Pagli (Hindi): a foolish woman.
Minal Hijratwala is the man-hating feminazi behind this diatribe written probably in the throes of another bipolar episode while she was busy gorging on another tub of ice-cream.
We admire her ability to bring together all kinds of anecdotes, incidents and fake surveys to portray Indian women as perennial saintly victims and Indian men as rapist demons.
To begin with, we confirm our general finding that feminists, especially those who are in India or write about India, are fugly beyond imagination.
Here is Mizz Hijratwala, in all her resplendent beauty:
What a princess!
Here’s another, in case you had any doubt about her delusions of beauty:
The phrase “lipstick on a pig” comes to mind. We wonder why.
And these are probably some of her best photographs.
Feminists are ugly not because of a curious coincidence, but because their hatred of traditional masculinity and femininity is both the cause and the effect of their warped bodies and their toxic personalities. They hate the masculine, and even more so, they hate the feminine. For them, to be feminine, slim, deferential, polite and wanting to give happiness to their man is to capitulate to patriarchy. They are ugly because they are stingy with love. They consider a giving act of love as political surrender in the gender battleground.
And their ugliness (both inner and outer) leads to the self-fulfilling prophecy of men, and women, treating them badly and them becoming even more rabid in their feminist polemic.
It is one thing to be physically unattractive, it is another to make it worse by becoming as fat as a pig, and then to have ugly, hateful world-views.
In her essay, she utterly fails to realize that in a thuggish society like India, men are as much the victims as women. That while women are subject to sexual violence, men too are subjected to sexual repression and starvation, and both are tragic recipients of political and economic violence.
That the prevalence of lechery and catcalling is as much a symptom of rampant thuggishness as it is of the sexual repression in Indian society. And she obviously has no clue that this repression predominantly affects men since their sexual desire is more insistent and they are unable to find an outlet for it as migrants and lowly-paid workers in the big cities. She doesn’t mention the role of corrupt mass-media in fanning the sexual desires of an already starved and frustrated populace. She refers to easily-debunked surveys in order to paint Indian men as rapists, while refusing to even mention the epidemic proportion of the misuse of rape and dowry laws by unscrupulous women and their families.
She regards the traditional strictures on sexuality as evil, without realizing the havoc created by modern notions of sexuality. She regards the social approbation of homosexuality as evil, without understanding the cultural poverty and illiteracy of a nation which has been ruthlessly exploited by the ruling classes for more than six centuries now. She foolishly advises Indian women to be independent, without understanding the danger she is putting them in by letting them loose in a jungle of lawlessness.
And she mocks the Bollywood lip-service to feminism. But that is like mocking a singer because he cannot sing a foolish and hateful song in tempo. It is not the quality of his singing that should be the object of one’s critique, but the content of the song itself.
Minal Hijratwala is all sound and fury and no understanding. Any feminist or commentator in India which regards “men” or “society” as the problem, and women as the victims, instead of pointing at the brutal ruling classes is doing a dangerous disservice to the evolution of this poor and brutalized country.