Men's Rights & Feminism According to Aan Paavam Polladhadu

 

I am not triggered by Aan Paavam Polladhadhu - I just pity the makers who think they did right by their target audience and those who think its stellar. Let's dive right into the elements that makes this movie a false representation of what feminism stands for and what is considered "men's rights."

1. Women following traditions (wearing the nuptial thread) are "men's rights."

Tradition isn't the responsibility of only a certain section of the human population. If some people can choose whether or not to follow tradition, so can everyone. Many oppressive traditions have been scrapped from practice - culture and tradition are created by humans for humans. If the tradition no longer serves the current, transformed circumstance - it must be dismantled.

2. Women wearing elders' approved dressing and sitting position are "men's rights."

Weird, because our elders also have the mindset that men must be providers - this movie vehemently opposes that patriarchal diktat (and rightfully so), citing "fake feminism". But selecting which boomer mindset to accept and which one to oppose, citing victimhood doesn't cut it.

3. "If she refuses to adjust her dressing for my family, I'll humiliate her by underdressing for her friend's occasion."

Well, women don't wear a Hazmat suit to go shopping. There's something called "common sense." If we can oppose our parent's ingrained mindset about men's "duty" to earn, we can certainly oppose their mindset about women's dressing. The real villains are patriarchy and our elders who are set in their ways. But women and feminism take the beating - needlessly.

4. Watching other women on reels is ok but the wife shouldn't post reels because other people may watch her and comment = men's rights.

If one doesn't want others to see the women at their home in "blue lens", that person shouldn't see other women in the same lens in the first place. With the advent of AI, even if you lost your passport size photo for your ID, it can be taken and edited in compromising positions. Making reels isn't the only way women get seen in such lens.

So, there's "danger" everywhere, anywhere, anytime. Even using the bathroom at home can be risky. This is the world women live in - it'd be good if consent is practiced and technology isn't misused by "you-know-who."

5. Women pursuing a job that is approved by them is "men's rights."

There are so many beauty standards. And body-shaming women for being dark, on the heavy side and for "letting themselves go" is a more in our society. But women shouldn't open beauty parlors - they should study and become IAS officers. 

6. Ridiculing women's lack of academic capability is men's rights.

In India, this girl topped the state-board exam - she was viciously trolled for her appearance. 

C. Nandini, a girl from TamilNadu, got 100% in Tamil, Math, and English (which is an impossible feat). She's a confident speaker who isn't camera shy - she was also trolled. Some people were plotting to make her fall in love with them in college - effectively sabotaging her education.

In Malaysia, women consistently outnumber men among university graduates, yet this advantage does not translate into equal representation in the workforce. While women make up a significant share of degree holders, their participation rate in employment remains lower than men’s.

And, it's not like the saying, "padicha thimiru, sambarikra thimiru" (temerity because of education and earning) isn't used against women anymore.

7. Women shouldn't see self-respect when asking money from their husbands - but the husband gets to put conditions on how much he'd give the wife.

Apparently, women having a collaboration bio on Instagram to earn isn't self-respect. And women shouldn't base self-respect on being financially dependent on their husbands. A nanosecond after saying this, Siva says that when it comes to money, it's always men who must pay - because she wants a loan for the beauty parlor. 

8. Giving permission to women is "men's rights."

Well, first of all, it was figurative speech: nudity in public places is unlawful. I mean, if no one gives permission to Surya to flaunt his abs, who is anyone to give Jyothika permission to wear a sleeveless top? 

🎬 Takeaways from Aan Paavam Polladhadhu

❌ Missing the Point Entirely

Almost everything feels wrong in Aan Paavam Polladhadhu—ironically, including its claim to address men’s issues. Instead of examining the real pressures men face under patriarchy, the film misdirects its energy toward blaming women and feminism.

The idea that the law “favours women” conveniently ignores reality: many domestic violence cases never even reach court or are settled midway, not because they are false, but because marriage in India is treated as family prestige. Survival often looks like compromise.

💻 Online Misogyny, Now in Celluloid

At its core, the film is red-pill internet logic stretched into a two-hour runtime. It caters to an audience already convinced that women and feminists are dumb, entitled, irrational, or easily manipulated, and presents a shallow, strawman version of feminism.

The “feminist activist who is a housewife” trope is offered as a clever gotcha, apparently a slipper-shot to “fake feminism.” "It's my choice to be a housewife." Then why isn't Sakthi's "choice" to not wear the thali acceptable? 

📱 “Fake Cases” & Other Social Media Myths

There is a striking lack of understanding of how law, society, and Indian family dynamics actually function. The film seems to believe that once a woman files a complaint, the system runs smoothly - free from family elders, emotional blackmail, financial dependence, or the evergreen “adjust for the sake of honour” lecture.

Patriarchy, in this universe, graciously steps aside. Justice, naturally, arrives on time - only in the fantasy world of the manosphere.

Women police officers are shown as willing accomplices in filing “fake cases,” allegedly helping women destroy men’s financial security through alimony. The irony of Agent Tina.

🤷🏽‍♀️ Compromise ≠ Deceit

Dropped or settled cases are treated as smoking guns of dishonesty, as though compromise in Indian families is a free, informed choice rather than a survival tactic.

The film ignores how women are routinely pressured to withdraw complaints -to protect family reputation, preserve marriage, or avoid being permanently branded “difficult.” But sure, if a case doesn’t end in conviction, it must be fake. Nuance is inconvenient. Reality doesn’t trend.

🎭 What the Film Is Actually Doing

What we get isn’t law or lived experience—it’s recycled red-pill rhetoric disguised as social commentary. Feminism is flattened into a caricature, men’s grievances are validated without context (“men are martyrs”), and patriarchy walks away untouched—again.

This isn’t a critique of the system. It’s a comfort watch for those who want their biases affirmed, preferably with background music and moral superiority.

⚖️ How the Law Actually Classifies a “False” Case

Contrary to popular belief, Indian law does not outsource truth-finding to social media comment sections.

A case is classified as false only when a court, after a full trial, records that the complaint was deliberately fabricated or malicious. This requires:

• evidence,

• intent, and

• a judicial finding.

None of these are satisfied simply because a case was withdrawn, settled, or ended in acquittal.

An acquittal does not mean the complaint was false; it only means the prosecution failed to meet the very high standard of proof required in criminal law. Withdrawal or compromise does not come with a legal footnote that reads “woman lied.” The law, inconveniently, accounts for pressure, fear, coercion, and survival.

📊 How NCRB Data Works (and Gets Abused)

The NCRB records police-stage outcomes, not courtroom truths. Labels like mistake of fact, insufficient evidence, compromise, or case closed are administrative tools, not moral judgments.

These categories are then enthusiastically misunderstood. Everything that doesn’t end in conviction is lumped together and presented as proof of falsity, as though lack of evidence equals evidence of lack. Legal nuance, of course, is optional when outrage is the goal.

🚨 The Part That Keeps Being Ignored

• False → requires a court’s finding of intentional fabrication

• Unproven → the legal threshold was not met

• Withdrawn / Settled → the case exited without adjudication

Collapsing all of this into one bucket called “fake” isn’t legal reasoning - it’s narrative convenience. In law, falsity is concluded, not assumed, no matter how confidently the assumption is repeated.

🎯 “Choice Feminism” as a Weapon

It’s interesting how being a housewife is accepted as “choice,” but making reels or not wearing a nuptial thread suddenly becomes proof of “fake feminism.” That selective acceptance exposes the scam neatly.

And no—neither men nor women are obligated to accept harm for the sake of family. Talk it out. Listen. Feminism is not the opposite of men’s rights.

🌱 What Feminism Actually Stands For

There is no “fake feminism.” There is only feminism some men don’t agree with, such as:

1. 🧹 Housework is a life skill everyone should know and do.

2. 💰 Financial independence is human dignity

3. 🌍 Choice feminism is superficial because it can easily accommodate patriarchy, unhealthy habits, waste of resources, and environmental damage

4. ⚖️ Feminism is a movement for equality—it does not instruct women to file false cases, just as disability pride does not encourage abuse of able-bodied people

5. 🧠 Men’s problems are caused by patriarchy, not feminism—from caste oppression and honor killings to earning as duty and male suicide rates

🪞 Final Thought

When you’re privileged, equality feels like oppression.

Men’s issues deserve serious attention, but they cannot be addressed by dismissing women’s experiences or undermining feminist discourse. Productive dialogue requires talking it out, listening, and rejecting the false binary that pits feminism against men’s rights.