RE: Eradicating women.

RE: Eradicating women. (Full Version)

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

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:21:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer It's a sad calloused comment but it's not like India couldn't use a little population reduction whatever the cause. If they can't find women at home and they can't import them to marry from elsewhere then a birthrate reduction will naturally follow. Thus the poverty level may reduce as well, since lower demand will lower prices and raise wages. At some point the entire world will have to get to the zero growth point Looks like India may beat some of us to it. never happen till we either run out of a support system, or the government issues tainted vaccines and gives us all cancer like they did in africa. i suppose a good world war now and then would work pretty well too.

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/20/2007 11:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy 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 I asked for specific reasons why India has these practices since that was the subject of the OP, not some general gender theory which are largely influenced by western liberal feminist ideas and not about what actually happens in the cultural and economic conditions of an area. Why did India develop these practices and not other Indo-European peoples such as the north European Germanic and Celtic tribes where women could own property, keep property in marriage and after deivorce, where women could be independent and have high rank and where there were female warriors. Simply to day it is about male domination is to ignore the conundrum. Subjugation of women was largely introduced into northern Europe by the import of ME religions but it never fully displaced pre-christian culture which is why feminist ideas began there. It does relate to modern India, people are the product of their past. Our modern liberal ideas in the west are directly related to our past, we cannot escape it and if we can't it is culturally arrogant to say other peoples can. You are showing an imperial mind set. As for China, we weren't discussing that and probably has completely different reasons for gender choice than India with it being a completely different culture.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 12:12:00 AM)
Nobody ever said there was male domination to this extreme in every society - I don't really even recall anyone blaming it on males, in particular (although they probably could, at least the ones in government). I blame the governments of India, for allowing this particular horrid thing to happen in India, but also occurrences, that I consider similarly dire to female children, happen in these particular countries, because their governments allow it (either tacitly or directly): China (encourages killing of girl children via their weird governmental policies and also their constricted view of females' value in society), Thailand (sex slavery for many girl children), Vietnam (ditto), and India (dowries, funeral pyres for female widows), and many parts of Africa (cut off the female clitoris - without anesthesia - of girl children, so they don't "enjoy sex too much"). And also parts of rural Russia (sex slavery for many girls), Turkey (sex slavery for many girl children), Pakistan (too horrible to talk about. Let's just say if anyone can prove a female is not a virgin and is not married, she's as good as dead, and killing her is seen as an honor. These are callee "Honor killings" - non-virgins "shame their families". See Afghanistan, these 2 countries have a lot in common when it comes to women's rights), Saudia Arabia (women cannot drive, work, etc) Afghanistan (home to the Taliban - need I say more?), Iran (see Saudi Arabia, although slightly more liberal, it's not by much), Lithuania (sex slavery for many girl children), and the other eastern bloc countries - Uzbekistan and the other "stans" - whatever they are called, I forget (ditto). And don't forget more than a few Latin American countries (on a more minor scale, for the most part - they simply have a dim view of the role a female can play in the world - she is seen in many of them still primarily as a child bearer and a maid for a man, and a non-consensual sex-partner, after marriage, and has few (recognized) rights on a par with a man). It goes without saying that any sex slavery cited above is non -consensual - and it can happen to children as young age 5. I am sure I am leaving some out, due to forgetting. Not world-wide, but more than a little prevalent, wouldn't you say? And why should it even be considered some out-of-the-ordinary privilege for women to own property? Sinergy* cited the dowry practice, meatcleaver - the idea a females family must pay the man she marries a large sum of money simply for marrying her and taking her care off her own family's hands. And the reason that dowries were important for so long (and still are in use) is that many females in India weren't alowed to work outside the home, so they weren't bringing in any income. Dowries can entail huge sums of money - and usually the man's family decides how much they want to ask for - it's not like the female's family just decides how much they can pay. The man's family can also up the ante, and continually change their mind about the sum - and can bankrupt entire families this way. So having girls is much, much more expensive than having boys in India. In India many women whose husband's die are still expected to kill themselves by throwing themselves on a funeral pyre and thus burn to death. So in other words, in India, without a husband, you're nothing. But even if you get one, not only is it gonna cost you and your family a lot of money, but even when you do - you better pray he lives a long time. Gender choice in China has to do with the 1 child-per-family governmental policy (that is being revised to 2 per family, but for years and years it was only child per family) - due to the way their culture has also valued women throughout centuries, most families still consider it more sociall and economically practical to ensure that those children are boys, not girls. Boys can support parents in their old age. Boys are allowed to go to school and earn more higher education, and can make their parents "prouder" (a big deal in China - making parents proud) - because they are given the educational opportunities to "make more of themselves" in the eyes of the world. Girls in China are not given as many (or any in many cases) those educational opportunities. The view is that since their role is taking care of the family or just working in a factory anyway, why would they need school? The idea anyone woud even go to school for reasons like just because they like learning things, seems foreign and un-necessary. And - I don't consider killing girl children after birth, simply because they are girls, to be indicative that anyone is particularly ignorant of the notion of tolerance for cultural differences. Some things, however, are just a little too different for me, I guess. Sorry to be so non-PC. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 1:14:51 AM)
Nobody is ever gonna convince me that not liking these things is merely not being "tolerant of other cultures". If they think so, then I just plain don't care. - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 1:41:57 AM)
I asked Sinergy to explain why such a culture developed, not that it didn't exist. Why did it develop there and not in related cultures. As for Sinergy not wanting to discuss abortion, I can guess why not, it is because the issue was not about abortion but the freedom to choose and the western hypocrisy it exposes. Such as it is fine for a western woman to have an abortion because it would interfer in her night clubbing or the shame of being an unmarried woman in a redneck christian fundementalist region but it is not alright for a woman to choose in India because of her social and cultural pressures. Only a fraction of abortions in the west are for medical reasons but we wouldn't take any truck from another culture telling us how abhorent and how trivial they find western reasons for abortions. The people who know what is best for Indians are Indians. Most sex industries in far eastern countries are down to poverty and the destruction by the west by many indigenous cultures and economies and the west restricting the trade of these countries. Yet more reason why the west should keeps its nose out of other people's affairs. The arrogance of the west blows my mind. We imported a proselytizing culture and we've been proselytizing ever since.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 1:53:00 AM)
No, it is not just due to poverty. It occurs because their societies simply do not value the female children they have who are living, and they rarely have. Poverty simply makes it easier to justify thes practices. I've already been around this block, on this thread. And the abortion block too. This isn't about birth control (or if it is it's only a very small part)- it's about how societies value female children (or not). Lemme tell ya' what is gonna happen if we discuss abortion: Half the people will say that people shouldn't have children they can't afford to raise - and that will be their "justification" for abortion. The othe half will say it's not right to murder a fetus. Each side will believe they are right and it will never be resolved. Because both sides have morally (at least to me) tenable positions. In any case - the title of this thread is: Eradicating females. Abortion (if you do think it's murder) is still only probably about 10% or less (if that) of the "eradication of females" (in my view, although I admit to not having much in the way of current data on that - but if you look at brith rates, and figure a % of those are aborted) that is currently taking place around the world. I am sure it is okay to at least be concerned about the living female children, isn't it? There are a few of them around. Would you care to discuss the rest of the ways it is happening in any kind of realistic terms? Or are you simply going to excuse it all as being due to "cultural differences" Of course these things are due to cultural differences. That's obvious. And So? Do you think that makes them just fine things to do? Take a look at the above list of countries that are currently finding ways to proliferate "Eradicating females". If you don't care - that's fine with me. I never expected you to give one whit about it anyway. But just don't tell me I can't care - because I do care. - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 1:58:13 AM)
If we were eradicating females in our culture I would say you had a point but we are finger pointing at minorities in other cultures, claiming those are their values and portraying ourselves as superior. Typical western values of assuming other peoples are stupid and can't run a piss up in a brewery. It wasn't that long ago the west had all these same or similar problems but we're so good and smart, now we are rich by theiving off the rest of the world we have all the answers.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 2:00:52 AM)
Oh, so to think someone is a criminal, you have to be one yourself? Don't tell any of the world's legal systems about that. That makes so much sense (not). - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 2:10:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Oh, so to think someone is a criminal, you have to be one yourself? Don't tell any of the world's legal systems about that. That makes so much sense (not). - Susan As someone pointed out, the practices in the OP are illegal in India and China, they are stubborn cultural practices that are taking time to eradicate. All this thread is illustrating is the utter hypocrisy of many westerners, one of the main reasons why westerners are hated in many countries. Abortion is so uncomfortable to many ranting on about India iun this thread because it exposes the fact that they refuse to look in the mirror and see the reality of western values. I am not against abortion. I believe in the right to choose and that is where I differ from you. No doubt you claim to believe in the right to choose, I actually do believe in the right to choose. It is not about liking someones choice, it is about accepting it is THEIR choice.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 2:18:24 AM)
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

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 2:20:53 AM)
As it has also been pointed out in this thread, abortion is not infanticide so aborting female fetus' is not killing females, it is interfering in the natural birth rate which all abortions do. There have been claims in Britain that some Asian women are having abortions because they are bearing a female fetus and there have been discussions on how to stop it. The only guaranteed solution is to make all abortions illegal because you can't stop Asian women having the right to choose if all other women have the right to choose.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 2:23:48 AM)
I guess that might be true - if I thought abortion was the root of the problem, which I don't. The way to stop it is to make it as appealing and attractive an idea and practice to have female children, as well as to have male children. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 2:58:53 AM)
Well, I have said more than enough about this topic. But it certainly is a good topic, IMO. - Susan

Politesub53 -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 3:28:15 AM)
Meatclever....... Comparing what happens in India to western values is irrelevant. There is a mile of difference between legal abortions, which i dont agree with except for an extreme medical reason, and the murder of babies. The following link is very upsetting so be warned, but it does show what i mean. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/06/24/stories/04242233.htm Edits to add..... i mean irrelevant comparing what actually takes place. Not the reasons why, financial ect.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 3:35:07 AM)
Politesub53: I read the site reference. Oh this is horrible. Just horrible. I can only imagine what it must feel like, for both the parents and the child. Oh my gosh. Wow. I appreciate the site reference, though. - Susan

Politesub53 -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 3:38:21 AM)
Susan...apologies for posting the link. I do to open peoples eyes as to what`s going on. It`s quite a harrowing read isn`t it.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 3:43:05 AM)
Oh no, I am glad you posted it. People who are interested need to wake up to what is really happening. I am interested, I just think it is horrible. It is a very valuable thing to post, IMO. But, I've read stuff like this before, so I am not all that horrified, just feel sad and disgusted (and angry). I read an article last year (in Glamour magazine) about a man in Pakistan who had his son kill his daughter, because she wasn't a virgin, and was not married. It was an "honor killing" - her lack of viginity was apparently "shaming the family". This is common practice in Pakistan. This same man later hanged his wife from a ceiling, and gouged her eyes out of her head, because she resisted sex with him. She's alive, but she had to have glass eyeballs implanted - and it took her about 2 years to get them, because she couldn't afford any. Her husband was only given a prison sentence of 3 years in jail for that - and he was let off with probation after 1-1/2 years. That's how seriously some of these countries governments take these practices - even if they are (supposedly) against the law. And he was never prosecuted for encouraging the "honor killling" of his own daughter. Oops I forgot, I am not being "culturally tolerant" enough. Oh no!...uh-oh. hehe.[;)] Thank you for posting the article site reference, Politesub53. - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 3:53:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Meatclever....... Comparing what happens in India to western values is irrelevant. There is a mile of difference between legal abortions, which i dont agree with except for an extreme medical reason, and the murder of babies. The following link is very upsetting so be warned, but it does show what i mean. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/06/24/stories/04242233.htm Edits to add..... i mean irrelevant comparing what actually takes place. Not the reasons why, financial ect. People on here are talking as though infanticide is legal in India and China, it isn't. Perpetrators face murder charges. It is like other cultures saying paedophilia is a western value because plane loads of western sex tourists choose to holiday in the far east to satisfy their perversions while ignoring the fact that they can be prosecuted in their home country for crimes abroad.

SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 3:55:12 AM)
Sure they do, as long as their legal officials not given too much money in bribes first, or unless they might just not feel like it, that day. Don't kid yourself, meatcleaver. These practices are rampant. Read a few websites. Read a few non-fiction documentary type books. We are not making this up! (and I am not Dave Barry - if anyone gets that joke, which they probably won't. Dave Barry is a U.S. comedian and humorous author, whose tag-line is: "I am not making this up!"). Although this is no laughing matter - which is why I am saying "and I am not Dave Barry"...oh well, anyway, you can just forget I said that. It wasn't all that funny. - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 4:00:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Sure they do , as long as their legal officials not given too much money in bribes first, or unless they might just not feel like it, that day. Don't kid yourself, meatcleaver. These practices are rampant. Read a few websites. Read a few non-fiction documentary type books. We are not making this up! (and I am not Dave barry - if anyone gets that joke, hwich gthey probably won't). - Susan Corruption is world wide and dare I say it, it is even in the US. Do you know how hard it is to extradite and American from American soil for serious crimes? Pointing the finger is dangerous, someone might hold up a mirror. How many American troops have been whizzed out of country to stop them being prosecuted for serious crimes? Believe me, more than a few.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875