Sept 3, 2010
28-year-old victim's face sizzled, bubbled after attack
Police in Vancouver, Wash., are on the hunt for a woman who threw acid in the face of another woman outside a local Starbucks coffee shop on Monday.
Bethany Storro, 28, told reporters Thursday she was getting something out of the trunk of her car when a woman holding a cup came up to her and asked: "Hey pretty girl, do you want to drink this?"
The woman then splashed the contents of the cup — believed to be hydrochloric or sulphuric acid — on her, causing her to stumble in pain and fall to the ground screaming. The other woman ran off.
Storro said she felt agonizing pain as the skin on her face bubbled and sizzled and portions of the blouse she was wearing disintegrated.
"It was the most painful thing ever," said Storro, her head wrapped in white bandages following surgery Wednesday night. "My heart stopped. It ripped through my clothing the instant it touched my shirt. I could feel it burning through my second layer of skin."
Doctors at Legacy Emanuel Hospital in Portland performed surgery on Storro's face Wednesday night, removing dead skin from the areas that were most deeply injured.
Storro credits a new pair of sunglasses, which she had bought minutes earlier and was wearing, for protecting her eyes and sparing her vision.
'When I first saw her, she had this weirdness about her — like jealousy, rage.— Bethany Storro, on her attacker
Police are seeking a black woman with a ponytail in the Monday attack.
"I have never, ever seen this girl in my entire life," Storro said. "When I first saw her, she had this weirdness about her — like jealousy, rage."
Storro said she'd like to find her assailant and ask her why she threw the acid.
Was it a dare, or did the woman wake up Monday morning and tell herself that today she was going to "carry some acid in a cup and throw it on the first person I see?" Storro asked.
Mr.Rebates
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Top 10: Ways To Become An Evolved Man
If you want to become the kind of guy who attracts women automatically -- and always has women in his life -- it’s important that you become an “evolved man.” You need to operate on a higher level than the average Joe. When you do, you’ll stand out from other guys, attract the women you want and get a hell of a lot more out of life in the process. Here are 10 tips to help you evolve and grow as a man -- starting today.
No.10 - Teach others what you learn
If you learn something great, the first order of business is to go teach it to as many people as you can. There’s something about teaching that makes the learning stick. If someone teaches you something and then you go teach it to someone else, it gets internalized deep within you. You’ll “get it” much faster. Teach others every great thing you learn -- immediately. Then, when you need it in the future, it will pop up for you automatically. Women will notice, believe me.
No.9 - Enjoy the process of learning
I think it’s a tragedy that school is so boring. We have so much pain attached to the learning process that as soon as we get out of school we never want to learn anything again. However, if you learn how to love the process of learning even more than what you’re learning, you’ll spend the rest of your life learning new things and growing as a man. Continually look for new things to learn; heck, in the process you’ll meet women who love learning too.
No.8 - Accept anxiety
Anxiety happens whenever we’re taking on something new and we need to become a beginner again. Most guys won’t try new things because they’re afraid of looking like a dumbass. Because they’re afraid of getting embarrassed, they trap themselves at their current level of development. But when you’re willing to try new things -- and even look silly for a while -- you’ll be able to see things with new eyes, and it’ll bring tremendous benefit to your life. Accept anxiety as a good thing: It means you’re learning something new.
No.7 - Focus on your inner game
Because we are so instant gratification-minded, we think techniques with women are where it’s at. But the truth is this: When you work on your inner game and learn about the deeper principles that are at work, you’ll pick up the techniques along the way. If you learn from someone who just knows the tricks, when you get into real-world situations you won’t know when or how to use them when the situation changes slightly. However, if you hang out with more evolved masters who teach you the principles, it may take a bit longer, but you’ll see how the techniques fit into the bigger picture. You’ll be much better at executing the technique -- and you’ll be much more successful. Don’t get seduced by techniques. Get deep.
No.6 - Travel
If you’re not regularly getting outside of that little bubble you live in, you’re limiting yourself and your perspective. When you expose yourself to new places, people and ideas, it’ll expand your mind and your view on things. I personally believe if everyone in the world could travel twice a year to far away countries, sit down with the people there and share a few meals, it would do a world of good. The more you travel and expand your mind, the more interesting a person you become, the more stories you have and the more attractive you become to women.
No.5 - Know your purpose in life
The incredible number of choices we have nowadays is a blessing -- but it’s also a boat anchor tied around our necks, and we’re trying to swim. Confucius said: “Man who chases two rabbits catches none.” Exactly. We have so many options that most of us are confused about what path to take. We haven’t taken the time to sit down, block out all distractions and figure out what our own life purpose is. I believe you can find your purpose in life and clarify it over time. The more you act on it, the clearer it will become -- and the bigger it will become. If you don’t know what your purpose is, go lock yourself in a room with a pad of paper and a pen and don’t do anything until you figure it out. Eventually, it’ll come to you. Few guys know that this is one of the most important things you can do to become incredibly attractive to women.
No.4 - Surround yourself with successful models
If you want to be successful, surround yourself with successful models. One of the miracles of technology is that we can buy an audio or video recording, put on headphones and hear (or watch) the teachings of experts around the world, both living and dead. Compare this to plopping down on the couch, watching the news and complaining to your buddies about how screwed up the world is. Take 30 minutes a day to listen or watch a master of success, like Brian Tracy or Napoleon Hill, and your life will be transformed in a year. Try it.
No.3 - Stop giving approval to get it
Almost all of us guys do this one. If we find a woman we really like, we think if we let her do whatever she wants and get away with anything, she’ll love us and stay with us. In other words, we give approval in order to get it. There’s just one problem: It’s manipulative and will almost always backfire. If you’re not successful with women, you’re probably doing a lot of manipulative things you’re not aware of. Just because you’re sweet and nice doesn’t obligate her to be sweet and nice back. Dating doesn’t work that way.
No.2 - Stop seeking approval
People who seek approval are constantly doing things so that other people will accept them. They’re looking for cues to see if people approve of them, and they continually change their behavior to what they think other people will like. They end up wearing out their welcome and being needy -- which absolutely kills attraction. Most guys do this without even knowing it. Looking for the approval of women is like a drug: The more you get, the more you want, the worse it gets -- and the less attractive you become. When you catch yourself seeking approval, shift gears and do something else. Women will love you for it.
No.1 - Stop apologizing
Most guys who face challenges with women and dating feel they need to apologize for everything they do that other people don’t like. Too many guys do this simply to get a woman’s approval, thinking if they make themselves weak and apologetic that somehow women will actually like it. Are you kidding? However, if you make it a rule to simply stop apologizing for everything, over time you’ll build a stronger self-image, take more responsibility in your life and let other people have their judgments without it affecting you. You’ll then be able to see when it’s truly appropriate to apologize. You’ll enjoy a nice boost to your personal power and your ability to attract quality women.
No.10 - Teach others what you learn
If you learn something great, the first order of business is to go teach it to as many people as you can. There’s something about teaching that makes the learning stick. If someone teaches you something and then you go teach it to someone else, it gets internalized deep within you. You’ll “get it” much faster. Teach others every great thing you learn -- immediately. Then, when you need it in the future, it will pop up for you automatically. Women will notice, believe me.
No.9 - Enjoy the process of learning
I think it’s a tragedy that school is so boring. We have so much pain attached to the learning process that as soon as we get out of school we never want to learn anything again. However, if you learn how to love the process of learning even more than what you’re learning, you’ll spend the rest of your life learning new things and growing as a man. Continually look for new things to learn; heck, in the process you’ll meet women who love learning too.
No.8 - Accept anxiety
Anxiety happens whenever we’re taking on something new and we need to become a beginner again. Most guys won’t try new things because they’re afraid of looking like a dumbass. Because they’re afraid of getting embarrassed, they trap themselves at their current level of development. But when you’re willing to try new things -- and even look silly for a while -- you’ll be able to see things with new eyes, and it’ll bring tremendous benefit to your life. Accept anxiety as a good thing: It means you’re learning something new.
No.7 - Focus on your inner game
Because we are so instant gratification-minded, we think techniques with women are where it’s at. But the truth is this: When you work on your inner game and learn about the deeper principles that are at work, you’ll pick up the techniques along the way. If you learn from someone who just knows the tricks, when you get into real-world situations you won’t know when or how to use them when the situation changes slightly. However, if you hang out with more evolved masters who teach you the principles, it may take a bit longer, but you’ll see how the techniques fit into the bigger picture. You’ll be much better at executing the technique -- and you’ll be much more successful. Don’t get seduced by techniques. Get deep.
No.6 - Travel
If you’re not regularly getting outside of that little bubble you live in, you’re limiting yourself and your perspective. When you expose yourself to new places, people and ideas, it’ll expand your mind and your view on things. I personally believe if everyone in the world could travel twice a year to far away countries, sit down with the people there and share a few meals, it would do a world of good. The more you travel and expand your mind, the more interesting a person you become, the more stories you have and the more attractive you become to women.
No.5 - Know your purpose in life
The incredible number of choices we have nowadays is a blessing -- but it’s also a boat anchor tied around our necks, and we’re trying to swim. Confucius said: “Man who chases two rabbits catches none.” Exactly. We have so many options that most of us are confused about what path to take. We haven’t taken the time to sit down, block out all distractions and figure out what our own life purpose is. I believe you can find your purpose in life and clarify it over time. The more you act on it, the clearer it will become -- and the bigger it will become. If you don’t know what your purpose is, go lock yourself in a room with a pad of paper and a pen and don’t do anything until you figure it out. Eventually, it’ll come to you. Few guys know that this is one of the most important things you can do to become incredibly attractive to women.
No.4 - Surround yourself with successful models
If you want to be successful, surround yourself with successful models. One of the miracles of technology is that we can buy an audio or video recording, put on headphones and hear (or watch) the teachings of experts around the world, both living and dead. Compare this to plopping down on the couch, watching the news and complaining to your buddies about how screwed up the world is. Take 30 minutes a day to listen or watch a master of success, like Brian Tracy or Napoleon Hill, and your life will be transformed in a year. Try it.
No.3 - Stop giving approval to get it
Almost all of us guys do this one. If we find a woman we really like, we think if we let her do whatever she wants and get away with anything, she’ll love us and stay with us. In other words, we give approval in order to get it. There’s just one problem: It’s manipulative and will almost always backfire. If you’re not successful with women, you’re probably doing a lot of manipulative things you’re not aware of. Just because you’re sweet and nice doesn’t obligate her to be sweet and nice back. Dating doesn’t work that way.
No.2 - Stop seeking approval
People who seek approval are constantly doing things so that other people will accept them. They’re looking for cues to see if people approve of them, and they continually change their behavior to what they think other people will like. They end up wearing out their welcome and being needy -- which absolutely kills attraction. Most guys do this without even knowing it. Looking for the approval of women is like a drug: The more you get, the more you want, the worse it gets -- and the less attractive you become. When you catch yourself seeking approval, shift gears and do something else. Women will love you for it.
No.1 - Stop apologizing
Most guys who face challenges with women and dating feel they need to apologize for everything they do that other people don’t like. Too many guys do this simply to get a woman’s approval, thinking if they make themselves weak and apologetic that somehow women will actually like it. Are you kidding? However, if you make it a rule to simply stop apologizing for everything, over time you’ll build a stronger self-image, take more responsibility in your life and let other people have their judgments without it affecting you. You’ll then be able to see when it’s truly appropriate to apologize. You’ll enjoy a nice boost to your personal power and your ability to attract quality women.
Top 10: Cruel Things Women Do To Men
Top 10 List
Women can be cruel, and they often do cruel things to men. Despite their reputation as the fairer sex, when it comes to relationships, sometimes women can be downright nasty. It seems like a reverse sexism started to take hold as the feminist movement came about and equality for women began gaining ground. Some women use their girl-power solidarity to come to a consensus on what’s socially acceptable for women to do to men in a relationship. They’ve agreed among themselves that these behaviors are perfectly justifiable regardless of how they play with a guy’s emotions or ego.
With that, we’ve compiled a top 10 list of cruel things women do to men.
No.10 - They don’t pick up the phone
You convinced her to give you her number and you’re feeling good about yourself. Your charm and good looks have obviously made an impression on her. Unfortunately, when you try to call, she doesn’t pick up or, worse yet, she’s given you a fake number. Some women will give you their numbers because it’s easier than trying to tell you why she’s not interested. What’s more, in the age of caller ID, it’s easy for her to avoid your calls. At least the women who give you a made-up number are being more obvious about the fact that they have no intention of talking to you again.
No.9 - Use men for free drinks
Some women go out never planning to spend any of their own money on drinks at the bar or club. Instead, they count on their feminine wiles to convince guys to shell out for their libations. Some of these women will take the opportunity of a guy buying a drink for her to begin to get to know him, but others (the cruel and heartless ones) will take that drink, flirt a little and move on to the next sucker with money to burn.
No.8 - Use men as placeholders
Maybe you’ve been in a relationship for a while and you notice that her eye is starting to wander. She’s starting more fights with you or not bothering to fight at all anymore. Her friends get quiet when you walk into a room. She’s avoiding your phone calls. Her things are disappearing from your place. The article Breakup Warning Signs talked about all these hints that she’s thinking about putting an end to your relationship and, well, they’re cruel things.
If she is a decent person, she’ll just get it over with and dump you already, but if she’s cruel, she’ll hold on to you for a while until somebody new comes along. These girls don’t like to be alone and without a relationship, so instead of putting you out of your misery and ending it, she’ll string you along until she meets someone to replace you. If she’s really cruel, she’ll start things up with him before she’s finalized the breakup with you.
No.7 - Emotionally manipulate men
Men don’t like to see women cry and some cruel women will take advantage of this fact and use it to get what they want. In general, women are much more emotional than men and it’s easy for some women to use a man’s complete incomprehension of female feelings to get something out of him. A few well-placed tears or a temper tantrum and most men will do anything to get it to stop.
No.6 - Use physical violence
Men are usually raised with the idea that hitting girls is a major no-no. Unfortunately, there are some cruel women who use this aspect of a man’s personality to gain power over him. In the minds of some women, it’s perfectly acceptable to slap a boyfriend across the face when he says something to piss her off. Knowing that he would never hit her back, this type of woman feels like she can inflict any kind physical pain on him without fear of repercussion. A man is also less likely to tell someone about suffering physical violence at the hands of his girlfriend if he believes he’ll be thought of as weak or pathetic.
No.5 - Criticize their men in public
A growing trend in television shows and commercials is that of depicting men as bumbling idiots, while their wives and girlfriends are intelligent, in control and flawless. This may contribute to the real life practice of cruel women who criticize and humiliate their men in public places. Women can get away with this in ways that men would never be allowed to. When a woman pokes fun at her man or even soundly debases him, the group surrounding them is more likely to laugh than to be appalled.
No.4 - They don’t disclose their relationship status
You’ve pulled out all your best moves and you seem to be making progress with the cute girl you’ve just met. When you finally get to the point when you feel you can safely ask for her number, she smiles and says: “I have a boyfriend.” That information would have been nice to have at the beginning of the conversation. It’s certainly not the worst thing a woman could do to a man, but it is annoying when she lets you assume that she’s available so that she can enjoy your flirtation and flattery.
No.3 - They withhold sex
This is a time-tested, and frequently used, cruel thing for women to do to men. For most men, sex is as important as breathing, so withholding it in order to get something she wants or simply to punish her man for his transgressions is a pretty awful thing to do, even if it is effective.
No.2 - They test their men
You’re all ready to go for a night out with your friends, when your girlfriend calls and asks you to change your plans to be with her instead. She doesn’t have any particular reason; she just wants to see you. She knows that you had plans to meet up with the guys, but if you really loved her, you’d come over to her place instead. If her request comes with an “if you really loved me,” then it’s a test. If you choose anything other than immediately rushing to her side, you’re going to fail. This kind of testing in a relationship is indeed cruel and petty.
No.1 - They flirt to inspire jealousy
Maybe she’s feeling underappreciated, maybe you’ve just had a big fight or maybe she just enjoys the tortured look on your face. For whatever reason, girls who flirt obviously with other guys in front of their boyfriends are immature and manipulative.
Women can be cruel, and they often do cruel things to men. Despite their reputation as the fairer sex, when it comes to relationships, sometimes women can be downright nasty. It seems like a reverse sexism started to take hold as the feminist movement came about and equality for women began gaining ground. Some women use their girl-power solidarity to come to a consensus on what’s socially acceptable for women to do to men in a relationship. They’ve agreed among themselves that these behaviors are perfectly justifiable regardless of how they play with a guy’s emotions or ego.
With that, we’ve compiled a top 10 list of cruel things women do to men.
No.10 - They don’t pick up the phone
You convinced her to give you her number and you’re feeling good about yourself. Your charm and good looks have obviously made an impression on her. Unfortunately, when you try to call, she doesn’t pick up or, worse yet, she’s given you a fake number. Some women will give you their numbers because it’s easier than trying to tell you why she’s not interested. What’s more, in the age of caller ID, it’s easy for her to avoid your calls. At least the women who give you a made-up number are being more obvious about the fact that they have no intention of talking to you again.
No.9 - Use men for free drinks
Some women go out never planning to spend any of their own money on drinks at the bar or club. Instead, they count on their feminine wiles to convince guys to shell out for their libations. Some of these women will take the opportunity of a guy buying a drink for her to begin to get to know him, but others (the cruel and heartless ones) will take that drink, flirt a little and move on to the next sucker with money to burn.
No.8 - Use men as placeholders
Maybe you’ve been in a relationship for a while and you notice that her eye is starting to wander. She’s starting more fights with you or not bothering to fight at all anymore. Her friends get quiet when you walk into a room. She’s avoiding your phone calls. Her things are disappearing from your place. The article Breakup Warning Signs talked about all these hints that she’s thinking about putting an end to your relationship and, well, they’re cruel things.
If she is a decent person, she’ll just get it over with and dump you already, but if she’s cruel, she’ll hold on to you for a while until somebody new comes along. These girls don’t like to be alone and without a relationship, so instead of putting you out of your misery and ending it, she’ll string you along until she meets someone to replace you. If she’s really cruel, she’ll start things up with him before she’s finalized the breakup with you.
No.7 - Emotionally manipulate men
Men don’t like to see women cry and some cruel women will take advantage of this fact and use it to get what they want. In general, women are much more emotional than men and it’s easy for some women to use a man’s complete incomprehension of female feelings to get something out of him. A few well-placed tears or a temper tantrum and most men will do anything to get it to stop.
No.6 - Use physical violence
Men are usually raised with the idea that hitting girls is a major no-no. Unfortunately, there are some cruel women who use this aspect of a man’s personality to gain power over him. In the minds of some women, it’s perfectly acceptable to slap a boyfriend across the face when he says something to piss her off. Knowing that he would never hit her back, this type of woman feels like she can inflict any kind physical pain on him without fear of repercussion. A man is also less likely to tell someone about suffering physical violence at the hands of his girlfriend if he believes he’ll be thought of as weak or pathetic.
No.5 - Criticize their men in public
A growing trend in television shows and commercials is that of depicting men as bumbling idiots, while their wives and girlfriends are intelligent, in control and flawless. This may contribute to the real life practice of cruel women who criticize and humiliate their men in public places. Women can get away with this in ways that men would never be allowed to. When a woman pokes fun at her man or even soundly debases him, the group surrounding them is more likely to laugh than to be appalled.
No.4 - They don’t disclose their relationship status
You’ve pulled out all your best moves and you seem to be making progress with the cute girl you’ve just met. When you finally get to the point when you feel you can safely ask for her number, she smiles and says: “I have a boyfriend.” That information would have been nice to have at the beginning of the conversation. It’s certainly not the worst thing a woman could do to a man, but it is annoying when she lets you assume that she’s available so that she can enjoy your flirtation and flattery.
No.3 - They withhold sex
This is a time-tested, and frequently used, cruel thing for women to do to men. For most men, sex is as important as breathing, so withholding it in order to get something she wants or simply to punish her man for his transgressions is a pretty awful thing to do, even if it is effective.
No.2 - They test their men
You’re all ready to go for a night out with your friends, when your girlfriend calls and asks you to change your plans to be with her instead. She doesn’t have any particular reason; she just wants to see you. She knows that you had plans to meet up with the guys, but if you really loved her, you’d come over to her place instead. If her request comes with an “if you really loved me,” then it’s a test. If you choose anything other than immediately rushing to her side, you’re going to fail. This kind of testing in a relationship is indeed cruel and petty.
No.1 - They flirt to inspire jealousy
Maybe she’s feeling underappreciated, maybe you’ve just had a big fight or maybe she just enjoys the tortured look on your face. For whatever reason, girls who flirt obviously with other guys in front of their boyfriends are immature and manipulative.
'Domestic violence law gives no right to seek maintenance'
Aug 31, 2010
The Delhi High Court Tuesday held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not give a woman any additional right to claim maintenance from husband.
Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, while dismissing the petition of Rachna Kathuria, said the act only puts on fast track the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person.
'If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in civil suit or by the court of metropolitan magistrate in an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the act,' said Justice Dhingra.
Under the act, the court of metropolitan magistrate (MM) has the power to grant maintenance and monetary relief on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where a woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under civil court or under section 125 of CrPC.
'If the woman has already moved court and her right to maintenance has been adjudicated by a competent civil court or by a competent court of MM under section 125 CrPC, for any enhancement of maintenance already granted, she will have to move the same court and she cannot approach the MM court under the act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance,' the court said.
The petitioner had filed an application under the act seeking maintenance.
An MM dismissed the application after finding that a civil suit is already going in a different court and she was getting a total maintenance of Rs.4,000 per month from her husband.
The court also noted that Rachna was living away from her husband Ramesh since January 1996. She also filed a civil suit under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and an application under section 125 CrPC.
Justice Dhingra in his observation said that in case the petitioner felt that maintenance awarded to her was not sufficient, the proper course for her was to approach the concerned court for modification of the order in which she had filed civil suit and which has granted her maintenance.
The Delhi High Court Tuesday held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not give a woman any additional right to claim maintenance from husband.
Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, while dismissing the petition of Rachna Kathuria, said the act only puts on fast track the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person.
'If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in civil suit or by the court of metropolitan magistrate in an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the act,' said Justice Dhingra.
Under the act, the court of metropolitan magistrate (MM) has the power to grant maintenance and monetary relief on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where a woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under civil court or under section 125 of CrPC.
'If the woman has already moved court and her right to maintenance has been adjudicated by a competent civil court or by a competent court of MM under section 125 CrPC, for any enhancement of maintenance already granted, she will have to move the same court and she cannot approach the MM court under the act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance,' the court said.
The petitioner had filed an application under the act seeking maintenance.
An MM dismissed the application after finding that a civil suit is already going in a different court and she was getting a total maintenance of Rs.4,000 per month from her husband.
The court also noted that Rachna was living away from her husband Ramesh since January 1996. She also filed a civil suit under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and an application under section 125 CrPC.
Justice Dhingra in his observation said that in case the petitioner felt that maintenance awarded to her was not sufficient, the proper course for her was to approach the concerned court for modification of the order in which she had filed civil suit and which has granted her maintenance.
Top 10 cruel things men do to women
The author of this article uses poor choice of words. For starters which Fool would use the word, "Cruel to describe the 10 items below? Wonder what someone would have to say about a 498a or DV act 2005 case being place on someone, I guess Crual wouldnt be a tough enough word to describe that situation. These Feminazi kissing reporters simply have nothing better to do with their time, they are like Ambulance Chasers simply ready to chase the first story that comes in front of them, talk about desperate souls.
Read the defination of the word Cruel from Merriam Websters Dictionary:
Definition of CRUEL
1: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings June 24, 2010
2a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain
b : unrelieved by leniency
— cru·el·ly\ˈkrü-(ə-)lē\ adverb
— cru·el·ness noun
Examples of CRUEL
a cruel twist of fate
Hunger is a cruel fact of nature.
Origin of CRUEL
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin crudelis, from crudus
First Known Use: 14th century
Love him or hate him, but you can't ignore him – yes, we are talking about the man of your life. He's probably the most loving creature in your life, but he can also be the perpetual torture in ways more than one.
Here, we bring the top 10 cruel things that men do to women ...
1. Having the biggest ego: Ever wondered why men hate taking directions and prefer hunting out the place on their own, even if it means 2 hours delay and waste of gas. Well, the answer is the big ego they walk around with. This was the pettiest exemplar of a man's ego, which gets hurt at the drop of the hat and needs a massage whenever possible.
2. Living with a 'selective memory': They'll not only remember the name of every cricketer and football player on the planet but will also know their scores by heart. But, the moment the deal is about remembering birthdays and anniversaries of people close to them, their brain suffers an ailment called 'selective memory syndrome'.
3. Ogling (read at breasts): 'Men do stare at women's breasts' has been stamped as official by a world wide survey. But how we wish they knew that their drooling at the sight of a well endowed woman is cruel not only to the victim of that gaze, but also to the woman sitting beside them. Yes, they don't miss any chance, even if it is when they are on a date!
4. Being overtly possessive: Where in the world did men get that insecurity from? (Their mother? )They blame women for being jealous but a mere mention of another man from their girl can turn them into an ever clinging magnet.
5. Taking pride in their hypocrisy: Men can't get more cruel than this! They love hanging around with the coolest and sexiest babe in the town, but when it comes to meeting mom, it's a 'homely' girl they start hunting for. You loved her dressing style and carefree attitude when she came for night-outs with you, what's with that marriage material hunt now?
6. Showing extra care: How does it feel to take his 'where-about' calls every 15 minutes after you step out of the home? The care in that gesture goes out of the window and irritation takes charge. Don't they realise that we lived safe, sound and perfectly well in this world before they came into our lives. Hope someone is listening.
7. Throwing their 'superman' self everywhere: Yes, it feels nice when men are around for some help. However, their 'I-can-do-everything-under-the-sun' attitude does more harm than good, especially when they think themselves to be exalted beings – a plumber, electrician, carpenter and a financial adviser all rolled into one.
8. Consider emotions to be crap: Women might be emotional but having a constant practical point of view, like men doesn't, score well always. Men will become better beings for sure, if they stop making fun of sentiments and ignoring them as useless.
9. Being the friend worshippers: It is very torturing for women when men don't learn to priorities their life post marriage. They blame her for being a clinging vine when she asks for his time, but how sane is it to have a bunch of friends in the backseat on a long-drive, which was planned to be a romantic one?
10. Being the sex monster: Undoubtedly, women love zest in bed, but it's very cruel of men to demand their partners to play the porn star they saw in that flick last night. It's better to let her be herself in a sexapade rather than putting her in an uncomfy situation and then blaming her for being non-cooperative.
Read the defination of the word Cruel from Merriam Websters Dictionary:
Definition of CRUEL
1: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings June 24, 2010
2a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain
b : unrelieved by leniency
— cru·el·ly\ˈkrü-(ə-)lē\ adverb
— cru·el·ness noun
Examples of CRUEL
a cruel twist of fate
Hunger is a cruel fact of nature.
Origin of CRUEL
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin crudelis, from crudus
First Known Use: 14th century
Love him or hate him, but you can't ignore him – yes, we are talking about the man of your life. He's probably the most loving creature in your life, but he can also be the perpetual torture in ways more than one.
Here, we bring the top 10 cruel things that men do to women ...
1. Having the biggest ego: Ever wondered why men hate taking directions and prefer hunting out the place on their own, even if it means 2 hours delay and waste of gas. Well, the answer is the big ego they walk around with. This was the pettiest exemplar of a man's ego, which gets hurt at the drop of the hat and needs a massage whenever possible.
2. Living with a 'selective memory': They'll not only remember the name of every cricketer and football player on the planet but will also know their scores by heart. But, the moment the deal is about remembering birthdays and anniversaries of people close to them, their brain suffers an ailment called 'selective memory syndrome'.
3. Ogling (read at breasts): 'Men do stare at women's breasts' has been stamped as official by a world wide survey. But how we wish they knew that their drooling at the sight of a well endowed woman is cruel not only to the victim of that gaze, but also to the woman sitting beside them. Yes, they don't miss any chance, even if it is when they are on a date!
4. Being overtly possessive: Where in the world did men get that insecurity from? (Their mother? )They blame women for being jealous but a mere mention of another man from their girl can turn them into an ever clinging magnet.
5. Taking pride in their hypocrisy: Men can't get more cruel than this! They love hanging around with the coolest and sexiest babe in the town, but when it comes to meeting mom, it's a 'homely' girl they start hunting for. You loved her dressing style and carefree attitude when she came for night-outs with you, what's with that marriage material hunt now?
6. Showing extra care: How does it feel to take his 'where-about' calls every 15 minutes after you step out of the home? The care in that gesture goes out of the window and irritation takes charge. Don't they realise that we lived safe, sound and perfectly well in this world before they came into our lives. Hope someone is listening.
7. Throwing their 'superman' self everywhere: Yes, it feels nice when men are around for some help. However, their 'I-can-do-everything-under-the-sun' attitude does more harm than good, especially when they think themselves to be exalted beings – a plumber, electrician, carpenter and a financial adviser all rolled into one.
8. Consider emotions to be crap: Women might be emotional but having a constant practical point of view, like men doesn't, score well always. Men will become better beings for sure, if they stop making fun of sentiments and ignoring them as useless.
9. Being the friend worshippers: It is very torturing for women when men don't learn to priorities their life post marriage. They blame her for being a clinging vine when she asks for his time, but how sane is it to have a bunch of friends in the backseat on a long-drive, which was planned to be a romantic one?
10. Being the sex monster: Undoubtedly, women love zest in bed, but it's very cruel of men to demand their partners to play the porn star they saw in that flick last night. It's better to let her be herself in a sexapade rather than putting her in an uncomfy situation and then blaming her for being non-cooperative.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
148 judgements in single day, Judge creates record of sorts
Sept 1, 2010
KAITHAL (Haryana): Additional District and Sessions Judge A K Shori here on Wednesday created a national record of sorts by delivering 148 judgements on a single day.
He smashed the record of 111 judgements pronounced on a single day by Andhra Pradesh Civil Judge J V V Satyanarayana Murthy three days back.
Even though the Kaithal Judge refused to talk to mediapersons, Bar sources said he had delivered 148 judgements on Wednesday.
Of this, 137 pertained to Land Acquisition, they said adding references in this connection were made by the state government to the court for decision.
Forty-nine references related to Mundri village, 48 to Geong, 16 to Chhabba, 18 to Sector 18 of Kaithal town, five to Deeg village and one to Balu, the sources said.
These references were made against different awards and separate judgments had to be pronounced in each case.
Two of the verdicts related to criminal trials, four to Motor Accident Claim Tribunal cases and one each to criminal appeal, criminal revision, civil appeal, Hindu Marriage Act and execution.
On August one this year, Judge Shori decided 87 cases. In all, he pronounced judgements in 223 cases last month
KAITHAL (Haryana): Additional District and Sessions Judge A K Shori here on Wednesday created a national record of sorts by delivering 148 judgements on a single day.
He smashed the record of 111 judgements pronounced on a single day by Andhra Pradesh Civil Judge J V V Satyanarayana Murthy three days back.
Even though the Kaithal Judge refused to talk to mediapersons, Bar sources said he had delivered 148 judgements on Wednesday.
Of this, 137 pertained to Land Acquisition, they said adding references in this connection were made by the state government to the court for decision.
Forty-nine references related to Mundri village, 48 to Geong, 16 to Chhabba, 18 to Sector 18 of Kaithal town, five to Deeg village and one to Balu, the sources said.
These references were made against different awards and separate judgments had to be pronounced in each case.
Two of the verdicts related to criminal trials, four to Motor Accident Claim Tribunal cases and one each to criminal appeal, criminal revision, civil appeal, Hindu Marriage Act and execution.
On August one this year, Judge Shori decided 87 cases. In all, he pronounced judgements in 223 cases last month
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Waiver of mutual consent for divorce open to misuse: Activists
Dec 18, 2010
NEW DELHI: The argument that condition of mutual consent for divorce under the Hindu Marriages Act of 1955 be waived off if the marriage is `dead' emotionally and practically, has received mixed response from feminists and women's rights activists. The plea for unilateral divorce was put forward by Union power minister Sushil Kumar Shinde's daughter Smriti in her petition to the Supreme Court recently.
While some activists feel that easing divorce laws would bring relief from protracted legal procedures, there are others who feel that the move could be used by men looking for a quick bailout.
Activist Madhu Kishwar said Indian laws were adversarial and the answer lay in strengthening the institution of family courts to ensure quick decisions that were taken within six months. "If irretrievable breakdown of marriage is allowed unilaterally, then women must also accept that the provision will be used against them,'' she said.
AIDWA's Sudha Sundaraman said the provision of mutual consent should not be altered as it will be used against women. "In our general experience, women are usually in a relatively disadvantageous position. They have insufficient financial back-up and unilateral divorce should not be allowed,'' she said.
Agreeing to this, former Law Commission member and women's rights activist Kirti Singh said in a larger perspective, women who want divorce should be able to get it. "It is a shame that even 60 years after Independence we have no law for sharing of marital property between a husband and wife. We need to strengthen our assets and maintenance laws so that women do not fear being stranded on the streets,'' Singh said.
She added that while in the individual case, provision of mutual consent could be waived off, a general change in law could not be to the benefit of women.
QnA: What is the reason for the gradual rise in the number of divorces in Indian society?
NEW DELHI: The argument that condition of mutual consent for divorce under the Hindu Marriages Act of 1955 be waived off if the marriage is `dead' emotionally and practically, has received mixed response from feminists and women's rights activists. The plea for unilateral divorce was put forward by Union power minister Sushil Kumar Shinde's daughter Smriti in her petition to the Supreme Court recently.
While some activists feel that easing divorce laws would bring relief from protracted legal procedures, there are others who feel that the move could be used by men looking for a quick bailout.
Activist Madhu Kishwar said Indian laws were adversarial and the answer lay in strengthening the institution of family courts to ensure quick decisions that were taken within six months. "If irretrievable breakdown of marriage is allowed unilaterally, then women must also accept that the provision will be used against them,'' she said.
AIDWA's Sudha Sundaraman said the provision of mutual consent should not be altered as it will be used against women. "In our general experience, women are usually in a relatively disadvantageous position. They have insufficient financial back-up and unilateral divorce should not be allowed,'' she said.
Agreeing to this, former Law Commission member and women's rights activist Kirti Singh said in a larger perspective, women who want divorce should be able to get it. "It is a shame that even 60 years after Independence we have no law for sharing of marital property between a husband and wife. We need to strengthen our assets and maintenance laws so that women do not fear being stranded on the streets,'' Singh said.
She added that while in the individual case, provision of mutual consent could be waived off, a general change in law could not be to the benefit of women.
QnA: What is the reason for the gradual rise in the number of divorces in Indian society?
Ex-priest 'exposes' clergy's sex secrets
Sept 1, 2010
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: There seems no end to Church's woes as far as "God's own country" is concerned. After ex-nun Sister Jesmi's tell-all book on the dark side of the convent life, it's now the turn of a former priest to expose what he claims "sexual anarchy among the clergy and the faithful".
The book, 'Here is The Heart of a Priest' by K P Shibu, who left the Vicentian Congregation after 11 years, is autobiographical and slams the "indulgent and licentious life-style of a section of the clergy". Writing about his days with the congregation, Shibu (38) alleges, "Homosexuality and adult films had become a part of their lifestyle... a section of priests and nuns were driven by lust for power and money. Mismanagement of funds was also rampant in institutions under the order."
After listening to the confessions of priests, Shibu claims he concluded that 60% of them had had sexual encounters with nuns, widows, society ladies or other faithful women. "Most celibates indulge in self pleasure," he writes in one place. There were also those who took advantage of poverty of women, orphans and abused children, alleges the former priest, and says ragging of new comers to the order shamefully prevails in seminaries.
Sister Jesmi's book, 'Amen: Autobiography of a Nun', was similarly critical of convent life.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: There seems no end to Church's woes as far as "God's own country" is concerned. After ex-nun Sister Jesmi's tell-all book on the dark side of the convent life, it's now the turn of a former priest to expose what he claims "sexual anarchy among the clergy and the faithful".
The book, 'Here is The Heart of a Priest' by K P Shibu, who left the Vicentian Congregation after 11 years, is autobiographical and slams the "indulgent and licentious life-style of a section of the clergy". Writing about his days with the congregation, Shibu (38) alleges, "Homosexuality and adult films had become a part of their lifestyle... a section of priests and nuns were driven by lust for power and money. Mismanagement of funds was also rampant in institutions under the order."
After listening to the confessions of priests, Shibu claims he concluded that 60% of them had had sexual encounters with nuns, widows, society ladies or other faithful women. "Most celibates indulge in self pleasure," he writes in one place. There were also those who took advantage of poverty of women, orphans and abused children, alleges the former priest, and says ragging of new comers to the order shamefully prevails in seminaries.
Sister Jesmi's book, 'Amen: Autobiography of a Nun', was similarly critical of convent life.
Pay hubby to fight for divorce: SC
Dec 30, 2009
NEW DELHI: In a rare departure from rules, the Supreme Court has directed a woman to pay Rs 10,000 to her estranged husband, who is unemployed, to enable him fight their matrimonial dispute in a Bangalore court.
Normally, under Section 125 CrPC, it is the duty of a husband to pay maintenance allowance to his wife during a divorce proceeding or thereafter. But in this case, the apex court directed Ines Miranda to pay Rs 10,000 to her husband Santosh K Swamy, living in Chennai, to fight the legal battle in Bangalore, where Miranda stays along with her daughter, after noting that Swamy was unemployed.
A bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari passed the direction while disposing of a transfer petition filed by Ines Miranda seeking transfer of a case filed by Swamy in a Chennai court to Bangalore.
NEW DELHI: In a rare departure from rules, the Supreme Court has directed a woman to pay Rs 10,000 to her estranged husband, who is unemployed, to enable him fight their matrimonial dispute in a Bangalore court.
Normally, under Section 125 CrPC, it is the duty of a husband to pay maintenance allowance to his wife during a divorce proceeding or thereafter. But in this case, the apex court directed Ines Miranda to pay Rs 10,000 to her husband Santosh K Swamy, living in Chennai, to fight the legal battle in Bangalore, where Miranda stays along with her daughter, after noting that Swamy was unemployed.
A bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari passed the direction while disposing of a transfer petition filed by Ines Miranda seeking transfer of a case filed by Swamy in a Chennai court to Bangalore.
High Court order on actor's divorce application upheld
Aug 20, 2010
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to interfere with a Madras High Court judgment holding that a family court in Chennai had the jurisdiction to decide the divorce case filed by Tamil actor Sukanya against her US-based husband.
A Bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice B.S. Chauhan dismissed a special leave petition filed by R. Sridharan, challenging the High Court judgment. In a brief order, the Bench said, “We do not find any valid ground to interfere with the High Court order. The SLP is dismissed leaving open the question of law. If the appellant has any grievance he can approach the family court. Since the application [for divorce] is pending since 2004, we direct the family court to decide the matter in four months.”
Justice Sathasivam told appellant's counsel K.K. Mani, “The facts are against you. There are many disputed facts. Whether the appellant is a US citizen; if so, when did he acquire US citizenship are all matters which can be adjudicated only by the family court.”
Counsel Gita Rama Seshan, counsel for Ms. Sukanya, maintained that the Hindu Marriage Act would apply and the family court in Chennai would have the jurisdiction to decide the divorce application.
Justice Chauhan told counsel, “You [the appellant] have a residence in Chennai. You are visiting the place. Whether you have acquired properties are not, what your intentions are if you have acquired any property can be gone into only by the family court.”
Mr. Mani, however, maintained that the house in Chennai belonged to his father and he did not own any property. But Justice Chauhan said, “These things can't be decided by us. Issues have to be framed and evidence has to be let in. There must be proper adjudication. But you did not allow the family court to decide anything. Even the question of jurisdiction could have been raised as a preliminary issue. But you have rushed to the High Court. Let the family court decide.”
According to the appellant, his marriage with Ms. Sukanya's took place as per traditional Hindu customs at the Balaji temple in New Jersey, U.S., in April 2002. She returned to India in January 2003 and never went back.
On a writ petition filed by Mr. Sridharan — through his Power of Attorney R.V. Krishnan — challenging the matrimonial proceedings on the ground that he could not be subjected to Indian laws, a single judge and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had held that Ms. Sukanya was entitled to file the petition in the place where she was staying.
The appellant's contention before the Supreme Court was it was settled law that in order to apply the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act both parties must be ‘domiciles' of India. As the appellant was a U.S. citizen, he could not be subjected to Indian jurisdiction and face the matrimonial proceedings which were not maintainable in law.
He argued that only the Foreign Marriage Act would apply to him.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to interfere with a Madras High Court judgment holding that a family court in Chennai had the jurisdiction to decide the divorce case filed by Tamil actor Sukanya against her US-based husband.
A Bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice B.S. Chauhan dismissed a special leave petition filed by R. Sridharan, challenging the High Court judgment. In a brief order, the Bench said, “We do not find any valid ground to interfere with the High Court order. The SLP is dismissed leaving open the question of law. If the appellant has any grievance he can approach the family court. Since the application [for divorce] is pending since 2004, we direct the family court to decide the matter in four months.”
Justice Sathasivam told appellant's counsel K.K. Mani, “The facts are against you. There are many disputed facts. Whether the appellant is a US citizen; if so, when did he acquire US citizenship are all matters which can be adjudicated only by the family court.”
Counsel Gita Rama Seshan, counsel for Ms. Sukanya, maintained that the Hindu Marriage Act would apply and the family court in Chennai would have the jurisdiction to decide the divorce application.
Justice Chauhan told counsel, “You [the appellant] have a residence in Chennai. You are visiting the place. Whether you have acquired properties are not, what your intentions are if you have acquired any property can be gone into only by the family court.”
Mr. Mani, however, maintained that the house in Chennai belonged to his father and he did not own any property. But Justice Chauhan said, “These things can't be decided by us. Issues have to be framed and evidence has to be let in. There must be proper adjudication. But you did not allow the family court to decide anything. Even the question of jurisdiction could have been raised as a preliminary issue. But you have rushed to the High Court. Let the family court decide.”
According to the appellant, his marriage with Ms. Sukanya's took place as per traditional Hindu customs at the Balaji temple in New Jersey, U.S., in April 2002. She returned to India in January 2003 and never went back.
On a writ petition filed by Mr. Sridharan — through his Power of Attorney R.V. Krishnan — challenging the matrimonial proceedings on the ground that he could not be subjected to Indian laws, a single judge and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had held that Ms. Sukanya was entitled to file the petition in the place where she was staying.
The appellant's contention before the Supreme Court was it was settled law that in order to apply the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act both parties must be ‘domiciles' of India. As the appellant was a U.S. citizen, he could not be subjected to Indian jurisdiction and face the matrimonial proceedings which were not maintainable in law.
He argued that only the Foreign Marriage Act would apply to him.
(Judgement) by SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA-Again DV Misuse Judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 6th July, 2010
Date of Order: 29th July, 2010
+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 253/2010
%
29.07.2010
Harbans Lal Malik … Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate
Versus
Payal Malik
… Respondents
Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal
& Mr. D.Jain, Advocates
+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 252/2010
%
29.07.2010
Varun Malik
… Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate
Versus
Payal Malik
… Respondents
Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal
& Mr. D.Jain, Advocates
+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 338/2010
% 29.07.2010
Nagesh Malik … Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate
Versus
Payal Malik … Respondents
Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr.Deepak Aggarwal
& Mr. D.Jain, Advocates
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
These petitions arise out of order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 7th May, 2010 while disposing of two appeals against the order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by the learned MM.
2. The undisputed facts are that Ms. Payal Malik used to live with her parents before marriage at Hissar. Her marriage took place with Mr. Nagesh Malik whose parents used to live at Panipat. Marriage of the parties was solemnized at Panipat on 30th August, 2001. Nagesh Malik was already working in USA and after marriage both of them went to USA on 20th September, 2001 where they settled their matrimonial home and lived together. On 24th October, 2002 a female child was born to the couple at USA, who was named as Vanishka. The parties continued living together in USA till 2008. It seems deep differences arose between the parties and they could not pull on together. There are allegations and counter allegations made by wife and husband which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition. However, husband alleged that on 6th August, 2008 due to these differences, parties executed a post-nuptial agreement and decided to obtain divorce from each other, sticking to the agreement. Wife refutes having signed the agreement voluntarily and alleges that she was turned out from USA by her husband on 22nd August, 2008. Whereas the husband‟s contention is that she of her own left USA without joining the husband for obtaining divorce through a Court in USA. The husband filed a divorce petition before Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division Family Court USA on 27th August, 2008. The notice of divorce suit was duly served on her. The Court of New Jersey allowed the divorce petition and a decree of divorce was granted on 4th December, 2008.
3. On 13th January, 2009 wife filed a complaint before CAW Cell Hissar against husband and in-laws. Ms. Sushila, Inspector of CAW Cell Hissar, vide her report dated 20th January, 2009, observed that the allegations in the complaint were not true and it was useless to keep the complaint pending further. Thereafter, wife filed a complaint in the Court of MM at Delhi making her husband (Nagesh Malik), father-in-law (Harbans Lal Malik), mother-in-law (Neelam Malik) and brother-in-law (Varun Malik) as parties under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [in short – Domestic Violence Act] with a prayer that Court should pass a protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary relief order under Section 20, compensation order under Section 22 and interim orders under Section 23 of the Act. She made allegations of mal-treatment at the hands of respondents from day one of the marriage till she left USA and came to India. She stated, after coming back from USA she went to her in-laws‟ house at Panipat but found the house locked as her parents-in-law had gone to USA. She also stated that her husband had sent a complaint to SP Panipat leveling certain scandalous allegations against her. She graduated from Delhi University in 1998 and had done interior designing course from South Delhi Polytechnic. She alleged that her in-laws had three houses and an industrial unit in Panipat. They had properties in Delhi as well and respondent no.1 (her husband) had share in properties of her in-laws. She submitted that her complaint at CAW Cell Hissar could not be pursued by her as her in-laws had tried to mislead Haryana police and also because of a tragedy in her family. She left her parents‟ house and came to Delhi to pursue her career prospects. She was presently residing at Malviya Nagar, Delhi. Till the time she was not given back her matrimonial home (at Panipat), she would live in Delhi, so the Court of MM at Delhi had jurisdiction. She prayed that custody of child Vanshika should be given to her. She should be given shares in properties at Panipat and Delhi as well as a house in New Jersey, USA. She should be given Rs.20,000/- per month for her maintenance and education as she intended to pursue further study and Court should direct for return of her dowry articles. Along with main application under the Domestic Violence Act, applications for interim reliefs were made. She in the application under Section 23 of the Act prayed for a residence or in lieu thereof a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- as onetime payment to meet education expenses, a car or Rs.8,000/- per month in lieu of the car and Rs.20,000/- per month for her day-to-day expenses and Rs.50,000/- as onetime payment to repay her debts.
4. The learned MM, by her order dated 27th July, 2009 directed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month be paid to wife as interim maintenance jointly or severally by respondents no. 1,2 & 4. She dropped respondent no.3 from the array of respondents on the ground that petition against a female respondent was not maintainable.
5. It was pleaded before the learned MM by the petitioner that there was a decree of divorce granted by a Competent Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division after following due procedure as laid down in USA. After grant of divorce there was no domestic relationship of Ms. Payal Malik with any of the respondents. (It is noted in the order of MM that the decree of divorce passed by the Court of US was placed on record.) Reliance was also placed by the petitioner on post nuptial agreement as entered into between husband and wife. The learned trial Court did not think it proper to deal with the issue whether an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act could be entertained at all in respect of a divorced wife and whether the decree of divorce granted by the foreign Court where the parties had lived together for more than seven years, had some value or not.
6. The trial Court after discussing the objects and aims of The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and after reproducing a quote from novelist Joseph Conrad “being a woman is a terribly difficult task, since it consists principally in dealing with men” [as if men, though given birth by women, are ferocious animals and not human beings, but cannibals] passed an order for grant of maintenance.
7. In appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, an argument was pressed that the judgment given by New Jersey Court was conclusive evidence of status of the parties and in view of Section 14 of Code of Civil Procedure and Section 4 of The Indian Evidence Act, unless the judgment was set aside the trial Court should not have entertained the petition under Section 12 of The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act. It was pleaded that only an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (which is applicable to divorced wife) could have been entertained by a Court, if moved. It was argued by wife that decree of divorce was obtained by fraud and was hit by Section 13 CPC and therefore could not stand in the way of entertaining an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act.
8. The learned Sessions Judge while deciding appeal observed that the provisions of Domestic Violence Act are to be interpreted taking help of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the explanation given under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of “Wife” is to be read in Domestic Violence Act also. He further observed that the Court has to take pragmatic approach and unless the dissolution of marriage was proved by evidence, the Court has not to act on the decree. He therefore dismissed the appeal filed by husband and other respondents observing that there was no illegality in the order of learned trial Court in granting maintenance. He allowed an appeal filed by wife in respect of execution of the order of of MM and directed that Ministry of External Affairs be sent a request to execute the order dated 27th July, 2009 as per law.
9. The first issue arising in this case is whether an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act made by the respondent could have been entertained against all the respondents (petitioners herein) as arrayed in her application and whether the Court without discussing the domestic and legal relationship of different respondents with the petitioner, could have passed an order against the petitioners making them jointly and severally liable to pay maintenance of Rs.50,000/-.
10. Under Section 12, an „aggrieved person‟ can file an application to Magistrate against the respondents. The respondent has been defined under Section
2 (q). The definition reads as under:
“respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
11. It is apparent that in order to make a person as respondent in a petition under Section 12, there must exist a domestic relationship between the respondent and the aggrieved person. If there is no domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent, the Court of MM cannot pass an order against such a person under the Act. Domestic relationship is defined under Section
2 (f) of the Act and is as under:
“domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
12. It is apparent that domestic relationship arises between the two persons, who have lived together in a shared household and when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The definition speaks of living together at any point of time however it does not speak of having relation at any point of time. Thus, if the domestic relationship continued and if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared household, the person can be a respondent but if the relationship does not continue and the relationship had been in the past and is not in the present, a person cannot be made respondent on the ground of a past relationship. The domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when complaint under Domestic Violence Act is filed and if this relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is filed, the domestic relationship cannot be said to be there. The first respondent made by the wife in her complaint before the learned MM in this case was husband with whom the wife had lived under the same roof in a shared household till 22nd August, 2008 in USA. She had not lived for last 7 ½ years with respondent no.1 in India. Respondent No.4 is Varun Malik who is brother of the husband. Under no circumstances it can be said that brother of husband, who was a major and independent, living separately from this husband and wife, had any kind of domestic relationship or moral or legal responsibility/obligations towards his brother‟s wife. He had not lived in domestic relationship with Payal Malik at any point of time. Merely because a person is brother of the husband he cannot be arrayed as a respondent, nor does an MM gets authority over each and every relative of the husband, without going into the fact whether a domestic relationship or shared household was there between the aggrieved person and the respondent.
13. The other respondent made in this case is Harbans Lal, father of Nagesh Malik. Nagesh Malik was living in USA he came to India to solemnize his marriage with an appropriate person. After marriage was solemnized he left India and went to USA. He lived all along with his wife in USA, birth of the child had taken place in USA. In all such cases where boy lives abroad and is settled abroad but comes to India for marriage, it is known to the girl as well as to the parents of the girl that they are choosing a groom who is not living with his parents but settled abroad. His links with the parents are only as with any other relative. He is not dependent on parents may be parents, if poor, take financial help from him.
14. The girl and the parents of the girl knew it very well that they had selected a person for marriage with whom the girl was going to live abroad and the matrimonial home and the shared household was going to be outside India. This act of marrying a person settled abroad is a voluntary act of the girl. If she had not intended to enjoy the fat salary which boys working abroad get and the material facilities available abroad, she could have refused to marry him and settled for a boy having moderate salary within India. After having chosen a person living abroad, putting the responsibility, after failure of marriage, on the shoulders on his parents and making them criminals in the eyes of law because matrimonial ties between the two could not last for long, does not sound either legally correct or morally correct. How can the parents of a boy who is working abroad, living abroad, an adult, free to take his own decisions, be arrayed as criminals or respondents if the marriage between him and his wife failed due to any reason whatsoever after few years of marriage. If the sin committed by such parents of boy is that they facilitated the marriage, then this sin is equally committed by parents of the girl. If such marriage fails then parents of both bride and groom would have to share equal responsibility. The responsibility of parents of the groom cannot be more. Shelter of Indian culture and joint family cannot be taken to book only relatives of boy. A woman‟s shared household in India in such cases is also her parents‟ house where she lived before marriage and not her in-laws‟ house where she did not live after marriage.
15. When the shared household of husband and wife had not been in India for the last 08 years at any point of time, it is strange that the learned MM did not even think it proper to discuss as to how the father or the brother of the boy could be made respondents in proceedings of domestic violence, after husband and wife had not been able to pull on together. In the present case, Mr. Harbans Lal Malik petitioner could not be said to have shared household with the respondent since the respondent had not lived in his house as a family member, in a joint family of which Harbans Lal Malik was the head.
16. It is important to consider as to what “family” is and what “joint family” is. As per Black‟s Law Dictionary (VI Edition) “family” means a collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or management. Dictionary states that the meaning of word “family” necessarily depends on field of law in which word is used, but this is the most common meaning. “Family” also means a group of blood relatives and all the relations who descend from a common ancestor or who spring from a common root. However, for the purpose of domestic violence act where the object is to protect a woman from domestic violence, “family” has to be defined as a collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or management. In Chamber‟s Dictionary (1994-95) again the “family” is defined as all those who live in one house i.e. parents, children servants; parents and their children. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993 ed.) “family” is defined as a group of persons living in one household including parents and their children, boarders, servants and such a group is a organizational unit of society.
17. A Hindu Joint Family or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or a Joint Family is an extended family arrangement prevalent among Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, consisting of many generations living under the same roof. All the male members are blood relatives and all the women are either mothers, wives, unmarried daughters or widowed relatives, all bound by the common sapinda relationship. The joint family status being the result of birth, possession of joint cord that knits the members of the family together is not property but the relationship. The family is headed by a patriarch, usually the oldest male, who makes decisions on economic and social matters on behalf of the entire family. The patriarch‟s wife generally exerts control over the kitchen, child rearing and minor religious practices. All money goes to the common pool and all property is held jointly. The essential features of a joint family are:
Head of the family takes all decisions
All members live under one roof
Share the same kitchen
Three generations living together (though often two or more brothers live together or father and son live together or all the descendants of male live together)
Income and expenditure in a common pool – property held together.
A common place of worship
All decisions are made by the male head of the family – patrilineal, patriarchal.
18. Thus, in order to constitute a family and domestic relationship it is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are living separate then they are not a family but they are relatives related by blood or consanguinity to each other. Where parents live separate from their son like any other relative, the family of son cannot include his parents. The parents can be included in the family of son only when they are dependent upon the son and/or are living along with the son in the same house. But when they are not dependent upon the son and they are living separate, the parents shall constitute a separate family and son, his wife and children shall constitute a separate family. There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of son with the parents when the parents are not living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when son along with the wife is living abroad, maintaining a family there and children are born abroad. I, therefore consider that Harbans Lal Malik could not have been made as a respondent in a petition under Domestic Violence Act as he had no domestic relationship with aggrieved person even if this marriage between her and her husband was subsisting.
19. I, also consider that the definition of “wife” as available under Section 125 Cr.P.C could not be imported into Domestic Violence Act. The Legislature was well aware of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and if Legislature intended, it would have defined “wife” as in Section 125 Cr.P.C in Domestic Violence Act as well. The purpose and object of Domestic Violence and provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is different. While Domestic Violence Act has been enacted by the Parliament to prevent acts of domestic violence on women living in a shared household. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy where wife is left high and dry without maintenance. Law gives a right to claim maintenance under Civil Law as well as Section 125 Cr.P.C. even to a divorced wife, but an act of domestic violence cannot be committed on a divorced wife, who is not living with her husband or family and is free to live wherever she wants. She has a right to claim maintenance and enforce other rights as per law. She has a right to claim custody of children as per law but denial of these rights do not amount to domestic violence. Domestic Violence is not perceived in this manner. The definition of “Domestic Violence” as given in Section 3 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and is under:
3. Definition of domestic violence.-
For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it –
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.-For the purposes of this section,-
(i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes-
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.
(iv) “economic abuse” includes-
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
20. This definition pre supposes that the woman is living with the person who committed violence and domestic relationship is not dead buried or severed. This does not speak of past violence which a woman suffered before grant of divorce.
21. The next question which arises is whether the learned Court of MM could have ignored the decree granted by the Court of New Jersey, USA. Section 14 of CPC reads as under:
14. Presumption as to foreign judgments. – The Court shall presume upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.
22. It is evident from the reading of this provision that the Court has to presume, if a certified copy of foreign judgment is produced that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction unless the contrary appears on record or is proved. Obtaining of divorce by husband from New Jersey Court is not denied in this case. Prima facie New Jersey, USA Court had jurisdiction is evident from the fact that husband and wife lived together in New Jersey for 7 ½ years. The laws of New Jersey provided that the jurisdiction in a matrimonial matter can be assumed by the Court if the parties have ordinarily lived there for one year. In the present case admittedly the parties lived there for 7 ½ years thus prima facie there was no issue whether the Court of New Jersey had jurisdiction or not.
23. Section 13 of CPC provides as under:
13. When foreign judgment not conclusive.
A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except-
(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case; (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of 1[India] in cases in which such law is applicable; (d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; (e) where it has been obtained by fraud; (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in 1[India].
24. It is evident that a foreign judgment has to be on the face of it considered to be final. The explanations as mentioned in Section 13 are to be proved by a person who alleges that the foreign judgment was not to be relied on and should not be considered. A foreign judgment can be set aside by a competent Court, only when the person aggrieved from foreign judgment asks for a declaration that the judgment should not be acted upon. So long as the foreign judgment is not set aside and the issue regarding foreign judgment is not adjudicated by a competent Court, the judgment cannot be ignored and a Court cannot brush aside a foreign judgment as a non- consequential. Section 13 & 14 of CPC provide how a foreign judgment is to be dealt with. A Court in India has to presume that the judgment delivered by a foreign Court where the parties had lived for 7 ½ years and given birth to a girl, is a judgment given by a competent court and if anyone wants that this judgment be disregarded, he has to prove the same before the Court. So long as he does not prove it, the judgment is considered as a valid judgment and has to be given effect to.
25. It was argued by the respondent Counsel that the respondent did not participate in proceedings before the Court of New Jersey, USA. Participating or not participating before the Court is not a ground for setting aside its judgment. The grounds for setting aside a foreign judgment are given in Section 13 CPC and this is not one of the grounds.
26. The question of jurisdiction was considered by the Court of New Jersey, USA that awarded decree of divorce and it is not shown by the Counsel for respondent how Court of New Jersey had no jurisdiction when the two parties lived there for 7 ½ years and gave birth to a US citizen within the jurisdiction of that Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon Y. Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451 to press the point that a decree of divorce granted by a foreign Court should not be relied upon since the parties were married in India and they were governed by Hindu Marriage Act. A bare perusal of the judgment of New Jersey Court would show that the divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty which is one of the grounds available under Hindu Marriage Act.
27. In Y. Narasimha Rao‟s case (supra), decree of divorce was obtained by husband from the Circuit Court of St. Louis Country Missouri, USA by creating a jurisdiction of that Court as the condition for invoking jurisdiction of that Court was 90 days residence. Supreme Court observed that the residence does not mean a “temporary residence” for the purpose of obtaining divorce but it must be “habitual residence “which is intended to be a permanent residence for future as well, since it was not the case, the decree was found to be null and void. It is not the position in this case. The parties had made New Jersey as their home for 7 ½ years thus the Court of New Jersey could not be said to have assumed jurisdiction only on the basis of temporary residence of husband. I also consider that issue of assuming jurisdiction on the basis of temporary residence may have no force today when statutory provisions in India allow assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of a temporary residence [Section 27(1)(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005].
28. I am surprised that the Courts below did not give weight to the judgment of New Jersey where parties lived for 7 ½ years but assumed jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act because of the pure temporary residence (as pleaded by her) of wife in Delhi who is otherwise resident of Hissar. The Court of ASJ wanted that the order of the Court of MM should be honoured by the US while the Court here would not honour a decree of Court of USA where the husband and wife lived for 7 ½ years.
29. I consider that the decree of divorce granted by the Court of New Jersey, USA where husband and wife lived together for 7 ½ years and gave birth to a child could not be ignored and it could not be said that domestic relationship of the wife continued with her husband in New Jersey or her in-laws living at Panipat.
30. The learned MM and learned ASJ committed jurisdictional error by assuming jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act, in view of admitted fact that the wife had all along, before filing the petition under Domestic Violence Act, lived with her husband in USA. Her shared household had been in USA, her husband was still living in USA the child was born in USA. The courts below also committed grave error by making brother or father of the husband and father of the husband jointly responsible for payment of Rs.50,000/- to the wife. There was no justification for directing brother of the husband to pay this amount. Once a son grows and he starts earning, marries, makes his separate home, and sires children the burden of his wife cannot be put on the shoulders of his father or brother on an estrangement between husband and wife. This burden has to be borne by the husband alone and not by the parents or bothers or sister of the husband, unless and until the husband had been contributing to the joint family as a member of HUF and has a right of deriving benefits from the joint family. If the husband had not been contributing or deriving benefits from the joint family, had not been member of the joint family and the parents had been treated like any other relative, how can the parents be burdened with the responsibility of his wife. 31. In view of my above discussion, order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by learned MM and order dated 7th May, 2010 passed by learned ASJ, directing payment of Rs.50,000/- jointly and severally, ignoring the decree of divorce and without devolving upon the domestic relationship are illegal and not tenable. The orders are set aside. No order as to costs.
July 29, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. v
Date of Reserve: 6th July, 2010
Date of Order: 29th July, 2010
+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 253/2010
%
29.07.2010
Harbans Lal Malik … Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate
Versus
Payal Malik
… Respondents
Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal
& Mr. D.Jain, Advocates
+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 252/2010
%
29.07.2010
Varun Malik
… Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate
Versus
Payal Malik
… Respondents
Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal
& Mr. D.Jain, Advocates
+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 338/2010
% 29.07.2010
Nagesh Malik … Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate
Versus
Payal Malik … Respondents
Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr.Deepak Aggarwal
& Mr. D.Jain, Advocates
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
These petitions arise out of order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 7th May, 2010 while disposing of two appeals against the order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by the learned MM.
2. The undisputed facts are that Ms. Payal Malik used to live with her parents before marriage at Hissar. Her marriage took place with Mr. Nagesh Malik whose parents used to live at Panipat. Marriage of the parties was solemnized at Panipat on 30th August, 2001. Nagesh Malik was already working in USA and after marriage both of them went to USA on 20th September, 2001 where they settled their matrimonial home and lived together. On 24th October, 2002 a female child was born to the couple at USA, who was named as Vanishka. The parties continued living together in USA till 2008. It seems deep differences arose between the parties and they could not pull on together. There are allegations and counter allegations made by wife and husband which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition. However, husband alleged that on 6th August, 2008 due to these differences, parties executed a post-nuptial agreement and decided to obtain divorce from each other, sticking to the agreement. Wife refutes having signed the agreement voluntarily and alleges that she was turned out from USA by her husband on 22nd August, 2008. Whereas the husband‟s contention is that she of her own left USA without joining the husband for obtaining divorce through a Court in USA. The husband filed a divorce petition before Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division Family Court USA on 27th August, 2008. The notice of divorce suit was duly served on her. The Court of New Jersey allowed the divorce petition and a decree of divorce was granted on 4th December, 2008.
3. On 13th January, 2009 wife filed a complaint before CAW Cell Hissar against husband and in-laws. Ms. Sushila, Inspector of CAW Cell Hissar, vide her report dated 20th January, 2009, observed that the allegations in the complaint were not true and it was useless to keep the complaint pending further. Thereafter, wife filed a complaint in the Court of MM at Delhi making her husband (Nagesh Malik), father-in-law (Harbans Lal Malik), mother-in-law (Neelam Malik) and brother-in-law (Varun Malik) as parties under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [in short – Domestic Violence Act] with a prayer that Court should pass a protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary relief order under Section 20, compensation order under Section 22 and interim orders under Section 23 of the Act. She made allegations of mal-treatment at the hands of respondents from day one of the marriage till she left USA and came to India. She stated, after coming back from USA she went to her in-laws‟ house at Panipat but found the house locked as her parents-in-law had gone to USA. She also stated that her husband had sent a complaint to SP Panipat leveling certain scandalous allegations against her. She graduated from Delhi University in 1998 and had done interior designing course from South Delhi Polytechnic. She alleged that her in-laws had three houses and an industrial unit in Panipat. They had properties in Delhi as well and respondent no.1 (her husband) had share in properties of her in-laws. She submitted that her complaint at CAW Cell Hissar could not be pursued by her as her in-laws had tried to mislead Haryana police and also because of a tragedy in her family. She left her parents‟ house and came to Delhi to pursue her career prospects. She was presently residing at Malviya Nagar, Delhi. Till the time she was not given back her matrimonial home (at Panipat), she would live in Delhi, so the Court of MM at Delhi had jurisdiction. She prayed that custody of child Vanshika should be given to her. She should be given shares in properties at Panipat and Delhi as well as a house in New Jersey, USA. She should be given Rs.20,000/- per month for her maintenance and education as she intended to pursue further study and Court should direct for return of her dowry articles. Along with main application under the Domestic Violence Act, applications for interim reliefs were made. She in the application under Section 23 of the Act prayed for a residence or in lieu thereof a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- as onetime payment to meet education expenses, a car or Rs.8,000/- per month in lieu of the car and Rs.20,000/- per month for her day-to-day expenses and Rs.50,000/- as onetime payment to repay her debts.
4. The learned MM, by her order dated 27th July, 2009 directed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month be paid to wife as interim maintenance jointly or severally by respondents no. 1,2 & 4. She dropped respondent no.3 from the array of respondents on the ground that petition against a female respondent was not maintainable.
5. It was pleaded before the learned MM by the petitioner that there was a decree of divorce granted by a Competent Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division after following due procedure as laid down in USA. After grant of divorce there was no domestic relationship of Ms. Payal Malik with any of the respondents. (It is noted in the order of MM that the decree of divorce passed by the Court of US was placed on record.) Reliance was also placed by the petitioner on post nuptial agreement as entered into between husband and wife. The learned trial Court did not think it proper to deal with the issue whether an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act could be entertained at all in respect of a divorced wife and whether the decree of divorce granted by the foreign Court where the parties had lived together for more than seven years, had some value or not.
6. The trial Court after discussing the objects and aims of The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and after reproducing a quote from novelist Joseph Conrad “being a woman is a terribly difficult task, since it consists principally in dealing with men” [as if men, though given birth by women, are ferocious animals and not human beings, but cannibals] passed an order for grant of maintenance.
7. In appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, an argument was pressed that the judgment given by New Jersey Court was conclusive evidence of status of the parties and in view of Section 14 of Code of Civil Procedure and Section 4 of The Indian Evidence Act, unless the judgment was set aside the trial Court should not have entertained the petition under Section 12 of The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act. It was pleaded that only an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (which is applicable to divorced wife) could have been entertained by a Court, if moved. It was argued by wife that decree of divorce was obtained by fraud and was hit by Section 13 CPC and therefore could not stand in the way of entertaining an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act.
8. The learned Sessions Judge while deciding appeal observed that the provisions of Domestic Violence Act are to be interpreted taking help of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the explanation given under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of “Wife” is to be read in Domestic Violence Act also. He further observed that the Court has to take pragmatic approach and unless the dissolution of marriage was proved by evidence, the Court has not to act on the decree. He therefore dismissed the appeal filed by husband and other respondents observing that there was no illegality in the order of learned trial Court in granting maintenance. He allowed an appeal filed by wife in respect of execution of the order of of MM and directed that Ministry of External Affairs be sent a request to execute the order dated 27th July, 2009 as per law.
9. The first issue arising in this case is whether an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act made by the respondent could have been entertained against all the respondents (petitioners herein) as arrayed in her application and whether the Court without discussing the domestic and legal relationship of different respondents with the petitioner, could have passed an order against the petitioners making them jointly and severally liable to pay maintenance of Rs.50,000/-.
10. Under Section 12, an „aggrieved person‟ can file an application to Magistrate against the respondents. The respondent has been defined under Section
2 (q). The definition reads as under:
“respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
11. It is apparent that in order to make a person as respondent in a petition under Section 12, there must exist a domestic relationship between the respondent and the aggrieved person. If there is no domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent, the Court of MM cannot pass an order against such a person under the Act. Domestic relationship is defined under Section
2 (f) of the Act and is as under:
“domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
12. It is apparent that domestic relationship arises between the two persons, who have lived together in a shared household and when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The definition speaks of living together at any point of time however it does not speak of having relation at any point of time. Thus, if the domestic relationship continued and if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared household, the person can be a respondent but if the relationship does not continue and the relationship had been in the past and is not in the present, a person cannot be made respondent on the ground of a past relationship. The domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when complaint under Domestic Violence Act is filed and if this relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is filed, the domestic relationship cannot be said to be there. The first respondent made by the wife in her complaint before the learned MM in this case was husband with whom the wife had lived under the same roof in a shared household till 22nd August, 2008 in USA. She had not lived for last 7 ½ years with respondent no.1 in India. Respondent No.4 is Varun Malik who is brother of the husband. Under no circumstances it can be said that brother of husband, who was a major and independent, living separately from this husband and wife, had any kind of domestic relationship or moral or legal responsibility/obligations towards his brother‟s wife. He had not lived in domestic relationship with Payal Malik at any point of time. Merely because a person is brother of the husband he cannot be arrayed as a respondent, nor does an MM gets authority over each and every relative of the husband, without going into the fact whether a domestic relationship or shared household was there between the aggrieved person and the respondent.
13. The other respondent made in this case is Harbans Lal, father of Nagesh Malik. Nagesh Malik was living in USA he came to India to solemnize his marriage with an appropriate person. After marriage was solemnized he left India and went to USA. He lived all along with his wife in USA, birth of the child had taken place in USA. In all such cases where boy lives abroad and is settled abroad but comes to India for marriage, it is known to the girl as well as to the parents of the girl that they are choosing a groom who is not living with his parents but settled abroad. His links with the parents are only as with any other relative. He is not dependent on parents may be parents, if poor, take financial help from him.
14. The girl and the parents of the girl knew it very well that they had selected a person for marriage with whom the girl was going to live abroad and the matrimonial home and the shared household was going to be outside India. This act of marrying a person settled abroad is a voluntary act of the girl. If she had not intended to enjoy the fat salary which boys working abroad get and the material facilities available abroad, she could have refused to marry him and settled for a boy having moderate salary within India. After having chosen a person living abroad, putting the responsibility, after failure of marriage, on the shoulders on his parents and making them criminals in the eyes of law because matrimonial ties between the two could not last for long, does not sound either legally correct or morally correct. How can the parents of a boy who is working abroad, living abroad, an adult, free to take his own decisions, be arrayed as criminals or respondents if the marriage between him and his wife failed due to any reason whatsoever after few years of marriage. If the sin committed by such parents of boy is that they facilitated the marriage, then this sin is equally committed by parents of the girl. If such marriage fails then parents of both bride and groom would have to share equal responsibility. The responsibility of parents of the groom cannot be more. Shelter of Indian culture and joint family cannot be taken to book only relatives of boy. A woman‟s shared household in India in such cases is also her parents‟ house where she lived before marriage and not her in-laws‟ house where she did not live after marriage.
15. When the shared household of husband and wife had not been in India for the last 08 years at any point of time, it is strange that the learned MM did not even think it proper to discuss as to how the father or the brother of the boy could be made respondents in proceedings of domestic violence, after husband and wife had not been able to pull on together. In the present case, Mr. Harbans Lal Malik petitioner could not be said to have shared household with the respondent since the respondent had not lived in his house as a family member, in a joint family of which Harbans Lal Malik was the head.
16. It is important to consider as to what “family” is and what “joint family” is. As per Black‟s Law Dictionary (VI Edition) “family” means a collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or management. Dictionary states that the meaning of word “family” necessarily depends on field of law in which word is used, but this is the most common meaning. “Family” also means a group of blood relatives and all the relations who descend from a common ancestor or who spring from a common root. However, for the purpose of domestic violence act where the object is to protect a woman from domestic violence, “family” has to be defined as a collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or management. In Chamber‟s Dictionary (1994-95) again the “family” is defined as all those who live in one house i.e. parents, children servants; parents and their children. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993 ed.) “family” is defined as a group of persons living in one household including parents and their children, boarders, servants and such a group is a organizational unit of society.
17. A Hindu Joint Family or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or a Joint Family is an extended family arrangement prevalent among Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, consisting of many generations living under the same roof. All the male members are blood relatives and all the women are either mothers, wives, unmarried daughters or widowed relatives, all bound by the common sapinda relationship. The joint family status being the result of birth, possession of joint cord that knits the members of the family together is not property but the relationship. The family is headed by a patriarch, usually the oldest male, who makes decisions on economic and social matters on behalf of the entire family. The patriarch‟s wife generally exerts control over the kitchen, child rearing and minor religious practices. All money goes to the common pool and all property is held jointly. The essential features of a joint family are:
Head of the family takes all decisions
All members live under one roof
Share the same kitchen
Three generations living together (though often two or more brothers live together or father and son live together or all the descendants of male live together)
Income and expenditure in a common pool – property held together.
A common place of worship
All decisions are made by the male head of the family – patrilineal, patriarchal.
18. Thus, in order to constitute a family and domestic relationship it is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are living separate then they are not a family but they are relatives related by blood or consanguinity to each other. Where parents live separate from their son like any other relative, the family of son cannot include his parents. The parents can be included in the family of son only when they are dependent upon the son and/or are living along with the son in the same house. But when they are not dependent upon the son and they are living separate, the parents shall constitute a separate family and son, his wife and children shall constitute a separate family. There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of son with the parents when the parents are not living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when son along with the wife is living abroad, maintaining a family there and children are born abroad. I, therefore consider that Harbans Lal Malik could not have been made as a respondent in a petition under Domestic Violence Act as he had no domestic relationship with aggrieved person even if this marriage between her and her husband was subsisting.
19. I, also consider that the definition of “wife” as available under Section 125 Cr.P.C could not be imported into Domestic Violence Act. The Legislature was well aware of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and if Legislature intended, it would have defined “wife” as in Section 125 Cr.P.C in Domestic Violence Act as well. The purpose and object of Domestic Violence and provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is different. While Domestic Violence Act has been enacted by the Parliament to prevent acts of domestic violence on women living in a shared household. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy where wife is left high and dry without maintenance. Law gives a right to claim maintenance under Civil Law as well as Section 125 Cr.P.C. even to a divorced wife, but an act of domestic violence cannot be committed on a divorced wife, who is not living with her husband or family and is free to live wherever she wants. She has a right to claim maintenance and enforce other rights as per law. She has a right to claim custody of children as per law but denial of these rights do not amount to domestic violence. Domestic Violence is not perceived in this manner. The definition of “Domestic Violence” as given in Section 3 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and is under:
3. Definition of domestic violence.-
For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it –
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.-For the purposes of this section,-
(i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes-
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.
(iv) “economic abuse” includes-
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
20. This definition pre supposes that the woman is living with the person who committed violence and domestic relationship is not dead buried or severed. This does not speak of past violence which a woman suffered before grant of divorce.
21. The next question which arises is whether the learned Court of MM could have ignored the decree granted by the Court of New Jersey, USA. Section 14 of CPC reads as under:
14. Presumption as to foreign judgments. – The Court shall presume upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.
22. It is evident from the reading of this provision that the Court has to presume, if a certified copy of foreign judgment is produced that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction unless the contrary appears on record or is proved. Obtaining of divorce by husband from New Jersey Court is not denied in this case. Prima facie New Jersey, USA Court had jurisdiction is evident from the fact that husband and wife lived together in New Jersey for 7 ½ years. The laws of New Jersey provided that the jurisdiction in a matrimonial matter can be assumed by the Court if the parties have ordinarily lived there for one year. In the present case admittedly the parties lived there for 7 ½ years thus prima facie there was no issue whether the Court of New Jersey had jurisdiction or not.
23. Section 13 of CPC provides as under:
13. When foreign judgment not conclusive.
A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except-
(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case; (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of 1[India] in cases in which such law is applicable; (d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; (e) where it has been obtained by fraud; (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in 1[India].
24. It is evident that a foreign judgment has to be on the face of it considered to be final. The explanations as mentioned in Section 13 are to be proved by a person who alleges that the foreign judgment was not to be relied on and should not be considered. A foreign judgment can be set aside by a competent Court, only when the person aggrieved from foreign judgment asks for a declaration that the judgment should not be acted upon. So long as the foreign judgment is not set aside and the issue regarding foreign judgment is not adjudicated by a competent Court, the judgment cannot be ignored and a Court cannot brush aside a foreign judgment as a non- consequential. Section 13 & 14 of CPC provide how a foreign judgment is to be dealt with. A Court in India has to presume that the judgment delivered by a foreign Court where the parties had lived for 7 ½ years and given birth to a girl, is a judgment given by a competent court and if anyone wants that this judgment be disregarded, he has to prove the same before the Court. So long as he does not prove it, the judgment is considered as a valid judgment and has to be given effect to.
25. It was argued by the respondent Counsel that the respondent did not participate in proceedings before the Court of New Jersey, USA. Participating or not participating before the Court is not a ground for setting aside its judgment. The grounds for setting aside a foreign judgment are given in Section 13 CPC and this is not one of the grounds.
26. The question of jurisdiction was considered by the Court of New Jersey, USA that awarded decree of divorce and it is not shown by the Counsel for respondent how Court of New Jersey had no jurisdiction when the two parties lived there for 7 ½ years and gave birth to a US citizen within the jurisdiction of that Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon Y. Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451 to press the point that a decree of divorce granted by a foreign Court should not be relied upon since the parties were married in India and they were governed by Hindu Marriage Act. A bare perusal of the judgment of New Jersey Court would show that the divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty which is one of the grounds available under Hindu Marriage Act.
27. In Y. Narasimha Rao‟s case (supra), decree of divorce was obtained by husband from the Circuit Court of St. Louis Country Missouri, USA by creating a jurisdiction of that Court as the condition for invoking jurisdiction of that Court was 90 days residence. Supreme Court observed that the residence does not mean a “temporary residence” for the purpose of obtaining divorce but it must be “habitual residence “which is intended to be a permanent residence for future as well, since it was not the case, the decree was found to be null and void. It is not the position in this case. The parties had made New Jersey as their home for 7 ½ years thus the Court of New Jersey could not be said to have assumed jurisdiction only on the basis of temporary residence of husband. I also consider that issue of assuming jurisdiction on the basis of temporary residence may have no force today when statutory provisions in India allow assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of a temporary residence [Section 27(1)(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005].
28. I am surprised that the Courts below did not give weight to the judgment of New Jersey where parties lived for 7 ½ years but assumed jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act because of the pure temporary residence (as pleaded by her) of wife in Delhi who is otherwise resident of Hissar. The Court of ASJ wanted that the order of the Court of MM should be honoured by the US while the Court here would not honour a decree of Court of USA where the husband and wife lived for 7 ½ years.
29. I consider that the decree of divorce granted by the Court of New Jersey, USA where husband and wife lived together for 7 ½ years and gave birth to a child could not be ignored and it could not be said that domestic relationship of the wife continued with her husband in New Jersey or her in-laws living at Panipat.
30. The learned MM and learned ASJ committed jurisdictional error by assuming jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act, in view of admitted fact that the wife had all along, before filing the petition under Domestic Violence Act, lived with her husband in USA. Her shared household had been in USA, her husband was still living in USA the child was born in USA. The courts below also committed grave error by making brother or father of the husband and father of the husband jointly responsible for payment of Rs.50,000/- to the wife. There was no justification for directing brother of the husband to pay this amount. Once a son grows and he starts earning, marries, makes his separate home, and sires children the burden of his wife cannot be put on the shoulders of his father or brother on an estrangement between husband and wife. This burden has to be borne by the husband alone and not by the parents or bothers or sister of the husband, unless and until the husband had been contributing to the joint family as a member of HUF and has a right of deriving benefits from the joint family. If the husband had not been contributing or deriving benefits from the joint family, had not been member of the joint family and the parents had been treated like any other relative, how can the parents be burdened with the responsibility of his wife. 31. In view of my above discussion, order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by learned MM and order dated 7th May, 2010 passed by learned ASJ, directing payment of Rs.50,000/- jointly and severally, ignoring the decree of divorce and without devolving upon the domestic relationship are illegal and not tenable. The orders are set aside. No order as to costs.
July 29, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. v
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Top 10 Most Evil Women
We all tend to focus on the evil men in the world and forget some of the truly evil women that have lived. I hope to correct that with this list. Here we have not just serial killers, but other utterly despicable women who have caused tragedy in many people’s lives. So, without further ado, here are the top 10 most evil women in history.
10. Queen Mary I Born: 1516; Died: 1558
Mary was the only child of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon to live past infancy. Crowned after the death of Edward VI and the removal of The Nine Days Queen-Lady Jane Grey, Mary is chiefly remembered for temporarily and violently returning England to Catholicism. Many prominent Protestants were executed for their beliefs leading to the moniker “Bloody Mary”. Fearing the gallows a further 800 Protestants left the country, unable to return until her death. It should be noted that Elizabeth I shares position 10 on this list for her equally bad behavior.
9. Myra Hindley Born: 1942; Died: 2002
Myra Hindley and Ian Brady were responsible for the “Moors murders” occurring in the Manchester area of Britain in the mid 1960’s. Together these two monsters were responsible for the kidnapping, sexual abuse, torture and murder of three children under the age of twelve and two teenagers, aged 16 and 17. A key found in Myra’s possession led to incriminating evidence stored at a left-luggage depot at Manchester Central Station. The evidence included a tape recording of one of the murder victims screaming as Hindley and Brady raped and tortured her. In the final days before incarceration, she developed a swagger and arrogant attitude that became her trademark. Police secretary Sandra Wilkinson has never forgotten seeing Hindley and her mother Nellie, leaning against the courthouse eating sweets. While the mother was obviously and understandably upset, Hindley seemed indifferent and uncaring of her situation.
8. Isabella of Castile Born: 1451; Died: 1504
Isabella I of Spain, well known as the patron of Christopher Columbus, with her husband Ferdinand II of Aragon, are responsible for making possible the unification of Spain under their grandson Carlos I. As part of the drive for unification, Isabella appointed Tomás de Torquemada as the first Inquisitor General of the inquisition. March 31, 1492 marks the implementation of the Alhambra Decree; expulsion edicts forcing the removal or conversion of Jews and Muslims. Roughly 200,000 people left Spain; those remaining who chose conversion were subsequently persecuted by the inquisition investigating Judaizing conversos. In 1974, Pope Paul VI opened her cause for beatification. This places her on the path toward possible sainthood. In the Catholic Church, she is thus titled Servant of God.
7. Beverly Allitt Born: 1968
6. Belle Gunness Born: 1859; Died: 1931
Belle Gunness was one of America’s most degenerate and productive female serial killers. Standing 6 ft (1.83 m) tall and weighing in at over 200 lbs (91 kg), she was an imposing and powerful woman of Norwegian descent. It is likely that she killed both her husbands and all of her children at different times, but it is certain that she murdered most of her suitors, boyfriends, and her two daughters, Myrtle and Lucy. The motive was greed-pure and simple; life insurance policies and assets stolen or swindled from her suitors became her source of income. Most reports put her death toll at more than twenty victims over several decades, with some claiming in excess of one hundred. Inconsistencies during her post mortem examination; the corpse was reported to be two inches shorter than Belle’s six feet, paved the way for Belle Gunnes to enter American criminal folklore, a female Bluebeard.
5. Mary Ann Cotton Born: 1832; Died: 1873
4. Ilse Koch Born: 1906; Died: 1967
3. Irma Grese Born: 1923; Died: 1945
Another product of the Nazi’s final solution, Irma Grese or the “Bitch of Belsen” was a guard at concentration camps Ravensbrück, Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. Transferred to Auschwitz in 1943, (she must have shown particular enthusiasm and dedication to the job), she was promoted to Senior Supervisor, the 2nd highest ranking female in camp, by the end of the year. In charge of over 30,000 Jewish female prisoners, she reveled in her work. Her work included; savaging of prisoners by her trained and half starved dogs, sexual excesses, arbitrary shootings, sadistic beatings with a plaited whip, and selecting prisoners for the gas chamber. She enjoyed both physical and emotional torture and habitually wore heavy boots and carried a pistol to facilitate both.
2. Katherine Knight Born: 1956
1. Elizabeth Bathory Born: 1560; Died: 1614
10. Queen Mary I Born: 1516; Died: 1558
Mary was the only child of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon to live past infancy. Crowned after the death of Edward VI and the removal of The Nine Days Queen-Lady Jane Grey, Mary is chiefly remembered for temporarily and violently returning England to Catholicism. Many prominent Protestants were executed for their beliefs leading to the moniker “Bloody Mary”. Fearing the gallows a further 800 Protestants left the country, unable to return until her death. It should be noted that Elizabeth I shares position 10 on this list for her equally bad behavior.
9. Myra Hindley Born: 1942; Died: 2002
Myra Hindley and Ian Brady were responsible for the “Moors murders” occurring in the Manchester area of Britain in the mid 1960’s. Together these two monsters were responsible for the kidnapping, sexual abuse, torture and murder of three children under the age of twelve and two teenagers, aged 16 and 17. A key found in Myra’s possession led to incriminating evidence stored at a left-luggage depot at Manchester Central Station. The evidence included a tape recording of one of the murder victims screaming as Hindley and Brady raped and tortured her. In the final days before incarceration, she developed a swagger and arrogant attitude that became her trademark. Police secretary Sandra Wilkinson has never forgotten seeing Hindley and her mother Nellie, leaning against the courthouse eating sweets. While the mother was obviously and understandably upset, Hindley seemed indifferent and uncaring of her situation.
8. Isabella of Castile Born: 1451; Died: 1504
Isabella I of Spain, well known as the patron of Christopher Columbus, with her husband Ferdinand II of Aragon, are responsible for making possible the unification of Spain under their grandson Carlos I. As part of the drive for unification, Isabella appointed Tomás de Torquemada as the first Inquisitor General of the inquisition. March 31, 1492 marks the implementation of the Alhambra Decree; expulsion edicts forcing the removal or conversion of Jews and Muslims. Roughly 200,000 people left Spain; those remaining who chose conversion were subsequently persecuted by the inquisition investigating Judaizing conversos. In 1974, Pope Paul VI opened her cause for beatification. This places her on the path toward possible sainthood. In the Catholic Church, she is thus titled Servant of God.
7. Beverly Allitt Born: 1968
The “Angel of Death, Beverley Gail Allit, is one of Britain’s most well known serial killers. Working as a pediatric nurse, she is responsible for the murder of 4 children and the serious injury of 5 others in her care. When available, insulin or potassium injections were used to precipitate cardiac arrest; smothering sufficed when they were not. Although convicted with death or injury in nine cases, Allit attacked thirteen children over a fifty-eight day period before being caught red-handed. Allit has never spoken of the motive for her crimes, but Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy explains her actions. This debatable personality disorder involves a pattern of abuse or harm to someone in your care in order to garner attention (Alitt was known as a child to wear bandages and casts over wounds, but would not allow them to be examined).
6. Belle Gunness Born: 1859; Died: 1931
Belle Gunness was one of America’s most degenerate and productive female serial killers. Standing 6 ft (1.83 m) tall and weighing in at over 200 lbs (91 kg), she was an imposing and powerful woman of Norwegian descent. It is likely that she killed both her husbands and all of her children at different times, but it is certain that she murdered most of her suitors, boyfriends, and her two daughters, Myrtle and Lucy. The motive was greed-pure and simple; life insurance policies and assets stolen or swindled from her suitors became her source of income. Most reports put her death toll at more than twenty victims over several decades, with some claiming in excess of one hundred. Inconsistencies during her post mortem examination; the corpse was reported to be two inches shorter than Belle’s six feet, paved the way for Belle Gunnes to enter American criminal folklore, a female Bluebeard.
5. Mary Ann Cotton Born: 1832; Died: 1873
Englishwoman Mary Ann Cotton is another for-profit serial killer, predating Belle Gunnes by thirty years. Married at age twenty to William Mowbray, the newlyweds settled in Plymouth, Devon, to start their family. The couple had five children, four of whom died of ‘gastric fever and stomach pains’. Moving back to the north-east, tragedy seemed to follow them; three more children born, three more children died. William soon followed his offspring, dying of an ‘intestinal disorder’ in January 1865. British Prudential promptly paid a 35 pound dividend, and a pattern was established. Her second husband, George Ward, died of intestinal problems as well as one of her two remaining children. The power of the press, always a force to be reckoned with, caught up with Mary Ann. The local newspapers discovered that as Mary Ann moved around northern England, she lost three husbands, a lover, a friend, her mother and a dozen children, all dying of stomach fever. She was hanged at Durham County Gaol, March 24, 1873, for murder by arsenic poisoning. She died slowly, the hangman using too short a drop for a ‘clean’ execution.
4. Ilse Koch Born: 1906; Died: 1967
“Die Hexe von Buchenwald” the Witch of Buchenwald, or “Buchenwälder Schlampe” the Bitch of Buchenwald was the wife of Karl Koch, commandant of the concentration camps Buchenwald from 1937 to 1941, and Majdanek from 1941 to 1943. Drunk on the absolute power rendered by her husband, she reveled in torture and obscenity. Infamous for her souvenirs; tattoos taken from the murdered inmates, her reputation for debauchery was well earned. After building an indoor sports arena in 1940, with 250,000 marks stolen from inmates, Ilsa was promoted to Oberaufseherin or “chief overseer” of the few female guards at Buchenwald. She committed suicide by hanging herself at Aichach women’s prison on September 1, 1967.
3. Irma Grese Born: 1923; Died: 1945
Another product of the Nazi’s final solution, Irma Grese or the “Bitch of Belsen” was a guard at concentration camps Ravensbrück, Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. Transferred to Auschwitz in 1943, (she must have shown particular enthusiasm and dedication to the job), she was promoted to Senior Supervisor, the 2nd highest ranking female in camp, by the end of the year. In charge of over 30,000 Jewish female prisoners, she reveled in her work. Her work included; savaging of prisoners by her trained and half starved dogs, sexual excesses, arbitrary shootings, sadistic beatings with a plaited whip, and selecting prisoners for the gas chamber. She enjoyed both physical and emotional torture and habitually wore heavy boots and carried a pistol to facilitate both.
2. Katherine Knight Born: 1956
The first Australian woman to be sentenced to a natural life term without parole, Katherine Knight had a history of violence in relationships. She mashed the dentures of one of her ex-husbands and slashed the throat of another husband’s eight-week-old puppy before his eyes. A heated relationship with John Charles Thomas Price became public knowledge with an Apprehended Violence Order that Price had filed against Knight and ended with Knight stabbing Price to death with a butcher’s knife. He had been stabbed at least 37 times, both front and back, with many of the wounds penetrating vital organs. She then skinned him and hung his “suit” from the door frame in the living room, cut off his head and put it in the soup pot, baked his buttocks, and prepared gravy and vegetables to accompany the ‘roast’. The meal and a vindictive note were set out for the children, luckily discovered by police before they arrived home.
1. Elizabeth Bathory Born: 1560; Died: 1614
Countess Elizabeth Bathory is considered the most infamous serial killer in Hungarian/Slovak history. Rumors had circulated for years about missing peasant girls; offered well paid work at the castle, they were never seen again. One of these rumors reached the ears of King Mathias II, who sent a party of men to the massive Castle Csejthe. The men found one girl dead and one dying. Another was found wounded and others locked up. Described atrocities, collected from testimony of witnesses, include; severe beatings over extended periods of time, the use of needles, burning or mutilation of hands, sometimes also of faces and genitalia, biting the flesh off the faces, arms and other bodily parts, and the starving of victims. The victim total is thought to number in the hundreds occurring over a twenty-five year period. Due to her social status she was never brought to trial but remained under house arrest in a single room until her death. The idea that the Countess bathed in the blood of her victims is folklore, and one of the few things she did not do.
If Women Ruled the World!
This is a must read article for everyone here, go below my comments. The article is exerts from the book.
My own Comments:
This is a true blue Feminazi talk, hard to believe that Bill Clinton once had this piece of crap in his administration, but then look at who his wife is, Queen of the crap heap herself.
This piece of vermon goes on to write that the world would be a much better place if it where ruled by women.
It is amazing, I can name you a few powerful women who ruled their nations and were just as corrupt as any Man or worst. Here goes, former PM Indra Gandhi of India, totally ruthless, shrew and any man, and cunning as a fox, look at how she erradicated terrorists from there holy shrine, which I might add got her killed in the end, she really didnt do much for any women in the end anyways. Former British PM Margret Thatcher, also known as the Iron Lady, she is best known to have taken away Milk from school aged childrens lunch time snacks. She went to War in the Falklands off the coast of Argentina just in case you wanted to know, so dont say women wont start wars. Bangladesh has a women PM mostly corrupted. Philippines former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Here read for yourself from Media reports.
One day after stepping down to Malacañang palace as former president of the Philippines, Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was charged with graft and corruption, bribery and obstruction of justice before the Department of Justice (DOJ), July 1, 2010.
Then you have former PM Benizar Bhutto of Pakistan, who's husband the present PM was charged and sent into exhile on massive corruption charges, naturally she never knew what her other half was doing, I am kidding now. We also have some local Indian CM, example UP CM Mayawati, this bitch takes the cake need I say more. TN CM Jaya Lalitha, this corrupt, vengful piece of trash, true politics is dirty, but this women rises to the occasion, she actually had her opponent, the former CM arrested in the middle of the night, while he was in his underwear, is this low or what.
These example just show how graciatiously women can rule and have ruled and just what they would really do if they really ruled the world. There is a famous saying that goes, "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned," This was not said just for no reason, some women hold strong urges for vengence, its just a women thing I guess, hey!
Article
If women ruled the world, everything would change, according to former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers. Politics would be more collegial. Businesses would be more productive. And communities would be healthier. Empowering women would make the world a better place. Blending memoir, social history and a call to action, Myers challenges us to imagine a not-too-distant future in which increasing numbers of women reach the top ranks of politics, business, science and academia. Here's an excerpt from “Why Women Should Rule the World”:
Introduction
Women should rule the world.
That was it, the answer to my frustration and growing political alienation. It seemed so simple, so obvious. Women!
If we were in charge, things might actually change. Instead of posturing, we’d have cooperation. Instead of gridlock, we’d have progress. Instead of a shouting match, we’d have a conversation. A very long conversation. But a conversation nonetheless. Everyone would just hold hands and sing “Kumbaya.”
Or would they? What would it be like if women ruled the world, I began to wonder?
Would anything really change? Would the world be a better place? My hunch was that more women in public life would, in fact, make things better.
After all, more women already have.
It’s easy (and perhaps a bit facile) to argue that men haven’t done such a great job. The last century was the bloodiest in human history, and so far, this one has been a tale of war, terrorism, religious extremism, abject poverty, and disease. I’m not saying it’s all men’s fault. But let’s just say, they’ve been in charge, and it doesn’t seem we’re much closer to finding answers to these profound and vexing problems.
On the other hand, if there are societies where women have truly ruled, they are few and far between. For virtually all of history, woman has played a supporting role to man’s, well, leading man. A comprehensive review of encyclopedia entries published in the early 1900s included only 850 women, though it covered a span of nearly 2,000 years. And the queens, politicians, mothers, wives, mistresses, beauties, religious figures, and women of “tragic fate” were notable mostly for their relationships with men.
I have always believed that women could rule the world. As far back as I can remember, it has seemed obvious to me that women were, in fact, every bit as qualified as men in most endeavors, and better than them at many. Of course, the corollary — that men are better than women at some things — also seemed obvious, at least after the sixth grade. Before that, I thought I could do anything any boy could do. I was a good student and a good athlete, and I didn’t have much trouble keeping up with boys in the classroom or on the playground. But then Doug, another sixth grader at Wiley Canyon Elementary School in California, challenged my friend Peggy and me to a game of two-on-one basketball, first side to ten would win. He beat us 10-0.
I realized then that athletic boys are better basketball players than most girls, even the ones like Peggy and me who spent a fair amount of time shooting hoops. While I confess this was a bit disappointing at the time, I certainly didn’t think that boys were better at everything, or even most things. That idea simply never occurred to me.
Maybe it’s because I grew up surrounded by strong women. My mother, a product of her generation, left college after two years to marry my father, a young Navy pilot.
Within a few years, she had three little girls and a husband who was often at sea. With Castro’s ascent in Cuba, then the war in Vietnam, my dad was gone for weeks or even months at a time, and my mom was left to manage alone. One of my earliest memories is of helping my mom pack a little plastic Christmas tree, some cookies, and a few wrapped packages into a big box to send my dad, who was on a ship somewhere in Southeast Asia. But she never complained (at least not when my sisters and I were listening), and she never seemed overwhelmed by all that she had to do. The Navy, like all branches of the military, would collapse without the community of able women (and now a lot of men) who manage things stateside, while their husbands (and now some wives) are away. My mother and her network of Navy wives helped each other tend to sick children, unstop kitchen sinks, and deal with worrisome news from the war raging half a world away.
After my father left the Navy, we moved to the suburbs of Los Angeles, and my mom eventually earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees, then went to work, first as a counselor at a local college, then as an executive at the phone company. She was good at what she did, rose quickly in her various jobs, and got a lot of satisfaction from her professional accomplishments. I didn’t always like it when my mom was gone, but I never doubted that what she was doing was important. At the time, most of the mothers in my neighborhood stayed home, so what my mom was doing was unusual. But my dad was supportive, and my sisters and I were more proud than displaced — even when we had to eat dry macaroni and overcooked hot dogs every time it was my sister Betsy’s turn to make dinner. It never occurred to me that I wouldn’t go to college and have a career — as well as a family — of my own. Both my parents, but especially my mother, encouraged me and led me to believe that it was possible.
My father’s mother, Grandma Bernadette, also shaped my ideas about what women could accomplish, in ways I think she never would have imagined. Her husband — my grandfather — died of congestive heart failure (he’d had rheumatic fever as a child) when he was just thirty-seven, leaving her with five children: my dad, who was eleven, and his four sisters, ages twelve to two.
My grandfather had owned a gas station on Main Street in Racine, Wisconsin, while my grandmother was busy raising the children and playing the organ at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church. She hadn’t been very involved in the business — and it certainly wasn’t a business where one expected to find women in 1946. Because of his heart condition, my grandfather didn’t have any life insurance, but his business was insured. So when he died — as my grandmother liked to tell it — the insurance men came to her house, suggested she sell it and the gas station, and move with her children into the Catholic orphanage across town. She told them to get the hell off her porch and never come back. She kept the station and managed the day- to-day operations until she sold it more than thirty years later.
She raised five children, put them all through college, and still found time to play the organ at Mass every weekday and five times on Sunday. While she clearly missed things about being married — and having a father for her children — she never really dated or considered marrying again. She would sometimes say she never found the right fellow, but her daughters believe that she simply liked being the boss.
So my grandmother — by fate, rather than design — was a small business owner and single mom long before women routinely did either, let alone both. And I’ve often wondered: What would have happened to another family if the mother had died and left the father with five young children? How many men could have managed to run the business, raise the kids, and volunteer at church six days a week, all by themselves?
In addition to my mother and grandmother, I grew up surrounded by accomplished women. The principal of my elementary school. My guidance counselor in high school. My father’s sisters. My friends’ mothers, and my mother’s friends. It seemed to me that women were capable of doing just about anything. Not that they were always allowed to, of course. When I was in second grade (even before I learned that boys were better at basketball), our teacher asked us to draw a picture of what we wanted to be when we grew up. The kid next to me, Robert, drew himself as a TV repairman. While his choice of career may not have thrilled his parents, it struck me hard. Wow, I thought. He can be anything. I have to be a teacher, or a nurse, or a nun. I drew myself as a teacher.
Happily, the years since I finished the second grade have seen an exponential increase in options. Girls can now aspire to be elementary school teachers or university presidents; nurses or doctors; nuns or — in many denominations — priests or ministers or rabbis. Girls and boys can be engineers, entrepreneurs, or astronauts. They can repair televisions or appear on them as actors or journalists. They can build homes or stay home with the kids.
And they can be press secretary to the president of the United States, as I was.
When I first started working in politics, as a junior aide on Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign, it never occurred to me that I would one day work in the White House. There were plenty of women among the volunteers who stuffed envelopes and walked precincts. But there were fewer and fewer on each successive level of influence and access. In the subsequent years, the numbers increased, as I moved from job to job — in the California state legislature, for the mayor of Los Angeles, on the gubernatorial campaigns of Tom Bradley and Dianne Feinstein, and on the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis. But electoral politics was still very much a white boys’ club.
When I joined Bill Clinton’s start-up presidential campaign in 1991, I was confident that women would play an ever more important role, but I never gave a minute’s thought to what would happen if we won. When we did — and I became the first woman to serve as White House press secretary — it changed my life. But it didn’t change the world. And I came to believe that it would take more women — lots more women — to do that.
After I left the White House, I kept a foothold in the business of American politics: as a talk-show host, analyst, commentator, speechmaker, and occasional writer. I was no longer a practitioner, but I was still a partisan, a Democrat, a blue-stater through and through. And I enjoyed the give-and-take of the political debate. But over the years, something changed, and I found myself more and more frustrated by the bitterness that now gripped the capital. Increasingly, it seemed, both sides were more interested in winning the argument than solving the problem. And the result was gridlock, polarization, and cynicism.
Surely there was another way, a better way. And I started to think about how we might move from a culture of confrontation to one of consensus, from I-win-you-lose to win-win. Was anyone in Washington practicing what I was only preaching? Were there people talking and listening to each other? Were they working together? Were they treating each other with respect and trying to see the world through each other’s eyes? And I realized that, yes, there were some. And one of the places it seemed to be happening on a regular basis was among the women in the U.S. Senate.
Now, granted it’s still a relatively small group: sixteen women. And it’s easier to find comity among sixteen than among 100 or 535 or 300 million. But something seemed to be happening there. On paper, the women didn’t have that much in common. They were liberal and conservative. They came from small states and big ones, both coasts and the middle. Several were single; others were mothers and grandmothers. They had different interests, different agendas, and different strengths. And yet. They had managed to transcend the bitter partisanship that has infected much of Congress, and forged not just political alliances on issues where they agreed — but genuine friendships.
“We relate on a personal level, because every one of us has had to overcome the obstacles of people underestimating us and people trivializing us,” said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas. “We’re good friends.”
The ideologically diverse group has never formed an official caucus, but in recent years, they’ve worked together on a variety of issues, including more access to individual retirement accounts for homemakers, more funds for home health care and breast cancer research, and a resolution condemning the ruling military junta in Burma for its brutal suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators. They have also reached out to other women leaders around the world. A few years ago, they met with women leaders from Northern Ireland, who were working to build a more civil society in that war-torn country; the Irish women came away inspired.
“My experience has been that women tend to be better at working across the aisles and are more pragmatic and results oriented,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.
While sixteen women in the Senate does not an airtight argument make, it certainly reinforced my own prejudices. Women do seem more interested in consensus. They do seem less consumed by the constant who’s-up-and-who’s-down score-keeping aspect of the political game. They do seem more willing to listen to other people’s opinions. That’s not to say that all women fit this model; they don’t. But wouldn’t increasing the number of women in Congress change the culture? Wouldn’t it make the elusive search for common ground more fruitful? Wouldn’t it make the political process more productive?
Wouldn’t it? Yes, I thought; it would. In fact, if there were more women in positions of power, not just in Congress, but across the United States and around the world, lots of things would be better. Not perfect. But better. We’d have more representative government; a stronger economy; and a healthier and more sustainable planet. We’d be better able to resolve conflicts and keep the peace. We’d have stronger families.
And so I set out to write this book: Why Women Should Rule the World.
I knew my own story, as political operative — and as a mother, a daughter, a sister, a wife, and a friend. But I needed more. So I talked to friends and read articles, studies, and books. I interviewed prominent and successful women, from primatologist Jane Goodall and Senator Dianne Feinstein, to activist and skin care entrepreneur Anita Roddick and Nobel Prize laureate environmental activist Wangari Maathai. I explored the growing body of scientific literature on the topic.
When I actually sat down to explore the argument, however, I realized it was going to be harder than I thought. Women haven’t been able to carve out much space on the top floors of any endeavor, in any country or culture in the history of the world. Without a doubt, they’ve made tremendous progress in the past three decades, but the numbers are still small.
In the United States, millions more women than men vote, and we have a female Speaker of the House for the first time in history. Still, women make up only 16 percent of the U.S. Senate, 16 percent of the House, and not quite 24 percent of state legislators. Only eight of the nation’s fifty governors are women. And while a woman has finally made a serious run, no woman has ever been elected president. Around the world, there is an increasing — if still small — number of women serving as heads of state or heads of government; but the small numbers make it hard to predict just how things would change if in every region of the world, every level of government was half women.
Ditto business. Women make the vast majority of consumer decisions in this country — by many accounts, more than 80 percent. But we still don’t have enough influence at the top of the corporations that make and sell those goods and services. True, women now fill about half of all managerial positions, but among Fortune 500 companies, women account for only 16 percent of corporate officers, 5 percent of top earners — and an anemic 2 percent of CEOs. Is it really possible to know how the world would change if women had their names on half the doors to the executive suites?
The pattern repeats and repeats. Women make up half of law school graduates and roughly a third of all lawyers. But they account for only 15 percent of partners in law firms or federal judges, and 10 percent of law school deans or general counsels at Fortune 500 companies. Women make up nearly half of medical school graduates — but only a quarter of doctors and 10 percent of the deans of medical schools. They are 20 percent of university presidents, but still woefully underrepresented in tenure-track teaching positions, especially in math, science, and engineering. How would a giant increase in the number of women at all levels change law, medicine, and academia?
These were among the questions that I wanted to explore.
Of course, the questions run deeper than the statistics that quantify women’s achievements — or the lack thereof. In the past couple of decades, there has been a mountain of research and commentary on the relationship between gender and just about everything — from leadership style, to ethics, to sex drive. And as the volume of information has grown, so too has the volume of the debate about what it means. Are the alleged differences real? Which, if any, are innate? Which are the result of socialization? And how do they affect expectations about gender roles?
As I began looking into questions like these, I was struck by the ferocity of the debate that still surrounds the “nature versus nurture” question. On the nature side, an eclectic group of scientists, philosophers, polemicists, parents, and religious traditionalists believe that sex roles are genetically, even divinely, determined. According to this view, women are nurturers, designed to have and raise the babies, while men are programmed to compete in the world and support their families.
The arguments are equally passionate on the other side, where a committed assortment of psychologists, sociologists, feminists, parents, and progressives argue that nurture is the root cause of behavioral differences between men and women. While the stack of studies is getting bigger, they claim that the evidence linking biology and behavior is tenuous; culture, they say, is the culprit. From infancy, boys are expected and encouraged to behave one way, girls another. And to see it any other way is to open the door to the kind of biology-as-destiny limitations that have held women back for thousands of years. If women are more nurturing, if they’re better at relationships, isn’t it also possible that men are better at, say, math or science? And wouldn’t that then justify the dearth of opportunities for women in those fields?
These, too, became questions I wanted to explore.
I’m not a sociologist. I’m not a psychologist, or a biologist, or a political theoretician. But as I began this book, I wanted to try to paint a picture, in laymen’s — or should I say laywomen’s? — terms, of what changes when there are more women in positions of power and authority across public life. And I hoped — and let’s be honest, expected — the results would make it obvious that the influence of women has been an overwhelmingly positive thing. Not because women are the same as men, but because of the many ways they are different.
At the same time, I realized that an honest look at the upsides of empowering women would also require me to look at the obstacles, from the big cultural, historical, and biological forces, to the challenge of balancing work and family and the internal barriers that keep women from being all that they can be.
This book is not an attack on men. It’s not meant to demean or marginalize them. After all, my father is a man. I’m married to a man. I gave birth to a baby man. I think men have done wonderful things, from inventing the wheel (though it may have been a woman’s idea, but somehow a man got credit), to walking on the moon. Truly, the list of man’s (and I don’t mean “mankind’s”) accomplishments is so long and so profound that it seems silly to try to quantify it. But that doesn’t mean the world wouldn’t be better if there were more women in public life. If women had more power, not just in the United States, but around the globe. If women had the same access to education and economic resources and health care. If women had equal rights and equal opportunities. If there were more women in boardrooms, and classrooms, and operating rooms and courtrooms. If women’s ideas and opinions and life experiences were accorded the same weight as men’s. If girls were as valued as boys.
If women ruled the world.
My own Comments:
This is a true blue Feminazi talk, hard to believe that Bill Clinton once had this piece of crap in his administration, but then look at who his wife is, Queen of the crap heap herself.
This piece of vermon goes on to write that the world would be a much better place if it where ruled by women.
It is amazing, I can name you a few powerful women who ruled their nations and were just as corrupt as any Man or worst. Here goes, former PM Indra Gandhi of India, totally ruthless, shrew and any man, and cunning as a fox, look at how she erradicated terrorists from there holy shrine, which I might add got her killed in the end, she really didnt do much for any women in the end anyways. Former British PM Margret Thatcher, also known as the Iron Lady, she is best known to have taken away Milk from school aged childrens lunch time snacks. She went to War in the Falklands off the coast of Argentina just in case you wanted to know, so dont say women wont start wars. Bangladesh has a women PM mostly corrupted. Philippines former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Here read for yourself from Media reports.
One day after stepping down to Malacañang palace as former president of the Philippines, Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was charged with graft and corruption, bribery and obstruction of justice before the Department of Justice (DOJ), July 1, 2010.
Then you have former PM Benizar Bhutto of Pakistan, who's husband the present PM was charged and sent into exhile on massive corruption charges, naturally she never knew what her other half was doing, I am kidding now. We also have some local Indian CM, example UP CM Mayawati, this bitch takes the cake need I say more. TN CM Jaya Lalitha, this corrupt, vengful piece of trash, true politics is dirty, but this women rises to the occasion, she actually had her opponent, the former CM arrested in the middle of the night, while he was in his underwear, is this low or what.
These example just show how graciatiously women can rule and have ruled and just what they would really do if they really ruled the world. There is a famous saying that goes, "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned," This was not said just for no reason, some women hold strong urges for vengence, its just a women thing I guess, hey!
Article
If women ruled the world, everything would change, according to former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers. Politics would be more collegial. Businesses would be more productive. And communities would be healthier. Empowering women would make the world a better place. Blending memoir, social history and a call to action, Myers challenges us to imagine a not-too-distant future in which increasing numbers of women reach the top ranks of politics, business, science and academia. Here's an excerpt from “Why Women Should Rule the World”:
Introduction
Women should rule the world.
That was it, the answer to my frustration and growing political alienation. It seemed so simple, so obvious. Women!
If we were in charge, things might actually change. Instead of posturing, we’d have cooperation. Instead of gridlock, we’d have progress. Instead of a shouting match, we’d have a conversation. A very long conversation. But a conversation nonetheless. Everyone would just hold hands and sing “Kumbaya.”
Or would they? What would it be like if women ruled the world, I began to wonder?
Would anything really change? Would the world be a better place? My hunch was that more women in public life would, in fact, make things better.
After all, more women already have.
It’s easy (and perhaps a bit facile) to argue that men haven’t done such a great job. The last century was the bloodiest in human history, and so far, this one has been a tale of war, terrorism, religious extremism, abject poverty, and disease. I’m not saying it’s all men’s fault. But let’s just say, they’ve been in charge, and it doesn’t seem we’re much closer to finding answers to these profound and vexing problems.
On the other hand, if there are societies where women have truly ruled, they are few and far between. For virtually all of history, woman has played a supporting role to man’s, well, leading man. A comprehensive review of encyclopedia entries published in the early 1900s included only 850 women, though it covered a span of nearly 2,000 years. And the queens, politicians, mothers, wives, mistresses, beauties, religious figures, and women of “tragic fate” were notable mostly for their relationships with men.
I have always believed that women could rule the world. As far back as I can remember, it has seemed obvious to me that women were, in fact, every bit as qualified as men in most endeavors, and better than them at many. Of course, the corollary — that men are better than women at some things — also seemed obvious, at least after the sixth grade. Before that, I thought I could do anything any boy could do. I was a good student and a good athlete, and I didn’t have much trouble keeping up with boys in the classroom or on the playground. But then Doug, another sixth grader at Wiley Canyon Elementary School in California, challenged my friend Peggy and me to a game of two-on-one basketball, first side to ten would win. He beat us 10-0.
I realized then that athletic boys are better basketball players than most girls, even the ones like Peggy and me who spent a fair amount of time shooting hoops. While I confess this was a bit disappointing at the time, I certainly didn’t think that boys were better at everything, or even most things. That idea simply never occurred to me.
Maybe it’s because I grew up surrounded by strong women. My mother, a product of her generation, left college after two years to marry my father, a young Navy pilot.
Within a few years, she had three little girls and a husband who was often at sea. With Castro’s ascent in Cuba, then the war in Vietnam, my dad was gone for weeks or even months at a time, and my mom was left to manage alone. One of my earliest memories is of helping my mom pack a little plastic Christmas tree, some cookies, and a few wrapped packages into a big box to send my dad, who was on a ship somewhere in Southeast Asia. But she never complained (at least not when my sisters and I were listening), and she never seemed overwhelmed by all that she had to do. The Navy, like all branches of the military, would collapse without the community of able women (and now a lot of men) who manage things stateside, while their husbands (and now some wives) are away. My mother and her network of Navy wives helped each other tend to sick children, unstop kitchen sinks, and deal with worrisome news from the war raging half a world away.
After my father left the Navy, we moved to the suburbs of Los Angeles, and my mom eventually earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees, then went to work, first as a counselor at a local college, then as an executive at the phone company. She was good at what she did, rose quickly in her various jobs, and got a lot of satisfaction from her professional accomplishments. I didn’t always like it when my mom was gone, but I never doubted that what she was doing was important. At the time, most of the mothers in my neighborhood stayed home, so what my mom was doing was unusual. But my dad was supportive, and my sisters and I were more proud than displaced — even when we had to eat dry macaroni and overcooked hot dogs every time it was my sister Betsy’s turn to make dinner. It never occurred to me that I wouldn’t go to college and have a career — as well as a family — of my own. Both my parents, but especially my mother, encouraged me and led me to believe that it was possible.
My father’s mother, Grandma Bernadette, also shaped my ideas about what women could accomplish, in ways I think she never would have imagined. Her husband — my grandfather — died of congestive heart failure (he’d had rheumatic fever as a child) when he was just thirty-seven, leaving her with five children: my dad, who was eleven, and his four sisters, ages twelve to two.
My grandfather had owned a gas station on Main Street in Racine, Wisconsin, while my grandmother was busy raising the children and playing the organ at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church. She hadn’t been very involved in the business — and it certainly wasn’t a business where one expected to find women in 1946. Because of his heart condition, my grandfather didn’t have any life insurance, but his business was insured. So when he died — as my grandmother liked to tell it — the insurance men came to her house, suggested she sell it and the gas station, and move with her children into the Catholic orphanage across town. She told them to get the hell off her porch and never come back. She kept the station and managed the day- to-day operations until she sold it more than thirty years later.
She raised five children, put them all through college, and still found time to play the organ at Mass every weekday and five times on Sunday. While she clearly missed things about being married — and having a father for her children — she never really dated or considered marrying again. She would sometimes say she never found the right fellow, but her daughters believe that she simply liked being the boss.
So my grandmother — by fate, rather than design — was a small business owner and single mom long before women routinely did either, let alone both. And I’ve often wondered: What would have happened to another family if the mother had died and left the father with five young children? How many men could have managed to run the business, raise the kids, and volunteer at church six days a week, all by themselves?
In addition to my mother and grandmother, I grew up surrounded by accomplished women. The principal of my elementary school. My guidance counselor in high school. My father’s sisters. My friends’ mothers, and my mother’s friends. It seemed to me that women were capable of doing just about anything. Not that they were always allowed to, of course. When I was in second grade (even before I learned that boys were better at basketball), our teacher asked us to draw a picture of what we wanted to be when we grew up. The kid next to me, Robert, drew himself as a TV repairman. While his choice of career may not have thrilled his parents, it struck me hard. Wow, I thought. He can be anything. I have to be a teacher, or a nurse, or a nun. I drew myself as a teacher.
Happily, the years since I finished the second grade have seen an exponential increase in options. Girls can now aspire to be elementary school teachers or university presidents; nurses or doctors; nuns or — in many denominations — priests or ministers or rabbis. Girls and boys can be engineers, entrepreneurs, or astronauts. They can repair televisions or appear on them as actors or journalists. They can build homes or stay home with the kids.
And they can be press secretary to the president of the United States, as I was.
When I first started working in politics, as a junior aide on Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign, it never occurred to me that I would one day work in the White House. There were plenty of women among the volunteers who stuffed envelopes and walked precincts. But there were fewer and fewer on each successive level of influence and access. In the subsequent years, the numbers increased, as I moved from job to job — in the California state legislature, for the mayor of Los Angeles, on the gubernatorial campaigns of Tom Bradley and Dianne Feinstein, and on the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis. But electoral politics was still very much a white boys’ club.
When I joined Bill Clinton’s start-up presidential campaign in 1991, I was confident that women would play an ever more important role, but I never gave a minute’s thought to what would happen if we won. When we did — and I became the first woman to serve as White House press secretary — it changed my life. But it didn’t change the world. And I came to believe that it would take more women — lots more women — to do that.
After I left the White House, I kept a foothold in the business of American politics: as a talk-show host, analyst, commentator, speechmaker, and occasional writer. I was no longer a practitioner, but I was still a partisan, a Democrat, a blue-stater through and through. And I enjoyed the give-and-take of the political debate. But over the years, something changed, and I found myself more and more frustrated by the bitterness that now gripped the capital. Increasingly, it seemed, both sides were more interested in winning the argument than solving the problem. And the result was gridlock, polarization, and cynicism.
Surely there was another way, a better way. And I started to think about how we might move from a culture of confrontation to one of consensus, from I-win-you-lose to win-win. Was anyone in Washington practicing what I was only preaching? Were there people talking and listening to each other? Were they working together? Were they treating each other with respect and trying to see the world through each other’s eyes? And I realized that, yes, there were some. And one of the places it seemed to be happening on a regular basis was among the women in the U.S. Senate.
Now, granted it’s still a relatively small group: sixteen women. And it’s easier to find comity among sixteen than among 100 or 535 or 300 million. But something seemed to be happening there. On paper, the women didn’t have that much in common. They were liberal and conservative. They came from small states and big ones, both coasts and the middle. Several were single; others were mothers and grandmothers. They had different interests, different agendas, and different strengths. And yet. They had managed to transcend the bitter partisanship that has infected much of Congress, and forged not just political alliances on issues where they agreed — but genuine friendships.
“We relate on a personal level, because every one of us has had to overcome the obstacles of people underestimating us and people trivializing us,” said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas. “We’re good friends.”
The ideologically diverse group has never formed an official caucus, but in recent years, they’ve worked together on a variety of issues, including more access to individual retirement accounts for homemakers, more funds for home health care and breast cancer research, and a resolution condemning the ruling military junta in Burma for its brutal suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators. They have also reached out to other women leaders around the world. A few years ago, they met with women leaders from Northern Ireland, who were working to build a more civil society in that war-torn country; the Irish women came away inspired.
“My experience has been that women tend to be better at working across the aisles and are more pragmatic and results oriented,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.
While sixteen women in the Senate does not an airtight argument make, it certainly reinforced my own prejudices. Women do seem more interested in consensus. They do seem less consumed by the constant who’s-up-and-who’s-down score-keeping aspect of the political game. They do seem more willing to listen to other people’s opinions. That’s not to say that all women fit this model; they don’t. But wouldn’t increasing the number of women in Congress change the culture? Wouldn’t it make the elusive search for common ground more fruitful? Wouldn’t it make the political process more productive?
Wouldn’t it? Yes, I thought; it would. In fact, if there were more women in positions of power, not just in Congress, but across the United States and around the world, lots of things would be better. Not perfect. But better. We’d have more representative government; a stronger economy; and a healthier and more sustainable planet. We’d be better able to resolve conflicts and keep the peace. We’d have stronger families.
And so I set out to write this book: Why Women Should Rule the World.
I knew my own story, as political operative — and as a mother, a daughter, a sister, a wife, and a friend. But I needed more. So I talked to friends and read articles, studies, and books. I interviewed prominent and successful women, from primatologist Jane Goodall and Senator Dianne Feinstein, to activist and skin care entrepreneur Anita Roddick and Nobel Prize laureate environmental activist Wangari Maathai. I explored the growing body of scientific literature on the topic.
When I actually sat down to explore the argument, however, I realized it was going to be harder than I thought. Women haven’t been able to carve out much space on the top floors of any endeavor, in any country or culture in the history of the world. Without a doubt, they’ve made tremendous progress in the past three decades, but the numbers are still small.
In the United States, millions more women than men vote, and we have a female Speaker of the House for the first time in history. Still, women make up only 16 percent of the U.S. Senate, 16 percent of the House, and not quite 24 percent of state legislators. Only eight of the nation’s fifty governors are women. And while a woman has finally made a serious run, no woman has ever been elected president. Around the world, there is an increasing — if still small — number of women serving as heads of state or heads of government; but the small numbers make it hard to predict just how things would change if in every region of the world, every level of government was half women.
Ditto business. Women make the vast majority of consumer decisions in this country — by many accounts, more than 80 percent. But we still don’t have enough influence at the top of the corporations that make and sell those goods and services. True, women now fill about half of all managerial positions, but among Fortune 500 companies, women account for only 16 percent of corporate officers, 5 percent of top earners — and an anemic 2 percent of CEOs. Is it really possible to know how the world would change if women had their names on half the doors to the executive suites?
The pattern repeats and repeats. Women make up half of law school graduates and roughly a third of all lawyers. But they account for only 15 percent of partners in law firms or federal judges, and 10 percent of law school deans or general counsels at Fortune 500 companies. Women make up nearly half of medical school graduates — but only a quarter of doctors and 10 percent of the deans of medical schools. They are 20 percent of university presidents, but still woefully underrepresented in tenure-track teaching positions, especially in math, science, and engineering. How would a giant increase in the number of women at all levels change law, medicine, and academia?
These were among the questions that I wanted to explore.
Of course, the questions run deeper than the statistics that quantify women’s achievements — or the lack thereof. In the past couple of decades, there has been a mountain of research and commentary on the relationship between gender and just about everything — from leadership style, to ethics, to sex drive. And as the volume of information has grown, so too has the volume of the debate about what it means. Are the alleged differences real? Which, if any, are innate? Which are the result of socialization? And how do they affect expectations about gender roles?
As I began looking into questions like these, I was struck by the ferocity of the debate that still surrounds the “nature versus nurture” question. On the nature side, an eclectic group of scientists, philosophers, polemicists, parents, and religious traditionalists believe that sex roles are genetically, even divinely, determined. According to this view, women are nurturers, designed to have and raise the babies, while men are programmed to compete in the world and support their families.
The arguments are equally passionate on the other side, where a committed assortment of psychologists, sociologists, feminists, parents, and progressives argue that nurture is the root cause of behavioral differences between men and women. While the stack of studies is getting bigger, they claim that the evidence linking biology and behavior is tenuous; culture, they say, is the culprit. From infancy, boys are expected and encouraged to behave one way, girls another. And to see it any other way is to open the door to the kind of biology-as-destiny limitations that have held women back for thousands of years. If women are more nurturing, if they’re better at relationships, isn’t it also possible that men are better at, say, math or science? And wouldn’t that then justify the dearth of opportunities for women in those fields?
These, too, became questions I wanted to explore.
I’m not a sociologist. I’m not a psychologist, or a biologist, or a political theoretician. But as I began this book, I wanted to try to paint a picture, in laymen’s — or should I say laywomen’s? — terms, of what changes when there are more women in positions of power and authority across public life. And I hoped — and let’s be honest, expected — the results would make it obvious that the influence of women has been an overwhelmingly positive thing. Not because women are the same as men, but because of the many ways they are different.
At the same time, I realized that an honest look at the upsides of empowering women would also require me to look at the obstacles, from the big cultural, historical, and biological forces, to the challenge of balancing work and family and the internal barriers that keep women from being all that they can be.
This book is not an attack on men. It’s not meant to demean or marginalize them. After all, my father is a man. I’m married to a man. I gave birth to a baby man. I think men have done wonderful things, from inventing the wheel (though it may have been a woman’s idea, but somehow a man got credit), to walking on the moon. Truly, the list of man’s (and I don’t mean “mankind’s”) accomplishments is so long and so profound that it seems silly to try to quantify it. But that doesn’t mean the world wouldn’t be better if there were more women in public life. If women had more power, not just in the United States, but around the globe. If women had the same access to education and economic resources and health care. If women had equal rights and equal opportunities. If there were more women in boardrooms, and classrooms, and operating rooms and courtrooms. If women’s ideas and opinions and life experiences were accorded the same weight as men’s. If girls were as valued as boys.
If women ruled the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)