NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something that bothers me as a parent. I find it appalling to say the least. I have a son and daughter and equally love them both. I guess what I am asking of the NSG audience is what can be done to stop this problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6934540.stm

Girls at risk amid India's prosperity
By Nick Bryant
BBC News


India is in the throes of a revolution of rising expectations, a country animated by a providential sense of its own possibility.

Female infanticide is highest in some of India's wealthiest districts

Already, it is close to dislodging Japan as the world's third largest economy, if purchasing power is taken into account. And by 2040 should have eased past China to become the planet's most populous country.

Though progress can be agonisingly and needlessly slow, especially in the countryside, living standards are improving, along with literacy rates and life expectancy.

In Mumbai not so long ago, I visited what can only be described as a gentrified slum, where a young father sat in front of his colour television mesmerised by the fast-moving ticker racing across the bottom of the screen.

He was checking on the value of his share portfolio, and happily it was increasing with each occasional blink of his eyes.

Daring to dream

Even in the shanties, still stinking and overcrowded, people are daring to dream. The signs of change are everywhere.

Inequalities aside, the crude equation that increased wealth will lead ultimately to decreased suffering should apply to most of India's social and economic maladies.


A baby girls means a future dowry and a financial burden for a family

Yet there is one problem that prosperity is actually aggravating.

I saw this for myself in a hospital in Punjab, where we filmed a young mother giving birth, with the help of a surgeon's scalpel, to her second daughter.

The Caesarean section was a complete success, and the safe arrival of such a beautiful ball of life should have been greeted with uncomplicated delight.

But the mother had failed once again to provide her husband with a son and heir, so it was a singularly joyless occasion.

Old attitudes

Handed the little girl, not yet 10 minutes old, the women of the family were disapproving and edgy, fretful perhaps of how they would break the news to the men folk, who had not even come to the hospital.

On the maternity ward a few minutes later, I was asked by one of the ladies - the mother's sister, I think - whether we would like to name the baby girl.



Why pay 50,000 rupees to your new in-laws when you can pay 500 rupees for an abortion?

Soap opera to save girls
Cradles collect girls

We demurred, of course. Then came an even more extraordinary request: did we want to take the baby, not just to hold, but to have?

In another time, she might have been killed.

For this prosperous Punjabi family, we seemingly offered a less savage means of disposal.

In modern-day India, sex selection, the all-too-common practice by which female foetuses are terminated before birth, conforms to a very different and disturbing calculus: increased wealth brings increased access to prenatal ultrasounds and sonograms.

New and more widely available technology, the engine of India's relentless economic growth, is also fuelling female foeticide.

Illegal

According to a study by Unicef, a higher percentage of boys are born now than 10 years ago in 80% of India's districts.

FACTS AND FIGURES
Female infanticide occurs in 80% of states
Worst-affected states include wealthiest areas
927 girls born for every 1,000 boys
Infant mortality rate: 60/1,000
Source: Unicef

Only last month in the state of Orissa, the skulls of 40 female foetuses and newborn girls were discovered in an abandoned well.

More distressing still, sex selection is worst in the most affluent parts of the country: Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat.

In northern Punjab, for example, there are just 798 girls under the age of six for every 1,000 boys. The national average is 927.

Even though it is illegal in India for a doctor to reveal the gender of an unborn child, the law is rarely enforced.

Over the past 20 years, it has been estimated that some 10 million female foetuses have been aborted.

Girls are unwanted because they are seen as a financial burden. Landholdings can pass to in-laws and dowries, which themselves are illegal, siphon money from families.

First birthday

Why pay 50,000 rupees to your new in-laws when you can pay 500 rupees for an abortion? You do not even have to leave home.

Many unscrupulous doctors carry portable ultra-sound equipment in the boots of their cars.

Increased consumer choice is one of the hallmarks of the new India.

Tragically, it is being applied, with almost industrial efficiency, to depress the female birth rate.

Wow...brilliant. A girl can still inherit (Can't they?) and work and get money. My mom was a working woman in India for a long time.

we cant do anything about it.

its for the indian people to fix.

maybe when the selective abortion of female fetuses puts the country into a crisis families will have to start paying a bride price if they want a wife for their sons.

the law of supply and demand might kick in.

Eventually some bright spark economists will get together and suggest, from the safety of an underground bunker, that people simply stop paying dowries. The sooner the better.

Wow...brilliant. A girl can still inherit (Can't they?) and work and get money. My mom was a working woman in India for a long time.

did your parents get married in india?

ask your mother about it. if it wasnt a problem for her, i bet she had friends whose families were bitter about having to shell out a dowry.

then tell us what she told you.

I had to pay a dowry to my wife's family in morocco. It was basically $5000 in gold at the time. I still find a problem with it today. I don't agree with a dowry going either way. I find it degrading to say the least.

It's a self-correcting problem. When young men outnumber young women 2-1, Dowrys will start going the opposite way. :)

It's a self-correcting problem. When young men outnumber young women 2-1, Dowrys will start going the opposite way. :)

That doesn't correct the problem, it just rearranges it.

I had to pay a dowry to my wife's family in morocco. It was basically $5000 in gold at the time. I still find a problem with it today. I don't agree with a dowry going either way. I find it degrading to say the least.

was it required to be in gold?

my inlaws claim that an arab student at the local college offered several camels for my sister in law. 35 years ago. it might be true.

was it required to be in gold?

my inlaws claim that an arab student at the local college offered several camels for my sister in law. 35 years ago. it might be true.

Yes it had to be gold. The camels I am not sure about. I suppose they could have bought some with the gold. ;) Also it had to be 18k gold. They did not want any "American" 14k gold. I bought it all in Morocco at NY spot price at the time. I actually bought more then what was given to them. I brought a ton back to the states here. It is worth a small fortune due to gold prices going through the roof.

That doesn't correct the problem, it just rearranges it.

Perhaps, but rearranging the problem will have to do until we can figure out how to make people without people. *nod*

well... this might fix their overpopulation problem...

did your parents get married in india?

ask your mother about it. if it wasnt a problem for her, i bet she had friends whose families were bitter about having to shell out a dowry.

then tell us what she told you.

Oh, yeah, they did.

Perhaps, but rearranging the problem will have to do until we can figure out how to make people without people. *nod*

Certainly turns the tables. All these families going "Crap! If we'd just had three daughters we'd be rolling in it now..."

The problem is nasty and unfortunate - but it is India's problem. The first step is acknowledging that they have a problem. Until the culture does there is nothing more that can be done - they certainly won't appreciate England interfering 'for the benefit of the savages' again...

The only thing that can be done is to share with people there how we perceive it and hope that they carry it home and disseminate it.

Another option, no matter how else it could be construed, would be the influence of western values through the injection of missionaries from the modern church. For all it's foibles the Church has a remarkable record for tenacity as well as spreading values which would address this.

Frankly I don't see Indian values changing anytime soon without an persistent interjection of external influence. Missionaries are far more delicate than, say, an army.

Frankly I don't see Indian values changing anytime soon without an persistent interjection of external influence. Missionaries are far more delicate than, say, an army.
...or they start having severe problems because this is prevalent enough to become a huge issue and then they have to deal with it. Like in China... it was a similar problem, but caused more by the one child policy combined with a society that values boys more than girls.

...or they start having severe problems because this is prevalent enough to become a huge issue and then they have to deal with it. Like in China... it was a similar problem, but caused more by the one child policy combined with a society that values boys more than girls.

... but it was China who came up with it - not the UK. (not to mention the inantcide problems in China)

Nope - This one will have to be up the the culture and people in India. The only way I could see any European influence that would not be reminiscent of colonialism would be missionaries.

This just proves once again that human beings in general are awful people. People would rather abort and save money than have a child. Thats just as bad as hiring hitmen to kill someone you owe money to.

... but it was China who came up with it - not the UK. (not to mention the inantcide problems in China)

Nope - This one will have to be up the the culture and people in India. The only way I could see any European influence that would not be reminiscent of colonialism would be missionaries.

Yes, because that option is SO much better.

The problem will not be solvable in India the way it was in China. The causes arn't as similar as they appear.

Certainly turns the tables. All these families going "Crap! If we'd just had three daughters we'd be rolling in it now..."

Exactly. And really sticks it to the motherfuckers who killed them at birth.

India on pace to take China's "sausage fest" title.

Yes, because that option is SO much better.

As opposed to conquoring them and imposing our values upon them? Yes, yes it would be.

I don't think the problem is going be fixed since it's caused by the social structure of India which is stacked against women.

As opposed to conquoring them and imposing our values upon them? Yes, yes it would be.

You're basically talking about imposing values anyway. "Missionary" is usually just a kind way to say "asshole who tries to convert you while acting high and mighty at the fact that they're doing 'God's' work."

Edit: And also usually "asshole who destroys countless irreplacable art and cultural objects for the sake of preserving their impression of the superiority of their particular god's dick."

It's a self-correcting problem. When young men outnumber young women 2-1, Dowrys will start going the opposite way. :)

Has that ever happened? Thousands of years of customs don't go away because of silly things like racial extinction. Remember, ultra-conservative behavior hinges upon reality having a liberal bias.

You're basically talking about imposing values anyway. "Missionary" is usually just a kind way to say "asshole who tries to convert you while acting high and mighty at the fact that they're doing 'God's' work."

Edit: And also usually "asshole who destroys countless irreplacable art and cultural objects for the sake of preserving their impression of the superiority of their particular god's dick."

My oh my - bigotry is quite the issue with you. Sounds like someone needs some sensitivity training.

Not to mention you flaunt your ignorance of what modern missionaries actually do with reckless abandon. Maybe you should investigate before you pontificate.

Has that ever happened? Thousands of years of customs don't go away because of silly things like racial extinction. Remember, ultra-conservative behavior hinges upon reality having a liberal bias.

Well then it's still a self-correcting problem, isn't it? :)

Inequalities aside, the crude equation that increased wealth will lead ultimately to decreased suffering should apply to most of India's social and economic maladies.

ok....that's generally true. But the author goes on to say

Yet there is one problem that prosperity is actually aggravating.

how so? answer is

I saw this for myself in a hospital in Punjab...

Only last month in the state of Orissa, the skulls of 40 female foetuses and newborn girls were discovered in an abandoned well.

More distressing still, sex selection is worst in the most affluent parts of the country: Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat.

All those states still do not make for a case to be made for the whole country. In Kerala, the ratio is on par (might even be higher).

I agree that female infanticide (either before birth or after birth) happened and still happens in some parts of the country.

BUT what is the correlation with increasing prosperity?

These practices were prevalent in Punjab and the other areas he mentioned even before the economic boom of the past decade or so. Punjab etc were rich states (comparatively) even then.:confused:

With increasing education and economic opportunity to women, the practice of dowry and female infanticide is reducing in many areas.

In my own family, my dad took dowry to marry my mom. But my bro-in-law did not take one for marrying my sister and I won't be taking one either whenever I get married. And almost all of my friends don't either.

Not to mention you flaunt your ignorance of what modern missionaries actually do with reckless abandon. Maybe you should investigate before you pontificate.

It is YOUR ignorance of what modern missionaries do that shows.

Bunch of cheats exploiting people. Why don't they stick to exploiting altar boys and leave the "pagans" alone....

It is YOUR ignorance of what modern missionaries do that shows.

Bunch of cheats exploiting people. Why don't they stick to exploiting altar boys and leave the "pagans" alone....

Because people have found out about the altar boys.

... but it was China who came up with it - not the UK. (not to mention the inantcide problems in China)
Umm... my point was that China is having problems with a decreasing female population as well, and the Chinese government is actively trying to change people's attitudes towards baby girls to prevent infanticide.

What Aryavartha says is totally true. Adding a bit more to this; the areas mentioned are mostly poor/rural/uneducated (though sometimes urban, like in Mumbai) and as education seeps in, the problems lessen. Kerala, for example, has nearly 100% literacy and women comprise over 50% of the population (it is also very high on HDI, incidentally). The states mentioned (Gujarat, etc.) are still not as educated. As education increases, we can hope that the problem decreases.

Hm, that was garbled.

A girl can still inherit (Can't they?)

Yes. It's been that way since 1947. But family traditions may vary. But legally a girl child has equal rights to inheritance as a boy child.

Unless the property is HUF (Hindu United Family), of course.

It's a self-correcting problem. When young men outnumber young women 2-1, Dowrys will start going the opposite way. :)

It is happening in those areas already

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/07/windia07.xml
For Nachhattar Singh, who recently travelled hundreds of miles from northern India's prosperous Punjab province, to the poorer, eastern region to "buy" his bride, the scarcity of marriageable girls in his district is akin to the shortage of grain in a famine.

Like several of his cousins from the macho Ramdas agricultural belt of Amritsar district, the 28-year-old Sikh farmer gladly paid around Rs10,000 (£280) as the "bride price" to his future in-laws in a poor village in Bihar state and brought home his "prize" somewhat tentatively.

This sort of problem is more common in NW states like Punjab and Haryana etc, where wealth is from agriculture based and other "old economy".

The "new economy" (IT, BPO and other service industry) is being driven primarily from the south where gender inequalities are lessening, because in such industries a women worker performs equal to a male worker and you can't discriminate as it was done earlier with women being confined to being a home-maker or assisting in agriculture.

In many cases women are preferred because they have lesser attrition with women. Such women refuse to pay dowries these days and refuse to put up with the crap that Indian males used to dish them earlier.

That's why this article is bullshit...a smear article with no solid reasoning or presenting of facts.

It is YOUR ignorance of what modern missionaries do that shows.

Bunch of cheats exploiting people. Why don't they stick to exploiting altar boys and leave the "pagans" alone....

The whole "Convert or we'll deny you this food relief" is pretty much the modus operandi in Africa I think.

The whole "Convert or we'll deny you this food relief" is pretty much the modus operandi in Africa I think.

Yup. Gotta love it. Apparently spreading "God's Word" requires bribery these days. Or would that count as extortion?

The whole "Convert or we'll deny you this food relief" is pretty much the modus operandi in Africa I think.

What????? Where did you hear that???? I know several different missionary familys that are working in Africa and that is not what happens at all. They will give food to any one who is in need and they are working to help the people start farms and small business so that they can begin to support them selves.

The whole "Convert or we'll deny you this food relief" is pretty much the modus operandi in Africa I think.

That simply is not true. They do not require conversion for food. Check out your information.

BUT what is the correlation with increasing prosperity?

These practices were prevalent in Punjab and the other areas he mentioned even before the economic boom of the past decade or so. Punjab etc were rich states (comparatively) even then.:confused:

With increasing education and economic opportunity to women, the practice of dowry and female infanticide is reducing in many areas.

In my own family, my dad took dowry to marry my mom. But my bro-in-law did not take one for marrying my sister and I won't be taking one either whenever I get married. And almost all of my friends don't either.

The drop in the number of girls born is believed to be due in part due to the availability of ultrasound, which allows parents to find out their baby's gender before birth. Female foetuses can then be aborted - an illegal act in India - rather than murdered after childbirth.

Nayagarh has a dozen private ultrasound clinics, only one of which is licensed, and has a high rate of male births.

Satish Agnihotri, a demographer who studied births in Orissa, said that new technology and increasing prosperity had combined to worsen the sex ratios. In the last census urban Orissa had only 860 girls per 1,000 boys
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2133349,00.html

Possibly that.

India doesn't want to change this situation. While it's horrible as a human tragedy, for India it's a promise of reduced population in the future, and that's a big plus for the country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2133349,00.html

Possibly that.

Well, better abortion than infanticide.

Well, better abortion than infanticide.
Uh... how so? Given that in both cases the reason for terminating the child is the sex of the child.

Uh... how so? Given that in both cases the reason for terminating the child is the sex of the child.

*shrug* Dunno, suppose it doesn't set off the sympathy factor as much.

Tell them it causes homosexuality.

Well there is one sure way to stop this happening. All convert to Sikhi!

Umm now I wonder why I said that umm?

Better abortion than infanticide.Uh... how so? Given that in both cases the reason for terminating the child is the sex of the child.

Because outside the southern baptist churches, life is not usually considered to start at conception?

There's a difference between aborting a fetus and killing a baby.

Well there is one sure way to stop this happening. All convert to Sikhi!

Umm now I wonder why I said that umm?

*points finger* He's a Sikh missionary! Get him! *looks around for torch and pitchfork* :p

It is YOUR ignorance of what modern missionaries do that shows.

Bunch of cheats exploiting people. Why don't they stick to exploiting altar boys and leave the "pagans" alone....

Because people have found out about the altar boys.

Are you so quick to pass judgment on all groups based on the actions of a few? Immigrants? Minorities? Homosexuals? Or are you only comfortable as a religious intolerant?

You certainly can't believe that your bigotry and ignorance makes you appear thoughtful or intellectual - so why flaunt it?

Maybe you should do something constructive about your ignorance and spend a few minutes learning something. Here - I'll make it so easy even a caveman could do it;

a widely accepted definition of a Christian mission has been "to form a viable indigenous church-planting movement." Recognizing justice as being at the heart of the Gospels, most modern missionaries now promote economic development, literacy, education and health care. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary)

And click here to see a region-by-region report from one. (http://www.imb.org/main/page.asp?StoryID=4488&LanguageID=1709)

and that goes for you too;
The whole "Convert or we'll deny you this food relief" is pretty much the modus operandi in Africa I think.

Really - education does not hurt - you should try it.

Are you so quick to pass judgment on all groups based on the actions of a few? Immigrants? Minorities? Homosexuals? Or are you only comfortable as a religious intolerant?


Ummm what are you really getting at when labeling somebody an 'intolerant'?

Do you mean a bigot, a hater, somebody who feels a certian group is not quite normal? Coz I can assure you that we do that, are you intolerant with those who show intolerance?

What is the big deal with tolerance, surly understanding would be better. Should we tolerate those Catholics preists that fiddle with little boys(and there are a hell of a lot of them) should we tolerate the Catholic church for the stance they take towards such preists?

Or should we hate that part of humanity, should we be bigoted towards such people?

My oh my - bigotry is quite the issue with you. Sounds like someone needs some sensitivity training.

Not to mention you flaunt your ignorance of what modern missionaries actually do with reckless abandon. Maybe you should investigate before you pontificate.
Uh, no, that's pretty common even among modern missionaries.

What really should be done is some sort of cultural envoy of some sort...secular, of course...basically to encourage the idea of women's rights without being overly obnoxious.

The problem is nasty and unfortunate - but it is India's problem. The first step is acknowledging that they have a problem. Until the culture does there is nothing more that can be done - they certainly won't appreciate England interfering 'for the benefit of the savages' again...

The only thing that can be done is to share with people there how we perceive it and hope that they carry it home and disseminate it.

Another option, no matter how else it could be construed, would be the influence of western values through the injection of missionaries from the modern church. For all it's foibles the Church has a remarkable record for tenacity as well as spreading values which would address this.

Frankly I don't see Indian values changing anytime soon without an persistent interjection of external influence. Missionaries are far more delicate than, say, an army.

Christianity isn't known for its treatment of women, which is really what this is about.

The real issue here is men attempting to (and unfortunately, succeeding in) controlling women through tradition and force. This is why there are dowries - you have to pay to take the woman away from her father. This is why they put the blame on the woman when she's unable to give birth to a male child, even though it's been proven that the father is the one who, more often than not, genetically chooses the child's gender.

Just another case of tradition and "old ways" getting in the way of equality and progress.

Christianity isn't known for its treatment of women, which is really what this is about.

The real issue here is men attempting to (and unfortunately, succeeding in) controlling women through tradition and force. This is why there are dowries - you have to pay to take the woman away from her father. This is why they put the blame on the woman when she's unable to give birth to a male child, even though it's been proven that the father is the one who, more often than not, genetically chooses the child's gender.

Just another case of tradition and "old ways" getting in the way of equality and progress.

And as I say instead of injecting western Christian missionarys into the country, India already has an home grown religion that preaches the eqaulity of women, and which has the banning of this type of practice already 'written in'

Sikhi I say, all of you convert to Sikhi NOW!

And as I say instead of injecting western Christian missionarys into the country, India already has an home grown religion that preaches the eqaulity of women, and which has the banning of this type of practice already 'written in'

Sikhi I say, all of you convert to Sikhi NOW!

Or not have any religion, and simply recognize that we're all people and deserve to be treated with respect, and that nobody can own another.

If non-Indians want to help deal with this, I am sure that you could support any one of the many Indian women's rights organisations. I amsure that they have a much clearer idea about the problems associated with this, as well as having concrete solutions to the problems.

If we focused on improving women's access to, and control of, education, many of the problems of the developing world would solve themselves, in my opinion.

Uh... how so? Given that in both cases the reason for terminating the child is the sex of the child.

Um, are you saying that abortion is equivalent to murder?

Or not have any religion, and simply recognize that we're all people and deserve to be treated with respect, and that nobody can own another.

But if you're dating a Sikh, at least you know they are wearing clean underwear.

And they've read the Kama Sutra and are really good at cricket.:p

But if you're dating a Sikh, at least you know they are wearing clean underwear.

And they've read the Kama Sutra and are really good at cricket.:p

You know, one doesn't have to be Sikh to have read the Kama Sutra...

>.>
<.<

You know, one doesn't have to be Sikh to have read the Kama Sutra...

>.>
<.<

Excuse me, but I am trying to perpetuate a stereotype here.

Kindly take your logic elsewhere.

Yes. It's been that way since 1947. But family traditions may vary. But legally a girl child has equal rights to inheritance as a boy child.

Jesus, goddamn patriarchs. (shakes head)

Excuse me, but I am trying to perpetuate a stereotype here.

Kindly take your logic elsewhere.

That wasn't logic. It was statement of fact. *looks at bookshelf*

we cant do anything about it.

its for the indian people to fix.

maybe when the selective abortion of female fetuses puts the country into a crisis families will have to start paying a bride price if they want a wife for their sons.

the law of supply and demand might kick in.
Something similar is happening in China; there is a surplus of young, unmarried men.

Something similar is happening in China; there is a surplus of young, unmarried men.

yeah.

perhaps with the easing of the one child policy it will help to at least slow down the trend.

Or not have any religion, and simply recognize that we're all people and deserve to be treated with respect, and that nobody can own another.

Yeah sure. Say do you think that would work?

Yeah sure. Say do you think that would work?

suuuurrrre it would. its not like india is a particularly religious country
[/sarcasm]

But if you're dating a Sikh, at least you know they are wearing clean underwear.

And they've read the Kama Sutra and are really good at cricket.:p

Heh true, but I always though the Kama Sutra was a Hindu thing.

Yeah sure. Say do you think that would work?

It'd be no less effective than sending in Christian missionaries with the intent of changing their tradition in favor of a more Christian tradition.

It'd be no less effective than sending in Christian missionaries with the intent of changing their tradition in favor of a more Christian tradition.

Hard to do though in a country where religoin and culture are exreamly hard to seperate.

Hard to do though in a country where religoin and culture are exreamly hard to seperate.

Right, but it's hard to separate it from its specific religion and its specific culture. Trying to force in a different culture won't be any easier than breaking them apart from their current one.

Right, but it's hard to separate it from its specific religion and its specific culture. Trying to force in a different culture won't be any easier than breaking them apart from their current one.

Exactly, which is why I suggested Sikhi. The Indian religion that promotes womans eqaulity, and has rules in place to stop the practice of killing baby girls.

i am an indian boy. my parents were both born in india. they didn't care if it was a boy or a girl they loved buth genders. oh and i also have two indian SISTERS. oh and my family originated from the gujurat. which is one of the nations listed as a place where this "crime" takes place alot. i come from a more wealthy family, but that doesn't mean i don't know the hardships of poverty. again I come from a wealthier family. i stil hav close family who do live in poverty, and with all the stupid things they are doing, tyhe marriage rate will go down with less girls. this is just plain wrong.

i am an indian boy. my parents were both born in india. they didn't care if it was a boy or a girl they loved buth genders. oh and i also have two indian SISTERS. oh and my family originated from the gujurat. which is one of the nations listed as a place where this "crime" takes place alot. i come from a more wealthy family, but that doesn't mean i don't know the hardships of prosperity. again I come from a wealthier family. i stil hav close family who do live in prosperty, and with all the stupid things they are doing, tyhe marriage rate will go down with less girls. this is just plain wrong.

By prosperty you mean poverty.

Though I understand what you meant.

Incidentally, what part of Gujarat? Most of my folks are from Ahmedabad and Nadiad. Though I know I spelt both of those wrong.

i am an indian boy. my parents were both born in india. they didn't care if it was a boy or a girl they loved buth genders. oh and i also have two indian SISTERS. oh and my family originated from the gujurat. which is one of the nations listed as a place where this "crime" takes place alot. i come from a more wealthy family, but that doesn't mean i don't know the hardships of prosperity. again I come from a wealthier family. i stil hav close family who do live in prosperty, and with all the stupid things they are doing, tyhe marriage rate will go down with less girls. this is just plain wrong.

Agreed it is just plain wrong. Still I guess then all of them 'suitable boys' will have to look elsewhere, perhaps Pakistan!

Agreed it is just plain wrong. Still I guess then all of them 'suitable boys' will have to look elsewhere, perhaps Pakistan!

*shudders at the thought*

*shudders at the thought*

And perhaps that is the answer, lets tell of these mainly Hindus, who engage in this practice that if they don't stop, then their sons will have to find Muslim girls from Pakistan, and convert.

Convince 'Auntie Ji', convince the world!

that jus wont work. either you find them in india, england, or america. there is no PAKISTAN.

i am from the mid-west gujurat

<snip>...by 2040 should have eased past China to become the planet's most populous country.
Not if there is only men in their country!

Wait, maybe female infantcide is a type of self-regulating, population control. After all, if you killed off male babies and had a population of mostly women, it just takes a few men to impregnate them all, but with a population of mostly men, you'll soon have a population decline.

Ummm what are you really getting at when labeling somebody an 'intolerant'?

Do you mean a bigot, a hater, somebody who feels a certian group is not quite normal? Coz I can assure you that we do that, are you intolerant with those who show intolerance?

What is the big deal with tolerance, surly understanding would be better. Should we tolerate those Catholics preists that fiddle with little boys(and there are a hell of a lot of them) should we tolerate the Catholic church for the stance they take towards such preists?

Or should we hate that part of humanity, should we be bigoted towards such people?

What you have done here is called bait and switch. Nice try but I'm calling you on it. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. Nor are all acts deserving of tolerance. The common issues of tolerance revolve around race, religion, gender, and more recently gender orientation.
Your attempt to somehow paint the Church and all priests as pedophile rapists is both inaccurate as well as reveals some of your own bigotry - not to mention that you presume that 'priests' are the only messengers of faith. You forget pastors, rabbis, ministers, etc.

Uh, no, that's pretty common even among modern missionaries.
A statement like that deserves proof. More than just anecdotal proof. Go ahead - back up your prejudice with proof.

Christianity isn't known for its treatment of women, which is really what this is about.
Really? I thought it was about infanticide - which nearly every religion I'm pretty sure is against. Regarding Christianity and women - last I checked the vast majority of Christian faiths have no discernible difference between how men and women are treated - and even the more restrictive major Christina religions are, by order of magnitude, more progressive than what is happening in the middle and far east.

even though it's been proven that the father is the one who, more often than not, genetically chooses the child's gender.
.

actually - neither the father nor the mother determine the child's gender - it is up to the one lucky sperm - which always comes from the father - but to imply he controls it is just as asinine as to imply the woman does.

(instead of thinking about baseball should he be thinking about the letter Y?)

India doesn't want to change this situation. While it's horrible as a human tragedy, for India it's a promise of reduced population in the future, and that's a big plus for the country.

You know, I don't understand. I thought people here believe abortion is a right.

You know, I don't understand. I thought people here believe abortion is a right.

of course abortion is a right.

but that doesnt mean that its a good thing to have cultural pressure to abort female fetuses leading to a gender imbalance in the country.

when my husband says "i have the right of way!" when driving with a semi pushing into his lane, i promise him to put that on his tombstone.

You know, I don't understand. I thought people here believe abortion is a right.

Interesting, huh?

I think the imbalance is China and India favouring male children is cultural and in the past, both countries were constantly fighting wars with someone so the extra amount of males we have now would not be around like they would in the past as they'd be on a battlefield of some kind.

I think the imbalance is China and India favouring male children is cultural and in the past, both countries were constantly fighting wars with someone so the extra amount of males we have now would not be around like they would in the past as they'd be on a battlefield of some kind.

Well, that and the fact that both were millenia-old patriarchies before the west came knocking.

I hear that China is already having a big problem with there not being enough girls to marry. Many families "import" brides from Vietnam if they have to, who are considered inferior, but some men never marry at all. I guess that's not a big deal in the long run because they're having an overpopulation problem, but it's sad on an individual level.

I can only assume the same thing will happen in India.

They are killing off the most beautiful women on earth! :(:mad:

They are killing off the most beautiful women on earth! :(:mad:

No woman deserves to be killed, whether you think they are beautiful or not. :(

No woman deserves to be killed, whether you think they are beautiful or not. :(

I agree. Out of curiosity do you support abortion?

No woman deserves to be killed, whether you think they are beautiful or not. :(

Nope. Definitely not.

But seriously Zilam, wtf.

I agree. Out of curiosity do you support abortion?

Well, yeah, I do.

Of course, I personally think it is irresponsible and selfish to be getting pregnant on purpose, knowing that you can support another child, and also knowing that there is a 50% chance that the baby will not be what you wanted (although otherwise healthy) and your plan in that case is abortion.

However, I feel it is important to have the right to choose, so I would never condemn abortion based on my own personal feelings about how it's used. And frankly, I'd rather a baby be aborted than killed after birth or subjected to neglect and abuse in life.

Nope. Definitely not.

But seriously Zilam, wtf.

Well, I think he meant it in a nice way.

Well, yeah, I do.

Of course, I personally think it is irresponsible and selfish to be getting pregnant on purpose, knowing that you can support another child, and also knowing that there is a 50% chance that the baby will not be what you wanted (although otherwise healthy) and your plan in that case is abortion.

However, I feel it is important to have the right to choose, so I would never condemn abortion based on my own personal feelings about how it's used. And frankly, I'd rather a baby be aborted than killed after birth or subjected to neglect and abuse in life.



Well I can understand your personal position. However do you not think it a bit hypocritical? An aborted fetus is an aborted fetus no matter what the reasoning is for the mother to decide to abort it. Is it not?
I am not trying to make this into an abortion/ anti-abortion and the pro's and con's. However I do find it a bit strange that people would be outraged at these type of acts in India to getting upset about a football player killing dogs and then have an opinion of pro-abortion.


Also want to note that you are drawing a line with killing after birth. That is recognized as murder in nearly every society. I am not asking about that particular part of it.

Well I can understand your personal position. However do you not think it a bit hypocritical? An aborted fetus is an aborted fetus no matter what the reasoning is for the mother to decide to abort it. Is it not?
I am not trying to make this into an abortion/ anti-abortion and the pro's and con's. However I do find it a bit strange that people would be outraged at these type of acts in India to getting upset about a football player killing dogs and then have an opinion of pro-abortion.


Also want to note that you are drawing a line with killing after birth. That is recognized as murder in nearly every society. I am not asking about that particular part of it.

While I am fully aware that fetuses can do lots of things and whatnot in the womb, I do indeed make the distinction that life begins at birth. Until then, you're basically a parasite in your mom's body and must be subjected to her decision about you.

Well, I think he meant it in a nice way.

I'm aware. I disagree with his opinion.

I'm aware. I disagree with his opinion.

Fair enough, but what opinion is that? That Indian girls are beautiful?

What kind of girls are your favorite?

(If you say "California girls," I will be forced to groan.) :p

How can someone be PRO CHOICE.... but Anti this? Doesn't make any sense.

You're entirely favor of having the kid sucked out a tube for whatever whim the mother decides (can you really be called a mother if you butcher your own children? I mean can we still call a man who doesn't pay for his own kids a man, much less a father? Eh, Men have responsibilities. Women have "Choices" I guess.)

Anyway, being pro choice and then being anti... choice? is absurd.

Seriously, if they were killing off their male children, somehow I don't think the Feminists would be screaming themselves hoarse.

Fair enough, but what opinion is that? That Indian girls are beautiful?

What kind of girls are your favorite?

(If you say "California girls," I will be forced to groan.) :p

"I wish they all could be Californian..." :D

But generally, I prefer redheads.

How can someone be PRO CHOICE.... but Anti this? Doesn't make any sense.

You're entirely favor of having the kid sucked out a tube for whatever whim the mother decides (can you really be called a mother if you butcher your own children? I mean can we still call a man who doesn't pay for his own kids a man, much less a father? Eh, Men have responsibilities. Women have "Choices" I guess.)

Anyway, being pro choice and then being anti... choice? is absurd.

Seriously, if they were killing off their male children, somehow I don't think the Feminists would be screaming themselves hoarse.

Yes, they would. Feminists are actually about gender equality, not one gender being superior over the other.

And I really don't want to see this turned into an abortion thread. There are lots of other ones you can post in, and I am interested in avoiding them.

"I wish they all could be Californian..." :D

But generally, I prefer redheads.

Cute. :cool:

How can someone be PRO CHOICE.... but Anti this? Doesn't make any sense.

You're entirely favor of having the kid sucked out a tube for whatever whim the mother decides (can you really be called a mother if you butcher your own children? I mean can we still call a man who doesn't pay for his own kids a man, much less a father? Eh, Men have responsibilities. Women have "Choices" I guess.)

Anyway, being pro choice and then being anti... choice? is absurd.

Seriously, if they were killing off their male children, somehow I don't think the Feminists would be screaming themselves hoarse.

i think you have missed the point in your anti-abortion zeal.

its one thing to decide that you really dont want to have a child at this time and another completely to, in essence, be pressured into it because you know you can never afford to pay the dowry required for her to marry and have a family of her own.

its sorta the same as being pro-choice while decrying pressures on the young and the poor to abort pregnancies that in other circumstances they would be happy to carry to term.

i think you have missed the point in your anti-abortion zeal.

its one thing to decide that you really dont want to have a child at this time and another completely to, in essence, be pressured into it because you know you can never afford to pay the dowry required for her to marry and have a family of her own.

its sorta the same as being pro-choice while decrying pressures on the young and the poor to abort pregnancies that in other circumstances they would be happy to carry to term.

Nicely put, thank you. <3

Cute. :cool:

:)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2133349,00.html

Possibly that.

If that be the case, more # of abortions (per capita) take place in the US.

What is the moral difference between aborting a child because it is "inconvenient" and aborting a girl child because it is "inconvenient" ?

If that be the case, more # of abortions (per capita) take place in the US.



Not to be overlooked and sorry for not bringing this up myself in my original post. Fair is fair when looking at another society critically and not admitting our owns fault's.

Are you so quick to pass judgment on all groups based on the actions of a few?

Irritates, doesn't it?

Now you know how others feel when YOU do that.

To your Jesus drivel, you can take that and shove it.

"Helping without expecting anything in return is real help" - this was written in Tamil more than 2000 years ago - before Jesus was born.

Maybe evanjihadis like you can understand what that means.

its one thing to decide that you really dont want to have a child at this time and another completely to, in essence, be pressured into it because you know you can never afford to pay the dowry required for her to marry and have a family of her own.

Do not women decide not to have a child primarily because of monetary concerns...pursuing education...career etc etc all leads to that one pursuit right? more money, right?

If a women decides to abort a girl child because she (or her family) decides that it is costly to support a girl child....what is the moral difference between the two situations?

Note that I personally do not support the practice of selective infanticide either before birth or after birth.

I am just curious at this "OH THE HORROR" reactions..

Do not women decide not to have a child primarily because of monetary concerns...pursuing education...career etc etc all leads to that one pursuit right? more money, right?

If a women decides to abort a girl child because she (or her family) decides that it is costly to support a girl child....what is the moral difference between the two situations?

Note that I personally do not support the practice of selective infanticide either before birth or after birth.

I am just curious at this "OH THE HORROR" reactions..

im not familiar with the "oh the horror" reaction except to note that a practice that causes a gender imbalance is bad.

you may have noticed that i likened it to the more typical situation in the US where a poor woman feels that she must abort because she cant possibly support a child.

being pro-choice is being pro CHOICE. those things that tend to force a woman into a decision either way are abhorrent. that includes forced abortions in china as much as it includes parents denying their teenaged daughter the abortion she wants.

That's why this article is bullshit...a smear article with no solid reasoning or presenting of facts.

Yes, I recall you saying the same thing about the caste system, which you claim is all but gone.

Yes, I recall you saying the same thing about the caste system, which you claim is all but gone.

Yes, I remember him saying that. However I don't believe it is as gone as it may be presented by this poster.

Yes, I remember him saying that. However I don't believe it is as gone as it may be presented by this poster.

I understand wanting to present a counterpoint to an outsider's view of a country or system. However, I do find that Aryvartha paints a much more rosy view of India than any of the Indians (with a dot, not a feather) that I know. Not to mention other more, reliable sources.

im not familiar with the "oh the horror" reaction except to note that a practice that causes a gender imbalance is bad.

you may have noticed that i likened it to the more typical situation in the US where a poor woman feels that she must abort because she cant possibly support a child.

being pro-choice is being pro CHOICE. those things that tend to force a woman into a decision either way are abhorrent. that includes forced abortions in china as much as it includes parents denying their teenaged daughter the abortion she wants.


Hmmm.... Still don't see a clear answer here. Maybe it is my own mind that can't draw the line on where it is ok and where it is not. As I get older I am tending more toward against abortion. I personally believe that the vast majority of abortions are done because of money in most nations including the US. It is mostly a selfish reason I believe. There are instances where I can understand in rape, incest etc. I personally think that monetary reasons drive most of the thinking on abortions. Even if one thinks it is not, ultimately it can be boiled down to money. This is where I actually changed my stance on abortion when I realized this fact.

I understand wanting to present a counterpoint to an outsider's view of a country or system. However, I do find that Aryvartha paints a much more rosy view of India than any of the Indians (with a dot, not a feather) that I know. Not to mention other more, reliable sources.

In all fairness most of us want to feel good about the nation we come from. So I can understand to an extent when people defend their nations honor. However facts are facts and one should not overlook them.

i think you have missed the point in your anti-abortion zeal.

its one thing to decide that you really dont want to have a child at this time and another completely to, in essence, be pressured into it because you know you can never afford to pay the dowry required for her to marry and have a family of her own.

its sorta the same as being pro-choice while decrying pressures on the young and the poor to abort pregnancies that in other circumstances they would be happy to carry to term.


So... you're in favor of people aborting children if they can afford to have them and just don't feel like it...

But you're against people who want to abort a child because it would actually be a burden?

Right, what the fuck ever lady.

So... you're in favor of people aborting children if they can afford to have them and just don't feel like it...

But you're against people who want to abort a child because it would actually be a burden?

Right, what the fuck ever lady.
Might want to check your reading comprehension, which you have demonstrated to be sorely lacking.

CHOICE.

It's not a choice when your culture, and your family pressure you to abort.

Are we clear now, or should I spell it out with less syllables? Or if you need, I could repeat it in Spanish, French or Cree...

Hmmm.... Still don't see a clear answer here. Maybe it is my own mind that can't draw the line on where it is ok and where it is not. As I get older I am tending more toward against abortion. I personally believe that the vast majority of abortions are done because of money in most nations including the US. It is mostly a selfish reason I believe. There are instances where I can understand in rape, incest etc. I personally think that monetary reasons drive most of the thinking on abortions. Even if one thinks it is not, ultimately it can be boiled down to money. This is where I actually changed my stance on abortion when I realized this fact.

the fault lies not with the woman getting the abortion but with the cultural forces that make it the best choice for her.

after all, she is just doing what she needs to do. she is protecting herself, her born children, her family finances and the life of the baby that now will not be born. a woman who already has a few daughters and no sons cant afford to have another girl. she is making a practical decision.

when the day comes that the majority of women can support themselves with good jobs they will start refusing to provide dowry and will be able to have a good life without a husband to support them (if that is the result of their refusal). when that happens a daughter will no longer be a liability. then there will be no reason to abort female fetuses.

i dont know that its always finances that drive abortion in the US. its seldom rape, incest or the life of the mother. women arent interested in being baby factories any more. they want a certain number of children at a certain stage of their lives. if they are too young, too unsettled, OR too financially insecure they have to at least consider the possibility of abortion. its not a bad thing that they have that choice.

So... you're in favor of people aborting children if they can afford to have them and just don't feel like it...

But you're against people who want to abort a child because it would actually be a burden?

Right, what the fuck ever lady.

no.

im for women having the choice. their reasons dont matter to me. good reasons, bad reasons, its THEIR choice not mine.

what i am against are the forces that push a woman to get an abortion when she would rather have carried the pregancy to term.

Yes, they would. Feminists are actually about gender equality, not one gender being superior over the other.

And I really don't want to see this turned into an abortion thread. There are lots of other ones you can post in, and I am interested in avoiding them.

Feminists are about gender equality? You mean like the Feminists who want to lower the ceilings over little boys toilet stalls so they have to piss sitting down (Lest the develop a sense of empowerment from being able to pee standing up?).

Or are we talking about the Feminists from new Hampshire who got together and sang songs about butchering male genitals?

Are we talking the same Feminists who specifically want women to have the right to view their male coworkers paychecks on the off chance they might be making more money?

Perhaps we're talking about the Feminists who, in their books, refer to all men as Rapists?

The Feminists who view men on the level of the Nazi Guardsmen?

The Feminists who justify false claims of rape by saying "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."?


Are THESE the Feminists that are for equality? If not, then where the fuck are they, because I'm not seeing them.

no.

im for women having the choice. their reasons dont matter to me. good reasons, bad reasons, its THEIR choice not mine.

what i am against are the forces that push a woman to get an abortion when she would rather have carried the pregancy to term.


You mean like say... convenience.

If a child wasn't so durned inconvenient... why by gosh I'd go ahead and have her. But ya know, I just, I can't bring myself to do it, as much as I'd love to have that kid.

Because that's really what this boils down to.

It's another fucking "Evil Patriarchy" story.

You mean like say... convenience.

If a child wasn't so durned inconvenient... why by gosh I'd go ahead and have her. But ya know, I just, I can't bring myself to do it, as much as I'd love to have that kid.

Because that's really what this boils down to.

It's another fucking "Evil Patriarchy" story.

Can you clearly state your issue?

Are you saying abortion is not right and is simply a tool for feminists to push their anti-male agenda? That this India story is another tool for women's rights against the mythological patriarchy?

Is this what you're saying?

Feminists are about gender equality? You mean like the Feminists who want to lower the ceilings over little boys toilet stalls so they have to piss sitting down (Lest the develop a sense of empowerment from being able to pee standing up?). You're a funny little troll.

*snip rambling blather*
Are THESE the Feminists that are for equality? If not, then where the fuck are they, because I'm not seeing them.

You aren't actually looking. Most of us feminists are not actually insane, nor are we imaginary, or blown up caricatures created by anti-feminists. It's actually feminists like me, who are lobbying to have Maternity leave regulations changed, because as they stand, there are a number of weeks a man can not, under any circumstances, access if he chooses to be the stay-at-home parent. Ooooh, bad us, working to help men instead of putting him in his place, beneath us inherently superior women.:rolleyes:

But that's fine. You have the sound of someone who likes to shadow-box. So, by all means, continue in your ridiculous, trolling nonsense.

Might want to check your reading comprehension, which you have demonstrated to be sorely lacking.

CHOICE.

It's not a choice when your culture, and your family pressure you to abort.

Are we clear now, or should I spell it out with less syllables? Or if you need, I could repeat it in Spanish, French or Cree...


Is someone in her family holding a gun to her head?

Is someone threatening to execute her?

Imprison her? Lock her up in a cell somewhere?

If not, I'm failing to see the coercion..

What? The family don't like it if you have a daughter? Ahh well.

Your family gunna sell ya into slavery because of it?

They going to chop your legs off?

If the worst I'm hearing is that the family disapproves... Yeah, these bitches still got a choice.

*snip*.

You're very good at having a one-sided conversation with yourself. You don't apparently feel it necessary to actually read the posts you reply to. Bravo!

Can you clearly state your issue?

Are you saying abortion is not right and is simply a tool for feminists to push their anti-male agenda? That this India story is another tool for women's rights against the mythological patriarchy?

Is this what you're saying?

Hmmm, what I'm getting from the troll is 'them bitches'.

I think that's what it boils down to in his/her/its mind.

8 posts in and you're laying it on awfully thick with all the 'bitches' this and 'bitches' that. You're never going to make it as a troll here on NSG if you don't learn to be a little more subtle. Tsk. You lack skill.

Can you clearly state your issue?

Are you saying abortion is not right and is simply a tool for feminists to push their anti-male agenda? That this India story is another tool for women's rights against the mythological patriarchy?

Is this what you're saying?

Feminists do push an anti-male agenda. In all my days I think I've yet to see NOW rally around the case for men to have the right to completely sign off all rights to a child and walk away, effectively "Aborting" the child as far as he's concerned.

Yet, when I bring this up with feminists they turn into harpies saying things like "What about the rights of the child? What about the welfare of the child?"

Yeah.

They're alright with executing the fucking kid... but they'll be damned if that no good deadbeat dad is going to shirk his responsibility to that child.


And yes, this is effectively an Evil Patriarchy Story.

THe girl has a choice. No one is going to shoot her if she has a daughter, no one is going to imprison her. Worse comes to worse they're going to make her life difficult, which they already had the right to to begin with. But they can't legally take her out back and string her up.

The bitch has a choice.

I think

You're a god damn liar.

THe girl has a choice. No one is going to shoot her if she has a daughter, no one is going to imprison her. Worse comes to worse they're going to make her life difficult, which they already had the right to to begin with. But they can't legally take her out back and string her up.

No, of course not.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1205531.cms
Rajkot, India) Twenty-five-year-old Nita Koli, six months pregnant with a female fetus, was set on fire by her husband, Sanjay, and mother-in-law, Kuwar Koli, for "not being able to give birth to a boy." Nita died from her burns Wednesday.

8 posts in and you're laying it on awfully thick with all the 'bitches' this and 'bitches' that. You're never going to make it as a troll here on NSG if you don't learn to be a little more subtle. Tsk. You lack skill.


Oh, oh... you... you thought I was... what? Trolling?

No sweetie... no.

Did my coarse language offend?

There, there, it's alright.

Poor thing.

*powders your bottom and changes you*

The real issue with Neesie (That's my pet name for the cutiepie, cuz they're just adorable!) is that she/he/it cannot respond to my statements with anything other than a personal attack. She/he/it and I both know it. If she/he/it could've, she/he/it would've.

Your weakness comforts me.

snip... .


You actually bring up some factual points. However I would package what you are saying in a different way then you are. You are coming off as a bit rabid to say the least. Maybe you are new as your post count would indicate and maybe you have a new account and you are a long time poster. However one thing I have learned on this forum is to try and package your point of view in a way that you can get a intelligent response. I am not perfect at debating and actually loath the actual practice of winning debates. However to get your point of view to stick then you need to lessen the passion.

Feminists do push an anti-male agenda. In all my days I think I've yet to see NOW rally around the case for men to have the right to completely sign off all rights to a child and walk away, effectively "Aborting" the child as far as he's concerned.

Yet, when I bring this up with feminists they turn into harpies saying things like "What about the rights of the child? What about the welfare of the child?"

Yeah.

They're alright with executing the fucking kid... but they'll be damned if that no good deadbeat dad is going to shirk his responsibility to that child.

Yet the father is not having the child. Therefore it's not his choice whether to abort or not. Deciding to abort has to be the mother's decision.

However, both have created the child and so, once born, both have a responsibility to raise the child.

These are 2 entirely different situations - the first is a thing physically attached to the woman - the man has no say and no right to force her to go through with it. The second is an individual being, and both the mother and the father have a responsibility to help support it.

And yes, this is effectively an Evil Patriarchy Story.

THe girl has a choice. No one is going to shoot her if she has a daughter, no one is going to imprison her. Worse comes to worse they're going to make her life difficult, which they already had the right to to begin with. But they can't legally take her out back and string her up.

The bitch has a choice.

I'm sorry, but when a woman has difficulty finding a job, or being able to support herself without a family, no gun is needed.

You're being very naive here to think she has a choice - you may not agree with my first part of this answer but on this, I'd have serious doubts as to your reason if you cannot see it.

*snip*.It really is a shame. Trolling is an artform, and it is sad to see someone attempt it so clumsily. Sad, because you shall not last long posting in this vein. Enjoy your brief stay here at NSG.

Yet the father is not having the child. Therefore it's not his choice whether to abort or not. Deciding to abort has to be the mother's decision.

I never said otherwise.

However, both have created the child and so, once born, both have a responsibility to raise the child.

However, only the MOTHER chose to keep it. She has all power, man has none. Yet you are holding him responsible for another persons decision. She could choose to not have the child, and force him to have a child he does not want.

This is where feminism and equality break down. To say that because the child is physically attached to the mother she has all rights and the father has none is where we say that one person has power over another.

A woman first chooses to have sex, and then chooses if she wants to keep it, and then chooses to give birth.

A man chooses to have sex, and that's where all choice ends for him. In fact, many men are required, by law, to provide for children that aren't even theirs.

No feminists have rallied against this.

Let me restate this point so you're perfectly clear on it: No Feminist Group has rallied against a judge forcing a man to pay for a child that is not biologically his.


These are 2 entirely different situations - the first is a thing physically attached to the woman - the man has no say and no right to force her to go through with it. The second is an individual being, and both the mother and the father have a responsibility to help support it.

Again, you say that for the 9 months the child is within the Belly the mother has absolute and total power over the child, but as soon as it pops out the father has absolute and total responsibility.

If this is true, why was Scott Peterson charges with two counts of murder, and not one? You can't murder a non-person.

In other words... if Laci peterson would've went to a Dr. and had the kid sucked out a tube, you'd be fine with that. A-Ok, but if Scott Peterson murdered her on the way there, it'd be a double homicide.

No Feminists rallied to prevent Scott Peterson from being tried for a double murder. Funny that.

So according to the innaction of Feminism the child is a child so long as the father murders it, but it's a choice if the mother does.

(Still not seeing the lack of equality?)

I could see charging Scott Peterson for murder... and if another man beat a woman so bad she lost the baby he could be charged with assault.

But a child cannot be a child when one person kills it, and not be a child when another does.


I'm sorry, but when a woman has difficulty finding a job, or being able to support herself without a family, no gun is needed.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

We are the choices we make. What it sounds like is you want to change the entire culture to emulate YOUR views. Marxism works like that. Feminism and Marxism have a lot in common.

You're being very naive here to think she has a choice - you may not agree with my first part of this answer but on this, I'd have serious doubts as to your reason if you cannot see it.

She has a choice. It's a very difficult choice, but many choices in life are. Fundamentally you want to take away the choice of those who dissapprove. You want to force them to approve of a way of life YOU approve of.

It really is a shame. Trolling is an artform, and it is sad to see someone attempt it so clumsily. Sad, because you shall not last long posting in this vein. Enjoy your brief stay here at NSG.

You try very hard. It betrays you.

Yet the father is not having the child. Therefore it's not his choice whether to abort or not. Deciding to abort has to be the mother's decision.

However, both have created the child and so, once born, both have a responsibility to raise the child.

These are 2 entirely different situations - the first is a thing physically attached to the woman - the man has no say and no right to force her to go through with it. The second is an individual being, and both the mother and the father have a responsibility to help support it.



I'm sorry, but when a woman has difficulty finding a job, or being able to support herself without a family, no gun is needed.

You're being very naive here to think she has a choice - you may not agree with my first part of this answer but on this, I'd have serious doubts as to your reason if you cannot see it.


Your cowardice and inability to respond concerning my comments on Feminists and "Equality" are noted. I expect that from Neesie at this point, but not from you.

She carried on about carictures and insanity...

Such as insane professors:

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed," said Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.



.... it goes on and on...

Your cowardice and inability to respond concerning my comments on Feminists and "Equality" are noted. I expect that from Neesie at this point, but not from you.

She carried on about carictures and insanity...

Such as insane professors:

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed," said Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

.... it goes on and on...

Again, I'm not seeing your point - excuse me while I had to trawl back to where I wasn't involved in the conversation so correct me if I'm wrong.

Ilie made a point about feminism, saying that equality between sexes is the aim. You replied with a list of actions (none cited but we'll let it pass) by feminists that shows there are extreme elements. Neesika pointed out that this is gross characterization and that many feminists are actively aiming for equality.

It descended into personal insults, for which I'm sorry, but you were the main perpetrator.

What's your point?

Again, I'm not seeing your point - excuse me while I had to trawl back to where I wasn't involved in the conversation so correct me if I'm wrong.

Ilie made a point about feminism, saying that equality between sexes is the aim. You replied with a list of actions (none cited but we'll let it pass) by feminists that shows there are extreme elements. Neesika pointed out that this is gross characterization and that many feminists are actively aiming for equality.

It descended into personal insults, for which I'm sorry, but you were the main perpetrator.

What's your point?

You are correct that it was Ilsie, not you. I picked up a similar tone from your writing. Apologies.

However, IS it a gross characterization?

When T-Shirts saying Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them are selling in stores like hotcakes to be adorned by teenage girls... When cartoon books are being published about the idiocy of men and sold at major book retailers... when Hallmark sells legions of cards that are effectively all about how terrible men are... I can hardly say that manbashing is "outside" of the mainstream.


Incidentally, at no point did I call anyone here names first. The initial attacker was Neesie.

Try again.

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed," said Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

I can utterly imagine this to be the case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2152883,00.html) :confused:

Many people, of which you seem to be a variant, believe that it's up to every individual to make of their lives what they can. Many people, on the other hand, believe that society is inherently situated so that it makes it more difficult for some people to get to the same position as the dominants in that society.

In the case of the OP, that dominant is Indian males, in the US it's Anglo-Saxon males.

Given statistics on Senate, H of R, President, SCOTUS, CEO and upper-level management figures - which are vastly dominated by Anglo-Saxon males, either you're saying that Anglo-Saxon males are better than all others and that's why they dominate in every leadership area....

...or, I wonder, that they have unnatural advantages in life?

You are correct that it was Ilsie, not you. I picked up a similar tone from your writing. Apologies.

However, IS it a gross characterization?

When T-Shirts saying Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them are selling in stores like hotcakes to be adorned by teenage girls... When cartoon books are being published about the idiocy of men and sold at major book retailers... when Hallmark sells legions of cards that are effectively all about how terrible men are... I can hardly say that manbashing is "outside" of the mainstream.

Ah, this I understand - the dumbing down of man - of which Home Improvement is a major example - and I wonder if you love that show because that is what the show subscribes to - the dumbing down of man.

I am against this as well, but I don't think it sits at the same table as inequality, I'm not sure it's even in the same room.

You are correct that it was Ilsie, not you. I picked up a similar tone from your writing. Apologies.

However, IS it a gross characterization?

When T-Shirts saying Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them are selling in stores like hotcakes to be adorned by teenage girls... When cartoon books are being published about the idiocy of men and sold at major book retailers... when Hallmark sells legions of cards that are effectively all about how terrible men are... I can hardly say that manbashing is "outside" of the mainstream.


Incidentally, at no point did I call anyone here names first. The initial attacker was Neesie.

Try again.Actually, I was simply noticing that for a supposedly n00b poster, you are coming on ridiculously strong, and have all the hallmarks of a troll. It's not like we haven't seen truckloads of them pass through here...you're nothing special.

There is a little thing called a 'source' which you are generally required to provide here. I'll show you how it works.

"Hey, there are these shirts, that say 'boys are stupid throw rocks at them'. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!) a link to some information about them! In particular, notice the huge amount of controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!#The_controversy_and_the_campaign) that they elicited, and continue to elicit both in the 'mainstream' and the 'fringe'."

In any case, you are threadjacking. The original topic is about India, and about gender specific abortions. If you wish to begin a thread dealing with feminism or whatever it is you're on about, you are more than welcome to do so. You should also take a look at the One-Stop Rule Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573).

Anyway - back on topic - has anyone mentioned the terrible spillover effect of this. If people are wondering how male Indian's will find brides and think that this may lead to a rise in value for females...think again.

It simply leads to a rise in trafficking, where girls are taken from one region and sold to another.

The consequences of female foeticide and the resulting gender gap are already unfolding: Girls are being trafficked from impoverished neighboring countries like Bangladesh and Nepal or from disadvantaged or tribal areas in India and sold into marriage for the equivalent of about $200 (in Haryana State, a bull costs $1,000).

Secondly, to the point that education will wipe this out...

Likewise, the practice has usually been presumed to be most prevalent among the poor and illiterate, because of spiraling dowry demands made on brides by the groom's family, as well as other traditional prejudices.However, recent UN and Indian studies reveal that female foeticide is today most frequent among the rich and highly educated. One study maps the increased frequency of female foeticide with rising levels of education - lowest among women with a fifth-grade education and highest among women with university degrees.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/24/opinion/edswami.php)

Um, are you saying that abortion is equivalent to murder?
In this case, I would, yes. We're not talking about a woman's right to choose, we're talking about a family (Usually IIRC the husband) choosing to abort; not because they don't want a baby, not because of massive defects, but because the baby in question is a girl. The problem I see is that many couples then proceed to try again, and again, and again, and again until they GET that boy.

Yeah, that'd be pretty close to murder in my book.

In this case, I would, yes. We're not talking about a woman's right to choose, we're talking about a family (Usually IIRC the husband) choosing to abort; not because they don't want a baby, not because of massive defects, but because the baby in question is a girl. The problem I see is that many couples then proceed to try again, and again, and again, and again until they GET that boy.

Yeah, that'd be pretty close to murder in my book.



So it's murder when a father decides, a choice when a mother does.

Delicious. Sometimes it's a child.. sometime's it's not.

In this case, I would, yes. We're not talking about a woman's right to choose, we're talking about a family (Usually IIRC the husband) choosing to abort; not because they don't want a baby, not because of massive defects, but because the baby in question is a girl. The problem I see is that many couples then proceed to try again, and again, and again, and again until they GET that boy.

Yeah, that'd be pretty close to murder in my book.

There's still the thing that you need a person to die before it can be considered murder. Now, I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread, but abortion doesn't fall under that, in my opinion. Pressuring women into abortion is, of course, wrong, but not as wrong as pressuring women to, well, kill their children.

There's still the thing that you need a person to die before it can be considered murder. Now, I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread, but abortion doesn't fall under that, in my opinion. Pressuring women into abortion is, of course, wrong, but not as wrong as pressuring women to, well, kill their children.
So in your eyes then, when women are forced to abort due to sex of the child (I want to be clear here, this is the main kicker), it isn't AS BAD as just waiting for the child to pop out to kill it?

Sorry, I disagree. Japanese troops in WWII were wrong to force Chinese women to abort for carrying "inferior" Chinese babies and so now.

I would charge murder because I would have to ask, if all things were equal, would the mother have carried to term?

So it's murder when a father decides, a choice when a mother does.

Delicious. Sometimes it's a child.. sometime's it's not.
Back to your bridge, troll, you have no powers here.

I can utterly imagine this to be the case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2152883,00.html) :confused:

Many people, of which you seem to be a variant, believe that it's up to every individual to make of their lives what they can. Many people, on the other hand, believe that society is inherently situated so that it makes it more difficult for some people to get to the same position as the dominants in that society.

In the case of the OP, that dominant is Indian males, in the US it's Anglo-Saxon males.

Given statistics on Senate, H of R, President, SCOTUS, CEO and upper-level management figures - which are vastly dominated by Anglo-Saxon males, either you're saying that Anglo-Saxon males are better than all others and that's why they dominate in every leadership area....

...or, I wonder, that they have unnatural advantages in life?


And those who possess the most disposable wealth are women. Women have numerous exceptional protections under the law. Women have numerous exceptional benefits granted by the law. Women, Infants and Children for example... isn't called Women, Men, Infants and Children. Women serve less time for the same crimes as men. Women have been found to be nearly as likely as a man to instigate domestic violence, yet far fewer men than women report it. Single mothers are more likely to abuse their children, yet courts consistantly grant custody to the mothers. It goes on and on.

If I approached a woman and hit on her at work and she didn't take to my advances it's sexual harassment... if she did the same to me and I reported it I'd be laughed out the door.

If you want a good barometer on America... take a look at our television shows.

Watch malcolm in the middle, where the man is a pussy whipped bitch. or Family Guy, or the Simpsons... where the men are borderline drooling idiots and the women are all terribly intelligent and know just what to do. It even filters down to the animated children... with bart being a failure in school, and Chris Griffen being just as retarded as his father.

These are the images men are inundated with constantly. We're told we're stupid, useless, worthless, unwanted, we have fewer rights.

In fact, one guy I heard of who was constantly being attacked by his wife was told that if she broke a fingernail hitting him, he'd go to jail. Then you talk to me about fuckin' equality.

Back to your bridge, troll, you have no powers here.


I know, isn't it easy to resort to personal attacks when you can't respond to a contention?

Helps one feel less afraid when they can at least whip out a snot nosed remark when they feel threatened by a statement.

*bathes in the ocean of your fear*

And those who possess the most disposable wealth are women. Women have numerous exceptional protections under the law. Women have numerous exceptional benefits granted by the law. Women, Infants and Children for example... isn't called Women, Men, Infants and Children. Women serve less time for the same crimes as men. Women have been found to be nearly as likely as a man to instigate domestic violence, yet far fewer men than women report it. Single mothers are more likely to abuse their children, yet courts consistantly grant custody to the mothers. It goes on and on.
Which explains why the vast majority of CEOs, office holders, and university presidents are men. Yup, uh-huh. Not to mention no sources for those.

If you want a good barometer on America... take a look at our television shows.
Anyone who is over the age of 15 should know that TV doesn't reflect real life. Seriously, you lost what little worth I would give your word with that.

I know, isn't it easy to resort to personal attacks when you can't respond to a contention?

Helps one feel less afraid when they can at least whip out a snot nosed remark when they feel threatened by a statement.

*bathes in the ocean of your fear*
Please, I've just gotten done teaching junior high school. I know teenage antics when I see it.

And those who possess the most disposable wealth are women. Women have numerous exceptional protections under the law. Women have numerous exceptional benefits granted by the law. Women, Infants and Children for example... isn't called Women, Men, Infants and Children. Women serve less time for the same crimes as men. Women have been found to be nearly as likely as a man to instigate domestic violence, yet far fewer men than women report it. Single mothers are more likely to abuse their children, yet courts consistantly grant custody to the mothers. It goes on and on.

If I approached a woman and hit on her at work and she didn't take to my advances it's sexual harassment... if she did the same to me and I reported it I'd be laughed out the door.

If you want a good barometer on America... take a look at our television shows.

Watch malcolm in the middle, where the man is a pussy whipped bitch. or Family Guy, or the Simpsons... where the men are borderline drooling idiots and the women are all terribly intelligent and know just what to do. It even filters down to the animated children... with bart being a failure in school, and Chris Griffen being just as retarded as his father.

These are the images men are inundated with constantly. We're told we're stupid, useless, worthless, unwanted, we have fewer rights.

In fact, one guy I heard of who was constantly being attacked by his wife was told that if she broke a fingernail hitting him, he'd go to jail. Then you talk to me about fuckin' equality.

Here you go - All Time USA Box Office (http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross) - let me know how many times a female is depicted as someone not just being protected by heroic man, where the male doesn't save the day.

I'm sure you'll pick out the 1 or 2 that go against this but please...don't come all 'media-portrayal' with us because you've picked out a few examples that fit your narrow view against hundreds that don't.

There is a debate about the dumbing down of man in the media but when it stacks up against the negative portrayal of females, let me know.

It's got nothing to do with girls being aborted in India because they're seen as less valuable, not just in monetary terms, but in terms of the virility of the father.

This doesn't even have anything to do with abortion - it has everything to do with the value of female life compared to male. Prior to ultrasounds, baby girls were killed outright.

What you have done here is called bait and switch. Nice try but I'm calling you on it. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. Nor are all acts deserving of tolerance. The common issues of tolerance revolve around race, religion, gender, and more recently gender orientation.
Your attempt to somehow paint the Church and all priests as pedophile rapists is both inaccurate as well as reveals some of your own bigotry - not to mention that you presume that 'priests' are the only messengers of faith. You forget pastors, rabbis, ministers, etc.

Umm I have never heard of this bait and switch, and my post was two fold.

Firstly we are bombarded by messages of tolerance, it seems to be the buzzword of our era, but what does this word mean?

We tolerate that which we dislike, we cannot tolerate that which we feel an afinity for. The very definition of the word means that what ever it is we are being called upon to tolerate, we don't like it.

So to tolerate anothers culture is insulting to that culture. 'Sure we don't like you, but we'll tolerate you'. Which is why I asked isn't understanding a better way to go. Wouldn't we be better of not tolerateing but understanding?

As to the Catholic faith, I have a great dislikeing for it it is true, yeah sure I can feel my bigoted bones riseing at the mere mention of the word. However, your attempt to put words into my mouth, to tell me what it is that I have said will not work. I said that I hate those preist that endulge in peadophiliea, I said that there are a lot of them, and I said that I hate the Catholics church for their stance on how they deal with such preists.

I did not say all Catholic priest are the same, you'll notice also that I keep my disdain for the Catholic church firmly grounded in the Catholic church, not the religoin, not those who practice the religion. You'll also notice that I was talking exclusivly of the Catholic church, which is why I made no mention of other clergy.

Too much growth, not enough social adjustment.

Yes, I remember him saying that. However I don't believe it is as gone as it may be presented by this poster.

The caste system is horribly alive and well, and has reached it's grubby little paws across the world to claim even those Indians who live elsewhere. Yep even in the Sikh faith(in which it is forbiden) do we find Gurdwara's(temples) run for this or that caste, yep even here in the UK.

Irritates, doesn't it?

Now you know how others feel when YOU do that.

To your Jesus drivel, you can take that and shove it.

"Helping without expecting anything in return is real help" - this was written in Tamil more than 2000 years ago - before Jesus was born.

Maybe evanjihadis like you can understand what that means.

You are a sad little hypocrite. I have not one time made a generalizing or stereo-typing statement about any person or group of people - yet you have done it in every post.

I also have not at any time posted any 'Jesus drivel' nor even identified my own religious philosophy - so you attempt to assign what you want it to be upon me.

Your quote from Tamil is utterly meaningless as it has no context whatsoever. It takes nearly no effort at all to determine that missionaries today from the developed world offer help without any conditions. That you found a 2000 year old quote does nothing to change that reality.

Face it - you are a bigot. You have been exposed as a bigot - and now you know you are a bigot. The question is what will you do now? You can continue with your bigotry or grow and mature beyond it.

Based on the first line of your post I quoted I expect that you are an immature "Two wrongs make a right" person and let that rationalization comfort you in your bigotry - but then miracles do happen...

Umm I have never heard of this bait and switch, and my post was two fold.

Firstly we are bombarded by messages of tolerance, it seems to be the buzzword of our era, but what does this word mean?

We tolerate that which we dislike, we cannot tolerate that which we feel an afinity for. The very definition of the word means that what ever it is we are being called upon to tolerate, we don't like it.

So to tolerate anothers culture is insulting to that culture. 'Sure we don't like you, but we'll tolerate you'. Which is why I asked isn't understanding a better way to go. Wouldn't we be better of not tolerateing but understanding?

As to the Catholic faith, I have a great dislikeing for it it is true, yeah sure I can feel my bigoted bones riseing at the mere mention of the word. However, your attempt to put words into my mouth, to tell me what it is that I have said will not work. I said that I hate those preist that endulge in peadophiliea, I said that there are a lot of them, and I said that I hate the Catholics church for their stance on how they deal with such preists.

I did not say all Catholic priest are the same, you'll notice also that I keep my disdain for the Catholic church firmly grounded in the Catholic church, not the religoin, not those who practice the religion. You'll also notice that I was talking exclusivly of the Catholic church, which is why I made no mention of other clergy.

When you say 'bait and switch' does that mean the term itself is unfamiliar or the use of it? It is a common term in the US - but maybe not so elsewhere.

Late for work now - post the rest later - either as an edit or new post - I will say that the tone of this post is much more tolerable (heh) than your last - but still has a few trivial flaws.

The caste system is horribly alive and well, and has reached it's grubby little paws across the world to claim even those Indians who live elsewhere. Yep even in the Sikh faith(in which it is forbiden) do we find Gurdwara's(temples) run for this or that caste, yep even here in the UK.

It's the propagation of an us vs. them mentality, and rampant elitism. It's something I see practically every day among my fellow Brahmins, in their elitism towards the "lower" castes.

I always find it amusing how empowered people can feel by an accident of birth.

Is someone in her family holding a gun to her head?

Is someone threatening to execute her?

Imprison her? Lock her up in a cell somewhere?

If not, I'm failing to see the coercion..

What? The family don't like it if you have a daughter? Ahh well.

Your family gunna sell ya into slavery because of it?

They going to chop your legs off?

If the worst I'm hearing is that the family disapproves... Yeah, these bitches still got a choice.


Umm I don't think you understand. The problem, and it is a problem, is the culture. This is a cultural practice, done for cultural reasons. Now how easy is it for anybody to work against the very culture that they were brought up in?

When you say 'bait and switch' does that mean the term itself is unfamiliar or the use of it? It is a common term in the US - but maybe not so elsewhere.

Late for work now - post the rest later - either as an edit or new post - I will say that the tone of this post is much more tolerable (heh) than your last - but still has a few trivial flaws.

I my self have never heard of the term, but then I am British. The tone of my post, heh well you know we all like to get a bit shouty at times, I like to shout about the Catholic church *shrug*

It's the propagation of an us vs. them mentality, and rampant elitism. It's something I see practically every day among my fellow Brahmins, in their elitism towards the "lower" castes.

I always find it amusing how empowered people can feel by an accident of birth.


Yeah I know what you mean. It is sometimes hard for me as a white non Indian, living in an Indian social world to get to grips with the differances between our cultures.

Sometimes I find myself berating myself for showing a certian amount of cultural superiority(something that I fight very hard against) but then I think of things like the caste system, and female infantacide (which DOES go further than just aborting female fetuses) and I think, no I am moraly correct and must take a stand about some of these cultural differances.

It's definitely not just abortion. While I'm pro-choice I do object to aborting a fetus simply because it's female because it devalues women. Fixing the attitude about women is what's needed.

Salem district, a mostly rural part of Tamil Nadu, has a longstanding reputation as a deathtrap for baby girls. The Vellala Gounder community, the dominant caste there, owns most of the land and is intent on retaining property rights within the family. Sons represent lineage; daughters marry and relocate to their husbands' homes. As a result, local women, like Lakshmi, who gave birth to a girl early last year, may refuse to nurse their newborns. They leave it to midwives or mothers-in-law to administer the oleander sap, say anti-infanticide activists.

Nearly 60 percent of girls born in Salem District are killed within three days of birth, according to the local social welfare department. That doesn't count the growing number of abortions there to ensure a girl baby won't be carried to term.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0209/p11s01-wosc.html

And I definitely object to infanticide. 60 fucking percent. That's unbelievable.
Maybe it'll actually have some beneficial side effects. In China, where there is also getting to be a serious male/female imbalance, woman who are of marraigable age are benefitting. They only have to even look at the best candidates for husbands and can make demands that might have been unthinkable for Chinese wives of previous generations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capracocia
So it's murder when a father decides, a choice when a mother does.

Delicious. Sometimes it's a child.. sometime's it's not.




^^Who is this guy? Maybe if he gets laid he'll hate women less. No, I'm not volunteering. He gives me the creeps. He can lose his virginity elsewhere.

Perhaps the OP would have us invade India to stop such a practice?

Abhorrent though it, it is an Indian problem, over which I am not able, or justified, to act. Hence, it will not concern me.

Perhaps the OP would have us invade India to stop such a practice?

Abhorrent though it, it is an Indian problem, over which I am not able, or justified, to act. Hence, it will not concern me.Invade them? NO. Pressure them. Help the women access some choices in life. Convince them that female children can have equal value. Yeah. Let's at least try.

For some reason, people who decide a wrong is none of their concern because it's not happening in their backyard really bug me. Just foreigners. Who cares what happens to them?

Invade them? NO. Pressure them. Help the women access some choices in life. Convince them that female children can have equal value. Yeah. Let's at least try.

For some reason, people who decide a wrong is none of their concern because it's not happening in their backyard really bug me. Just foreigners. Who cares what happens to them?

Why endanger potential goodwill with a nation likely to rival China as economic powerhouse in the coming decades? The potential economic fillip is great, and, in any case, it is not the place of the west to impose its sensibilities and presuppositions upon the world at large.

I've stated as much before though; rather a foreigner than a Briton.

Yeah I know what you mean. It is sometimes hard for me as a white non Indian, living in an Indian social world to get to grips with the differances between our cultures.

Sometimes I find myself berating myself for showing a certian amount of cultural superiority(something that I fight very hard against) but then I think of things like the caste system, and female infantacide (which DOES go further than just aborting female fetuses) and I think, no I am moraly correct and must take a stand about some of these cultural differances.

non-Indian? I always assumed you were, as a Sikh, a Punjabi. You're probably the first person I've met who's converted to a non-Buddhist eastern religion.

Edit: Not to imply that there's anything wrong with that.

Why endanger potential goodwill with a nation likely to rival China as economic powerhouse in the coming decades? The potential economic fillip is great, and, in any case, it is not the place of the west to impose its sensibilities and presuppositions upon the world at large.

I've stated as much before though; rather a foreigner than a Briton.
But I really don't think a bit of strategic pressure, some artfully applied education and opening up a few opportunities for women will alienate India.

Perhaps the OP would have us invade India to stop such a practice?

Abhorrent though it, it is an Indian problem, over which I am not able, or justified, to act. Hence, it will not concern me.

Heh so by the same logic we should pull out of Iraq? Since when did we get to pick and choose which world events concern us?

Did you give to any live aid, either this time around or in 1984? Should we not have gone to war when Germany invaded Poland? We should just scrap the G8 summit next year? The killing of girls anywhere in the world, either through elective abortion or infantacide just because they are girls, does not concern you? You are not concered for your fellow man because of mere geography?

Fuckin' hell!

non-Indian? I always assumed you were, as a Sikh, a Punjabi. You're probably the first person I've met who's converted to a non-Buddhist eastern religion.

Edit: Not to imply that there's anything wrong with that.

Heheh well you know what assume makes huh! Really, but I know lots of westerners that have converted to Islam?

Naaaa I converted form neo-paganism about 6 or so years back, as I tell in the thread about where you get your belifes.

Why doesn't simple supply and demand kick in? I really don't see why families are still paying a lot of money to get their highly sought after daughters married off. It's just retarded. Retarded to the extent that I see a business opportunity in running a (government funded) orphanage and selling the girls off to desperate men.

I don't know why it would even have arisen in the first place. If women are to be treated like property, as there solely to serve their husbands, surely it would be an investment to buy one? Or several if the market is flooded with them? What idiot is going to pay money to get rid of their daughter who could work and look after them when they get old?

The problem here is that the dowry system is the wrong way round.

Anyway - back on topic - has anyone mentioned the terrible spillover effect of this. If people are wondering how male Indian's will find brides and think that this may lead to a rise in value for females...think again.

It simply leads to a rise in trafficking, where girls are taken from one region and sold to another.



Secondly, to the point that education will wipe this out...



Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/24/opinion/edswami.php)

Foeticide is higher among educated women, I am sure, but female infanticide is probably higher among poor and less educated women.

Also, the whole point of killing female babies or fetuses is linked to the worth society places on males over females. This is because males are traditionally seen as the breadwinners and women as economic liabilities. As females become more educated, they will be able to earn money at a rate equivalent to men. They will also be in a better position to stop their society from perpetuating gender based stereotypes.

You mean like say... convenience.

If a child wasn't so durned inconvenient... why by gosh I'd go ahead and have her. But ya know, I just, I can't bring myself to do it, as much as I'd love to have that kid.

Because that's really what this boils down to.

It's another fucking "Evil Patriarchy" story.

sooo you think that a poor woman should bear as many children as "god gives her" no matter what that does to her, her existing childern and the child she would prefer to abort?

when you show some understanding of the realities of the life of poor women in the 3rd world, we can talk. until then you have no idea of the ramifications of bearing yet another unwanted child that cant possibly be properly cared for.

It's the propagation of an us vs. them mentality, and rampant elitism. It's something I see practically every day among my fellow Brahmins, in their elitism towards the "lower" castes.

I always find it amusing how empowered people can feel by an accident of birth.

even in the US?

is it immediately obvious here what a person's caste is? (or was?)

does it extend to the generation born in the US? are there indian girls born here that are too low caste for your family to accept should you want to marry one?

even in the US?

is it immediately obvious here what a person's caste is? (or was?)

does it extend to the generation born in the US? are there indian girls born here that are too low caste for your family to accept should you want to marry one?

Yes

Not immediate, but you can almost always tell what caste a person is by their last name. It's generally a dead giveaway.

Nowadays, as far as marriage goes, caste doesn't play as much of a role. It's mostly the old folks who still remember the good old days where it's common. Children raised here are constantly surrounded by people who don't even remotely fit into the caste system. It's hard to be elitist when no one else cares.

Heheh well you know what assume makes huh! Really, but I know lots of westerners that have converted to Islam?

Naaaa I converted form neo-paganism about 6 or so years back, as I tell in the thread about where you get your belifes.

Oh, I do too. But as much as people in the "west" may deny it, Islam is a western religion.

Cool. Yeah I hadn't read that thread, but I just found it unusual. I don't personally know anyone who's ever tried to convert to Hinduism. (or any other eastern religion with the exception of Buddism)

Yes

Not immediate, but you can almost always tell what caste a person is by their last name. It's generally a dead giveaway.

Nowadays, as far as marriage goes, caste doesn't play as much of a role. It's mostly the old folks who still remember the good old days where it's common. Children raised here are constantly surrounded by people who don't even remotely fit into the caste system. It's hard to be elitist when no one else cares.

it must be odd to move from a place where you are at the top of the heap to a place where no one even knows the heap exists.

so it doesnt mean much to your generation and will mean even less to your children and might not be too long before they dont even remember what caste y'all used to be. (or maybe like every white american with american indian blood thinks that they are descended from a cherokee princess, all americans of east indian descent will believe that they descend from brahmins)

Oh, I do too. But as much as people in the "west" may deny it, Islam is a western religion. How could you deny it? Silly.

it must be odd to move from a place where you are at the top of the heap to a place where no one even knows the heap exists.

so it doesnt mean much to your generation and will mean even less to your children and might not be too long before they dont even remember what caste y'all used to be. (or maybe like every white american with american indian blood thinks that they are descended from a cherokee princess, all americans of east indian descent will believe that they descend from brahmins)

It depends, really. Again, last names tend to be a dead giveaway, so depending on how surnames get passed along, and how well people remember what they point to, it may persist, if only in memory rather than in any form of practice.

Oh, I do too. But as much as people in the "west" may deny it, Islam is a western religion.

Cool. Yeah I hadn't read that thread, but I just found it unusual. I don't personally know anyone who's ever tried to convert to Hinduism. (or any other eastern religion with the exception of Buddism)

isnt hare krishna a form of american hinduism? not that you see them much anymore since they have been pushed out of the airports.

its hard to convert to a religion that doesnt have a place for you.

It depends, really. Again, last names tend to be a dead giveaway, so depending on how surnames get passed along, and how well people remember what they point to, it may persist, if only in memory rather than in any form of practice.

you can even tell by the last name of someone from a completely different part of india? geeez with a billion people, i would think that there would be some names that y'all just dont recognize.

Oh, I do too. But as much as people in the "west" may deny it, Islam is a western religion.

Cool. Yeah I hadn't read that thread, but I just found it unusual. I don't personally know anyone who's ever tried to convert to Hinduism. (or any other eastern religion with the exception of Buddism)

Well I don't know, I mean Christianity is eastern really, and Judaism, and Islam, none of them originated in the west. In fact I'm not sure that any religion did apart form native pagan faiths.

Heh perhaps we move in differant cirlces, umm wait though you live in America?

I'm British, perhaps thats the thing. I know lots of white English Muslims, a fair few Hindus, although admitedly I know perhaps a handfull of Sikhs, Bhuddism does seem to collect more converts though.

you can even tell by the last name of someone from a completely different part of india? geeez with a billion people, i would think that there would be some names that y'all just dont recognize.

Nope.

You see, you gotta remember that India, as a civilization, has been around for multiple millenia. It hasn't always been a single, unified nation, and at many times in its history was filled with internicine strife and civil war. The individual states themselves were largely isolated by the geographic distances we're talking about, to the point where you can pick out the differences between a Maharashtran and a Gujarati based on skin color and last name, despite the fact that they're right next to each other.

That difference gets even more obvious when you make a comparison between, say, JBG and me. He's Bengali, and I'm Gujarati. There's a HUGE difference in appearance between us, almost certainly, and again, the last name is a dead giveaway.

You also have to keep in mind that last names at the time that they were emerging were used as identifiers, either as honoratives or as a description of their profession. For instance, the surname Majmudar, which is a Nagar-Brahmin surname (the sub-caste of Brahmins that I belong to as well) was originally given to tax collectors under a particular king who ruled Gujarat many centuries ago. Similarly, my last name generally was given to a member of a particular profession, though at this point several centuries down the line, I'm not sure anyone remembers exactly WHICH profession.

you can even tell by the last name of someone from a completely different part of india? geeez with a billion people, i would think that there would be some names that y'all just dont recognize.

A lot of names are simply occupation words, like Smith, Miller, Fisher. You know that Joe Smith's ancestor might have been a blacksmith. For example, Gandhi means 'grocer'. Dead giveaway that Mr. and Mrs. Gandhi are from a middle caste that traditionally practiced shopkeeping.

Well I don't know, I mean Christianity is eastern really, and Judaism, and Islam, none of them originated in the west. In fact I'm not sure that any religion did apart form native pagan faiths.

Heh perhaps we move in differant cirlces, umm wait though you live in America?

I'm British, perhaps thats the thing. I know lots of white English Muslims, a fair few Hindus, although admitedly I know perhaps a handfull of Sikhs, Bhuddism does seem to collect more converts though.

Geographically, yes. But Christianity likes to consider itself a "western" religion. And more power to it. But if it wants to call itself that, we have to lump Islam in there too.

Yup, I'm from America. I've met one or two white muslims, but I've never met a non-Indian Hindu, Sikh, or Jain here in the States.

Geographically, yes. But Christianity likes to consider itself a "western" religion. And more power to it. But if it wants to call itself that, we have to lump Islam in there too.

Yup, I'm from America. I've met one or two white muslims, but I've never met a non-Indian Hindu, Sikh, or Jain here in the States.

Bloody hell! Mind you I have only ever met one Jain, he almost didn't see me, coz his eyes were on the floor watching out for ants, or summit!;) Well all the typing you are doing I bet your fingers are burning! Heh and I'm orf home.

Bye to all!

isnt hare krishna a form of american hinduism? not that you see them much anymore since they have been pushed out of the airports.

its hard to convert to a religion that doesnt have a place for you.

They're actually not "american hinduism" to be honest.

As sad as it is to say this, they seem to be about as close to as Hindu "mission" as it can get.

A lot of names are simply occupation words, like Smith, Miller, Fisher. You know that Joe Smith's ancestor might have been a blacksmith. For example, Gandhi means 'grocer'. Dead giveaway that Mr. and Mrs. Gandhi are from a middle caste that traditionally practiced shopkeeping.

*nod* And in a society where social mobility is actively stifled, that sort of distinction is much more obvious than it is in the west.

Bloody hell! Mind you I have only ever met one Jain, he almost didn't see me, coz his eyes were on the floor watching out for ants, or summit!;) Well all the typing you are doing I bet your fingers are burning! Heh and I'm orf home.

Bye to all!

I'm a rapid typer, and I've been known to type out 10 page essays in 2-3 hours.

My fingers are fine, though I can't say the same for my keyboard.

Yup, I'm from America. I've met one or two white muslims, but I've never met a non-Indian Hindu, Sikh, or Jain here in the States.

That's actually surprising, almost 1/4th of Muslims in America are white...

Arabs, Persians, Turks, Bosniaks, and Albanians are all considered white, so technically, there are a few white Muslims. Interestingly enough, most Arabs, Persians, and etc. aren't Muslim, but they still make up about 1/4th of America's Muslim population. White=/=European

Here you go - All Time USA Box Office (http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross) - let me know how many times a female is depicted as someone not just being protected by heroic man, where the male doesn't save the day.

I'm sure you'll pick out the 1 or 2 that go against this but please...don't come all 'media-portrayal' with us because you've picked out a few examples that fit your narrow view against hundreds that don't.

There is a debate about the dumbing down of man in the media but when it stacks up against the negative portrayal of females, let me know.

It's got nothing to do with girls being aborted in India because they're seen as less valuable, not just in monetary terms, but in terms of the virility of the father.

This doesn't even have anything to do with abortion - it has everything to do with the value of female life compared to male. Prior to ultrasounds, baby girls were killed outright.

You know, historically speaking, aren't virtually ALL our stories that way?

Further... the heroic male is counterbalanced by the fact that almost all of the VILLAINS are male.

So the "damsel female is both complimented and demeaned, she's a damsel in distress... but the female is worth a man DYING for to protect.

Let's think on this...

The vast majority of people who die in the workplace, are males... in fact, the more dangerous the job is the more male dominated it becomes. Bitch about CEOs all day long, let's force women to register for the draft then we'll talk equality. Let's see a few more corpses of women being drug through the streets, virtually all (if not all) of the 9/11 firefighters were male.

So shucks, you're not all CEOs, BooHoo, but you're not all getting murdered on the god damn' job either.


Further, what this is ABOUT is a nation and a peoples autonomy.

They feel that females are worth less than males. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.

But it's THEIR CHOICE.

You know, historically speaking, aren't virtually ALL our stories that way?

Further... the heroic male is counterbalanced by the fact that almost all of the VILLAINS are male.

So the "damsel female is both complimented and demeaned, she's a damsel in distress... but the female is worth a man DYING for to protect.

Let's think on this...

The vast majority of people who die in the workplace, are males... in fact, the more dangerous the job is the more male dominated it becomes. Bitch about CEOs all day long, let's force women to register for the draft then we'll talk equality. Let's see a few more corpses of women being drug through the streets, virtually all (if not all) of the 9/11 firefighters were male.

So shucks, you're not all CEOs, BooHoo, but you're not all getting murdered on the god damn' job either.


Further, what this is ABOUT is a nation and a peoples autonomy.

They feel that females are worth less than males. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.

But it's THEIR CHOICE.

if you want to discuss the merits (or demerits) of feminism you need to start a new thread on that subject and stop trying to hijack this one.

A lot of names are simply occupation words, like Smith, Miller, Fisher. You know that Joe Smith's ancestor might have been a blacksmith. For example, Gandhi means 'grocer'. Dead giveaway that Mr. and Mrs. Gandhi are from a middle caste that traditionally practiced shopkeeping.

i kinda get that but with the traditional language differences in india, arent there names that mean "grocer" that are not obviously so if you dont come from that part of the country?

Heh so by the same logic we should pull out of Iraq? Since when did we get to pick and choose which world events concern us?

Did you give to any live aid, either this time around or in 1984? Should we not have gone to war when Germany invaded Poland? We should just scrap the G8 summit next year? The killing of girls anywhere in the world, either through elective abortion or infantacide just because they are girls, does not concern you? You are not concered for your fellow man because of mere geography?

Fuckin' hell!

Did I give money to LiveAid? Fuck no. I'll not be party to anything arranged by Bob Geldof except his public suicide.

Incidentally, yes I would pull out of Iraq, and the Nazi analogy is flawed. Nazi expansionism posed a direct, incontrovertible threat both to continental peace, and British economic interests, both of which necessitated war.

Ultimately, I'm not especially concerned for my fellow man when their affairs are not mine. As abhorrent as I might find any situation, I remain wary of interventionist syllogisms that would have the west impose its morality upon the world at large.

i kinda get that but with the traditional language differences in india, arent there names that mean "grocer" that are not obviously so if you dont come from that part of the country?

Well, then there's also the elitism between members of different states. And you can also tell geographic location by surname, generally.

Well, then there's also the elitism between members of different states. And you can also tell geographic location by surname, generally.

its so complicated!

its so complicated!

That's 4-5000 years of a steadily growing, diverse culture of presently over a billion people largely unified by a common religion.

Blessed Chris to me....

Perhaps the OP would have us invade India to stop such a practice?

Abhorrent though it, it is an Indian problem, over which I am not able, or justified, to act. Hence, it will not concern me.




Invade them? NO. Pressure them. Help the women access some choices in life. Convince them that female children can have equal value. Yeah. Let's at least try.

For some reason, people who decide a wrong is none of their concern because it's not happening in their backyard really bug me. Just foreigners. Who cares what happens to them?

Your response is as good as any from me on this question from the poster.

I my self have never heard of the term, but then I am British. The tone of my post, heh well you know we all like to get a bit shouty at times, I like to shout about the Catholic church *shrug*

Bait and switch is a US term? I didn't know that. In the US 'bait and switch' used to refer to the practice of businesses which would advertise one product - usually at a very attractive price - then apply pressure to purchase a different - more expensive product once the consumer arrived - either as a cross sell or the more unscrupulous 'we sold out' guise. The advertised product was the 'bait' and the switch was to the more profitable one. In modern times it applies to any situation where you promise one thing and deliver something completely different usually with a higher cost or effort required.

In the case you used it you attempt to discuss 'tolerance' then you morph the conversation into discussing who should be tolerated - with the assumption that I believe everyone should. I correctly pointed out that you tried to apply your first argument into the presumption on the second and then treat them both as one argument. You did a 'switch'.

I have since pointed out that tolerance as it is used in relation to bigotry is about race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Within that context it presently has nothing to do with criminal behavior.

Within the bounds of racism, bigotry and others you can use whatever term you wish - tolerance, understanding, or even grok, for all I care. The net result is a respect for opinions which differ from your own - and the people who hold them. You don't even need to understand them to show respect for the people who have them

For example - I have no flippin idea why people like beets. If I go to a restaurant I will not order them. If they arrive on my plate as a garnish I will move them aside. That is tolerant and respectful. I will not shout 'Die foul Beet lover!' and commence expounding to everyone around my why beets are bad and why the restaurant should be shamed for serving them! Tolerance / intolerance.

I did not say all Catholic priest are the same, you'll notice also that I keep my disdain for the Catholic church firmly grounded in the Catholic church, not the religoin, not those who practice the religion. You'll also notice that I was talking exclusivly of the Catholic church, which is why I made no mention of other clergy.
What you said was;

Should we tolerate those Catholics preists that fiddle with little boys(and there are a hell of a lot of them) should we tolerate the Catholic church for the stance they take towards such preists?
Since the post you were referring to was a response to religious intolerance, and because your post includes a gross generalization about a religion - it is reasonable to presume you have troubles with bigotry against at least one religion - as you've admitted - Catholicism.

If you were to combine the incidence in America of Catholic priest crimes and then compare then to say - black crimes you would find that there is a signifiant and substantially higher occurrence of crimes perpetrated by blacks. You could even say that black culture supports that behavior with things like gangsta rap, don't snitch, etc. (similar to some Catholic diocese initial mistake of attempting to rationalize and cover up the transgressions) To be consistent then with the standards you apply then the question would not be whether or not you are prejudiced against blacks - it would be what size hood (http://www.lakelandgov.net/library/oldspeccoll/blackhis/klan.jpg) do you wear?

Of course I am pretty certain that you are NOT a racist. The point is though - that racism is only one form of bigotry. You can rationalize your hatred of any religion but - as I illustrated - it is no more valid of a rationalization than many of the vain attempts we've all seen at rationalizing other forms of bigotry.

Just because it is 'popular' or 'every one does it' does not make it right. History is littered with examples.

Good luck to you and I wish you well.

Blessed Chris to me....

Perhaps the OP would have us invade India to stop such a practice?

Abhorrent though it, it is an Indian problem, over which I am not able, or justified, to act. Hence, it will not concern me.






Your response is as good as any from me on this question from the poster.


And presumably you couldn't then be bothered to make a response to my response to that? Very well thought out.

Yes, I recall you saying the same thing about the caste system, which you claim is all but gone.

Show me where I said exactly that and I will STFU. Else you should. :cool:

I have not one time made a generalizing or stereo-typing statement about any person or group of people

Oh really?

Until the culture does there is nothing more that can be done - they certainly won't appreciate England interfering 'for the benefit of the savages' again...
..
Another option, no matter how else it could be construed, would be the influence of western values through the injection of missionaries from the modern church. For all it's foibles the Church has a remarkable record for tenacity as well as spreading values which would address this.

Frankly I don't see Indian values changing anytime soon without an persistent interjection of external influence

There. So fuck off...


I also have not at any time posted any 'Jesus drivel' nor even identified my own religious philosophy

LOL.

So you want India to be infested with missionaries just because those values that missionaries bring is better than "Indian culture" but then you yourself do not subscribe to that philosophy.

Ya right...

It takes nearly no effort at all to determine that missionaries today from the developed world offer help without any conditions.

Oh the utter stupidity of this statement...my God...I have heard about such stupidity...only now I am reading it on my own..

Do not women decide not to have a child primarily because of monetary concerns...pursuing education...career etc etc all leads to that one pursuit right? more money, right?

Actually, and I'm sure this has been answered already, that is not the only reason by far. Reasons to have an abortion (usually in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, but not always):

- you are way too young, and wouldn't be able to properly care for a child (like, 12, 13, 14, 15...)
- you were raped and this child is a product of the rape
- you are mentally ill
- you are mentally retarded
- the fetus is discovered to be severely handicapped in some way or have a terrible genetic disease
- you did not plan the child and do not want a child for a variety of good personal reasons, including being abused yourself as a child or otherwise not believing you are capable of bonding with the child
- you live in extreme poverty and are not capable of supporting the child (for example, you are homeless)
- you live in famine conditions or wartime conditions
- you are with an abusive partner and don't want to have a child because that would tie you to your partner and provide a means for them to further manipulate and hurt you, preventing you from leaving
- you have a genetic disease that you do not want to pass on to a child
- you are a drug addict
- your family would condemn you for having a child for some reason, possibly resulting in ostracism/disowning/maiming/death
- you are physically handicapped and do not have the financial or social resources to help you with a child
- you have HIV/AIDs or some other terrible syndrome that results in your serious physical decline/death

...and I actually can't think of more but I feel confident that there ARE more. All the reasons that one wouldn't have a baby are also reasons to have an abortion if an accident should happen. Sure, birth control works up to a point, but not always.

Feminists are about gender equality? You mean like the Feminists who want to lower the ceilings over little boys toilet stalls so they have to piss sitting down (Lest the develop a sense of empowerment from being able to pee standing up?).

Or are we talking about the Feminists from new Hampshire who got together and sang songs about butchering male genitals?

Are we talking the same Feminists who specifically want women to have the right to view their male coworkers paychecks on the off chance they might be making more money?

Perhaps we're talking about the Feminists who, in their books, refer to all men as Rapists?

The Feminists who view men on the level of the Nazi Guardsmen?

The Feminists who justify false claims of rape by saying "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."?


Are THESE the Feminists that are for equality? If not, then where the fuck are they, because I'm not seeing them.

Those aren't feminists, they are man-haters. The point of true feminism is gender equality, and it always has been.

It really is a shame. Trolling is an artform, and it is sad to see someone attempt it so clumsily. Sad, because you shall not last long posting in this vein. Enjoy your brief stay here at NSG.

He's already on my ignore list.

Salem district, a mostly rural part of Tamil Nadu, has a longstanding reputation as a deathtrap for baby girls. The Vellala Gounder community, the dominant caste there, owns most of the land and is intent on retaining property rights within the family. Sons represent lineage; daughters marry and relocate to their husbands' homes. As a result, local women, like Lakshmi, who gave birth to a girl early last year, may refuse to nurse their newborns. They leave it to midwives or mothers-in-law to administer the oleander sap, say anti-infanticide activists.

Nearly 60 percent of girls born in Salem District are killed within three days of birth, according to the local social welfare department. That doesn't count the growing number of abortions there to ensure a girl baby won't be carried to term.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0209/p11s01-wosc.html

60 fucking percent. That's unbelievable.

Where do these people come up with these things.

I usually do not divulge my personal details...but this is surreal.

I am from Salem. I have a house there and that's where I lived (on and off) for close to 10 years and I am from the community mentioned. My parents still live there and so does a truckload of relatives.

I know more than 100 families of that community living there and in all my life, I have NEVER heard of any female infanticide from that community in that area.

There may be cases I would not know, I can concede that, but to say that 60%...that's ridiculous. That would mean that my mother who was born with 3 sisters would not exist and so would my own sister. :confused:

Actually, and I'm sure this has been answered already, that is not the only reason by far. Reasons to have an abortion (usually in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, but not always):

...and I actually can't think of more but I feel confident that there ARE more. All the reasons that one wouldn't have a baby are also reasons to have an abortion if an accident should happen. Sure, birth control works up to a point, but not always.

Percentage wise, how much does that stack up against "inconvenience" ?

In this case, I would, yes. We're not talking about a woman's right to choose, we're talking about a family (Usually IIRC the husband) choosing to abort; not because they don't want a baby, not because of massive defects, but because the baby in question is a girl. The problem I see is that many couples then proceed to try again, and again, and again, and again until they GET that boy.

Yeah, that'd be pretty close to murder in my book.

I agree that it is irresponsible to the point of sociopathy to continue trying to have a baby boy knowing that there is a 50% chance that it will not be one, in which case you will either abort it or kill it after birth.

So in your eyes then, when women are forced to abort due to sex of the child (I want to be clear here, this is the main kicker), it isn't AS BAD as just waiting for the child to pop out to kill it?

Yes, that is exactly how I feel.

Too much growth, not enough social adjustment.

Well said. :)

Where do these people come up with these things.


Answering my own question..

It's Christian Science Monitor.

The problem here is that the dowry system is the wrong way round.

Agreed, to an extent. Humans shouldn't be considered property because we have free will. It would be nice if people were free to choose...if daughters are more highly sought after, it may prompt baby boy-killing. That's not cool either.

Percentage wise, how much does that stack up against "inconvenience" ?

I don't know, but I'll tell you one thing: if somebody gets pregnant and aborts it because having a child would be mildly inconvenient for them, they shouldn't have been parents in the first place. There are many people that are simply incapable of really feeling empathy or thinking about anyone but themselves. If they had the baby, they would be the ones putting earplugs in when the baby cries at night, or locking the child in a closet while they go to the movies to save on babysitter bills.

Agreed, to an extent. Humans shouldn't be considered property because we have free will. It would be nice if people were free to choose...if daughters are more highly sought after, it may prompt baby boy-killing. That's not cool either.

if a girl is still not valued by the family then bride price becomes human trafficking. girls become valuable for the price the groom's family pays for her. the sooner they can sell her off, the better the investment was.

if a girl is still not valued by the family then bride price becomes human trafficking. girls become valuable for the price the groom's family pays for her. the sooner they can sell her off, the better the investment was.

Sure, that's simple economics. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. :)

No woman deserves to be killed, whether you think they are beautiful or not. :(

Oh I know! I didn't mean anything by that statement. D'oh! :headbang:

Oh I know! I didn't mean anything by that statement. D'oh! :headbang:

:) Don't worry, any offensiveness in that statement has been vastly overshadowed by extreme offensiveness on the part of others.

Sure, that's simple economics. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. :)

yeah.

girls have to be valuable for themselves. not a burden to be avoided or an asset to sell but a loved member of the family just as sons are. if they cant be that, they need enough education and training so that they can make their own lives if necessary.

I don't know, but I'll tell you one thing: if somebody gets pregnant and aborts it because having a child would be mildly inconvenient for them, they shouldn't have been parents in the first place. There are many people that are simply incapable of really feeling empathy or thinking about anyone but themselves. If they had the baby, they would be the ones putting earplugs in when the baby cries at night, or locking the child in a closet while they go to the movies to save on babysitter bills.

Oh I understand.

Just to clarify, I fully well know the stuff that goes on in India...much better than anybody else in this forum.

The misogynism, the discrimination against women...the infanticide in some parts of the country...and in some parts of my own state (if possible get this movie "Karuthamma" which is about female infanticide).

My protest is against the portrayal of "economic growth" leading to infanticide and the related smearing of the whole society/culture due to the behavior of certain segments.

I did not know that 60% of my own community killed their female children. That could only mean that all my cousin sisters are figments of my imagination.:confused:

yeah.

girls have to be valuable for themselves. not a burden to be avoided or an asset to sell but a loved member of the family just as sons are. if they cant be that, they need enough education and training so that they can make their own lives if necessary.

Well said!

Oh I understand.

Just to clarify, I fully well know the stuff that goes on in India...much better than anybody else in this forum.

The misogynism, the discrimination against women...the infanticide in some parts of the country...and in some parts of my own state (if possible get this movie "Karuthamma" which is about female infanticide).

My protest is against the portrayal of "economic growth" leading to infanticide and the related smearing of the whole society/culture due to the behavior of certain segments.

I did not know that 60% of my own community killed their female children. That could only mean that all my cousin sisters are figments of my imagination.:confused:

Hey, your cousin sisters are in the lucky 40%, which is a lot of people if you consider India's huge population.

Hey, your cousin sisters are in the lucky 40%, which is a lot of people if you consider India's huge population.

Not within my community.

The Kongu Vellalar community is majority in Erode, Salem and Coimbatore districts. I was born in Erode, studied mostly in Coimbatore and my parents are in Salem now. My Mom was born with 3 sisters and one brother. My dad was born with 2 sisters and 2 brothers. My extended family literally runs into several 100s.

I don't know whom to believe. Myself or "Christian Science Monitor".

Not that I am saying that there has NEVER been ANY case of female infanticide. But to say 60%. WOW.

Not within my community.

The Kongu Vellalar community is majority in Erode, Salem and Coimbatore districts. I was born in Erode, studied mostly in Coimbatore and my parents are in Salem now. My Mom was born with 3 sisters and one brother. My dad was born with 2 sisters and 2 brothers. My extended family literally runs into several 100s.

I don't know whom to believe. Myself or "Christian Science Monitor".

Not that I am saying that there has NEVER been ANY case of female infanticide. But to say 60%. WOW.

are you saying that you know everyone in your district, rich and poor?

i dont beliieve that the article suggested that infanticide is practiced in every family. if you look around and see families with more sons than daughters, how do you think that happened, luck?

in the US the incidence of abortion is very high yet i know no one in my family who has had one. does that mean that the statistics are wrong?

My protest is against the portrayal of "economic growth" leading to infanticide and the related smearing of the whole society/culture due to the behavior of certain segments.

:


I think it goes deeper to be honest. Many people including some in the media do not like success be it from India or the US or in Iraq and so on. They will seemingly go out of their ways to promote a half truth bad story. Now I know you do realize that most people can make the distinction that not all people in India practice this behavior as in any nation there are many different peoples and different ways of doing things. It is something that media has been doing for ever which is promoting personal agendas. This one in particular may be from someone that is against India's economic success. After all I believe it is a BBC article. I have no proof that this is what is going on other then observation over the years on how media spins stories.

in the US the incidence of abortion is very high yet i know no one in my family who has had one. does that mean that the statistics are wrong?

I bet you know some however they do not say anything to protect themselves from criticism. I know people that have but that was told to me in confidence and I wouldn't betray that secret about them. It is a very personal issue for most and I would say that 95% keep it a secret. They must since there are so many abortions in the US.

http://www.hindu.com/fr/2006/06/02/stories/2006060200180400.htm

Here is a link about the author of this article. He seems to be out of BBC Australia. Just wanted to add to the background info to the man that wrote the OP article.

I think it goes deeper to be honest. Many people including some in the media do not like success be it from India or the US or in Iraq and so on. They will seemingly go out of their ways to promote a half truth bad story. Now I know you do realize that most people can make the distinction that not all people in India practice this behavior as in any nation there are many different peoples and different ways of doing things. It is something that media has been doing for ever which is promoting personal agendas. This one in particular may be from someone that is against India's economic success. After all I believe it is a BBC article. I have no proof that this is what is going on other then observation over the years on how media spins stories.

I think it's much shallower - bad news sells best.

I am currently on page 4 of my Lowest Common Denominator theory of life thesis, which I hope to soon share with you all. It should answer every question ever posed on NSG.

Alas it's looking fairly boring, I think I'm going to add a sex scene to spice it up.

I think it's much shallower - bad news sells best.

I am currently on page 4 of my Lowest Common Denominator theory of life thesis, which I hope to soon share with you all. It should answer every question ever posed on NSG.

Alas it's looking fairly boring, I think I'm going to add a sex scene to spice it up.


The author seems to have a history of writing stories as this one. Maybe it is just shallow as you say.

The author seems to have a history of writing stories as this one. Maybe it is just shallow as you say.

Typically a journalist has to write quite a few pieces a day, these are submitted to editorial, which then chooses which will be published, if any.

Editorial is looking at a piece in a different way to the journalist and can chop, change and butcher an article to suit their needs.

That need can even be so trite as filling a space correctly.

I'm not saying that journalists are angels but often what's actually published, and the spin put on the story, is beyond their control

I'm not saying that journalists are angels but often what's actually published, and the spin put on the story, is beyond their control

I know what you are saying there. I have a cousin that writes for the sports section of our big paper in my city. He mentions that even his stories sometimes get edited for various reason. So I would imagine regular news gets a work out before it gets to final print.

Not within my community.

The Kongu Vellalar community is majority in Erode, Salem and Coimbatore districts. I was born in Erode, studied mostly in Coimbatore and my parents are in Salem now. My Mom was born with 3 sisters and one brother. My dad was born with 2 sisters and 2 brothers. My extended family literally runs into several 100s.

I don't know whom to believe. Myself or "Christian Science Monitor".

Not that I am saying that there has NEVER been ANY case of female infanticide. But to say 60%. WOW.

I hope you're right! I certainly wouldn't know one way or the other.

Oh really?



There. So fuck off...



LOL.

So you want India to be infested with missionaries just because those values that missionaries bring is better than "Indian culture" but then you yourself do not subscribe to that philosophy.

Ya right...



Oh the utter stupidity of this statement...my God...I have heard about such stupidity...only now I am reading it on my own..


your examples prove nothing except that you are both bitter and desperate. Seek help now. Really.

your examples prove nothing except that you are both bitter and desperate. Seek help now. Really.

I would...but unfortunately there is no missionary nearby.:rolleyes: