^S and S…Diwana had made it a clear a few times that he does not condone abuse toward women. That I clearly remember. So, he has to have respect for women (mother, sister, etc) if he doesn’t condone abuse toward the wife. Yes, I admit that there are some women who are very emotionally needy. Sometimes when we read threads created by distressed DILs…we roll our eyes and think that the woman needs to develop a tougher skin. But the analogy of a woman with 17 kids and one with 2 kids…was just off. When I discussed it with my mom, she totally understood what he meant and even gave the example of my nani who had oodles of kids and was so resilient…but even mom was like “yeh example theek nahi hai”…as in it’s not appropriate sounding. And it wasn’t interpreted in a positive way…and the response given was unnecessary…it was unnecessary to assume that he doesn’t respect his mom. Diwana’s asterisks weren’t necessary either. When Reha responded to it, she mentioned that she took it as a gaali. Diwana didn’t refute her assumption. She didn’t respect his mom, but she did have a negative assumption of his character…in that he doesn’t respect his mom. So…a couple of the guppies are saying that asterisks are well-deserved for the criticism of Diwana’s character. In other words…an ill assumption of one’s character warrants an “insinuated” gaali. I’ll say it again…there are mistakes on both ends here. Some folks are severely scrutinizing and dissecting the mistakes of one person and not looking at it from both angles.