RE: Eradicating women. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Alumbrado -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:43:56 AM)

quote:

Peter Gabriel?


Yeps




meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:51:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy

I mean, free press, free speech, and growing up with your clit are all western ideals. That doesn't mean supporting people in another place who are already fighting internally for those rights is an act of Imperialism.



I'm not against supporting people because that suggests people want support, I'm against imposing ones views on people.

Freedom of choice is like freedom of speach, it means one has to tolerate people who say and do things we don't necessarily agree with, maybe even abhor but that is the price to be paid for those values.




kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:51:15 AM)

I shouldn't have started on the bitch Theresa; now I can't stop.

quote:



It is paradoxical that a woman of almost medieval opinions should have been so revered by the world of secular modernism as well as by the community of the devout. Perhaps it's because that people in the West, afflicted by bad conscience about the misery of what we call the "Third World," are happy to delegate the task of relief to somebody else. And, having made this vicarious decision, they do not wish to inquire too closely into the actions and motives of the "somebody else" they have chosen. Thus Mother Teresa could say -- as she did more than once -- that there can no more be too many babies than there can be too many flowers or stars. Those who believe in the need for some sort of limitation on population must not have heard those words too well.

C. Hitchens - 1997



I view all missionaries as mercenaries until they've proven they're working for the good of people and not for their own delusional belief that they're saving their own eternal soul!

Her facilities were rundown because she believed the poor were dying for their own good. She saw no reason in providing adequate pain-relief in her 'homes for the dying' because she believed pain was the path to salvation (many of us around here would agree, albeit for totally different reasons). She wasn't short of money: far from it. Her charity was very well-provided for. Read below what happens with the money people so happily give away to catholic charities:

quote:



The nun adored by the Vatican ran a network of care homes where cruelty and neglect are routine. Donal MacIntyre gained secret access and witnessed at first hand the suffering of "rescued" orphans.

The dormitory held about 30 beds rammed in so close that there was hardly a breath of air between the bare metal frames. Apart from shrines and salutations to "Our Great Mother", the white walls were bare. The torch swept across the faces of children sleeping, screaming, laughing and sobbing, finally resting on the hunched figure of a boy in a white vest. Distressed, he rocked back and forth, his ankle tethered to his cot like a goat in a farmyard. This was the Daya Dan orphanage for children aged six months to 12 years, one of Mother Teresa's flagship homes in Kolkata. It was 7.30 in the evening, and outside the monsoon rains fell unremittingly.

Earlier in the day, young international volunteers had giggled as one told how a young boy had peed on her while strapped to a bed. I had already been told of an older disturbed woman tied to a tree at another Missionaries of Charity home. At the orphanage, few of the volunteers batted an eyelid at disabled children being tied up. They were too intoxicated with the myth of Mother Teresa and drunk on their own philanthropy to see that such treatment of children was inhumane and degrading.
Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity in 1950 in Kolkata, answering her own calling to "serve the poorest of the poor". In 1969, a documentary about her work with the poor catapulted her to global celebrity. International awards fol-lowed, including the Nobel Peace Prize and a Congressional Gold Medal. But when, in her Nobel acceptance speech, she described abortion as "the greatest destroyer of peace today" she started to provoke controversy. She died on 5 September 1997, her name attached to some 60 centres worldwide, and India honoured her with a state funeral. Her seven homes for the poor and destitute of Kolkata, however, are her lasting monument.

I worked undercover for a week in Mother Teresa's flagship home for disabled boys and girls to record Mother Teresa's Legacy, a special report for Five News broadcast earlier this month. I winced at the rough handling by some of the full-time staff and Missionary sisters. I saw children with their mouths gagged open to be given medicine, their hands flaying in distress, visible testimony to the pain they were in. Tiny babies were bound with cloths at feeding time. Rough hands wrenched heads into position for feeding. Some of the children retched and coughed as rushed staff crammed food into their mouths. Boys and girls were abandoned on open toilets for up to 20 minutes at a time. Slumped, untended, some dribbling, some sleeping, they were a pathetic sight. Their treatment was an affront to their dignity, and dangerously unhygienic.

Volunteers (from Italy, Sweden, the United States and the UK) did their best to cradle and wash the children who had soiled themselves. But there were no nappies, and only cold water. Soap and disinfectant were in short supply. Workers washed down beds with dirty water and dirty cloths. Food was prepared on the floor in the corridor. A senior member of staff mixed medicine with her hands. Some did their best to give love and affection - at least some of the time. But, for the most part, the care the children received was inept, unprofessional and, in some cases, rough and dangerous. "They seem to be warehousing people rather than caring for them," commented the former operations director of Mencap Martin Gallagher, after viewing our undercover footage.

I first learned of the plight of the Kolkata children from two international aid workers, both qualified nurses and committed Catholics. They came to me after working as volunteers for the Missionaries of Charity last Christmas. Both made the comparison with images that emerged from Romanian orphanages in the early 1990s after television news teams first gained access.

"I was shocked. I could only work there [Daya Dan] for three days. It was simply too distressing. . . We had seen the same things in Romania but couldn't believe it was happening in a Mother Teresa home," one told me. In January, she and her colleague had written to Sister Nirmala, the new Mother Superior, to voice their concerns. They wrote, they told me, out of "compassion and not complaint", but received no response. Like me, they had been brought up in Catholic schools to believe that Mother Teresa was the holiest of all women, second only to the Virgin Mary. Our faith was unwavering, as was that of the international media for about 50 years. Even when the sister in charge of the Missionaries of Charity's Mahatma Gandhi Welfare Centre in Kolkata was prosecuted and found guilty of burning a young girl of seven with a hot knife in 2000, criticism remained muted.

The most significant challenge to the reputation of Mother Teresa came from Christopher Hitchens in 1995 in his book The Missionary Position. "Only the absence of scrutiny has allowed her to pass unchallenged as a force for pure goodness, and it is high time that this suspension of our critical faculties was itself suspended," he wrote, questioning whether the poor in her homes were denied basic treatment in the belief that suffering brought them closer to God. Hitchens's lonely voice also raised the issue of the order's finances, which in 1995 (and still in July 2005 when we were filming) seemed never to reach Kolkata's poorest.

Susan Shields, formerly a senior nun with the order, recalled that one year there was roughly $50m in the bank account held by the New York office alone. Much of the money, she complained, sat in banks while workers in the homes were obliged to reuse blunt needles. The order has stopped reusing needles, but the poor care remains pervasive. One nurse told me of a case earlier this year where staff knew a patient had typhoid but made no effort to protect volunteers or other patients. "The sense was that God will provide and if the worst happens - it is God's will."
The Kolkata police force and the city's social welfare department have promised to investigate the incidents in the Daya Dan home when they have seen and verified the distressing footage we secretly filmed. Dr Aroup Chatterjee, a London-based Kolkata-born doctor, believes that if Daya Dan were any other care home in India, "the authorities would close it down. The Indian government is in thrall to the legacy of Mother Teresa and is terrified of her reputation and status. There are many better homes than this in Kolkata," he told us.

Nearly eight years after her death, Mother Teresa is fast on the way to sainthood. The great aura of myth that surrounds her is built on her great deeds helping the poor and the destitute of Kolkata, birthplace of her order, the Missionaries of Charity. Rarely has one individual so convinced public opinion of the holiness of her cause. Her reward is accelerated canonisation.
But her homes are a disgrace to so-called Christian care and, indeed, civilised values of any kind. I witnessed barbaric treatment of the most vulnerable.

The Missionaries of Charity have said that they welcome constructive criticism, and that the children we saw were tied for their own safety and for "educational purposes". Sister Nirmala even welcomed our film: "Our hopes continue to be simply to provide immediate and effective service to the poorest of the poor as long as they have no one to help them . . . May God bless you and your efforts to promote the dignity of human life, especially for those who are underprivileged."
For too long Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity have been blessing critics, rather than addressing justified and damning condemnations of the serious failings in their care practices.

Donald McIntyre - The New Statesman - 2005



As for where are her millions? Check this out:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/




Real0ne -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 10:17:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%.

About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control.
   This includes about 25% for primarily economic reasons.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Its comforting to know we are so much more civilized in the US.

What makes our reasons any better or worse than theirs?


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
My point was not so much about abortion but about western hypocrisy. Criticizing the values of another culture while not wishing to look in the mirror and realize that it is no better itself.



quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I am well aware of the West/East dichotomy, meatcleaver. I am not attempting to criticise a different culture or a different way of life. But the fact that in Indian society, girls are more expensive than boys raises my feminist sensitivies. I am arguing that there is a genocidal situation in India today because of the practice of eliminating baby girls. They estimate over a million girls are missing, all things considered.

And I'm fully aware that the mix of the abortion issue, post-imperialism and feminism is a toxic one.



Kitten;  this is what is defined as double-think to be kind, hypocrisy to be more direct. 

Point is America eradicates both sexes.

The fact remains you are critisising another culture for what all boils down to abortion. 

You are just pissed off that they only abort more women then boys. 

Since you draw a distinction between american abortions and india abortions I can conclude that the correct solution is for india to insure they practice equal opportunity abortion that would pacify your feminist sensitivies even if it resulted in the total number of aborted girls being 100 times higher? 








kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 10:22:15 AM)

Complete and utter bollocks. I have said repeatedly that the issue isn't abortion, and that in this case abortion is merely instrumental in propagating a tradition of misogyny and patriarchy. I have also made it quite clear that I am far too aware of the difficulties inherent in reconciling abortion rights and what's happening in India.

Capice?




SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 10:26:17 AM)

Well, maybe she could have given them more pain meds - where is the actual proof she did not? Or that she did? Not "hints" - not"suggestions" Proof. Real, actual proof. There isnt any. He went through that entire interview very cleverly managing to suggest a whole lot - without any proof. He said he was "curious about why..." about a hundred times. That's pretty slick.

*I am disturbed by what the post you just posted above said about the treatment of children at her homes. I did find that to be a little disturbing. Also that the money remained un-used - IF that is true, it is disturbing, yes. But - this is one side of the story (and there re usually two, or more). It might pay to remember that, too. 

Even if there were problems with her organization - I remain unconvinced her life was a waste - simply because some atheist interviewer, who is obviously intent on making money for himself, with his own anti-religious agenda, focussing on villifying a woman yet (when it could have at least been the Pope, who IMO might deserve an investigation of this kind much more, if we refer to finances) selling his own books on her supposed "motives"- wants to suggest it was.  No matter what the result was - I find it hard to doubt her intent.

I don't care if she wants to save her own soul - that is what most people are supposed to be doing (in some form) - make spiritual progress - call it what you will. It's not relevant to me if they want to do that, if they are otherwise doing some good.I hardly think that negates her entire life's work. I don't think anyone who spends their entire life doing that kind of work  deserves to be villified for it. I certainly haven't spent much of my life doing that kind of work, for example.

I am somewhat distrubed by what  read in your report above re: How the children's homes were run- but -since it really actually contains only reports from about 4 people who were on the scene, and in her organization, and since it is completely obvious this interviewer's intent is to villify her and also cash in on a sensationalisitic book (wonder how much of his profits will go toward child welfare in India instead of his own pocket?)- I will reserve anny final judgment judgment. Because I plan to research this a bit more - I find it that disturbing, as I was raised a Catholic. And possibly it is mostly sensationalized - (or one side of a story only). Maybe not. I plan to try to find out, though. 

- Susan 




Politesub53 -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 10:30:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf


Providing links to give more information is great, but to "open eyes" is fucked up. Just because someone can look at a situation, and come to a different conclusion, does not mean their eyes are closed. To insinuate such, is just insulting, and narrow minded.


Quotes myself.

"apologies for posting the link. I do to open peoples eyes as to what`s going on"

Yes i did use the term " open eyes "  Although not in the context you are suggesting. I was pointing people as to how the babies are killed. I dont see that as insulting anyone, as i doubt many here, if any,  knew of the details before reading the link.




Grlwithboy -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 10:32:07 AM)

I think someone who is willing to criticize something everyone's decided is beyond reproach regardless of their level of familiarity is worth listening to. Theresa gave poor people in Kolkata the right to expire on her concrete more or less. I'm much more interested in things like the prostitute's union, actually preventing AIDS there. The only media images the west is really familiar with when you bring up Kolkata is that of the dying, suffering, and beyhond hope, provided by the Vatican and its reach. There is so much more happening there.





SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 10:45:24 AM)

Well  am, too actually, Sorry to digress. I got sort of wound up about that because I was raised a Catholic (I found it a little shocking). Actually what she said kind of resonates with another idea I read in a spiritually related book that people's lives are pre-destined (by themselves, as a matter of fact, or at least their own spirits) before they are born - so it didn't seem that weird to me (and it doesn't have to negate any concept of free will, either). Nobody knows for certain why we're here anyway, IMO.
But  will get back on the actual topic at hand. Sorry for the digression.

- Susan




kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 10:59:49 AM)

The catholic church does have an ambiguous record, to say the least. It's certainly not the kindest organisation in history, and unkind people have been behind its wheels for centuries. That's why I wouldn't donate money to it if my life depended on it.







Real0ne -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:02:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Complete and utter bollocks. I have said repeatedly that the issue isn't abortion, and that in this case abortion is merely instrumental in propagating a tradition of misogyny and patriarchy. I have also made it quite clear that I am far too aware of the difficulties inherent in reconciling abortion rights and what's happening in India.

Capice?


From your site:
quote:

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.


I fully understand your position and am pointing out that your concern is strictly limited to what you see through the narrow color of your feminist filters rather than addressing the instrument in itself.

Its no different than stating "india's moral bankruptcy is worse than ours is"

That and it appears to me that from your article that misogony and patriachism has nothing to do with the the reality of "why" little girls being killed in india.

So where do you get misogony and patriarchism out of that article?

I get purely economics out of it.


A buddy of mine had a caprice with a 327, pretty nice ride.









Satyr6406 -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:04:48 AM)

Catholicism is faaaaaaaar from the only "religion" to treat ladies like second class citizens. The same is true, obviously, of Hinduism.
 
What's offensive, here is that taking a human life is being used as a means of eugenics. I don't care what little "name" you want to put on it. That's what it is.
 
I have always believed that, before I take a position on something I'm not entirely sure of, I need to see who that I respect comes down on which side of the issue.
 
When I look back at all the "wonderful examples of the flowers of humanity" that have practiced eugenics in this sort of way, I reserve the right to "call bullshit".
 
That's what this is.
 
 
 
 
 
Peace and comfort,
 
 
 
 
 
Michael




SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:05:30 AM)

kittensol: Well okay, I agree, in part (I've heard most of this before, trust me). This isn't my first time around the "Catholic church horrors" block. The Inquisition. Lack of birth control. Bear children you cannot possibly afford to raise. If you read my profile, I have Catholicism under my "Tolerates" list. If anybody knows, it's me. I was raised in that religion from birth. Lots of the beliefs I find insane. But - there are parts of that religion I can still find comforting, and it's not altogether completely (to me) useless.

- Susan




LotusSong -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:05:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm hoping that the population will decrease later to some comfortable level.


In that case, neuter the males.. don't kill the females.
 
Actually, if the law of supply and demand holds true, the men who wish to marry will come up with a MALE dowry to give the parents of the female.  And if they fail to meet the female's parents demands.. THEY can have the acid thrown in THEIR faces or be burned to death.




Real0ne -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:07:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

kittensol: Well okay, I agree, in part (I've heard most of this before, trust me). This isn't my first time around the "Catholic church horrors" block. The Inquisition. Lack of birth control. Bear children you cannot possibkly afford to raise. If you read my profile I have Catholicism under my "Tolerates" list. If anybody knows, it's me. But there are parts of that religion I can still find comforting.

- Susan


well thats one way to rule the world, have catholics out populate everyone else LOL




LotusSong -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:17:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

That is just hog-wash - chalking all of this up to cultural intolerance by "westerners" meatcleaver. Look pal, many people living in these countries hate these practices. And most of them are probably female, although I am sure there are men who object as well. Did you simply forget about that - or is this just one time you forgot that females are people, too?

- Susan
 
I wonder if his attitude would change if HE were a female?




SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:18:04 AM)

RealOne: Well the topic is cultural treament that eradictes females. I think I got a little off-track. I am going to take a shoprt break, but I shall return. I appreciate the topic was introduced - it is a very worthy one.

- Susan




InnocentYoungSub -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:24:07 AM)

This truly disgusts me, first of all as a human being. But secondly as a Hindu. In many sects of the Dharma women are supposed to hold an exalted position. This just goes to show that the mistreatment of the female sex is perhaps based less on religious beliefs than we think, perhaps it is more to do with animal instincts. You know, going back to our cavemen days when women were just wacked on the head and drug back to the cave.

I am pro-choice but what bothers me here is people choosing to abort because of the baby's gender rather than a lack of desire for having children, period.




SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:34:24 AM)

I agree. And  appreciate the comments (and getting the convo, or at least my own train of thought, back on the thread -topic track). Ditto for Lotus' remarks.

I have some work to do - but I shall return later.

- Susan 




Real0ne -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 11:44:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

That is just hog-wash - chalking all of this up to cultural intolerance by "westerners" meatcleaver. Look pal, many people living in these countries hate these practices. And most of them are probably female, although I am sure there are men who object as well. Did you simply forget about that - or is this just one time you forgot that females are people, too?

- Susan
 
I wonder if his attitude would change if HE were a female?


Its not that simple imo




Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02