Crack this RIDDLE if you can.
' Blaze that trail, Prakash. '
The above citation is a comment made by Alice Walker, a renowned feminist, in response to a message meant to bring to her notice the strange, enigmatic fact that to date not even a feminist has been heard to assert point-blank that the world's manhood doesn't deserve to be reckoned a lion of a man. The comment by Alice is a proof of this fact. I have yet to receive her response to my message in reply to this comment. In that message, I wrote that I blazed ' that trail ' long before, and that to date I haven't found a woman willing to join in with me and help enlighten humanity about this brute and naked truth in regard to the calibre of a man, which fact led to the impression that women are silly and insignificant. Following points are meant to throw light on this issue and thus deal with your frowning on this assertion.
the calibre of a man
Man is a social being, and an individual is an insignificant member of society. This holds true generally, universally, and equally for both men and women.By ' a lion of a man ', I mean a guy with the calibre he must have in order to make a worthy hubby. And in order to be reckoned a worthy hubby, the guy must ensure the social and financial security and decent living matching up with the age he belongs to of his wife and children as well as decent upbringing of the children and decent livelihood of the grown-up kids.
Over 95% of Indian manhood don't have taxable income. That means over 95% of Indian men are, by the Govt of India's criteria, poor people— so poor as to be entitled to full tax exemption. And in America, according to the former President Barack Obama, the truly wealthiest are not more than ' 2% '. During his presidency, Mr Obama created the American Taxpayer Relief Act 2012 in order to make the ' 2% ' pay a little more in tax and utilise the revenue collected thus to extend a lot of benefit ( tax relief and tax credits ) to the American middle-class men and thus help them spend a little more for the well-being of their beloved ones and the better upbringing of their kids. Thus, the calibre of American middle-class men that make up the largest section of 98% of American manhood, the manhood that belongs to the most advanced civilisation of the world, is clear as day. And according to Oxfam, the non-poor of the globe constitute no more than 1% of the total global population. I don't think the sensible people need wrack their brain to see who and how many men truly deserve to be bracketed with a true lion of a man.
What matrimony in essence is ?
As I see it, matrimony is fundamentally antifeminine. It follows from the fact that feminine freedom is incompatible with true matrimony which must imprison women because it's primarily meant to ensure the paternity of kids, and because a free woman is accessible to any men. Further, half the sky has got nothing truly meaningful to derive from matrimony or a travesty in its name. There's no good reason why a sensible woman should miss this point.
Does society need women to get married ?
Neither society Nor the state wants women, Nor did either want them ever before, to get married. It follows from the fact that there really exists No good reason that makes it sensible for society and the State to want men and women, bar those few of the 1%, to unite in holy matrimony just as there can't be any good reason for which a civilised society or State may need stuff like racism or theism. Matrimony performs No meaningful role in society or the State. Since the dawn of civilisation, matrimony has been accompanied by prostitution and other relationships other than matrimony. No civilisations are known to treat or to have ever treated relationships outside of matrimony as crime like theft, robbery, counterfeiting, etc. All advanced civilisations and some less-advanced ones like India recognise and respect relationships outside of matrimony and fruits of such relationships. So many men and geniuses including Jesus Christ, Vyasa, Leonardo da Vinci, etc were conceived by women not married to their biological fathers. Christianity does Not, Nor does Hinduism, frown on prostitution while Islam proscribes it but approves of mut'a, the Islamic variety of prostitution in disguise.
To date I've puzzled in vain over what it might be that holds back women like Theresa May and Angela Merkel from raising these points and rising up against the institution of matrimony.