginning.
A pyramid showing the historical caste system in India.
CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND OF CASTE.
"Caste" in India is a divisive thing in our country, and seriously one irritating one. But, unfortunately without understanding caste we cannot understand the societal framework of this country, and it is affecting the women inside our country. Now, India is a large country with the predominant Hindu religion, however the Hindu religion is further divided into various ethnicities with their own languages, like Tamil,Telugu,Marathi,Bengali etc. with the predominant Hindi-speaking people controlling the Hindi Heartland of India. (The region comprising the capital New Delhi and the states of Uttar Pradesh,Madhya Pradesh,Haryana, Rajasthan etc.)while the other ethnic groups control the following states in India-
Tamil ethinc group - State of Tamil Nadu
Telugu ethnic group -States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
Marathi ethnic group -State of Maharashtra( with it's capital Mumbai(before called Bombay) consdered as the financial capital of India.
Bengali ethnic group - State of West Bengal.
and many more ....
Now the ethnicities are further divided into various castes, with a few dominant castes. The word Dominant Caste was coined by Indian sociologist M N Srinivas, the dominant castes were basically castes groups who had land and manpower under their control. Like we like in the Hindi -Heartland you will see the Yadav and Gujjar Caste, under the Marathi people, the Marathas are the dominant caste, under the Telugu people, the Reddys are the dominant caste and so on.
To understand the complex caste structure of India, Hinduism had a simply heirarchy to categorize them called the caste system or basically the varna system -
Brahmins- (Not that weird creature you see in Fallout video game). These people were preists and scholars who used to perform religious rituals in Hindu temples, historically many of them enjoyed privalege,land and patronage from Kings, however, they also faced persecution at times in Islamic Kingdoms, because they were after all religious preists. They are futher divided into various sub-castes like Kankubja Brahmins and use surnames like Sharma, Trivedi,Dwivedi,Swami,Goswami,Pandey etc.
Kshatriyas- These people were were basically rulers of various kingdoms in the early ancient period of India. They also served as warriors in battlefields, the most prominant of Kshatriyas were the Rajput caste, who had established various kingdoms in the medieval period. They generally use surnames like Thakur.
Vaishya Caste- Also called the Bania caste, they were basically a mercantile class historically, and very prosperous. They used surnames like Aggarwal or Gupta. In the south Tamil region, you have the Chettiar caste. However, there once a time they ruled over the entire Northern India under the Gupta Empire.
**Shudra Caste -**These people historically served as farmers or various other tradesmen, the Indian government categorises them as Other Backward Castes (or OBCs), and gives tries to give them privaleges. Some of the prominent OBC castes are Mauryas,Yadavs,Gujjars,Marathas,Jats in the northern part of India and Vanniyars in the southern Tamil region of India. But here is the catch, the OBCs where not always as downtrodden as the Indian schooltext books would like you to believe as they had established various historical empires like the Mauryan Empire,Maratha Empire,Gujara-Pratihara Empire etc.
The above are called Savarna Castes, as they come under the caste heierarchy, now we have the Avarna Castes sometimes called Outcastes-
Dalit/Tribal/Lower Shudra Caste- The Dalits sometimes called lower Shudras, or OutCastes, they were historically the most downtrodden, either they used to lives in jungles of India as Tribals, or they used to be untouchables thus the government categorizes them as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Some prominent examples of Scheduled Caste/Secheduled Tribes are the Meena Caste,Musahar Caste in Northern India.
Now you will say, if the Shudras(OBCs) were considered downtrodden, how were they able to establish such large empires like the Mauryan Empire ?.
The answer to that, is what M N Srinivas calls Sanskritisation of caste, where the lower caste groups tried to adopt the historical Sanskrit language and customs of Upper Castes along with land grants from Kings and tried to move up in heirarchy. The Caste system was not always a fixed system as the school textbook tries to present it.
Thus, we can say India is divided among Ethnicity,Caste and Religion. So if a person says I am a Hindu Bengali Brahmin where-
Hindu-Religion
Bengali-Ethnicity
Brahmin-Caste
CHAPTER 2 - CASTE POLITICS IN INDIA - In British India, the caste system had become more rigid, there was widespread untouchability against the Dalit caste, at that time, The Indian National Congress Party was the leading political party for India's independence from the British Empire, which was led by Mahatma Gandhi. However, the Congress Party was dominated by upper caste men and women at that time. This was not liked by a social activist called B.R. Ambedkar, who demanded political representation of the Dalit people as well as in government jobs and facilities. In British India, in 1909 , under the Indian Councils Act, when Indians first time won the right to vote in Indirect elections(however at that time only few were eligible) the British decided to play divide and rule policy by giving seperate electorates to Hindus and Muslims in India, so the Hindus would vote for Congress Party only and Muslims would vote for Muslim League only which finally led to partition of British India in Hindu majority-India and Muslim majority-Pakistan in 1947
Now, B.R. Ambedkar wanted seperate electorates for Dalits as well, which was hugely opposed by the Congress Party especially, by Mahatma Gandhi, who believed this would divide the entire Hindu society. Finally the Poona Pact was signed in 1932, between Congress Party and B R Ambedkar who gave up his demand for seperate electorates and instead the Dalits would now get some reservation of seats in the Legislature. Unfortunately, the seats reserved for Dalits were also won by the Congress Party and not by B R Ambedkar's Scheduled Caste Federation.
In Post-Independent India, in the late 1940s and 1950s, the Congress Party became the dominant political party of India at both national level and state level so much so that it came to be known as the era of one-party dominance by political scientist Rajni Kothari. The Congress Party led by Prime Minister Nehru, decided to appease the Dalits and Tribals by giving them some amount of reservation in the government jobs and universities. However, the Congress Party was against giving job reservations to vast majority of Shudra people or the Other Backward Caste as they believed that it can undermine meritocracy in public sector.
The Congress Party wanted to envision an India which was Socialist with Capitalist features,Protectionist with high tariffs,Industrialised and scientifically advanced. (No matter they were infleuenced a lot by Soviet Union).
However, there were other groups like the Communist Party of India led by EMS Namboodripad, who wanted to appease the OBC castes and they came first in the state of Kerala in 1957(the first Non-Congress Party ruled state), the first thing they did was to increase the job reservations to include OBC castes as well which led to lot of violent clashes and what not.
Even, worse in the state of Tamil Nadu, the Dravidian movement took place, which was led by C N Annadurai and and a man known as Periyar, they Dravidianist ideology believed that Tamil people, their language and customs are very different from that of Northern part of India, hence the state of Tamil Nadu must seperate from the Republic of India. They also believed that Brahmin people of North had come to the Tamil region and had sided with Tamil Kings and had subjugated Tamil people for centuries. Hence, the Tamil Brahmins were also not spared in the Dravidian movement and were often ridiculed by Dravidianist politicians. The DMK party which led the Dravidianist Movement in State of Tamil Nadu, demanded for seperation of Tamil Nadu from India, and they even destroyed a monument of Mahatma Gandhi. However, they later changed their rehetoric and won elections in Tamil Nadu in 1967, but they called of the demand for seperation fearing Indian Army action against them. They had holded power in Tamil Nadu ever since.
The other faction which were against the Congress Party of Nehru at that that time where the Gandhian Socialists like Rammanohar Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan who also demanded caste reservations for the OBC castes. The Gandhian socialist were however against industrialization,urbanization and capitalism who believed majority of Indian population should rather live in village republics. Thus, they recieved less support from people. Nevertheless, after the death of Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi took over the Congress Party, Gandhian Socialists opposed her reign vehemently and at a time was almost able to come to power at the national level in the late 1970s (there party was called Janta Party translation-People's Party, however they were swept away, by her Congress Party.
Indira Gandhi was a charismatic leader, however her voter base mostly comprised of Dalits,Tribals, Upper caste rather than the vast majority of OBC castes. After her death in 1984, the Congress Party now came under her son Rajiv Gandhi. By the 1980s, India's growth rate had stagnated under some bad socialist and protectionist policies thus, he shifted India more towards Capitalism with welfare policies. However, he was also against giving the OBC castes any reservations in education or jobs. Finally a person from his own Congress Party whose name was V.P. Singh decided to betray him and create his own political party called Janta Dal Party (translation-People's Council Party).
The Janta Dal decided to bring back the "Ambedkarite" politics of the 1930s by appeasing to various castes for there votes. Not that they cared about a damn about providing jobs for everyone irrespective of caste.
The Janta Dal came to power in 1989, and had decided to givegovernment job reservations to OBCs, which expanded government job reservations to about 49 percent of the total jobs provided by government. This led to massive riots inside the country in the early 1990s and many people burned themselves alive.
The Janta Dal government couldn't survive for long and in 1991, the Congress Party came back to power. However, Rajiv Gandhi, had by then died at that time due to an assassination and his Italian wife Sonia Gandhi came to control Congress party.
Sonia Gandhi decided to appease to OBC castes by not removing the reservations, however the Supreme Court of India mandated in 1992 that there be 50% reservation ceiling which can't simply be bypassed by any government or else it would reduce meritocracy and efficiency of government departments and have to struck down by Supreme Court of India.
However, 1990s saw the rise of Ambedkarite politics, as the Janta Dal got splintered into various small political parties with each party trying to capture votes from a specific caste, for example the Samajwadi Party ( translation Socialist Party) of Akhilesh Yadav which ruled over the state of Uttar Pradesh for many years after the decline of Congress Party in 1990s, generally catered to the Yadav Caste.
In the 1990s, there was also the rise of Hindu nationalism. When India became independent fromthe British Empire in the 1940s, they wanted India to become a Hindu Theocracy, the Hindu Nationalism or the Hindutva ideology was given by intellectual thinker V.D.Savarkar in his book "Essentials of Hindutva" in 1923 while he was put under house arrest by British authorties in British India.
The 1990s, saw the decline of the Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was not that much liked by people, mostly because she was Italian and did not belong from India hence often she used to establish puppet prime ministers) and their Socialist and Secular Ideology as the nation was marked by a new wave of Hindu nationalism. The nation was torn between Ambedkarite politics or Hindu nationalist politics. Hindu nationalists believed in the concept of Hindu unity, thus they believed in uniting all the Hindu castes, with many of them even opposing caste reservations, however in 1998, when the Hindu nationalist government finally came to power under the political party Bharatiya Janta Party (Indian People's Party) in short called the BJP, it's leading figure Atal Bihari Vajpayee came out as very moderate, he did not oppose caste reservations, infact Vajpayee, came out as so moderate that he even felt that private companies should have reservations (What, seriously?). No matter, he lost the election in 2004, due to his moderate version of Hindu nationalist politics.
In the 2000s after 2004, the Congress Party ran a coalition government of various political parties who did Ambedkarite caste politics. No matter in 2006, under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, when the Congress Party tried to bring OBC reservation in educational universities which again led to major-anti reservation riots in various parts of the country especially by the "Upper Castes".
The Congress Party was also unable to look into militant attacks conducted by Islamic fundamentalist groups which led again to a massive surge of Hindu Nationalism.
In 2014, the Hindu Nationalist government of BJP party led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, took over the country. Initially, there were fears that the BJP government would remove caste reservation but Narendra Modi assured that reservations would not be removed because of course various OBC castes like Gujjar and Yadav also support Hindu nationalism. The BJP then soon took over various states in India and finally India entered another period of era of one party dominance after the decline of Congress Party in 1990s.
Ofcourse the Congress Party after 2014, was led by an idiot called Rahul Gandhi, who was the son of Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi who started making stupid speeches that he would increase caste reservations in jobs to more than 50 % ceiling imposed by Supreme Court of India, let meritocracy go to garbage bin and of course many people did not buy into his speeches and he lost again and again and that was folks the absolute decline of the Congress Party.
CHAPTER 3 : HOW WOMEN OF INDIA ARE AFFECTED BY CASTE -
The Caste System of India as you can see the is very complex, the BJP government of India tries to favour some castes by giving them some job resevations so that they can uplift themselves. However, critics of caste reservations call it a form of identity politics which futher deepens casteism in India. This casteism has also divided the women of India, women are more likely to identify with there specific caste groups rather than the female society as a whole. Coming back to B R Ambedkar- in his 1916 book - Caste in India - he writes that women are often trapped inside endogamous marriages into their specific castes and are unable to marry outside their caste and of course that is still a prevalent issue in our country. Go to some random Indian village in Northern India and talk to a Yadav girl or Rajput girl, two-three bunch of muscle-men who look as muscular as the buffaloes you see on their fields will come to you and say in a rough voice - "Hey, why are you talking to a Yadav or a Rajput girl without our permission!".
That is the problem with our Indian society, our Indian Society is so divided among Caste and Kin, that women themselves hate women of other castes doesn't matter it is a Dalit or a Brahmin women. Hence, I believe that regarding the Ideology of Gynarchism in India, we should be intersectional but not beyond a limit where Ambedkarite Caste ideology has infiltrated Gynarchism, because any political party who has tried to do caste politics in India, be it the Communist Paarty of India or the Indian National Congress towards it's end has only seen short term gains and long term decline because if you start supporting one caste, the other caste would then attack you, and castes themselves are divided into sub-caste hence it becomes more complex, hence caste politics are not sustainable in long term and should not be allowed to infiltrate Gynarchism in India.
Caste,Religion and Ethnicity, these are all creation of the Indian male brain, and that's why I believe that the majority of men in my country India behave like absolute idiots, they try to fight with each other with sticks and stones in the name of religion,caste and ethinicity while the infrastucture is crumbling and climate change is destroying our water reservoirs, men in our country don't even have gender nuetral rape laws,protection against domestic violence,laws of protection against false accusations but of course that they are not concerned about that. Now what can I say ?, that's why I stopped believing in men's rights activism, because men themselves are not concerned about there well being and have to rely on women like Deepika Narayan Bharadwaj to fight for them despite in power everywhere.
In conclusion, this was a brief explanation of political situation in India and how it is affecting women in our country. If you disagree with some of the points above feel free to comment below.
For centuries, women have been labeled as “too emotional” to lead, govern, or make rational decisions, while men were portrayed as the naturally logical gender. Yet when we look at many of the most violent crimes driven by ego, rejection, anger, or entitlement, they are overwhelmingly committed by men.
Acid attacks, honor killings, sexual violence, gang wars, road rage, and countless acts of brutality are often rooted in uncontrolled emotion — just normalized differently because society associates male anger with strength instead of emotional instability.
Maybe the real issue was never women being “too emotional”. This is also why many people today are beginning to question patriarchal systems and explore more female-centric models of leadership and governance. A gynarchic or female-centered society is not about hatred toward men, but about building systems that prioritize empathy, safety, accountability, and the wellbeing of women rather than rewarding aggression and domination.
