RE: Eradicating women. (Full Version)

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



Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 2:01:04 AM)

Be honest Susan. America has landed men on the moon but how many Americans still believe in the literal word of the bible and hence believe in Eve's original sin? Surely that is misogyny writ large?

Personally I tell my daughters, my eldest one at least, who understands me, that religion is a brain virus and cultivates irrationailty in ones approach to life and best to be avoided. It hasn't stopped her wonder in life or stunted her interest in the mysteries of the universe but hopefully it has prevented her from succumbing to dopey beliefs, of which I agree, male preference is one of them.



SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 2:17:03 AM)

meatcleaver: I agree. I know there are analogies between Inidia's interpretation of Hinduism to the fundamentaslist Christian view here in the U.S. (and to Mormonism, and other religions as well, including, depending on your POV, Catholicism - although I question if they are to the same severe and physically brutal degree as they relate to the treatment of females, even on an historical basis). But I agree with your basic statement.

I still believe, though, that there are many valuable things that some people do find comfort in, as far as religion, that can be viewed as positive. I think it can obviously be a corrupting influence as well, for some people. History certainly bears this out.

I really, really don't want to get into a discussion of the validity (or not) of the concept of Atheism (if that is where this remark could lead to - just heading it off, if it could). I have been around that block numerous times. Please do not take that comment personally, it's just a quirk of mine (I even have that listed in my profile on my interest list)

But - *I definitely do believe the interpretation of religion (due to Patriarchy, and possibly unconscious misogyny) has obviously influenced and corrupted the treatment of females in India, and I don't see it as a great thing, needless to say.  

- Susan



meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 2:52:31 AM)

I agree, an atheist v religious argument would be flogging a dead horse. But whatever our beliefs, without constant reassessment they become ingrained and unable to be shifted through rational argument and that is my point. You can't change someone's attitude by merely pointing out that they are wrong and you are right, expecially if their beliefs and traditions have appeared to work for generations. People are more likely to change by experiencing the adverse effects of their beliefs or by being lifted out of poverty and educated. Even then traditional beliefs are difficult to shift. I became an atheist through experience and thinking about my place in the universe but I can't stop christianity following me around like a persistant beggar because that is what I was born into and society brainwashed me with and my parents weren't particularly religious. It must be considerably more difficult to throw off traditions and superstitious beliefs if one has been brought up in a culture were such beliefs make up the fabric of everyday life.



SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 2:56:08 AM)

meatcleaver: Well I certainly agree with you about education and experience being a great teacher. I do think the government in India is aware of the problem it has caused for itself - now it has a problem of how to deal with a phenomenon that has become ingrained via centuries of belief (I know you think so, too). It will be interesting to see how this all develops. In the mean-time, I am donating to Amensty International, and looking into how else I can help.

I believe Witness.org, and doctorswithoutborders.org were cited as great sites where donations can be made to aid in this cause, of trying to end the practice of "Eradicating females" in various international cultures, as well.

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:05:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Nothing wrong with patriarchy, or any other type of archy.



To me, everything's wrong with patriarchy. You think it's cool because you're a man.

Imagine the reverse scenario. Imagine India is a country with a strong feminine (note: I am NOT using the word 'matriarchal' because it doesn't apply here) culture that values girls above boys. Imagine it's expensive for a family to 'marry off' a boy. Imagine then that families, unable as they are to decide upon conception on the gender of their offspring, kill off little boys at birth. And abort 10 millions of them in as many years.

You'd think it was just balmy then, would you? Come on Orion: I have a pretty good idea what your beliefs are when it comes to gender. But that you support the eradication of an entire generation of females simply because of their sex surprises me nonetheless.



Sinergy -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:32:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Nothing wrong with patriarchy, or any other type of archy.



To me, everything's wrong with patriarchy. You think it's cool because you're a man.



The name of the Second Wave Feminist who wrote a line which sticks with me to this day.  The statement
went something like this:

"When a child is born, the doctor looks between it's legs and determines which world to bring it in to."

Such truth in that statement.

The problem I personally have with any type of  "archy" is that logically it violates the circumstantial fallacy.  It
prejudges an individual and assigns characteristics to that individual based on circumstances they have no control over.

kittinSol is correct, the only reason you do not have a problem with patriarchy, OrionTheWolf, is because the
deck is stacked in your favor.

Sinergy



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:41:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

"When a child is born, the doctor looks between it's legs and determines which world to bring it in to."

Such truth in that statement.

The problem I personally have with any type of  "archy" is that logically it violates the circumstantial fallacy.  It
prejudges an individual and assigns characteristics to that individual based on circumstances they have no control over.

kittinSol is correct, the only reason you do not have a problem with patriarchy, OrionTheWolf, is because the
deck is stacked in your favor.

Sinergy



"On ne naît pas femme, on le devient" (Simone de Beauvoir).



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:44:47 AM)

quote:



I don't see how you can be a feminist and not think about men. One of the gross misconceptions about feminism is that it's only about women. But in order for women to live freely, men have to live freely, too. Feminism has shown us that what we think of as feminine is actually defined by cultural messages and political agendas. The same holds true for men and for what constitutes masculinity. Being a feminist opens your eyes to the ways men, like women, are imprisoned in cultural stereotypes.

(Susan Faludi)




meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:47:56 AM)

'Achetez un pénis, devenez un homme.'  
Sid le Serpent



meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:50:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:



I don't see how you can be a feminist and not think about men. One of the gross misconceptions about feminism is that it's only about women. But in order for women to live freely, men have to live freely, too. Feminism has shown us that what we think of as feminine is actually defined by cultural messages and political agendas. The same holds true for men and for what constitutes masculinity. Being a feminist opens your eyes to the ways men, like women, are imprisoned in cultural stereotypes.

(Susan Faludi)




Wasn't Foucault who said that the prison guard is as much a prisoner as the prisoner? Or something like that.



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:51:10 AM)

Une Ferrari = une grosse bite.



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:52:11 AM)

Foucault or Bettleheim. Or possibly both. We'll have to check, once the fun and frolics are over :-)

PS: just checked, you are correct, it is Foucault: Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison.



meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 6:57:53 AM)

Mon grosse bite est une bicyclette.



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 7:01:18 AM)

Une biticlette?! [:-]



cloudboy -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 8:21:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Mother Theresa, that insane catholic fanatic fraud! She oeuvred against women's rights all of her life. And she was beatified! People still look up to the old crone.


This is a rather fringe, if not deranged view.

I looked her up in the wikipedia, and although some were critical of her for "only keeping people alive" or for seeing value in suffering, she won the Nobel Peace Prize, which requires quite a bit of vetting to receive.



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 8:47:42 AM)

I think she was horrible, and that the concensus about her needs to be broken. *Shrug*: it doesn't really matter though: she's dead!

But her legacy remains: did you read the links I included? The testimonies? The missing millions?



Real0ne -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 8:48:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

[Well the problem is "dowry" and inheritance related and has little to do with misogony or patriarchism.  I am surprised no one has berought that up?


RealOne: It's been brought up, several times (but you'd need to read this entire thread to know that, and it is a long thread).

I appreciated  all of your well-researched information on the Indian dowry system but I have to say -

I feel that dowry system is merely disguised to look "practical". I have to ask  - if this culture considered females able to earn money and operate thier own lives and care for themselves in the absence of a man - this dowry system would have ever been considered necessary to begin with?

Answer is, it most likely wouldn't have been. Unless I am mistaken, there is nothing in the Hindu religion that specifies the need for a female to have to have dowry (if I am mistaken, I hope someone corrects me). This is the work of a culture with a need to make the existence of females seem like a burden - and I am sorry, I do consider it completely patriarchal, and pretty misogynistic. 

In any case, it's destroying plenty of lives, including men's lives (fathers and other family members of of these females who may well spedn their entire lives paying off a dowry for a daughter). It's something I consider next to criminal, as it is basically fincancial extortion. I realize it is part of their culture, but it's hard to deny it is seriously harming families.

Many, many people in India think so as well - and yet is is still practiced as it has been, for centuries, although it is currently outlawed - it's still very prevalent, although its use is dwindling. 

- Susan



I dont think people today really realize how hard things were back when these traditions were conceived.  I have always felt it is easy to look backwards and compare their life to ours of push button and hop on a plane convenience but it simply was not the case back them.  Many of these traditions date way back to bone knives and bear skins and have followed through to today.

The point of course is that the women right along with the men over there have accepted it.   Granted some day they may wake up- one morning and say hey we dont want to do this any more and abolish it.

Under the circumstances in light of how hard things were when these traditions were establisheds I cannot hand misogony or patriarchism on them.   By my way of thinking there was nothing malicious going on there.

I could not argue if you accused them of not updating their culture but that gets pretty difficult if the supposedly oppressed hang onto the custom right along with the supposedly oppressors.








Real0ne -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 8:56:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Nothing wrong with patriarchy, or any other type of archy.



To me, everything's wrong with patriarchy. You think it's cool because you're a man.

Imagine the reverse scenario. Imagine India is a country with a strong feminine (note: I am NOT using the word 'matriarchal' because it doesn't apply here) culture that values girls above boys. Imagine it's expensive for a family to 'marry off' a boy. Imagine then that families, unable as they are to decide upon conception on the gender of their offspring, kill off little boys at birth. And abort 10 millions of them in as many years.

You'd think it was just balmy then, would you? Come on Orion: I have a pretty good idea what your beliefs are when it comes to gender. But that you support the eradication of an entire generation of females simply because of their sex surprises me nonetheless.




This is not intended to speak for orion but as regards my comments to thes thread they would not have changed.

we are quick to point out the ills of another society or the splinter in their eye while overlooking the log in our own.



cloudboy -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 1:40:27 PM)


I don't really admire Christopher Hitchens that much, although he did write a good book on Kissenger.

Until the fringe criticism develops some traction in the main stream, I won't give it much credence. Plus, her actual accomplishments are all well documented and amount to a very impressive record.

You're dangling of the word "fraud" seems like unsupported hyperbole to me.



SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/22/2007 1:42:00 PM)

RealOne: I agree there was a time in this world, when life was harder - most probably for everyone. I see your point, but I still think it is a rather simplistic POV.

If something is the law, and those laws were (and are)-  then of course people seem to accept_______ whatever - because to not accept it is to become a criminal in the eyes of the law - and face consequent punishment.  

In any case, what I don't understand, is why preventing females from doing things like:

1) Working outside the home to bring in money toward a family's support, or

2) Supporting the idea that intentionally females kill thmeselves, just because their husband died, is "understandable" for this reason, Or, likewise that it is "understandable" for that reason, that they be 

3) Traded like some goat or cow, to a man's family (using a dowry as payment) just to marry her and support her economically 

- would have been considered "necessary" in order to make like easier? How did these practices make life "less hard" in India? Can you really asnwer that question?

Maybe more to the point, who did these practices make life "less hard" for? Because it just doesn't sound to me like it was the females.

If you can elaborate, perhaps I can understand better.

- Susan



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125