I'm from a land that can boast of the distinction of having the second woman PM of the world. She was a worthy PM, which fact as well as the success of some other women like Marie Curie who won the Nobel Prize twice led me to believe that human brain was independent of gender, and thus I developed a nonsexist attitude towards women. But then, after I was aware of the True nature of the institution of matrimony, it struck me as most strange that even well-educated women worldwide willingly indulge, in this Space age, in the disgusting luxury of matrimony. Soon I discovered that never ever to date have women organised a revolt against the unjust and oppressive masculine domination over women. This set me rethinking my view of women when very soon I came to know that women's contribution, vis-a-vis men's, to civilisations happens to be too insignificant to count. 

Men created civilisatioins and have kept them moving and advancing independently of women till today Really. It also struck me that men are independent of women while women are indispensably dependent on men— so much so that they canNot see the Truth glaring like the Mid-day Summer Sun before everyone's eyes until some man points to it. And I was filled with utmost Disgust as I awoke to the fact that even well-educated women worldwide have still carried on with bearing babies the way Cows & Nanny goats produce their young.

The True Nature of Matrimony

Historically, civilisation began with matrimony along with some other institutions including prostitution, from which it follows that matrimony must be much older than civilisation. Truly, matrimony is a barbarian institution that evolved during barbarism, the last prehistoric epoch preceding civilisation. It was aimed at serving only the interest of a Patriarch, the husband & father, who wanted to ensure the paternity of his children and so had No other option than to imprison the woman, the future mother of his children, because a free woman that is easily accessible to any men cannot prove who the Real father of her baby is. Evidently, matrimony symbolises the imprisonment (enslavement) of the woman by the man. Thus, it follows that matrimony is fundamentally antifeminine. Feminine freedom is incompatible with matrimony. Matrimony is Not meant to serve any interest of the womanhood. In fact, women have got Nothing meaningful Truly to derive from matrimony.

The Patriarch is Not endowed with the capacity to make a worthy hubby or a worthy father Really. The Truth glaring like the Mid-day Summer Sun is a man is Not a Lion of a man. I define a Lion of a man as a guy capable of ensuring the social and financial security and decent living of his wife and children as well as decent upbringing of the kids and decent livelihood of the grown-up kids. How many patriarchs possess this capability so as to deserve to be reckoned True Lions of men? As I see it, over 90% of the Indian manhood live below the poverty line*. Is the situation in America much better? As far as I know, almost 90% of the American school students attend free public schools and are provided with free or nominally-priced lunch, breakfast, after school food (CHILD NUTRITION), healthcare (CHIP), etc., which means the dads of the 90% American school-going kids are unable to bear the full cost of upbringing of their children. There's No good Reason for women, unless they're disgustingly Silly, to fail to see these facts that clearly show that a Patriarch is Not a Lion of a man. Patriarchs are abominable men that know well enough that they're lamentably lacking in the capacity to fulfill their duties & obligations towards their wives & children properly, and yet they don't hesitate to indulge in the luxury of matrimony.

Thus, from the above, it's clear as day that Not only is matrimony fundamentally antifeminine, it happens to be fundamentally anti-kids as well. And then, here is the shocking report from the UN WOMEN: ' Globally, an estimated 736 million women—almost one in three—have been subjected to intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both at least once in their life (30 per cent of women aged 15 and older). ' ( Facts and figures: Ending violence against women ) |It also shows that the Patriarch's home is Really Not a safe haven for the woman and her kids.

Kamala Harris

She's a Somebody, the Vice President of the Superpower USA; nevertheless, she finds Nothing wrong with women's indulgence in the luxury of Matrimony & Bearing babies the way Beasts breed.

(Photo attribution: United States Senate, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons )

Matrimony is No Licence for Sex or for Procreation

Matrimony is Really Not something like a licence for entering into a relationship with someone of your opposite sex. Neither society Nor the state ever wanted people to indulge in the disgusting luxury of matrimony. In all the advanced civilisations of today, women are free to indulge in free love. The term ' illegitimate child ' is Not used these days in the advanced civilizations by polite people who prefer expressions like ' natural child ', ' love child ', ' child born out of wedlock ', etc. to refer to such children. The proportion of the out-of-wedlock children has kept on growing in the USA as well as almost all the member states of the European Union. ' The percentage of all births to unmarried women was 40.0% in 2019, up from 2018 (39.6%) ' in the USA. ( Births: Final Data for 2019 Abstract; see 'Births to unmarried women' ) And the ' proportion of live births outside marriage in the EU stood at 42% in 2018. This is 17 percentage points above the value in 2000. ' ( Your key to European statistics )

Do Women Really Want To Be Respected By Men?

Matrimony symbolises the barbarian Patriarchy, and so it's fundamentally antifeminine. Matrimony has got Nothing meaningful Truly for women. Matrimony is No licence for relishing sex or procreation. No man is a Lion of a man, and so matrimony is a primary source of immense suffering & deprivation of innocent children too. There's No good Reason for an educated woman to fail to see these basic traits of matrimony. Astonishingly, to date we haveN't heard a woman to utter a word on these despicable traits of matrimony and thus try to enlighten the benighted females about the True nature of matrimony. This gives the impression that women are disgustingly Silly & Insignificant— so much so that they're devoid of the awareness that in order to get married, they need find a worthy man (i.e. a True lion of a man) first. And their disgusting pretension of unmindfulness of the fact that it's because of their willful indulgence in the luxury of matrimony and procreation that their own children fall victim to all faults & failings of the Patriarchs and suffer horrendous deprivation throughout their life is the incontestable proof of the indictment that women love to bear babies the way Cows & Nanny goats breed. Thus, they move me to wonder whether they Really want to lead an existence that elicits the respect of men.

There's many an able & talented woman such as Kamala Harris, the VP, USA, Jacinda Ardern, the PM, New Zealand, etc., who women can boast of. Nevertheless, all your achievements will come to naught if you're found out after having committed a heinous act. Women doN't seem to be aware of this obvious Truth yet. They seem to be awaiting a man that they expect to awaken them to this simple Truth.


Women still don't seem to bother about the Dignity of Womanhood.


* Well over 95% of guys in the Indian workforce don’t have taxable income. This implies that in the eyes of the Govt of India, they’re so poor as to deserve full exemption from income taxes. And according to a report released in 2018 by the Centre for Sustainable Employment at Azim Premji University , “ 82% of male and 92% of female workers earn less than [Rs]10,000 a month, “ while the minimum salary recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission (CPC) is “ [Rs]18,000 per month. “ (SWI 2018, Fig 4.10 & Fig 5.5; STATE OF WORKING INDIA 2018 REPORT FIGURES )

In the light of the above, I think the army of Indian men below the Poverty Line consist of no less than 90% of the country’s menfolk ? I’ve taken the income figure Rs 18 000 a month as the poverty threshold for |India, and I consider me a hundred percent justified on this point.