On 10^th March, 2021 an online beauty influencer of Bangalore Hitesha Chandranee alleged on her Instagram account that a Zomato delivery partner Kamaraj has punched her and broken her nose when she demanded her food be delivered free of cost because he was late.

Initially people were supporting Hitesha but MRAs soon reversed the conversation in Kamaraj’s favour and soon non MRAs took over Kamaraj’s cause, and Hitesha had to flee Bengaluru after getting exposed. People were quick to realize the evils of feminism and how modern women have become monsters. 

As feminism got badly exposed, some feminists come out in support of feminism and protested against blaming feminism for women like Hitesha. They claimed, “feminists don’t support all women by default” and we need to look at our ‘privileges instead’ to understand the real issue. Feminists claimed that it is the intersectional feminism could ensure justice in such cases. So, this article is all about how feminists are creating new lies under ‘intersectional feminism.’ In this article I will expose all feminist lies propagated in the aftermath of Bengaluru Zomato delivery case when feminists tried to support feminism and uphold the same as the only solution to such problems.

Netizens were quick to judge

Feminists alleged that ‘even when the investigations were ongoing, patriarchal India was quick to judge and bash feminists (and Hitesha)’. This allegation, however, is not valid because it was Hitesha Chandranee, who came to social media first to get justice. She uploaded her one-sided video and wanted to gain sympathy of netizens and also wanted to ensure her free food through social media pressure. If the verdict was against her, feminists should not complain about it.

If she really wanted to get justice, she should have complained only to police with evidence and should have waited for the investigation to get over. Since she didn’t do that, the question that netizens judged her too early does not arise.

In fact, her first video was enough proof against her and it was evident that she was lying. So, she had self-exposed herself and netizens only found out truth from her version of the story.

Trajectory of Misogyny

Feminists claimed that the social media reaction to Hitesha’s case was ‘trajectory of misogyny’, that is all too common and that tries to shoot down women’s experience of abuse and create arguments against affirmative actions and laws for protecting women.

If we look at the sequence of events in the Zomato case, we know that initially netizens were believing her side of the story and she was able to gain new followers through her video until the time MRAs exposed her lies. Soon the non MRAs found many inconsistencies in her statements and she was completely exposed.

To call this a ‘trajectory of misogyny’ is not only shameful but also criminal. Netizens have not judged the incident from their own misogynistic perception about women but from her version of ‘truth’, even without Kamaraj’s version being out.

It was evident from her video that it was a concocted story and she was set to ruin Kamaraj’s life, and hence it was necessary for the society to react. Men in a similar situation are likely to be physically thrashed by public. So, if the society was really misogynistic, she should have been thrashed physically. Since nothing like that had happened and only her lies were exposed by netizens, it can’t be termed as misogyny unless feminists are trying to force a narrative to believe women no matter what the reality seems to be.

Hitesha Never Claimed to be a Feminist

There was nothing as humorous as this theory by some feminists that said, since the social media beauty influencer Hitesha never claimed to be a feminist, feminism can’t be blamed for her actions. Similar way the people who disapproved her version didn’t claim to be misogynists or anti-women but the same feminists were quick to determine them as one because they spoke against her.

So, it does not matter if women like Hitesha openly claim to be a feminist or not, there actions are enough to be judged as one. If we look at recent past, none of the women like Jasleen Kaur or Rohtak Sisters openly claimed to be feminists, but all of them were quick to play the victim card when their whims were thrashed. It is the criminal action of these women that distinguish themselves as feminists.

Feminist Intersectional Justice

Feminists claimed that an individual’s behaviour can’t determine Intersectional Justice, even if she is lying. They clarified that Hitesha’s story can’t be termed as ‘toxic feminism’ because it doesn’t prove the same. They mentioned that patriarchy perpetuates ‘toxic masculinity’ is because it is a lose-lose proposition for all, including men. They claim that patriarchy ‘provides more privilege and protection to men, especially if they are cis, straight, and upper caste’ and hence that is toxic. Feminism, they claim, provides intersectional justice and hence is not toxic.  

However, In the Bengaluru Zomato delivery case, the poor Zomato delivery partner didn’t fulfil these criteria except being a man. Netizens didn’t try to know his ‘caste’ information before supporting him or before exposing Hitesha’s lies. So, to dismiss the social support garnered for Kamaraj as ‘toxic masculinity’ is outrageous. This exposes feminism even more.

Instead the proof of ‘toxic femininity’ is evident in this case. If we define ‘toxic femininity’ the same way they define toxic masculinity, we find that this incident is a lose-lose situation for everyone including women and except feminist women of course. Feminist women always get fame and increase their followers through such criminal activities.

Incidents like Hitesha’s one proves women as habitual liars and freebie seekers. Now that Hitesha is completely exposed by her neighbours and ex roommate as a serial offender, anyone supporting her becomes equally guilty and a potential offender. There were women who commented on social media that even their ‘true’ stories of abuse are not taken seriously due to such fabricated complaints by women like Hitehsha.

This is an example of ‘toxic feminism’ for one more reason. Feminists state that patriarchy is toxic because it provides more support for men, whereas in reality even in the Zomato case we have seen it was Kamaraj who lost his job and not Hitesha. It was Kamaraj whose future was at stake and it was Hitesha who still retained her corporate job despite being the first person to start the abuse. As the legal system fails to protect men in such cases and punish the errant women, feminism becomes toxic as it fails the whole society.

Feminism Does Not Claim All Women Are Angelic

After the Hitesha incident, feminists claimed that feminism can’t be blamed as they never claim all women as angelic. Instead their claim is that people should be judged by their conduct without being judged based on their gender.

This is not only funny and difficult to digest but also an out and out lie even to the beginners. Worldwide all special provisions created for women, all so-called ‘affirmative’ laws in their favour speaks otherwise. Even today organizations like UN Women and non-gendered organizations like United Nations, UNESCO or WHO talks and promotes only women’s causes. When feminists claim that ‘toxic patriarchy saves cisgender, heterosexual males’ then why there is no law favouring only these males in patriarchal societies?

It was the feminist organizations that brought all these gender-biased laws worldwide, and hence it becomes hard to believe that feminists don’t promote “all women are angelic”. If they did, they would have only fought for gender-neutral laws that many MRAs are fighting for.

Women Should not Be Held at Higher Moral Standard

Feminists demanded that their idea of ‘intersectional justice’ only debars the society from holding women at higher moral standards than men. Even though there is a reason to hold women in higher moral standards in traditional societies and I will probably discuss that in a different article, today, I will explain why in Zomato case, the woman was still given enough benefits that we have not extended to men yet.

Today we don’t any similar case of a male customer abusing delivery executives like Hitesha did. In fact, there were other similar cases involving women customers. Hitesha herself is a serial offender. So, we find that men are already following a higher moral standard than women do. So, if there is anything toxic between patriarchy and feminism, that is invariably and unarguably feminism.

Even when a man is from high-society, one would not start unnecessary abuse of such delivery partners as ‘slave’ that women like Hitesha can easily do. Despite being a serial offender, she is not yet punished and the delivery apps like Zomato still not banned her. A man in a similar situation would have already experienced physical beating by public around. So, in this case it is clear that no one held Hitesha even at the same moral ground as a man would have been held. The question of holding her on a higher moral ground, thus, does not arise.

‘Yes, All Women’ Attitude

Feminists claimed that such incidents often raise debate about ‘not all men’ are abusers and then turns to ‘yes, all women’ are the law misusers argument. They claimed that “men have found many champions like ‘innocent until proven guilty’, ‘where’s the proof?’ “even when they are accused of a crime in a court of law”.

You will understand easily how this argument is flawed through the example of same Zomato delivery case where Hitesha asked for free food for late delivery.

In Hitesha’s case, people first believed her side of the story until we MRAs found holes in that. So, when her own story was concocted and she herself has given proof of Kamaraj’s innocence and her guilt; where is the question of our misogyny? This case, is also likely to be placed in a court of law based on her concocted evidence and false testimony. So, when her story defies all logic and is clearly a concocted story, why shouldn’t we demand proof? Since men do not show same behaviour, why shouldn’t we say that ‘yes, all women are capable of creating drama like this?’

Also, there is enough evidence today in all our daily life how women take advantage of gender-biased laws and we have seen them abusing even policemen on duty. These women can’t be separated from one another and women from all walks of life exhibit the same behaviour. When feminists themselves had projected women as one entity, claimed that all women should support one another, when feminists showed women as one ‘class’ – why shouldn’t we believe that this is the behaviour of that ‘class’?

So, if feminists want to separate out criminals from non-criminals, they first needed to reestablish justice and punishment based on the crime and stop portraying every crime as gender-biased one. It is the feminists who has the duty to fight for punishment of criminal women and fight to bring justice to men and make laws gender-neutral. Only when criminal women are adequately punished, this ‘yes, all women’ attitude will go away.

The Class Divide Argument

Feminists claim that instead of blaming feminists and women for the Hitesha incident, we should blame one’s entitlement and class divide that perpetuates such behaviour. Feminists claimed that in a gig economy where the delivery executives earn a meagre amount and are not even employees of the company, a customer is likely to feel entitled to abuse them with words like ‘slave’.

There can’t be anything funnier as we have never seen men behaving like this with delivery boys and calling them ‘slaves’. So, where does this difference in gender behaviour come from? It is from the feminist entitlement that makes it impossible for our laws to punish criminal women. If the social media didn’t come out in overwhelming support of Kamaraj, if we MRAs didn’t demand Zomato looked after his needs as well, the story would have always favoured criminal women like Hitesha.

So, the feminist theory of class divide is merely a theory to divide the society in one more way and lacks any substance.

The Social Capital Angle

Feminists claim that Hitesha’s behaviour towards Kamaraj and her abusing him with words like ‘slave’ signifies that she believed that she had higher social capital as a social media influencer. Feminists claim that Intersectional Feminists already identifies this problem and recognizes that gender is only one of many factors in this class-based power dynamics. They also claim that it is wrong to assume that feminists will automatically support women like Hitesha because of their gender.

It may sound very complex and feminism may sound to be very fair in this aspect, even in the so-called patriarchal world in Vedic India, we have seen adequate respect for all, including men like Kamaraj.

Feminists often bash traditional Indian society as patriarchal but they have not seen the respect given to other human beings. That is why we see that a real life ‘slave’ Hunchbacked Manthara was successful to conspire against Bhagawan Sri Ramachandraji, the king of Ayodhya in the Hindu epic Ramayana. We also see an ordinary fisherman could raise pertinent questions regarding Mata Sita’s eligibility to be the Queen of Ayodhya and could made the Queen go through agni-pariksha (the pyre test) to prove her eligibility.

In both the above cases we can see that Ramachandra’s family (the King family of Ayodhya Kingdom) had much more social capital than those who pointed fingers at them, but still the people with less social capital were not only treated with respect but were also heard adequately. This is the culture traditional patriarchy has taught us. However, in the consumerist feminist world, there are instances like Zomato that proves that how badly people are treated for no fault of theirs, and how some feminist scholars try to defend feminism, albeit vaguely.

Conclusion

If the Bangalore Zomato delivery case, involving the Zomato delivery executive Kamaraj and social media influencer Hitesha Chandranee proves anything to us, that is the evil nature of feminism and it exposes baseless feminist theories. The arguments feminists use to prove that patriarchy is biased and promotes toxic masculine behaviour, proves that it is feminism that is toxic and create a lose-lose situation for all.

So, to uphold justice in these cases, we demand that such delivery executives be provided with body-cams and all customer interactions are recorded and all abusive customers be blocked by all such service providers in unison.

***

[This article is part of Modern Feminism series.

Read all articles under Modern Feminism – Here]

Now get fresh content delivered to your inbox directly –