Hello,
I am a fourth year law student from a T-2 NLU and have done two ICA moots (one national and one international) and I am currently interning at a T1 Firm (Disputes). Could someone please tell me if there are any firms which deal extensively with ICA and how can I get internships there?

I just saw this news item on Varanium Cloud.

https://finshots.in/archive/how-varanium-cloud-rigged-its-own-sme-ipo/

I have never worked on an SME IPO, if you have, may you please clarify how this works.

1. Dont the MBs do any proper diligence or are they in on it?

2. What are the auditors doing?

3. I know of one other trading company which did an IPO and its owners (IVY league educated) persons went to prison for something else.

And

3. How's the practice area like?

4. Is it as intense as a mainboard IPO in terms of deadlines and work?

5. How's the payout for lawyers in this?

6. Which firms do these?

Someone I know (a T1 NLU graduate) has identified herself as the parent of a guy who is 4 years younger than her.

She has been comparing this weird relationship to actual parenthood. Most interestingly, her pronoun was "He" for that week (I am not trying to be sarcastic here, she actually changes her pronoun quite frequently). Mind you, I am not even going into the details of how weird this relationship is. And ofc, don't think that the guy is an orphan or something.

I am a liberal and do support their rights, but this is just ridiculous imo. I love JK Rowling even more for the stand she is taking. This world will soon turn into a shithole if this culture keeps spreading like this. Need more people like her who have the guts to speak what needs to be spoken in today's times.

Hes a man! Changing his hair and getting a pink whistle doesnt change that! omg its literally hate speech in some jurisdictions? Which ones pray? Do you refuse to smoke pot and think abortions are immoral because theyre literally illegal in some jurisdictions?

Hate speech means inciting violence or using slurs or inciting hatred. Calling a man a man doesnt do any of those things. Its just speech you hate. She literally didnt say anything other than pointing out that someone being celebrated for being a pathbreaking "woman" in a male dominated profession is in fact- a male.

Look- people just disagree with you about this. You all can keep posting nonsense links every week, get into a long ass conversations about why sex is a material and important category- call women bigots and shame them for being "unkind" - you can "virtue" signal to others and have it make you feel superior. None of it is actually productive. Why do you get your jollies that way? She clearly isnt alienating a lot of people because HBO is still making that show and hogwarts a legacy was a hit. All youre doing is trying to cancel a woman who earnestly disagrees with you.

You could just keep doing this over and over like its gonna help at all- or you could try to open your mind one tiny inch and try and figure out why people disagree with you? If you dont have it in you to wonder if maybe youre not born virtuous and have only pious thoughts- maybe behave like other religions and keep this nonsense to yourself.

I think this particular forum has had too many conversations about gender woo woo. especially lately. We're all tired. Get a life. Touch grass.

Teaching: only two of teachers are good.

Exposure: extremely poor

Student quality: it was good before but now dampening batch by batch

Placement: this year's was good because of exceptional students who would have aced irrespective of the batch. But placement is extremely poor otherwise. Not a single tier 2 firm came for placement.

College Life and cost: horrible as it can be. Cost is around 3 lacs fees exclusive of living expenses. Living expenses cost around 1 lac. Most of the students have rich background. They don't care about making career but are here to chill and enjoy life

"If the implicit point is that someone who has a penis, or even someone who once had one, will rape, because the penis is the cause of rape, or the socialization of those who have penises is the cause of rape, then surely such claims should be debated. Rape is an act of social and sexual domination, as many feminists have argued, arisen from social relations that establish masculine domination and access to women’s bodies without consent as a right and a privilege.”

This is what Judith butler says in her latest book. Maybe you havent read it?

So shes essentially saying "guns dont kill people, people kill people". Its not the penis that is causing rape- sure maybe some rape victims are penetrated by other methods. Its not the socialisation of people who are bepenised that causes rape? so not all men then?. Heres a hint: We know not everyone with a penis is a rapist Judy. We just also know that people with penises are the vast majority of rapists and therefore we do extra things- like sex-segregated spaces- to protect women and girls from rape. Since- yknow- rapists arent going to tell you theyre one of the baddies. Its called safeguarding. Its like having background checks for guns or not letting members of terrorist organisations buy guns.

oh so its social and sexual domination is it? how is this domination achieved ? certainly brahmin men want to achieve domination over dalit men- do they rape the dalit men then? im sure putins soldiers want to dominate ukranians- did they rape the male soldiers? has any war existed where the rape victims were predominantly male? Oh wait- the victims are always female? its dalit women and women in conflict zones that are raped by men? 98% of rape is done by males to females?

Its just masculine domination? so why arent butch lesbians going around raping people in huge numbers? theyre masculine arent they? why are men in dresses raping women- you can go to reduxx and look at all the stories? surely someone rejecting masculinity and attempting femininity wouldnt do that? what is the cotton ceiling about if its not compulsory heterosexuality with new clothes on? If JBs model of masculine domination is to hold- there can never be a single non-binary or transwoman who has ever assaulted or raped a female. Isla Bryson then either shouldnt exist or be a charlatan? and if he is a charlatan- then we must accept that self declaration is not a test of gender identity - you would have to become a transmedicalist.

Thats what JB gets wrong. She gets wrong that womens bodies are female before any socialisation or any kind of social construction can take place. Bodies are not made and unmade by discourse. Thats a stupid idea. If a tree falls in the woods and no ones there- that tree has still fallen. We seem perfectly content to recognise this line of constructivism in every other area of life. Just because you can see snow in some parts of the world doesnt mean that we dont have a climate change problem. Just because our bellies are full doesnt mean there arent starving people. Just because we dont see the pain that an animal goes through in the slaughterhouse doesnt mean it doesnt experience pain. Besides- lacking alll socialisation- even if we agree baby boys are bounced and baby girls are coddled and socialisation starts young. Especially in our country- the oppression begins well before any of that social construction of gender can kick in. Do you know what female feticide is? do you think theyre killing those babies because of some gender identity the fetus has not managed to express yet? or because its female?

Even butler knows this- because she doesnt say women and non binary and feminine bodies- she says womens bodies. The world is not turtles all the way down- its not social construction until nothing is left. Gender- gender roles and behavior and stereotypes are indeed socially constructed- but sex- most definitely is not. Sex exists regardless of whether or not we recognise it. And refusing to recognise it so that we can all be revolutionaries is misguided at best and misogynistic at worst.

Lets look at the article you cite. I dont have the time or patience to go point by point and debunk her nonsense - but I can at least attack some of her foundational assumptions. First sentence and Butler has gotten it wrong. Simone de Beauvoir As an existentialist, she believes that we should all be free to determine our fate and she analyses the ways in which women’s fate is confined by patriarchy, othering and femininity. So she says “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”.

This quote has been misused by many, but especially and firstly Judith Butler and then third wave feminism, to justify that being a woman is just an identity or a feeling, and even that Beauvoir is pro trans. But the existentialist maxim is ‘existence precedes essence’ so the material reality of ‘woman’ precedes any essence/nature/feminity for Beauvoir. Here is a quote from what Beauvoir says explicitly about transvestites. "“One does not acquire virile attributes by rejecting female [feminine] attributes; even a transvestite doesn’t manage to turn herself into a man—she remains a transvestite.” Much of this confusion is because of mistranslation by Parshley- a dude. Clearly Beauvoir is not arguing that gender is a performance.

So yeah- not a great start for judy- clearly her claims about gender not being a stable identity but all about performance is something that she cannot attribute to beauvoir at all. Lets go on.

Heres another quote "I will understand constituting acts not only as constituting the identity of the actor, but as constituting that identity as a compelling illusion, an object of belief" Right there- because JB writes so badly maybe you dont realise what shes even said in this piece written at the beginning of her career- she doesnt think any performances or acts constitute the identity of the actor- she thinks the identity is just a compelling illusion- a belief. Its social constructivism all the way down. Thats what im saying too- Behaving in gender-non conforming ways doesnt make you the opposite sex- or the neither or both sexes- thats creation of "identity" is an illusion- a belief- absolutely nobody is required to go along with your beliefs and illusions in a free society or one committed to the truth.

But lets go on- the sex gender distinction is spicy. First- she quotes merleau ponty about the body being a "sexual being" and again misquotes de beauvoir to argue its performance. But of course Merleau ponty is misquoted as well. Sexuality is different than sex- just as homosexuality, hetereosexuality is different from male and female. The first two are behavioural characteristics. I can be more or less sexual one day- that doesnt actually change my sex- which is female.

But of Judy has made her living misquoting and misattributing better minds. What is it she does say about bodies? "One is not simply a body, but, in some very key sense, one does one's body and, indeed, one does one's body differently from one's contemporaries and from one's embodied predecessors and successors as well." Honestly- what nonsense is this? this is cartesian dualism. this is the soul and the body distinctions. Who is doing the body if not the body judy? can you choose to not do your body? clearly not. Your body is you. every single cell. and when you die- your cells will either be burned into ashes or decompost into worm food. No religious souls nonsense. She even tells you right in the next paragraph- "It is, however, clearly unfortunate grammar to claim that there is a 'we' or an 'I' that does its body, as if a disembodied agency preceded and directed an embodied exterio". Then she goes on to reframe it as embodiment and possibilities. But that still doesnt take her away from cartesian dualism unfortunately- who is doing the embodying? who is intentionally organising the possibilities? at least avowedly religious people are honest about believing in souls. She cloaks it all in performance- but who is performing female? who is performing male? how do you perform that? I have no idea how to perform any sex. There are stereotypes- and I try to not perform any of them.

Lets go on: "When Beauvoir claims that 'woman' is a historical idea and not a natural fact, she clearly underscores the distinction between sex, as biological facticity, and gender, as the cultural interpretation or signification of that facticity.o be female is, according to that distinction, a facticity which has no meaning, but to be a woman is to have become a woman, to compel the body to conform to an historical idea of 'woman,' to induce the body to become a cultural sign, to materialize oneself in obedience to an historically delimited possibility, and to do this as a sustained and repeated corporeal project." Ugh. Again- just because female is biological- doesnt mean it has no meaning judy. Are you trying to be dense darling? Female means xx- developmental pathway to produce ovaries- means puberty, menstruation and ovulation and pregnancy and someday- if you live long enough- menopause. If it didnt mean that- then female as a category would be meaningless. Our bodies judy are ourselves. Divorced from the body is "gender"- which is essentially roles, stereotypes or behaviours. You do not become less of a woman if you dress like a man- thats what De Beauvoir was saying about transvestites being a tragedy. Gender is imposed- historically determined way of limiting the ways in which "females" are expected to act. Its a prescriptive/normative category not a descriptive one.

Lets go on. "Because there is neither an 'essence' that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender creates the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis". See what shes saying? shes saying there are no sexed souls- when we're talking about peoples behavior, stereotypes, roles in society- there is no essence that is being expressed through gender- there can therefore be no "cis" or "trans". You cannot know the inner essence of that which you cannot embody mate, especially since inner essences are suspect idea anyway. So there is no "wrong body". If the claim from trans activists was- we know we dont have souls that make us different- we just want to behave in gender stereotype non conforming ways- literally no one except some religious fundamentalists would have a problem. you dont have to define yourself as "non binary". just wear whatever clothing you like. But that is not the claim from activists and from later year butler- the claim is there is a gender soul, that little boys could be born in the wrong body if they like pink. and that alok vaid menon is born with a "non binary" soul unlike the rest of us with cis man or woman souls.

Lets go back to Judy then. "The authors of gender become entranced by their own fictions whereby the construction compels one's belief in its necessity and naturalness" - this is called living in the gender mania- thinking the way you perform "gender" is necessary or natural to you and hence intrinsic to you. Its not mate. women are women even if they do all masculine things- cause women are adult human females. How does judy come so close to the point and keep missing it youre wondering? cause she thinks material reality is immaterial- its all social constructivism.

She goes on to talk about personal is political- trying desperately to classify a second wave feminist slogan meant to solidify female solidarity and argue for the rights of women as a sex class into this idea of individual freedoms. She goes wrong because you cannot fight the sexism through neo-liberal individualism. You need sex classes. Its not turtles all the way down- there is a material reality there.

"My suggestion is that the body becomes its gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time". What utter rubbish- stuff you can only think if you think biological reality is meaningless. Sorry to say that we are not all defined by our clothes or the stereotypes we're performing. There are real bodies that really get harmed because of the sex they are- something an ivory tower academic would know nothing about. This is the opposite of what De Beauvoir said and butler doesnt have the decency or the courage to mention it or to counter it.

"Indeed, one ought to consider the futility of a political program which seeks radically to transform the social situation of women without first determining whether the category of woman is socially constructed in such a way that to be a woman is, by definition, to be in an oppressed situation"

The category of gender is socially constructed. Not sex. Not adult human female- woman. Why is the pope of gender deliberately obfuscating gender and sex? Adult human females- women - are oppressed, but they dont have to be to be defined as women. Its not social construction that makes us women- its the biological fact she dismisses as meaningless because it has no meaning in her privileged life. My body isnt socially constructed by gender roles. It just is a material reality.

" Indeed, if gender is the cultural significance that the sexed body assumes, and if that significance is codetermined through various acts and their cultural perception, then it would appear that from within the terms of culture it is not possible to know sex as distinct from gender". Its not possible to know sex as distinct from gender because she rejects material realities. She assumes women have agency in doing feminine things that then turn around and make them women. What a ridiculous idea- because men want to control womens bodies- women are policed when they do unfeminine things- they do those feminine things not to become women- they do those feminine things to avoid punishment.

"To guarantee the reproduction of a given culture, various requirements, wellestablished in the anthropological literature of kinship, have instated sexual reproduction within the confines of a heterosexually-based system of marriage which requires the reproduction of human beings in certain gendered modes which, in effect, guarantee the eventual reproduction of that kinship system" - heterosexuality- has zero do with gendered behavior, roles or stereotypes- and everything to do with sex- a biological fact. Only hetereosexual intercourse- the meeting of sperm and egg- can result in children- that is a biological fact. the fact that women are policed into compulsory heterosexuality to ensure that there is control over their material bodies and produce babies has much more to do with material bodies themselves- biological sex- than gender roles behaviour or stereotype. Bodies arent "cultivated" into discrete sexes. they are in discrete sexes. There is no human that produces a mix of sperm and eggs. there is no sperg or spegg. Sex is about material bodies- not gender- there is no cultivation there is just subordination based on it. Then she starts saying gender identity without even knowing what that is.

Do you know who popularised the phrase gender identity? it was John Money who performed cruel experiments on children including a cosmetic surgery where he changed a boy who had been badly circumcised into a boy who looked female. he told the parents to raise the boy as a girl. Come puberty the boy tried to commit suicide because he felt that something was wrong with his material body. And later went on to disavow his "girl" gender identity and claim he was a boy again. John Money took this and claimed there was a gender identity instead of the more obvious claim that women arent just castrated men.

the fact that butler uses "gender identity" when just pages ago she tried to avoid being called a cartesian dualist is honestly ridiculous.

I can keep going on and on but I have things to do. Address these questions if you like- at the very least all of this work should prove to you that we arent ignoramuses who just dont understand the secret preachings of the high priestess of gender. we understand what shes saying- we disagree about the importance of material reality or the road to utopia.

If you dont understand why unbounded social constructivism is harmful- may i present the following:

what else does JB thinks is contructed, and how far away from material reality she can get. This is what she says about incest in a chapter titled quandries of the incest taboo in "Whose Freud?" She says this: In relation to this epistemological set of quandaries, we need to remind ourselves that the distinction between event and wish is not as clear as it is sometimes held to be. It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be—and to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violations and those that are not—it is not necessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside. The fear, of course, is that, if it emerges that the child’s desire has been exploited or incited by incest, this will somehow detract from our understanding of parentchild incest as a violation. The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life. It may also be said to perpetrate a deprivation of another order. After all, when we try to think of what kind of exploitation incest can be, it is often precisely the child’s love that is exploited in the scene of incest. By refusing to consider what happens to the child’s love and desire in the traumatic incestuous relation with an adult, we fail to describe the depth and psychic consequence of that trauma."

I dont know about you- but I think thats pretty reprehensible. Regardless of how much reading into a childs desires and fantasies one does- its pretty reprehensible for anyone to claim the incest taboo should be problematised, In the material world- frontal lobe development and sexual development is a thing. Consent and other bodies distinct from our own consenting is a thing. Not being able to consent because of brain development is a thing. These arent just words to be twisted around- we're talking about children with material bodies. When you let go of material reality- all sorts of bad things happen.

Shes doing this because she wants to argue that same sex relationships are seen as suspect because of the absence of the incest taboo. Except she goes about it all wrong. We allow same sex relationships exactly because we have come to know over time that they do not lead to incest. The gays are not groomers. But ofcourse, she- like foucault- starts thinking she can use words and social construction to render material facts meaningless or irrelevant or at least biasing.

Shes not alone and this isnt the only time we've heard that from this movement. Here is notorious nonbinary special Alok Vaid Menon saying we shouldnt think of little girls as innocent and indeed, little girls are "kinky" and capable of "enacting violence". https://i1.wp.com/poptopic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/14102696_1868475616708809_6018263423458537991_n.jpg

Because of course this movement isn't just arguing that nonbinary/ trans people should just live and let live- its not arguing for non discrimination. its arguing for disruption. for queering. You should see a grown male-bodied person like alok as vulnerable and requiring protection while thinking about little girls as capable of hurting and as kinky. Its a movement that requires that we disbelieve women and young girls because their lives have been "grievable" for too long and now we've found a new "oppressed" category. Dont tell me its transphobic or hateful when im literally quoting your leaders.

if you are a woman- you by definition identify with the binary. Which means sex based stereotypes ring true to you. No wonder you think women are irrational because they get periods- as opposed to understanding that periods are a sign of a healthy female body.

If you accept those binaries and stereotypes so much- no wonder you think anyone claiming theyre not women- non binaries and natal men- no wonder you think theyre all superior wonderful souls and all the women who disagree with the stereotypes should be shut up and shamed for being evil bigoted witches. That makes complete sense. I suggest you perform your gender then and go back to the kitchen and make some sandwiches. The rest of us- rebellious women, women who have no time to cater our feminism to please men- have real fights to fight.

You have no idea the struggles women have had to go through to get into education and employment- chief among them- the struggle to get sex segregated bathrooms at work and in schools. You know what happens when you allow male bodied people to go into a women only space because they have a different gendered soul? because they wore a dress that day? that ceases to be a female only space. You know what that means? fewer young girls will be allowed to go to school or to university or to work. Fewer women will have that ability because male pattern violence and criminality are a thing in the material world. We dont get to identify our way out of our bodies, or out of historically proven trends in criminality. the rights of women depend existentially on recognising that sex matters.

You think we're pulling the ladder up because you think women are already at the top of the ladder and at the bottom are the nonbinaries and trans people. women- female people- are the ones who are violated and abused and exploited beyond recognition in this world. not because someone uses the wrong pronouns or doesnt believe their philosophical views- because their actual bodies are tortured. There was a 15 year old girl not two days ago who was beheaded by her much "fiance" because she passed her tenth board exams and wanted to study further. She was the only girl from her village to even be allowed to write the exam. You think he murdered her because of her feminine soul or behaviour? he murdered her because she was born female and she had the audacity to want an education. Because he was entitled to her body and her service. And poor women suffer the most. Poor women who end up going to prison for petty theft and for economic crimes are locked in with gender specials who have raped and impregnated them.Poor women who need to be able to avail of sex segregated schools and bathrooms and reservations and all other sex based protections- but you dont care about them. You think women are the oppressors because they think sex matters. They should just reframe their trauma and go to therapy right? What a singularly unempathetic world view.

You want us to think all non-binary people are super empaths who couldnt do anything wrong because theyve gone to therapy? and so women shouldnt have any objection to losing their language and their sex based rights to them? How many non-binary identified criminals will change your mind? Alok Vaid Menon claiming little girls are kinky and saying we should queer childhood- that doesnt make you uncomfortable? what about the rapist of loudon county? what about the audrey hales of the world who shoot up people? What about andrea long chu saying "f**ked is what a female is" and literally defining women by their submission to men? How many material things in the real world have to happen for you to think material reality- sex matters? Go to terf is a slur dot com- tell me how many punch a terf,kill a terf, terfs can choke on my girldi*k type comments are made by perfectly harmless gender specials. Who exactly is pulling the ladder up behind whom here?

You being class privileged have reaped the rewards of sex based protections in your life. Thank god men in bars you wanted to get away from couldnt follow you in there because they claimed non-binary. Thank god you were not told you had to reframe your trauma and instead got to decide whether you wanted a male or female gynaecologist. Thank god when women in your family were admitted to hospitals- they could be safe in the female only ward instead of being assaulted when they were weak. Thank god the old feminists you hate so much fought for your rights.

And now you want to pull the ladder up so that women who are poorer than you- who are not as privileged- cannot have those same sex based protections. Because you want everyone to think youre so brilliant for citing judith freaking butler and cottoning on to the cause du jour and the new trendy social justice thing. You want to be seen as kind as opposed to actually being kind.

Work on your internalised misogyny.

Im not claiming- I am feminist. You dont get to gatekeep feminism when you cannot even define what feminism is. What ladder am i pulling up? I dont think non-binaries are oppressed in any real way at all. Go on wear whatever clothing or hair style you want- im not trying to limit anyones gender expression. no "non binary" person is discriminated against in education or employment on sight the way women are. If there is a discrimination claim- the claim is " you dont echo my beliefs about gender and that makes me uncomfortable". Im afraid that political and philosophical positions are not immutable characteristics.

I am disagreeing that there are sexed souls because im a feminist. You are wedded to gender so much you think it matters more than history and more than sex and more than material reality. your solution for womens liberation is for them all to claim they are non binary because they dont like the stereotypes. I would argue that when soldiers are raping women theyre not stopping to ask what their pronouns are. That despite all evidence- sex is immediately knowable in most cases which is why men from oppressor groups rape the women from the oppressed group and not the men.

My experiences dont trump yours. But yours dont trump mine either. And if my experiences are reeking of prejudice- yours reek of cultish hero-worship based on victimhood status. I bet you wouldnt say a single one of those things about your straight cis male friends- because you dont think theyre superior based on your victimhood heirarchy. I on the other hand- if a cis male was behaving the same way I would ask the same damn questions. Consider that people might disagree with you because they have actually trans identified people in their lives and its terrifying to see the lack of serious research and the lack of non ideological research on this stuff. that theyre terrified that despite everything their friends and siblings and kids arent getting better. that transition is harming their loved ones.

There is some medical literature done by Lisa Littman that shows theres a social contagion, there is other medical literature that shows dysphoria is a symptom of other mental illnesses. the cass review absolutely shows that focussing on identity as the cause of all mental illnesses is woefully misguided and actually harms trans identifying people.

Its not horrifying to ask if gender dysphoria is a symptom or not. The science simply is not settled. Im not saying we treat anyone badly because they have mental illnesses- unlike you- im saying that if someone has mental illnesses we should think carefully about the consequences of affirming their beliefs v cognitive behavioural therapy and more medical research.

There was a point of time- before the activists took over- that even trans people argued that they were being underserved by the medical community. that the medical community was forcing them to be life long patients. thats all im saying- if social transition does anything- if it is as powerful as you claim it is- we have to consider that it might not be all good. Why dont suicide rates decrease after transition? why are trans activist groups hiding and lobbying medical organisations to hide data about long term health outcomes?

You have ZERO idea what youre talking about. You havent researched it all. You have read a few people saying the same thing and bought into it without thinking about it.

You think youre building some utopia? youre spelling ruin for these young people and for women.

Go ahead and shame me. I dont care about shaming from religious nuts. But when the chips are down- your side has cheerleaded the biggest medical scandal of the 20th century. Thousands of kids sterilised because of gender expression, theyre left without sexual dysfunction and with serious long term illnesses that are irreversible. Thats on you. Hundreds of women losing jobs losing medals losing recognition all because you think men who might be effeminate and want to be women get to be so. Hundreds of women locked in prisons and raped by male bodied rapists. Thousands more refused the ability to have same sex care when theyre disabled, have same sex spaces that protect them from male bodied rapists. Women in rape crisis centres told to go to therapy if theyre uncomfortable working with a male bodied person in therapy. All of that is on you. And your desperate desire to prize esoteric academic philosophy over the material realities of girls and women.

Im not seeking validation for bigotry- youre only posting to virtue signal. Im posting because im tired of having nonsense said without challenging it.

ZERO people other than you here have made assumptions about anyone who has different ideas than them. You have come to this with nothing except assumptions and bad faith misreadings of perfectly reasonable questions.

im sure there are several women who could beat up several men. That doesnt change the averages or that most crimes are committed by men. that doesnt change male pattern violence or male pattern criminality. It doesnt change that on AVERAGE men are stronger than women. Google it man. this is basic stuff.

I can tell you exactly why I disagree with Butler very clearly. Because she thinks gender is all performance and liberation lies in subverting that performance. I disagree. Gender is not all performance. Gender sometimes reflects very material sex based realities. When one half of humanity is physically weaker, when one half of humanity gets pregnant and has periods and has physically weaker bodies- and is socially punished for having different bodies- sex roles and stereotypes attach to that which is harmful. But I dont believe liberation exists in pretending that that the materiality of being female doesnt exist and encouraging people to parody sex stereotypes of the opposite sex. I think liberation exists in recognising material realities and in working to ensure that we create a liberated world despite those material realities.

I think butler exemplifies white first world feminism where stereotypes are the most awful thing to happen to someone- when in the real world- there is real violence, material bodies are destroyed because of sex.

Butlers famous example for why its all performance is marriage- She argues that marriages only exist because of the performance of it, a priest and a ceremony. Except thats not true even of marriage. My parents have been together all my life and not had a ceremony or a priest. The lack of a performance doesnt invalidate that they have raised children together or that they have loved each other and lived with each other most of their lives. they are married without any performance.

Sex is a similar thing. I was female before any doctor called me female. I was female at conception. we have female foeticide in this country because of that material reality. Its only in the absence of material reality that the performance is even necessary. Its only when a union is not already present that you need priests and big ceremonies to signify a marriage. And i would still be an adult human female even if i didnt do a single thing that is stereotypically feminine. And a man would be a man even if he wore dresses and got cosmetic surgery. The world unfortunately exists even if we really really wish it didnt and played games of pretend. Material reality exists.

Butler thinks we attain utopia by pretending that the link between sex and sex stereotypes didnt exist and indeed if we subverted them. I reject that wholesale. That way does not lie any liberation. Liberation lies in recognising the difference between the sexes and making material accomodations based on that material reality. A single mother of two in the ghetto doesnt get any sort of relief by claiming shes non-binary. Thats why you dont see many poor people buying into this nonsense. She gets relief by the state recognising that because of her sex, and because of our sexist society- she needs accommodations- she needs childcare, she needs assistance, she needs a community that will support her. Recognising material reality is important if you want to make change in the material world.

Girls who have been abused and exploited do not need to be told that they need to reframe their trauma. We need to make sure that they arent re-traumatised by our esoteric academic beliefs.

To put it into academese- I disagree with altusserian social constructivism entirely. Im a marxist- and Marx of all people understood why material realities are important.

Here are links where perfectly well known feminists have said more or less the same thing.

Here is Martha Nussbaum disagreeing with butler: https://newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody
Here is Jane Clare Jones making many of the same points: https://janeclarejones.com/2019/01/24/judith-butler-how-to-disappear-patriarchy-in-three-easy-steps/
Here is Kathleen Stock in Material Girls: https://feps-europe.eu/inspiration/why-reality-should-matter-for-the-left/
Here is Germaine Greer talking about why sex changes are lies because of material reality: https://twitter.com/terfcitations/status/1550465693073567744?lang=en
Here is Holly Lawford Smith writing a whole entire book about whats wrong with transgender philosophy and why Butlers arguments dont hold up: https://philpapers.org/rec/LAWSME-2

Here is Gloria Steinem on transexualism before she got shamed by the mob: https://twitter.com/DonovanCleckley/status/1609842415409438721

Its not even just these feminists- chimamanda adichie, andrea dworkin, catherine mackinnon have all said things critical of this ideology and of butler. But they get bullied and coopted by this new religious movement intent on protecting their pope.

I have read and taught Judy. Have you honestly read any of this literature? Have you even critically read it?

Word games is not ad-hominem. Its pointing out that social construction only goes so far and that material realities matter. Youd know that if you even bothered to find out why people disagree.

you as an individual are so freaking smug and condescending i dont think theres any speaking to you. You dont want to know why people disagree- you have assumed they are all ignorant bigots because they dont read the same way and think the same way as you do. Once you get over your self righteousness- then maybe we can have a conversation.

PS: Mods- sorry about earlier incomplete post- cat stepped all over keyboard.

Markets rebound on Shah's 400+ call
===================================

https://m.economictimes.com/markets/stocks/news/markets-rebound-on-shahs-400-call/amp_articleshow/110098240.cms

Call me a sceptic, but I think the rebound is overly optimistic and the NDA will not cross 400. Even in yesterday’s phase the turnout dipped. In every phase the middle class is staying at home, while Muslims, Yadavs and Jats are consolidating. I think the market will crash in June and it’s best to either move your money to pro-Congress companies or just park it in an FD.

Because harry potter was written by a feminist hero who broke all barriers- literally wrote those books when she was living in a shelter hiding from a man who hit her and left her on the street and tried for months to burn her manuscript. And whose books hold up important parallels to indigenous rights, slavery, authoritarian regimes, the holocaust, bigotry, media freedom and capture, censorship, womens rights, the impact of wars on children and many other themes.

And because GRR martin wrote books where women have to be constantly getting raped and then be thankful for that rape that allows them to now be "strong". Its either that or they are prostitutes. And oh the one woman who is hailed as a a person who freed slaves apparently ends up killing everyone because she just cannot bear the trauma of some bells tolling. Oh and the brown skinned people are savages who think a wedding without multiple murders and rapes is not a worthy affair. Do you even know how old dany is in the books when shes sold away like a slave? and then she "makes the best of it" and falls in love with the man she is sold to? Did you read the books? did you know how tyrion lusts after and grabs at a literal child? And cersei- how empowering for women to be told that their best weapon is not their brains or their smarts but the hold between their legs.

I think GRR martin should be taught also. if only so we can discuss the myriad ways in which his world is awful and why we should not want that anymore.

Feel it's about the wrong choices we make, the wrong habits we form when we join a firm or bank. Investment Banking has always been and will always be about top dollar bonuses, emulating lives of the rich and famous and on the flip side, the price one pays for earning the same.

Download all your salary receipts. Next employer will ask for it.

Keep a copy of resignation email.

Download other things you may think is important as you won’t have access to it later on.

Experience letter ( law firms usually don’t issue this, but you’re an employee do ask for this)

I've used the Claridges gym. The equipments is standard (not fancy like Golds Gym) but the decor is nice, it's very clean, you get fruits and lemon water, a swimming pool is included and the hookup scene is great (glamorous TV anchors, lady diplomats from exotic countries etc).

Considering the importance of Gujarat in the current "eco-political situation", and the rampant growth in Hyderabad, are these places the next in line to generate good work (wrt to quantity and quality) for the next decade or so?

Further, I've observed law firms opening branches pretty quickly in these places in the instant past.

What do you guys think?

First learn not to use Oxford commas, mate :). Your typical British admissions officer is pedantic AF (mods, please don't redact). It's "LSE, KCL and UCL", not "LSE, KCL, and UCL". Remember that old British saying: "Americans don't speak English". :))

With UCL and LSE, may possibly be a chance, though very small. You'd need a smashing reference to do it, a very good personal statement and (for UCL specifically) an absolutely wonderful writing sample. On top of which, you would need to explain any extenuating circumstances that made your grades go down. With King's, things are, in some senses, even more complicated. They don't want references (they don't ask for them, don't give space on the application to provide). Therefore, unless you can convince them of your extenuating circumstances' validity, they are unlikely to let you in. Many UK law schools that I applied to say (and I believe I again remember UCL/LSE saying on their website) that their presumption is that your law school examiners took your extenuating circumstances into account when evaluating your work. LSE emphasizes that your 'professional accomplishments' need to be 'significant'. You want to think if having an average CV is good enough. When you say 'regular' mooting, have you won anything? Remember always to assume that somebody with fantastic grades and a fantastic CV is applying, and make your choices accordingly. No doubt people will pile onto this saying that if you have the money ... and you can choose to believe them if you like. But think about this: I know from personal experience that these unis often reject students from comparable law schools in the UK itself (even their own undergraduates who are re-applying). Are you ready to spend up to 9500 INR in application fees alone if you aren't 100% sure you will get in?

To address your work experience question, think about the following points:

1. How specialist will it get? How will it contribute to your overall development? How will it help you be a better student on the LLM? What practical perspectives will you be able to bring with it to the table? All stuff to be addressed in the personal statement.

2. GPA-wise, they are unlikely to compromise with two years work experience. You'd need at least five years for them to even think of relenting (and not by very much) (UCL specifically says this on its website). Even if you do five years, assume that people with five years with a 10/10 CGPA are competing alongside you and act accordingly. Also remember about references. Unless you have graduated several years ago, they won't allow employer references, so you will have to keep in touch with law school professors. Specifically, for LSE, you will need two referees. Depending on your circumstances, ask them if maybe they'd be happy with one academic and one professional reference, remembering always that they prefer academic. Also, will a law school professor be able to write as good a reference in 2027, when you have been out of their class for several years, than they could have done when their memory about you was fresh? Employer references won't be accepted as proof of English proficiency either.

3. The British have tightened up their visa system since January 2024, now conducting 'credibility interviews' for most visa applicants. The guidance for Home Office caseworkers specifically asks them to investigate and question more thoroughly anyone with gaps in their studies. So even if you've convinced your uni that your experience (gap in study) is actually good, you could be stopped from getting there by a visa refusal. This is perhaps the smallest of your worries, because, as far as I remember, all three unis you mention are higher education providers with track records of compliance, though you still want this to be a factor. You don't want to cough up (potentially) non-refundable visa processing fees.

Hi I purchased the couse here is my review

His videos covered almost all the topics related to productivity. But as other people mentioned his English accent was not good (ironic bcz his Hindi accent is best). I also learnt many books on productivity like atomic habits.and many others but learning but book is too boring dhruv made his course intersting by his teaching enthusiasm. But there were no subtitles biggest mistake.

Rating - 8.5/10

Bro SASTRA used to be the option before with every Tambram passing out from there. The location is very far off from city, they run the place with so many rules+uniforms+traditional af. Why would you want to put yourself through that? Why not choose VIT Chennai/Saveetha Law/Ambedkar Law and then focus on interning throughout the year at Madras High Court? (VIT for better crowd)

SASTRA is still fine for engineering, I don't think you should go to such an institution for law anymore.

So do the above mentioned firms take in laterals in the BnF practice? I know Khaitan and Trilegal do.

But on Linkedin, I didn’t find many laterals in BnF in the above firms, mostly freshers.

All insights appreciated! (Answer could be location agnostic, Mumbai preferably)

If you read the British newspapers, you will see that this isn't their top foreign policy priority right now by any means. The Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (David Cameron), has got rather a full plate at the moment with important conflicts and the possibility of a second Trump presidency. On top of which, the Tories have suffered humiliating defeats in recent local elections, while also experiencing high level defections: three MPs in the last two years have defected to Labour (with two of those defections taking place in the last two weeks), and Tory - Labour defection isn't something that has happened for more than 27 years, the last time being before the 1997 wipeout of the Tories, when they lost to Labour by a landslide. Talk about foreign law firm entry by all means, but don't forget the British priorities and problems. Things are disfunctional enough for the British as it is, so a squeak from SILF is more than enough for hopes to be dashed.