RE: Eradicating women.

RE: Eradicating women. (Full Version)

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

Message

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:03:22 AM)
meatcleaver: You need to read up on your history and anthropology, pal. Maybe the U.S. has taken a wrong turn with legalizing abortion. I can understand why you brought it up. I know I am not capable of resolving that question for everyone. But I still think it's pretty hard to deny there are places in the world where children (especially girls) are just plain not valued by their society, in some very other fundamental ways. - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:09:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Why did this practice start? I don't know, usually there are usually very practical reasons for these sort of practices that one culture finds strange about another. A good place to start learning about why the practice started can be found in Jared Diamond's book "Why Is Sex Fun?" which discusses the forces which impact being female. I believe it was dealt with some in Marx's "The Origin of Family, Private property, and the State" (IIRC) which discusses how women became property along with how other property is considered in the history of mankind. Can probably google other books. Has been 20 years since I studied it extensively, and I will cite more sources as they come to mind. Sinergy Not good enough. With culturally specific values and practices there are usually practical and economic reasons that are beneficial to the collective. Such as infanticide in certain tribal cultures. Why some women can become men in Albanian culture or why men can become women in far eastern cultures. Why a woman can have two or more husbands in certain parts of Tibet. Strange and weird practices to westerners but nothing to do with one gender dominating the other but specific local economic reasons that make sense when studied or at least made sense when the practices begun.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:10:17 AM)
i am a prolife person i beleve every life is important and has a purpose.. for those that want to change that to take a life a newborn has negitive out come in one way or another.

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:11:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO meatcleaver: You need to read up on your history and anthropology, pal. Maybe the U.S, has taken a wrong turn with legalizing abortion. I know I am not capable of resolving that question for everyone. But I still think it's pretty hardf to deny there are places int he world where children (especially girls) are just plain not valued by their society, in some very other fundamental ways. - Susan No I don't You can't explain why having an abortion on a whim is fine for westerners but not fine in another culture.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:12:58 AM)
Because some people consider it a form of birth control and because it was legalized over 30 years ago. I am not debating this. It gets nowhere. I already said that. Others might debate it with you, though. - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:14:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Because some poepl consider it a form of birth control and because it was legalaized over 35 years ago. I am not debating this. It gets nowhere. I already said that. Others might debate it with you, though. - Susan There is no debate to be had. This is not about abortion but cultural superiority.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:20:18 AM)
meatcleaver: Well, I am pretty sure someone who is starving in a foreign country wouldn't necessarily care if I considered myself to be "culturally superior" or not - as long a I donated $5 to help them find food for dinner tonight. Or help them buy contraceptive devices for their village, so they wouldn't have as many mouths to feed. Or bought them AIDs or Malaria medicine. Apparently then, you must not believe in charity, either. Since we're all on "the same" footing to begin with. I would not try to get anyone to change their religion, either, before I'd give them the $5. And so maybe it is a good thing I am "culturally superior"? I dunno. - Susan

MizzElle -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:28:11 AM)
The whole practice of "sex selection" is shameful, and that's all I have to say on the subject.

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:29:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Well, I am pretty sure someone who is starvin g ina foreighn country wouldn;t necessarily care if I considered myself to be "culturally superior" or not - as long a I donated $5 to help them find food for dinner tonight. or help them buy contraceptive devices for their village do they wouldn't have as many mouths to feed. Or bought them AIDs or Malraia medicine. A[pA[pprently then, you must not believ in charity, either. - Susan I don't believe in charity, charity is an elastoplast not a solution. Like many people I've given it to ease my conscience knowing full well it probably won't get to were it is supposed to go. International aid exists because we in the west exploit poor countries and deny them the right to fair trade and make them buy our products with the money we give them. That is western charity. Political problems need political solutions. The chances are the money you give to charity is paying for some white graduate to feel superior in their care for the poor while they drive round in a Toyota cruiser in exotic places.

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:30:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MizzElle The whole practice of "sex selection" is shameful, and that's all I have to say on the subject. Glad you brought this up. This is now happening in the west.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:30:59 AM)
meatcleaver: Yeah? Tell that to a starving person, and see how much that matters to them. - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:33:27 AM)
Chances are the starving person will starve and the white graduate will go home to a good bank balance. That is not how it should be but most of the time is because we won't give poor countries the ability to trade. Such are western values. We just talk good to ease our coinsciences.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:34:45 AM)
meatcleaver: Thus the reason for ideas like charity to begin with. I rest my case. - Susan

Sinergy -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:35:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Not good enough. Fair enough. I am not debating abortion. I am discussing the practice of marginalizing women which tends to be (not 100%) cross-cultural. I am not speaking in infinitives, examples to the contrary do occur, however, the societies we are discussing (China and India) have had the anthropology of their gender relations studied extensively for years. Additionally, these two sets of cultures are reaping the harvest they sowed in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically China. The culture of China, going back into antiquity, states that the male child supports the birth family. When the Communist party attempted to bring their population explosion under control by taxing heavily any child after the first, people often resorted to abandoning female babies in orphanages, on mountains and forests, drowning them at birth, abortions, etc., in order to ensure that the one child they could have was male. The dowry practice in India had a similar effect on a population constrained by 90+% unemployment. A family cannot afford to pay the dowry, and since they have access to abortion, the singular family tends to choose to have a male child. In neither of these cases is abortion anything but a tool used to address a societal problem. Outlawing abortion will simply result in people using other means to obtain the same outcome. quote: With culturally specific values and practices there are usually practical and economic reasons that are beneficial to the collective. Such as infanticide in certain tribal cultures. Why some women can become men in Albanian culture or why men can become women in far eastern cultures. Why a woman can have two or more husbands in certain parts of Tibet. Strange and weird practices to westerners but nothing to do with one gender dominating the other but specific local economic reasons that make sense when studied or at least made sense when the practices begun. Coming up with examples from other cultures is interesting, it does not, however relate much to modern India and China, their use of female infanticide in their culture, and the resultant excess of male adults / shortage of females. On a related note, Australia is experiencing the problem in reverse. Too many unmarried and unattached women. This is the result of a lowering of births, and a rapidly expanding population of homosexual males. Sinergy edited for quote issues

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:40:40 AM)
Thank you, Sinergy![:)] - Susan

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:46:05 AM)
sex manipulation is a scary thing. one i fear could lead us down a road of self destruction. there is still a lot we do not know about genes how they wire us. It is like working on a very intensive program it can crash if you do not know what your doing

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 12:13:51 PM)
To me, sex selection is kinda scary, and yet is still a scientific advancement, and nobody is legalizing boys being born at the expense of girls in the U.S. If someone would rather have a girl baby than a boy (or vice-versa) and they are paying for the medical procedure to allow that, I haven't got a problem with it, as long as the government isn't mandating no girls (or boys, for that matter). Cloning (at least human cloning) is a scary thing (to me), too. Although, I haven't got a problem with stem cell research (I think they are two different issues). And I doubt we'll see human cloning it on a nation-wide basis for humans in the U.S.- it is too much of a political fire-cracker. So would allowing only girls or boys to be born via sex-selection due to science (at least in my life-time. I don't want to see that happen). But, since there isn't currently a fundamental bias against female children in the U.S. being born (as there is in some other countries), I doubt we have much to be concerned about here regarding sex selection. But maybe in some other countries, there could be a reason for concern, in that regard. Maybe not in poorer countries (due to the expense of that procedure - some currently apparently cannot even afford condoms, or won't use them, or think it's "wrong"), but who the hell even knows about that? I guess I am not against sex selection. I guess I am against people having children they cannot afford to care for, or mandating one sex be born instead of the other (or, I guess, more to the point - a government making them do that, OR deciding for them they can't do that. I think it's a personal decision. If you're gonna have a bunch of UMs you cannot afford to care for, there are going to be consequences of that, too)* but no, I don't wanna get trapped into an abortion debate, because it just doesn't get anywhere. That might seem hypocritical, but only if you are viewing it from a certain perspective. But if someone wants to debate Stem Cell Research, I'm up for it (although I do think it's probably getting waaaay off the topic, which might be my fault, and-or LatexBaby's. Sorry. But perhaps it's not really all that off the topic, I dunno). Just my two cents. I think kittensols'* lengthy previous post pretty much summed up how I feel about the issue of females being eradicated by a culture. That was a great post. - Susan

luckydog1 -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 12:50:33 PM)
How about this, sex selection before pregnancy, here in America. Is this any better than aborting to get the same result? "The IVF company advertises their "MicroSort" service for couples "for prevention of sex-linked diseases and for family balancing (gender selection)." The company notes that the process is not 100% successful, but boasts that the procedure has successfully produced girls on demand in 6 out of 7 attempts and boys in 2 out of three tries." Anyone bet the 1 in 7 failure gets aborted? http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1998/sept/98091001.html

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 12:59:49 PM)
Yes, it is, to my way of thinking. Because it's not a governmental or cultural mandate. It's a personal choice, and therefore unlikely to result in wiping out one sex entirely, in favor of the other (which is the topic, as I see it anyway). There are probably people all over the world, right now, who may be part of a pregnant couple, who are perhaps hoping for a girl or a boy, specifically, for their own reasons: Maybe they already have 3 girls, and want a boy. Or vice-versa. So what? I haven't got a problem with that. I do have a problem with anyone (including a governemnt) saying girls or boys are fundamentally better, I guess. - Susan

LotusSong -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 1:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NefertariReborn -fast reply- Just a quick note. If you watched Lisa Ling's report on female children in China (they're easier to adopt from the orphanages than males), you might remember where she pointed out that because of the sex disparity men were now paying to have women kidnapped from outlying regions. Richer families of course had a better chance of finding a wife for their son since they could pay the kidnappers more money. Lisa showed a village where about 90% of the children were boys. I thought to Myself, "Now there's one way to cut down on the birthrate. " Just a thought (a tad off topic for bit) I wonder if they have many men yearning to be women in these sort of societies? I wonder if the trangendered males still strive to be female?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875