OPINION

Disposable Commodity? The Shame of Female Infanticide

August 23, 2007
Kavita Chhibber

I was told that the day I was born, the midwife blurted out - "Oh No it's a girl. Now I won't get the same amount in baksheesh (tip) as I would have, had this been a boy." My irate grandmother not only gave her much more than what she would have ever got for the birth of a boy, my grandparents threw a grand party in celebration to welcome my arrival. Growing up if I saw any bias, in my family, it was more against the innumerable boys in our clan. The girls were always more pampered, more cherished. I remember mom telling me that dad would sit there for hours gazing at me and thinking how perfect I was.

I realized, soon enough however, that while the girl child may be a prized commodity in my clan, she was fairly disposable and discriminated against in other families. I heard stories of people producing kids with little care for the woman's well being until she gave the family the much wanted male child. I heard stories of people marrying a second time if the first wife failed to produce a son. I know of several families in different age groups who have had a large number of children-just to produce a son. Often that cherished son would then be burdened with not only marrying off his 6-7 sisters but also to pay off debts and take care of his parents in their old age.

I remember a friend who married the oldest son from a huge business joint family, being told by her mother in law, when she was pregnant for the first time - "If you don't produce a son don't come back. If you do I will give you the choicest diamond necklace." My friend went on to have three daughters and I saw her totally stressed out each time. Luckily her husband put his mother in her place and told her to back off; otherwise my friend would have spent the rest of her life, feeling like an outcast and an incomplete woman.

I also remember another friend telling me how amused she was because each time people ask her how many kids she has and she says 2 girls and a boy, they promptly presume her son is the youngest and much tried for addition after 2 girls, when he is the middle child. They look disbelievingly when she tells them she tried a third time because she always wanted two girls.

I've seen sons who adore their mothers and sisters disappointed when they have daughters. A close guy friend actually burst into tears when he found out his first born was a daughter. Another man had a heart attack and died according to news reports when he found out his wife had had a girl.

Another friend said that when she tells people she has two daughters, they will ask-No son? Maybe you should try for one-you are still very young. Some other friends tell me growing up they always saw their parents being a tad more partial towards their brothers.

While this obsession for male children is rampant in the South Asian, Asian and Muslim cultures, I see the same desire in other cultures as well. The only difference is that I don't see, say Americans bemoaning the lack of a son if they end up with two girls. I do see the smug expression on the faces of women across all cultures, if they have sons a lot of the times.

In September when I went to India the first news item that caught my eye in flight from Delhi to Jammu was about a well of aborted female fetuses being found in Punjab. The article also said that the obsession for a male child ran high amongst the affluent, highly educated lot and a lot of abortions took place in this very group. The ratios are so lopsided now because of all these abortions. According to latest statistics, the three northern Indian states — Punjab, Haryana and Delhi — have one of the most skewed male-female ratios in the country, with Punjab having only 874 females for 1,000 men.

To add to this, is the news about this new US-patented gender testing kit, available over the Internet. It enables sex-determination as early as five weeks after conception. The kit in trial for 14 years is right now only available in the US, but concern is already there about the repercussions if it enters India.

Two days ago I read this news headline which said "Don't kill your daughter. The government will raise her." Alarmed by a declining sex ratio due to female feticide, the government has an offer to make to parents who extinguish a new life - a palna or 'cradle' scheme in districts under which girl children can be left to the care of official agencies.

The government seems to feel that such a scheme — bound to attract its share of critics is a way to check an inhuman trend. The scheme, to be implemented by the ministry of women and child development in coordination with state governments, is likely to be put in place during the 11th five-year plan as part of measures to fight the menace of female foeticide.

My friend Robin Raina who runs a charity foundation for underprivileged children and women has made it mandatory in one his projects in Bombay that if they have to accept one child from each family to educate it will be a girl child, because he too believes that by educating the girl child you will educate an entire family.

In all this the one thing that stands out in my mind is the fact that a lot of this is happening because of women themselves allowing it to happen. Often a girl is brainwashed from infancy that she in inferior to boys, and when she becomes a mother, she allows the atrocity of having her body violated to end the life of an unwanted girl child, because another woman- a mother-in law continues the tradition- of pressuring her daughter in law for a grandson. I haven't seen too many aunties or grandmas telling their daughters-in laws - "May you be the mother of many daughters, or May you be blessed with a daughter."

I translated this poem written originally in Hindi by activist, writer and actress Rita Jitendra who I interviewed in India this time. In it the aborted girl child addresses her mother and asks some questions. I hope every woman who reads this thinks hard about the questions, and every man who reads this makes a promise to cherish the gender that is responsible for his birth in the world in the first place.

Mother why did I not take birth?
Why was I given death before I could embrace life?
Say Something O mother say something

Why did the world not hear my life's cry
It did not want to welcome me in its midst
It taught you to shun me
And denied me your lap to rest
Why did you let it happen?
Say something O mother, say something

Pressed against your bosom.
I would have blossomed day and night
I would have filled your embrace with my being
But I was denied even a corner of your heart
Say something, O mother, say something

I would have enchanted you with my first smile,
Cut my teeth on that enchantment
Frolicked and taken my first steps with you giving chase
And full of mischief, taken flight just out of your reach.
All that was meant to be, was lost to eternity
Say something O mother, say something

Your daughter would have gone to school,
Her hands holding the books to knowledge
I would have been your pride
My father and brother would have been so awed
To see me win accolades
Why was it not so, say something O mother?

I would have accomplished so much
Created my own unique persona
Epitomizing true womanhood
Why was that not allowed to be?
Say something O mother, say something

You would have held your head high with pride
I would have been the shining star
The talk of the town
And the world would have honored womanhood
And rejoiced at the birth of each girl child
But it is lost, the opportunity was lost by you
Say something O mother, say something

And if for a moment I did not shine
My love for you and yours for me
Would have been a tie so pure
But you used your own hands to cut off your nose
Does anyone ever sin like this?

Why did you rip this beautiful dream child
From your womb?
If the poison of societal norms continues
To course through life
Where will they ever find a mother
To give birth to the sons they covet?
Enough is enough
Awake O mother,
Awake O mother.

KAVITA CHHIBBER is an accomplished freelance writer and media personality. She is well-known for her in-depth interviews of celebrities, authors and public officials. She also writes hard-hitting news articles and cover stories for publications. You can get a full range of her work and her interests (including astrology!) at KavitaChhibber.com.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Disposable Commodity? The Shame of Female Infanticide

Article

  • » Published on August 23, 2007
  • » Type: Opinion
  • » Filed under: .

Author: Kavita Chhibber

 

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
temporal
URL
August 23, 2007
09:30 AM

kavita:

these sad words resonated:

I would have enchanted you with my first smile,
Cut my teeth on that enchantment
Frolicked and taken my first steps with you giving chase
And full of mischief, taken flight just out of your reach.
All that was meant to be, was lost to eternity
Say something O mother, say something


what a coincidence...was agonising over a poem on a very similar theme...so instead of commenting her let me go and see if i can finish it

:)

#2
Jawahara
URL
August 23, 2007
09:56 AM

This is really a very pressing issue that we were talking about at home just the other day. The male to female imbalance is quite disturbing in its implications.

I guess I can try and understand some poor village family (uneducated and desperate) killing their daughters but I find the affluent folks of the cities doing the same very, very despicable.

In the US, Kavita, the sad thing is that girls are more wanted than boys so if you are looking to adopt, there are more little boys available than little girls. I believe the last I read was that 70% of American parents prefer to have girls.

I find that sad as well. Children are children and should be welcomed into the family into which they are born.

Thanks for writing this very important article.

#3
smallsquirrel
August 23, 2007
10:50 AM

My little girl is just a month old and I thank God every day for her. Perhaps the only thing that makes me more happy than looking at her, is looking at the love that my husband has for her... she will definitely be daddy's little girl.

My in-laws were surprisingly non-biased about the gender of our child, and are very happy to have a grandchild, regardless of gender.

I find the whole business of gender selection and female infanticide to be so sickening I can barely ponder it. The stories of people burying their girl children alive make me literally wretch. Who could look at the face of such a small, helpless baby... an innocent and trusting infant, and throw it away to die a cruel death? Surely something is very very wrong. I cannot fathom it.

#4
Sanjay Garg
August 23, 2007
12:49 PM

@Jawahara: I fail to see how this is a "really pressing issue".

(1) If this gender-preference is a part of Indian culture - as claimed by many - then it must have been around for millenia i.e. at least as long as Indian culture has existed. In this case, one needs to explain why this is a pressing issue all of a sudden.

(2) if this is not part of traditional Indian culture, then the need is to understand what caused this and fix that problem first.

In her powerful book, Dowry Murder:
The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime
, Prof Veena Oldenburg of Columbia U shows convincingly that these killings are neither about dowry nor reflective of an Indian culture or caste system that encourages violence against women. Rather, such killings can be traced directly to the influences of the British colonial era. In the precolonial period, dowry was an institution managed by women, for women, to enable them to establish their status and have recourse in an emergency. As a consequence of the massive economic and societal upheaval brought on by British rule, womens entitlements to the precious resources obtained from land were erased and their control of the system diminished, ultimately resulting in a devaluing of their very lives.

I encourage everyone here, particularly the author of the article, to read this ground- breaking book to become more familiar with the nuances of this issue.

#5
smallsquirrel
August 23, 2007
01:03 PM

Sanjay... oh for the love of christ! I don't give a flying rat's ass if people learned it from watching too much TV or aliens told them to do it... people here are doing it now. the blame game really doesn't absolve the behavior now.

It doesn't matter at all where you can trace the roots of a particular social issue to. If it is a problem in your society NOW, then it is what it is.

It seems to me that after following your comments on multiple threads you are simply all about blaming the "other"... like no one has any personal responsibility at all for their actions. Blame the colonialists! Blame identity oppression! When does the individual become responsible for their actions????

#6
Sanjay Garg
August 23, 2007
01:22 PM

@smallsquirrel: Your reaction is perhaps typical of those who find that the gaze has turned on them for a change. It can be a discomfiting experience.

In any case, this is not about me but about the academic work done by others on these topics. Rather than analyzing the patterns my comments on this forum, I suggest you read up on the list I've shared with you. To which you've never responded, btw.

#7
smallsquirrel
August 23, 2007
02:10 PM

sanjay.... uh, no... not really. I am not a colonialist OR someone who engages in female infanticide.... so I don't feel responsible at all dear, but thanks for the patronizing tone.

As for the reading, as I mentioned... I have a newborn. I have little time to myself... just time to pop in and out of the forums... not much time for reading. I will when I can, and I did read a bit of it... and like I said, I think you and I have to agree to disagree on the other topic. And I can find academic work supporting any viewpoint... doesn't make it valid or invalid... just makes it research!

#8
Kavita Chhibber
URL
August 23, 2007
02:27 PM

Hello all,
thanks for the input so far. Sanjay and Smallsquirrel, I don't think your comments really overlap each other, so no need to get upset with each other. Smallsquirrel congratulations to you and your family first of all for your lovely bundle of joy. May all the blessings and special gifts come her way! You have a very valid point its happening right now and something needs to be done..I just read this news report yesterday in Hindustan times how much its become an epidemic-and the only punishment a doc who was caught got was a fine of 300 rupees.

Having said that I must thank you Sanjay for recommending the book. I have just ordered it on Amazon. I didnt know that there was this aspect also inherited from the colonial times. My grand mother had her own take-she used to say that because sons were supposed to take care of parents they got the property etc, but the girls were given dowry to help them get a good start in life..somehow it started translating into greed and higher expectations. She said sadly-I thought by the time girls of your generation would grow up education will eradicate this dowry system, but it has become worse. We never heard of bride burning in our time or when your father was growing up..I'm sure it will be an interesting read.
Jawahara, your post was an eye opener as well. Didnt know the US numbers. Thanks.

Temporal, look forward to reading that poem!

Thank you all.

#9
Lakshmikanth
URL
August 23, 2007
02:29 PM

To add to what sanjay has to say:I read somewhere that most of india was pretty much sexually free until the Mughals fucked us up (being such incestuous ppl, they could not help it :) ): by infusing abrahamic nonsensical views of a suppressed woman (note that suppression of woman is a very western idea especially GREEK) It is the so called abrahamic cult religions of Islam/Christianity that infused these screwed up ideas into the indian brain.

Moreover when the british mofos landed here they were awed by the sexual explicitness of our temples. These unlawful alien invaders wrote back in tons on how sexually immoral the Indians/Hindus were and then the set out to cleanse us and that ultimately is what ended up in Rudyard Kipling's monumentally racist magnum opus: The White Man's Burden. Ofcourse this western feature now permeates as the great (soon to be irrelevant) G8 dictating terms to India and China, Missionaries planting crosses on every hill or mount that they see converting everyone to the great religious sect of Roman Catholicism(who never wear condoms by the way:: think of the population of india :) ). Ofcourse and the disastrous path that india took from the west: Socialism, when the inherent nature of ancient indians was grass roots capitalism(which is emerging nowadays). Thank god
(if god exists) it did not take another idea (apart from socialism) that had German origins: Nazism

That's why i agree with what SS has to say: The west has given us a lot of good ideas and a lot of bad ones. All that we need to care is to use them for our own benefits after rationally evaluating them and then ask the west to politely mind their own business and not to fuck with us. And that means cleansing alien bad ideas which we have been following for ages and by that fact making it our own: Suppression of women, Communism, wierd sexual ideas etc etc. Call it the brown man's burden.

Peace!

#10
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 23, 2007
05:26 PM

#4 Sanjay Garg & #9 Lakshmikanth :

Interestingly, the second half of Mr.Garg's question in #4 has answered the first half.

Everytime one suggested that it was a pressing issue, someone dismissed it as a pre-existing situation that is no anomaly.

In order to understand the social implications of a current problem one doesn't have to look into history. The British, the Moghuls, the Portugese are long gone and as much as we'd all like to blame somebody else for our problems, we cannot continue to look into history, to the era of the British Raj for excuses.

Families living in India now, in the 21st century do not ask for Dowry because the British told them to. They do it because they view marriage as a business alliance where their son is up for sale.

Similarly people who murder a newborn because of gender don't do it because the Moghuls pressurize them. They do it because their ignorant and uneducated minds associate having a girl-child with the responsibilities of paying for her dowry. They'd rather commit murder than take up that life-long responsibility. Just like some Indians, even after 60 years of independence don't like dealing with the responsibilities of their own social issues and would rather blame the "West", the British rule, the Moghuls etc for it.

Mr.Garg, it becomes a pressing problem now because if we call ourselves a progressive nation then we should live upto the title...or at least stop blaming history for the lack thereof.

@Kavita: A good article and very poignant issue!

#11
Lakshmikanth
URL
August 23, 2007
06:11 PM

aditi:

If u read my last para from #9(i dont know if u did) it would be really clear to you that: I AGREE WITH YOU.

The one bit that I dont agree with many people is this: just like we credit the british mofos for giving us english (which by all means was an accident and coming to think of it we are crediting them for an accident), we must credit them with the ills that they brought to us(the accident being we happily accepted that evil practice). This applies to the west/the alien invaders/the incestuous mughals etc etc.

That does not mean I am advocating a return to the medival times. I respect rationality and ratiocination, it is more or less a western idea (I also am very individualistic/independent which is a western idea as well). I just hate it when everything that is good is supposed to come from the west(and other invading cultures), when there was so much of screwed up stuff coming from there as well. For example it was the greeks who introduced Sari in india: before sari all women were bare chested (can u imagine!!) and imagine the shame of nakedness that follows now if ever a woman dreams of taking her sari off anywhere near the public's eyes! The sari itself being alien to indian culture.

History is an important thing that has to be kept in mind when dealing with a lot of problems. What you are asking to do is the equivalent to this:remove antisemitism without mentioning the holocaust/Nazism. Try that!

As for removing social evil that is present NOW, and of the relevance of this article I am with the writer and all the commentors 100%.

Great Article!

Peace!

#12
Lakshmikanth
URL
August 23, 2007
06:17 PM

correction: did some more research and found this out about saree :) http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/attire/saree/sari_story.htm

But i hope the readers get a fair idea of what i am saying.

#13
Jawahara
URL
August 23, 2007
06:24 PM

Sanjay:

While female infanticide might have existed in some form earlier in India, this falling male to female ratio *is* a pressing issue. Even emotions aside, most countries have a certain male to female ratio (usually 1.05 males to 1 female, which evens out later because females live longer).

This skewed ratio is India definitely has some social and health issues attached to it.

And if this was a remnant of colonial rule why has the ratio only now started falling so drastically? I am not denying that colonial rule might have had something to do with it (but I would really need to read the book myself) but this imbalance has really become worse in the past 20 years. How do we explain that?

Leaving everything else aside....it's murder. That in itself should make it a pressing issue. Imagine the same number of dalits/muslims/tamils (put your group here) being killed just because they are who they say they are. What kind of outcry would there be?

It's large scale murder. Pure and simple. It is taking another human being's life....so many lives in fact that it is skewing the male to female ratio of one the most populous countries in the world. To me it's a form of genocide and needs to be dealt with as such.

#14
Man singh
URL
August 23, 2007
06:30 PM

Aditi,

Your concern is very much valid. Issue is really a pressing issue and need to be dealt with urgently.

To solve any problem, it is always wise to analysie the root cause of the problem and than attack the root of the eveil to uproot it.

In the present case, my feeling is that `greed' and `poor law and order situation in India' are the two major causes of the problem. Religion culture or traditions has nothing to do with it.

man women and children are unsafe in the country. law and oredr is really poor. Dignity of all of us is at stake all the time and women are the most vulnerable. Hence people prefer to minimise their headache and try to get rid of female kids. One of my relative staying in Ghaziabad recently told me that they have to spend 2.5 times money to educate a girl who is doing MBBS compare to a situation if boy might be the case. Travelling in public is risky and hence they hire a taxi permanentlt from Ghaziabad to Delhi.

Traditional Indian families though accept volunteer dowry but never harras a girl for the same. its neo materialists fro whom philosophy of life is `Greed is my God' are the real culprits. again is its not religion or culture but lack of religion culture and sprituality that;s cause of evil.

I am of strong opinion that in general Indian parents love their girl child more then boys my point will be proved the day on whcich law n order/seculrity environment in India will become of international stamndard.

if the above situation is clubbed with sprituality, culture and religion problem is 100% solved.

One more thing we should always remember that Western societies kill all foetus(boys + Girls) and their numbers togather is no less then Indian causlities. Western societies are also equally crimila in abortions. killing all in western world is as bad as selective Killing girl foetus in India. Its of great surprise for me why media never highlights issue of abortion asa whole globally and selectively brings up aboryion of gal child in India.

Abortion is abortion no matter its boy or girl? isn'nt it?

#15
Sanjay Garg
August 23, 2007
08:20 PM

Kavita Chibber #8: First of all, let me admit to being a bit startled that you've gone ahead and actually ordered the book. This openness is something I've encountered very rarely indeed in my 7+ years of online samvaad and discussion.

I didnt know that there was this aspect also inherited from the colonial times.

Oldenburg's book is an eyeopener but it doesn't mean that there was a British plot to dis-empower Indian women. What they did do, however, was to (1) took the land, particularly agricultural land, and divided it among those who tilled it (2) assigned every piece of land a determinate owner, so as to fix on that piece of land a determinate revenue. And these determinate owners, plus succession down to the next ten levels were all male, per British law. Oldenburg documents all this quite extensively.

My grand mother had her own take-she used to say that because sons were supposed to take care of parents they got the >property etc, but the girls were given dowry to help them get a good start in life

I think Your grandmother is very correct, except it was not dowry but rather was known as stridhan. Even during the time of Chanakya, stridhan was protected by law as being the sole property of the woman, on which neither the husband, nor the in-laws, nor the kids had any legitimate claim.

So, the first distinction that needs to be made is between dowry (bad, demanded, zero tolerance) and stridhan (good, volunatry, provides economic self sufficiency for the woman).

#16
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 23, 2007
08:21 PM

I CANNOT believe abortion is being compared to female infanticide. Really. Discussions on this forum have hit an all time low. Its upsetting.

Mansingh: Abortion is NOT restricted to "Western" societies. Abortion is possible in other nations, including our Mahan Bharat. So please come off the "The evils of Western civilization" crap. Its been used for too long without just cause or consequence.

Your argument is thus: A woman's reproductive rights of bringing a child into this world are the same as that of a parent that chooses to murder a female child (not foetus, child, there is a difference) based solely on her gender.

Murder is murder!!! Abortion is not.

The next time you compare abortion with female infanticide please put yourself in the shoes of a teenager who was raped and is now pregnant with her offender's child, please imagine being a woman whose health or life or even that of the fetus is at risk.

If you cannot imagine the predicaments listed above, please do not equate female infanticide with a woman's reproductive rights.

An unborn child is a foetus. It is still in a premise where its presence is by virtue of the mother's good health and choice. Forcing a mother to bear a child can have severe effects on the health of both mother and child.

Lets say one is faced with a situation where they had to choose between wife and the child due to complications during birth, and one chooses that the wife's life be saved, it wouldn't make them a murderer (or Western!). It would make them sensible.

It is a matter of great disgrace that we always have a group of Indians who will continue to blame all evils on the western world. Abortion is not forced. It is a choice. If it is forced then it is a crime.

Mansingh, if you want to say that a fetus has the same rights as a child, then you are going against the legislation of approximately 189 countries across the world.

#17
Sanjay Garg
August 23, 2007
09:17 PM

@smallsquirrel:have to agree to disagree on the other topic. And I can find academic work supporting any viewpoint... doesn't make it valid or invalid... just makes it research!

The Indian way is to include ALL the viewpoints (and the supporting research) because combined we are closer to the truth than without it.

#18
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 23, 2007
10:09 PM

Smallsquirrel: As an Indian, I cannot resist saying this but there is NO such thing as an "Indian way" like Mr.Garg here suggests :)....if there was an "Indian way" the nation would not be so divided on issues ranging from religion to freedom of speech to abortion. The only time some of us feel compelled to throw out phrases like "the Indian way" is when the presence of a "foreigner" is sensed. Some of us find it patriotic when we show "foreigners" their "place" if you know what I mean.

Honestly, right now, you live in India, have adjusted to the unfamiliar ways of a foreign country and Indian in-laws, are married to an Indian and have an Indian baby-girl to raise. Therefore, to me your opinions on female infanticide count more than that of any man, no matter how "Indian" his ways.

#19
Sanjay Garg
August 23, 2007
10:23 PM

@Aditi: In order to understand the social implications of a current problem one doesn't have to look into history. The British, the Moghuls, the Portugese are long gone and as much as we'd all like to blame somebody else for our problems, we cannot continue to look into history, to the era of the British Raj for excuses.

Just because the British left India at the stroke of midnight, August 15, 1947 does not mean that all vestige of colonialism vanished at 1 second past midnight August 15, 1947. This is something even a 6th grader would understand. How long it takes to obliterate the effects of 200 yrs of colonialism does not quite follow some pre-set formula that one can glibly claim that the British are gone and so is all their baggage.

The British set some fundamental processes in motion that are still with us today, most notably land tenure and private property in agriculture. In his book, "Changes in Land Tenure under British Rule", Dr. Frithjof Kuhnen Professor of Rural Development, writes

"India's invasion by the British brought about, in the course of time, a complete transformation in the country's land tenure system. A constantly increasing number of people were or became landless. While in the middle of the last century there were still no landless, in 1931 and 1945, respectively 33 and 70 million landless labourers were registered."

Prof. Oldenburg calls this Anglo system of property rights

"the deepest social revolution that colonialism ever performed".

Dr. Abdel-Wahab El-Messiri, Emeritus professor of comparative literature at Ain Shams University, Egypt traces colonial era famines to the

"...implementation of modern Western property laws in India."

I don't want to side-track this conversation into one on Anglo private property system. This is just to point out the error in thinking that just because the British left 60 yrs ago, everything is back to normal. Far from it.

#20
Lakshmikanth
URL
August 23, 2007
10:49 PM

aditi: I completely understand your point about the indian way or the lack thereof: especially with Books such as "The Argumentative Indian" written by Amartya Sen.

The lack of the "Indian" way also stems from the rather unfortunate fact that Kamasutra originated here :). So much for the Indian way :) Sry bout picking satirically on this so much. but as an "Indian" who cannot but appreciate his origins I have to take some objections to your generalization that there is NO such way as the Indian way.

You are throwing away ppl like Gandhi/Ashoka/Budha too.

Gandhi had his very indian ways of getting things done (i do not agree to many of his ways but have to point it out here) and at one point he HAD his way and got most of india going his way. So much for the nation being "so" divided on issues :)

As I said before I appreciate good ideas, not generalizations :) Everyone has a moral compass up on their brains while they evaluate ideas. Good and Bad ideas come from everywhere. Sati came from India, so did child marriages.

Note and disclaimer: My Girlfriend whom i am very serious about is American and white. My intentions here are not to discredit foreigners, or to show them their "place" :) My intention is to evaluate ideas and show ideas their "place". In the sense if stupid idea comes from the west, it came from the west. If it came from india it came from india. If it came from you it came from you. That does not make india/west/you/me a BAD person. It just makes the ideas originate from where-ever they originate from. Ofcourse if you follow a bad idea, you are to be criticized no matter who you are be it indian/european/american etc etc. Also to add the term British mofos exclusively refers to those British mofos who had the wet dreams of holding india and indians as slaves for good, like the monstrous Winston Churchill. If I were alive that point I would have done anything in my capacity to target and exterminate such people, they are the enemy of Indians. Same holds with other pun terms.

Talk about calling a spade a spade :)

#21
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 23, 2007
10:55 PM

Sanjay Garg: If you would like to blame the British for our social problems or at least most of them please, go ahead and do so. It is not very surprising. We have been doing that for 60 years now.

I however belong to the class of Indians who believe that once a nation achieves independence and goes on for 60 years being the world's most populous liberal democracy, we shouldn't really keep looking back at the 200 years of colonialism and instead maybe revert to the many years of civilization before colonialism. Surely the age of Indian civilization pre-British raj was longer than 200 years! How come we did not revert back to this rich and blameless "culture" that we so proudly and in timely fashion provide references to?

All the issues you stated are not the Queen's problems anymore. It is us, an independent nation with publicly elected politicians that chooses NOT to make necessary reforms although plenty of opportunities are available.

Also all these professors you quote to support your case, they have a degree, they have an opinion and they have theories. I have all of those (in fact plenty of theories) but that doesn't mean I'm always right. :)

The British are gone and so is their baggage, Mr.Garg, what is left behind unfortunately is a sorry excuse that some Indians now choose to latch on to whenever criticism comes knocking.

You are right, things are not normal....when they should be.

#22
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 23, 2007
11:14 PM

#20 Lakshmikanth: Honestly, I didn't get the satire in your comment so no apologies necessary.

***You know something funny: you think MY statement is a generalization and I find clubbing things under an indiscriminate title of "Indian way" is generalizing!****

By denouncing a label such as "Indian way" I am actually doing the exact opposite of what you suggest!! I am NOT discrediting Gandhi, Buddha and Ashoka BUT INSTEAD preventing some undeserving Indians (and I am sure they are quite a few) from walking away with the credit :)

People are people and every one has an individual way. One doesn't need to be an Indian to follow the path of non-violence.

#23
Lakshmikanth
URL
August 23, 2007
11:27 PM

The British are gone and so is their baggage, Mr.Garg

Completely agreed on this: What remains is an old reeky legal framework and corrupt law enforcement for us to live on. One in which sodomy/homosexuality is still a sin :). (coming to think of it reliance wont be here if there was no corruption and if the law enforcement was perfect :) )

We must review and undo whatever baggage we should not carry simply because we DO NOT have to :)

Unfortunately it is not something in the priority list for most politicians :) Thankfully we have people like Anouradha Bakshi and other reformist to atleast make a baby attempt at correcting things.

#24
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 23, 2007
11:33 PM

#23: I agree! :)

#25
poiuy
August 24, 2007
01:14 AM

#16- I think aditi's view that female infanticide and abortion being different is correct. But would that also mean that if one aborts a foetus on sex determination (fetus being a female) then is it OK? A rape victim opting to abort is a rare thing and most abortions are due to teenage pregnancies, unplanned pregnancy, financial situation etc. And abortion is legal in western countries as well as in india. Let's say a couple who already have 2 girls (they don't discriminate against their girls or treat them differently) want to abort the next child if it is a female. Would they be justified in doing so. I can take the argument that aborting based on sex determination is different than just plain aborting, but it doesn't make any difference to the fetus. To add in the end, I'm not personally for or against abortion. I think its a very personal decision and everybody would have to answer for it someday.

#26
Jawahara
URL
August 24, 2007
02:29 AM

Yes, Aditi, I am glad you talked of the difference between abortion and infanticide. As uncomfortable as I am about people choosing gender-selective abortion, that still falls under women's reproductive rights.

Infanticide, however, is taking the life of an actual human being and is murder. At least to me.

#27
Hardy
August 24, 2007
02:50 AM

Alarmism ??

No data, No numbers, just the usual Rhetoric.

with Punjab having only 874 females for 1,000 men.

Punjab had a f:m ratio of 832:1000 in 1901 and it has consistently increased to 876:100, while the f:m ratio of overall country decreased from 972:1000 in 1901 to 927:1000 in 1991 and again became 933 in 2001.

An ideal(natural) f:m ratio at birth of f:m is 942:1000.

Without showing any hesitancy to admit that sex based abortions take place, I would however like to reiterate that I think this change is f:m ratio has much more to do with increase in life saving and life supporting health facilities and services
and males getting benefited from them eventually.

Males have less potent immune system than females.

#28
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
03:49 AM

sanjay.. thanks again for being patronizing to me about "the indian way" as if I do not live here or something. and as others have mentioned, there is no one simple, easy to describe "indian way"... but you are SO BUSY talking down to me and insinuating blame that you're tripping yourself up. and if that were the indian way I would be able to disagree with you without being called a colonialist, right? thought so.

now on to the next issue... as aditi has rightly pointed out, abortion is NOT infanticide. abortion can be used a as tool of infanticide IF used incorrectly. but aditi has listed out a number of ways in which abortion can be used ethically.

poiuy.. well, to answer your question... by the time you can do sex determination of a baby it is legally too late to terminate the fetus by a "normal" abortion... so when you've done that at say, 23 weeks (which is around the time that you can correctly identify gender in a fetus), you are past the 20 week cut-off... which makes it infanticide and not simply an abortion.

#29
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
04:01 AM

just to clarify... in the example above I am speaking in legal and medical terms. Most people rely on ultrasound scan for sex determination, and that is only reliable later in pregnancy. I guess I should also say that I am against the use of abortion past 20 weeks, as at 24 weeks it not considered a fetus anymore but in some countries is a viable baby... which is why, to me, an abortion at 24 weeks is akin to infanticide... if the baby could survive outside the womb and you terminate the pregnancy, that to me is murder. If you get the sex determination done earlier by genetic means and decide to terminate, while I might not agree with it, to me, that is a reproductive right.

hope that is more clear.

#30
Hardy
August 24, 2007
04:41 AM

Woman's reproductive right to kill(abort) fetus is a loosely defined term because it does not define the reproductive right of a man.

Unless we have viable, accessible and alternative means to produce babies, man's reproductive right will always have an overlap with woman's reproductive right.

Does any body have any information on viability and prevalence of test tube baby techniques?

#31
Sanjay Garg
August 24, 2007
06:22 AM

jawahara: While female infanticide might have existed in some form earlier in India, this falling male to female ratio *is* a pressing issue. Even emotions aside, most countries have a certain male to female ratio (usually 1.05 males to 1 female, which evens out later because females live longer).

India's gender ratio overall is 1.06, not too far from the 1.05 you cite as a sort of standard. The fact remains, however, that there really is no consensus, scientific or otherwise, about the gold standard for gender ratios.

And if this was a remnant of colonial rule why has the ratio only now started falling so drastically? I am not denying that colonial rule might have had something to do with it (but I would really need to read the book myself) but this imbalance has really become worse in the past 20 years. How do we explain that?

If gender ratios were really a long term social/structural problem in India, then India would have ceased to exist millennia ago - even a drop of one female per thousand males per year means that India would be down to 0 females per 1000 males in less than a 1000 years.

As for why the ratio has started falling recently, there can be many reasons and I don't see anything to indicate that these have been analyzed. For example, in the Middle East of today, the gender ratio is highly skewed in favor of males (based on U.N. stats)

UAE - 195 males to 100 females
Bahrain - 135
Saudi - 115
Oman - 113
India - 106
China - 106

The discrepancy in the Middle East is usually explained away as being due to an influx of overseas migrant labor, overwhelmingly male. So, the question arises: has someone taken the time to do a similar study for Punjab, Harayana etc to assess the impact on gender ratio due to immigrant farm labor from Bihar, Orissa, Bengal etc?

Leaving everything else aside....it's murder. That in itself should make it a pressing issue. Imagine the same number of dalits/muslims/tamils (put your group here) being killed just because they are who they say they are. What kind of outcry would there be?

We are talking abortions here, are we not? lets not blur this distinction. Infanticide is murder and anyone found guilty of it must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

#32
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
06:47 AM

Sanjay, no we're NOT talking about abortions here. Please see my comments above. We're talking about infanticide... these people are either killing newborn female babies or they are having late term procedures done after the age of viability of the fetus... that is not an abortion!!!

#33
Jawahara
URL
August 24, 2007
08:11 AM

Thanks SS, and to reiterate Sanjay, we are not talking abortions here...we are talking about taking a living, breathing human being...outside a host human body...and killing it. Murder!

Abortions are another factor, of course. And I support the right to abortion despite my deep sadness that it is being used to do away with fetsuses simply because they are female. But that's another issue altogether.

Abortion and infanticide are not the same and I was not blurring any line there.

And actually, Sanjay the male/female ratio in India is 1.08 (not 1.06 as you say, and yes, in a country of a billion a .03 variance is a big deal if it is artificially created).

India would have ceased to exist if indeed *everyone* was doing this. As long as some continue to not kill their female babies the country will continue to propogate in some way but I fail to see your point. No one said that everyone in India was killing their daughters, just that a significant enough number of girls was being killed to actually skew the ratio.

I am sure there is female infanticide not to mention a host of other issues in the middle east but countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE should hardly be our yardsticks.

The fact is that the gender imbalance in India is troubling to some of us. No one can force you to think that it's a problem just as you cannot make me believe that it's totally fine and we should just let it be.

Just fyi, I would be as troubled if for some reason the male ratio started tumbling significantly.

#34
Sanjay Garg
August 24, 2007
09:02 AM

smallsquirrel: if this is not about abortions, then exactly what is the issue? As I stated earlier, infanticide is illegal & must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

#35
Hardy
August 24, 2007
09:07 AM

Sanjay...Do you you have any data/links to infanticide(the one that in reality happens outside the womb and is murder of male/female infant).

Thx

#36
Sanjay Garg
August 24, 2007
09:11 AM

Jawahara: And actually, Sanjay the male/female ratio in India is 1.08 (not 1.06 as you say, and yes, in a country of a billion a .03 variance is a big deal if it is artificially created).

Not to quibble over numbers but the last census done by the GoI was in 2001 and the sex ratio based on those real numbers was 1.06.

The number you cite may have come from the UN but they are actually projections based on the last census and using a host of assumptions. The next official India census will be in 2010-2011.

#37
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
09:12 AM

sanjay... well... the issue is infanticide... someone else made it about abortion, then you confused the two... so at least we agree that infanticide should be prosecuted...

#38
Hardy
August 24, 2007
09:18 AM

Sanjay...No the number(ratio in the age group 0-6) is indeed close to 1.08(i.e f:m = 927:1000).


Please see

http://www.censusindia.net/t_00_004.html

#39
Sanjay Garg
August 24, 2007
09:28 AM

Hardy: There are no hard stats available and I do monitor almost 600 news feeds relating to India.

I recall reading a news item covering a speech by Renuka Chaudhury, Minister of Women and Child Development, where she gave some gory details about the methods used to murder the infants. However, she also went on to say that the proportion of female infanticide (i.e. murder) was quite minor.

#40
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 24, 2007
09:29 AM

#31 Sanjay Garg: "If gender ratios were really a long term social/structural problem in India, then India would have ceased to exist millennia ago - even a drop of one female per thousand males per year means that India would be down to 0 females per 1000 males in less than a 1000 years"

This equation totally disregards the simple premise of birth. Ha! What a joke! Mathematically if this ratio were to be applied to the demographics of all nations, we would have been extinct by now. Is it that difficult to understand that a nation's gender ratio is by a national consensus and not by area or region? If female infanticide is common to lets say Haryana, would the same equation be applied to the rest of the country? If it is common in a community and they couldn't kill each and every fetus then should we disregard the fact that they did murder lets say 4 out of 10? What is wrong with you? Do you even realize what it is that you are fighting? And why?

Female infanticide does exist. You cannot sit in your apartment and type in on a computer using the rationale of a few statisticians who rely on "reported" cases!

By comparing it with abortion you are comparing a miscarriage to negligent homicide! Why? Because I can find you statistical data that shows that a woman's physical exercise etc could cause a miscarriage. Would one charge her for negligent murder? This is preposterous.

Hardy: "Woman's reproductive right to kill(abort) fetus is a loosely defined term because it does not define the reproductive right of a man."

Yes, let us know when you grow a uterus and we will define yours too.

Reproductive rights are applicable to women because when a woman gets pregnant and has to make the difficult choice between keeping the baby and an abortion, the man CAN just leave OR CHOOSE NOT to be a part of the parenting. Women cannot walk away from a pregnancy. Also, the birth can affect a woman's health since, umm, the baby is inside her.

You know, what embarasses me is that there is always this group of Indian men, and it is the SAME ONES on this forum, who will do the following:

*Sit in their apartment and google up statistics to fit their delusion (and believe me, having worked in epidemiology I know how you can easily find the statistics that works best for you).

*These men then either blame the social issues that plague the country on our "colonialism", "Western influences" or just plainly deny that the problem exists.

*They do this without EVER venturing into some village in India where this happens.

This bothers me because once we as human beings know that somewhere a newborn is being fed poisonous fertilizer or unhulled rice because she is a girl, HOW can you come on a public forum and claim that the problem doesn't exist?!! If I knew of just 5 odd cases within the same region I would be more afraid that there are more cases that may be going unreported!! How can you look at statistics and console yourself that the problem "isn't just that severe"? How do you do it? And how do you sleep at night?

I am appalled.

Hardy: "Does any body have any information on viability and prevalence of test tube baby techniques?"

How is this question relevant here?

You guys want some more information to disregard this problem? blame it on something else? proove that other countries do it too?

Sanjay Garg & Hardy: The studies undertaken to calculate a rough percentage of girls that were killed upon birth or subjected to malnutrition did not count men/ women (who could be migrants) but girls below a certain age. They in fact also did surverys where families with previous female births were counted. People also relied on the reported cases of infanticide that were known in the rural areas. In a country where 70% of the population lives in the rural areas where women can find a midwife to deliver her child, where births and deaths can go unreported, you wanna sit and read out statistics to make you feel better?

Or is it maybe that all you care about is winning a debate on DC?

#41
Sanjay Garg
August 24, 2007
09:31 AM

Hardy: Sanjay...No the number(ratio in the age group 0-6) is indeed close to 1.08(i.e f:m = 927:1000)

I'm talking overall sex ratio, not broken down by age bands. If we do want to break it down by verious age bands, you are not only bringing in more complexity but you will also find that the sex ratios for all countries become quite skewed. I remember doing an anlysis for U.S. 10-14 group that showed a significant skew in favor of boys.

#42
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
09:53 AM

*stands up and claps*

aditi.. thanks for spelling it out for them, but I sincerely doubt that sanjay or hardy will get it. for them everything is simply an agenda... lather, rinse, repeat....

#43
Sanjay Garg
August 24, 2007
10:03 AM

@Aditi: This equation totally disregards the simple premise of birth. Ha! What a joke! Mathematically if this ratio were to be applied to the demographics of all nations, we would have been extinct by now.

I'm a bit confused by this fuzzy math. Kindly explain.

By comparing it with abortion you are comparing a miscarriage to negligent homicide! Why? Because I can find you statistical data that shows that a woman's physical exercise etc could cause a miscarriage. Would one charge her for negligent murder? This is preposterous.

are you sure this relates to me or to someone else? where did I say that infanticide = abortion?

The studies undertaken to calculate a rough percentage of girls that were killed upon birth or subjected to malnutrition did not count men/ women (who could be migrants) but girls below a certain age. They in fact also did surverys where families with previous female births were counted. People also relied on the reported cases of infanticide that were known in the rural areas. In a country where 70% of the population lives in the rural areas where women can find a midwife to deliver her child, where births and deaths can go unreported, you wanna sit and read out statistics to make you feel better?

Are you suggesting that the surveyors actually found people who willingly admitted to "girls that were killed upon birth or subjected to malnutrition"? where was the survey done? on Oprah? btw, aren't you mixing up "girls that were killed upon birth" with those who were "subjected to malnutrition"? or do you see no difference between the two?

#44
Hardy
August 24, 2007
10:07 AM

Aditi...I did not know if this was going to hurt you on personal level. Anyway...Here is what I said, if you think i was not clear...

1) If women have reproductive rights, what should happen to reproductive rights of men...because from what i guess men are obliged (morally, socially, and legally) to protect and feed their off springs. In cases of rape, unwanted pregnancy e.t.c do you think a rapist will want to force the woman to under go delivery. Thus in all practical cases it makes most sense to share or have uniform combined reproductive rights between males and females.

2) My question on test tube babies was exactly because if some people like you think that men should not have any rights whatsoever then we need to provide alternate, affordable viable means for men to pro-create. BTW, Your statement on men growing uterus was funny and probably misplaced.


That said, I would not want to deviate from the crux of the post.

BTW, I in no uncertain terms claim that some people go for sex determination of their babies. But just like those people make a small percentage of our population, so is this gender bias. Gender bias too is limited to small section of our population. The solution to handle this crisis should thus also be very precise, specific and well targeted.

People often criticize Punjab for highly adverse sex ratio, but rarely do they acknowledge that Punjab has one of the best records for last few decades. As per national census f:m ratio in 1901 was 832:1000 in Punjab and it has consistently improved to 876:1000 in 2001.

Do you deny that, improvement in life saving and life supporting health services has major role to play in the deciding f:m ratio of our country.

Yes, I do admit that my worse fears are when I see the difference between infant ratio(0-6 years) and the otherwise natural f:m ratio of any region. And it is here that there are alarming numbers being reported from Punjab i.e (798 vs 876). And I thus share your concern.

Just like we need to analyze data carefully, we also need to investigate what actually are the reasons that people go for sex determination. Here are some of the reasons...

1) Growing awareness to keep family size small.

2) More money required to raise female child as compared to money required for raising male child.

3) Better perceived return of investment from male than from female which stems for the fact that we have no social support system for old age people. Though more and more people are realizing that sons are discarding parents in old age under pressure from DIL's.

#45
Hardy
August 24, 2007
10:18 AM

#41 Sanjay...thanks for pointing that out.



A detour...

smallsquirrel...you look funny when you do that.

#46
temporal
URL
August 24, 2007
10:20 AM

heheh:


Yes, let us know when you grow a uterus and we will define yours too.

#47
temporal
URL
August 24, 2007
10:38 AM

brilliant!

Just like we need to analyze data carefully, we also need to investigate what actually are the reasons that people go for sex determination. Here are some of the reasons...

ok so it is NOT female infanticide BUT sex determination?..fine let us carry on...:)

1) Growing awareness to keep family size small.

the topic IS female infanticide, right?

2) More money required to raise female child as compared to money required for raising male child.

when people make love, this is far from their thoughts...children almost invariably are another thought..generally...specially for the ill literate or barely literate millions

3) Better perceived return of investment from male than from female which stems for the fact that we have no social support system for old age people. Though more and more people are realizing that sons are discarding parents in old age under pressure from DIL's

ah! now i get it...so THAT is your agenda?

another statistic wielding von-siffer?

#48
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 24, 2007
10:45 AM

#43 Sanjay Garg: Its not fuzzy math, it is actually a simple biostatistical application that states that a particular demographic equation if applied to general populations will result in an overinflated and drastically erroneous result (such as the one you have come up with). While I speak in the language of biostatistics, you speak in layman's math. Unfortunately however you choose to quote statistics that were calculated based on biostats. Hence principles of biostats do apply to it. You cannot apply declining ratios of one population to the rest of the nation. You cannot take a male to female ratio of the entire nation and then look to previous years and apply that value to deduce the fold increase/ decrease to those years :) Hence data needs to be updated every year. Otherwise we would just have to form a linear/ curve equation and put in the expected variables to calculate the various statitistical data instead of conducting population studies every now and then. The cycle of life and birth is something I hope I don't have to explain to you. Also, what is unclear to YOU isn't fuzzy math, its just fuzzy to YOU :)

Regards to abortion: please refer to the last paragraph of your comment #31. Let me know if I misunderstood that.

#44 Hardy: I cannot imagine why you would think that when you speak of an issue that is central to women's rights, gender discrimination in my country, it wouldn't hurt me on a personal level. Of course it does! I am an Indian woman. In fact I am surprised it doesn't hurt you! If a problem such as this exists in your nation, no matter what the intensity, you as an Indian should also be upset rather than disregard the existence of the issue or trivilialize it with the deft use of statistics.

And if you would be so kind, please state 3 reproductive rights you would propose for men in our country. Maybe that would give us all an insight into what kind of "reproductive rights" you are talking about. P.S Try not to include: "Be allowed to have unsafe sex and not pay for child support" as one of them.

You said "...then we need to provide alternate, affordable viable means for men to pro-create."

Ha! What?!! Affordable, alternate, viable means for men to pro-create? There are very few alternate, viable and AFFORDABLE means for even couples with fertility issues to pro-create and you want one for only men? I believe fertility clinics do require a womb for the embryo to go into...I hope you know that a baby doesn't just grow in a gigantic testtube :)

I don't know whether to laugh or be outraged at some of the stuff you guys say everytime a discussion about women's issues comes up.

Having an online debate is easy. Whats tough is to ask yourself these questions, introspect and wonder what there is YOU can DO about it. Human beings can either conscientiously try to solve the issues that plague society or pretend they don't exist. The latter is the easier route.

#49
Hardy
August 24, 2007
10:46 AM

Temporal, you got only what you were looking for?

#50
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
10:53 AM

hardy... I look funny when I do a lot of things. doesn't make aditi any less correct

*grins*

#51
Hardy
August 24, 2007
11:04 AM

Aditi...

I am surprised you stated almost everything which I did not say or did not intend to say.

And if you would be so kind, please state 3 reproductive rights you would propose for men in our country

The right to check his wife from aborting on non medical grounds and other flimsy grounds.

The right to "ask" wife to abort in case he feels that he(as the bread earner) will not be able to bear the burden of extra child. Obviously the overlap in rights needs to be addressed in an unbiased justified manner.

Ha! What?!! Affordable, alternate, viable means for men to pro-create? There are very few alternate ...

Did not say, "IF" you want to any men of any reproductive rights. So what essentially I was saying was, till the time we have no scientific means to grow baby outside of womb, we should allow men to share reproductive rights on child growing inside the womb. You are just trying to put words into mouth.

#52
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
11:12 AM

hardy... "The right to check his wife from aborting on non medical grounds and other flimsy grounds."

um, what the hell? so if the mother is not on her deathbed from the pregnancy it is FLIMSY GROUNDS... but if the dad simply thinks he's not earning enough he has the right to pressure his wife to abort?

yikes. how many people have you met that think they earn enough to support their children in the way they want. damned few. that is why they say there is never a perfect time to have a child. anyway, when did this turn into an abortion rights debate? this is about female infanticide, and you are trying to turn the issue around to your agenda again.

#53
Jawahara
URL
August 24, 2007
11:13 AM

Aditi, great comments, logical and well thought-out. Thanks!

#54
Hardy
August 24, 2007
11:16 AM

If a problem such as this exists in your nation, no matter what the intensity, you as an Indian should also be upset rather than disregard the existence of the issue or trivilialize it with the deft use of statistics.

Where exactly did I do that? BTW, the only truth among us is the data collected by im-partial surveys. Your or my opinion(or personal anecdotes) do not decide the truth or validity of any claim.

#55
Hardy
August 24, 2007
11:25 AM

small squirrel...Why do not you just turn the table. Why should woman have exclusive right?

Anyway, I was not part of this abortion debate and unless I saw others claiming that abortion is unsurmountable fundamental birth right of a wife which can never be challenged by his husband.

#56
poiuy
August 24, 2007
12:43 PM

#28 - please read Determination of gender - 10 and 14 weeks by Z Efrat et al which appeared in the Journal: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999; 13:305-30. A line from it reads " At 12 weeks the accuracy of gender assignment was 98.7% and at 13 weeks the accuracy was 100%."
So as per your comment, would this be considered abortion or infanticide?

#57
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
12:44 PM

hardy... I think many women here would not agree with how you have just characterized our feelings about abortion. I will simply speak for myself, and others can chime in. we believe that the FINAL decision should rest with the woman because the baby is in her body, and for the most part women are the primary caregivers of children. we never said that men cannot have a place in decision making within a relationship... but far too often it is men making decisions for women about all kinds of issues surrounding reproduction. men refuse to wear condoms because they do not like the way they feel or they do not fit right or or or or or ad nauseum.... they they want to make decisions about when the woman should bear children. and then we have the men who want to legislate what a woman should or should not do with her body.

In a perfect word, hardy, these decisions should be made jointly by a man and a woman in a relationship. but at the end of the day too many women are left to fend for themselves where children are concerned, so the decision of when and how to have them should be left to them.

#58
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 24, 2007
12:46 PM

#55: Hardy"Why should woman have exclusive right?"

Why should a woman go through labor, the risks of pregnancy induced diabetes, hypertension, hormonal fluctuations, risks such as a breast tumor being mistaken for an inflamed milk duct, grave risks such as post-natal depression/ pyschosis that could alter her life?

Since those are beyond her choice, the choice of going ahead with the pregnancy is upto a woman of whether or not she wants to go through with the pregnancy. A woman is not just a uterus housing a man's baby. She is a human being. You cannot claim legal rights over her womb.

And you need to deal with it.

HONESTLY, I don't even understand why spousal consent should be a factor in abortion!!...why would a sane man want to force a woman to have a child she doesnt want to bear?!! This sort of stress can lead to serious consequences on the health of the child resulting from such a preganancy!

Do you think that legislations which have overthrown the "spousal consent" requirement are nuts?

#59
Sanjay Garg
August 24, 2007
01:27 PM

@Aditi: Its not fuzzy math, it is actually a simple biostatistical application that states that a particular demographic equation if applied to general populations will result in an overinflated and drastically erroneous result (such as the one you have come up with).....etc

Still sounds like fuzzy math, now wrapped up in a lot of jargon. Makes little sense, even to someone like me that actually understands statistical techniques and stochastic calculus. I'm still trying to figure when and where I did the computations that you claim I did.

Regards to abortion: please refer to the last paragraph of your comment #31. Let me know if I misunderstood that.

Re-read it and still mystified. I suspect you did misunderstand my point. A quick suggestion: It is not the number of comments you post but the quality that counts.

#60
Hardy
August 24, 2007
01:30 PM

I never claimed that man should be abdicated of the responsibility to maintain child.

If a woman undergoes the biological processes of bearing children, so do men under go moral, social and legal obligations of supporting wife and children their entire life.

Men are expected to bear burden of child(and rightly so) but they should have the right to participate in child decisions.

Aditi,

Women has every right to fear pregnancy. But, if woman indeed fears pregnancy, why should she marry a man who expects that she would indeed be mother one day.

you may not know...But I know now a lot of cases where women abort child just to teach their husband a lesson. And Many a times they take this step at the behest others(relatives and friends).

The motherly love comes due to hormonal changes and only after the birth. Before the birth of child, woman is just another prospective parent and her decisions can be as much influenced as can be that of any other concerned person.

I however feel that we are diverging from the main topic.

#61
Deepti Lamba
August 24, 2007
01:39 PM

Hardy, I know someone who lost his wife at childbirth, he left the baby with the dead wife's parents and got remarried within the year.

Horror stories are not gender related but character related.

Debates about abortions and pregnancies are emotional issues and generally speaking only those who have gone through these phrases of life can tell you the reasons are for the choices they make, others generally make convenient speculations to suit their agenda driven arguments.

#62
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
02:07 PM

hardy.. you fucking crack me up

"The motherly love comes due to hormonal changes and only after the birth. Before the birth of child, woman is just another prospective parent and her decisions can be as much influenced as can be that of any other concerned person."

Oh really? is that what happened to you when YOU were pregnant? oh right, just more SIFFER propaganda... and sick bullshit at that.

As a woman who is still recovering from childbirth I am here to tell you that what you have just said is sick, malicious bullshit designed to make women look like machines with 'on' and 'off' switches when it comes to motherly love. like any woman enters into an abortion lightly?

that is some sick shit, hardy, but I guess I should know by now that SIFFERS are not above that kind of thing.

#63
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2007
02:09 PM

oh, and BTW hardy... we might be diverging from the topic but you have diverged from reality....

#64
SFF_India
URL
August 24, 2007
02:16 PM

"others generally make convenient speculations to suit their agenda driven arguments."

I understand, others mean both men and women engaged in the discussion.

#65
Aditi
August 24, 2007
02:25 PM

Sanjay Garg: "I'm still trying to figure when and where I did the computations that you claim I did."

Comment 31 I think...

"If gender ratios were really a long term social/structural problem in India, then India would have ceased to exist millennia ago - even a drop of one female per thousand males per year means that India would be down to 0 females per 1000 males in less than a 1000 years.

#60 Hardy you left rationality a few exits back. Diverging from topic is hardly a concern anymore :D

#66
Aditi Nadkarni
August 24, 2007
02:45 PM

Deepti: Speaking of horror stories. A friend told me of a woman who did not want to have a child because of health reasons. All she wanted is to wait. Family and societal pressure was so great that she had 5 miscarriages, 2 stillborns and finally very unhappily under a lot of stress gave birth to a son. She suffered from immense depression during the pregnancy. She didn't really feel ready to care for a child and went through panic attacks. All the husband did was accuse her of not being a natural woman who like Hardy here suggests should've wanted to be a mother no matter what. a few days before delivery the baby went into distress, swallowed meconium (baby faeces) and suffered permanent brain damage due to decreased oxygen supply to the brain. Today, the couple is divorced, the boy is mentally challenged and has breathing and heart abnormalities. The inumerable curating sessions have damaged the woman's uterine walls and she can no longer safely give birth. The man has remarried and refuses to pay for the institutionalized son from his first marriage. So much for "motherly love comes after birth of a child".

I dunno which segment of society you come from Hardy but god help your wife.

Forcing a woman to have a baby and not go for abortion using legalities is not a solution at all. Nobody wins in a situation like that...especially not the innocent child.

#67
Hardy
August 24, 2007
03:14 PM

smallsquirrel and aditi that is because you do not want to see the other side.

The only difference between motherly love and fatherly love is the presence of hormones. If you think otherwise...Prove me wrong. Your wild accusations only suggest that you do not have necessary arguments to backup yourself. Even A cow would kick away other calves that would try to drink milk. Ha..Ha consider some other accusations than blaming others for what appears to you to be agenda.

Deepti, only recently in news, they reported a case being fought between a daughter and mother. Mother had left her daughter with grand parents to marry another man and was now back to claim her share in her husband's property. So yes quoting anecdotal incidents proves nothing.

#68
Aditi Nadkarni
August 24, 2007
03:20 PM

#67: Hardy: I don't think anybody is debating fathrly "love" versus motherly "love" :)

A woman's body is involved in the process of childbirth and you cannot treat a woman's uterus like it were a rental housing for a child. If legalities become involved in dictating reproductive rights of a woman, all hell would break loose. As long as a fetus is inside a woman's uterus it is still a part of her body affecting her health and vice versa.

Why don't you get it? Is it so hard for you to understand?

Would you wanna force a woman to go ahead with a pregnancy by inviting courts to dictate a stay on abortion? How would this benefit mother and child?

#69
Insider
August 24, 2007
03:21 PM

I know many siffers who have abandoned their wives who have not given birth to a son. Please make an effort to check the distorted statements provided by siffers because not all of the comments need to be "cherished" or "believed". Why is they their wives do not come forward to defend themselves...why? Coz they are busy taking care of their children single handedly , working full time and taking full responsibility.

Do you know that in India sonography discreetly is still used to identify the sex of the child and all hell beaks loose if it is a girl child. Ladies, a lot exists out there which is hidden. I am amazed that DC has tied up with siff as I see on their website a link to DC and read in their emails that DC has partnered with them. Supporting female infanticide or female foeticide directly or indirectly or the people who have indulged in it and thus have criminal cases going on is a serious offence.





#70
Hardy
August 24, 2007
03:21 PM

#66 Aditi...

You seem to have some agenda yourself...You do not even respect the basic assumptions of a discussion...where I very clearly stated that the question of rights exists only in cases which have non-medical grounds. No doubt you are so much blindfold with women power that you conviniently forget the basic premise of any discussion.

I am not sure if you really want to entertain any debate or just have to cry loud about your own agenda and perception of women power.

#71
Insider
August 24, 2007
03:24 PM

.....and the ruthless comments by Hardy- an active SIFmember says it all. As leader preaches the followers practice be it Hardy or siffer or sumanth. Birds of a feather flock together!!

#72
Hardy
August 24, 2007
03:30 PM

#68.. Pleased use basic premise of discussion before putting your thoughts(random) on this board... One can really not discuss anything fruitful with you if you time and again want to intentionally dismiss the basic premise of any discussion, just because it does not suit your own agenda.

if you think repeating more than once helps you overcome the blindfold, here is what I unambiguously said long before...


The right to check his wife from aborting on non medical grounds and other flimsy grounds.

#73
Hardy
August 24, 2007
03:45 PM

#68..

Hardy: I don't think anybody is debating fathrly "love" versus motherly "love" :)

If i was not emphasizing the fact that there is no difference between a woman(wife) and a man(husband) choosing to abort(before birth) and both of them are capable of banking upon equal devious(non medical) reasons to abort child and that none of those decisions has anything to do with the sex of the person(wife or husband) and is purely character (personal) dependent ...then what else was it...

I am sure you and your bunch likes to cook up horror stories in your own mind and choose others to blame it because it is a convenient outlet to your random and bizarre thoughts.

#74
Aditi Nadkarni
August 24, 2007
03:49 PM

#70 Of course I have an agenda!! I dunno why you keep saying that?! I am an Indian woman! How could I be disconnected from this discussion?

If courts start dictating that a spouse can put a stay on an abortion, what reproductive rights does that leave women with? It is extremely regressive. In special cases a petition to the court has been made and as for non-medical grounds, a doctor decides medical grounds/ non-medical grounds. Abortion clinics that do not ascertain medical conditions etc are illegal. Who decides what is the right grounds? What if the pregancy is during a time when she finds out her husband was cheating on her? What if it comes during a time when the marriage has fallen apart? What is "flimsy" grounds to you may be a very important grounds for a woman. Subjective.

"One can really not discuss anything fruitful with you if you time and again want to intentionally dismiss the basic premise of any discussion, just because it does not suit your own agenda"

See, if you want people to agree with you all the time, its ur problem not mine. Get used to women stating their opinion.

I have logically refuted every one of your claims and YOU have NOT addressed a VERY important issue that I raised which honestly shreds your whole "men's reproductive rights" crap to bits. Address this if you can:

"Would you wanna force a woman to go ahead with a pregnancy by inviting courts to dictate a stay on abortion? How would this benefit mother and child? "

Having a court on your side, wining a debate may bring its temporary joy but if you apply it to a long-term situation, the end result will not be benefiting to all. You'll make an ego battle out of something that could affect the life of a child.

Men want "reproductive rights" they should exercise them on their own reproductive system.

Have you even read the MTP 1971 and the post-2000 ammendments??!!

#75
Aditi Nadkarni
August 24, 2007
03:53 PM

#73"I am sure you and your bunch likes to cook up horror stories in your own mind and choose others to blame it because it is a convenient outlet to your random and bizarre thoughts"

See, this is precisely why courts refuse to step in and put a stay on abortions because there will always be men like you who would trivialize a woman's reasons for going ahead with the abortion.

You assume that these stories are cooked up, we could choose to assume that cases where women will have "flimsy" reasons to abort are cooked up.

Right?

#76
Hardy
August 24, 2007
04:48 PM

If courts start dictating that a spouse can put a stay on an abortion, what reproductive rights does that leave women with

There is something called fear of law which prevents most of the potential people from committing crime. And then there is something called post crime punishment. Why do I have to explain such basic things to somebody commenting on Desi critics.


What if the pregnancy is during a time when she finds out her husband was cheating on her? What if it comes during a time when the marriage has fallen apart

What if the same happens to a man.

Would you wanna force a woman to go ahead with a pregnancy by inviting courts to dictate a stay on abortion? How would this benefit mother and child?

Why should I be bothered about benefits accrued to a women, who wants kill an unborn child. However, I see that child care becomes critical issue. In "that" case where woman wants to abort child based on her personal judgment and aspirations, let the father decide if he is willing to care and nurture child in the absence of the mother. What is the problem? Any father would know whether or how best he will be able to take care of his child in future. You got to choose between Killing an unborn child or rearing a child without mother. Which one will you choose?

I know fathers who aspire to keep children and I have personal anecdotes to support that.

#77
Aditi Nadkarni
August 24, 2007
05:22 PM

#76:

"Why do I have to explain such basic things to somebody commenting on Desi critics."

Because it is dumb and I am not used to coming down to this level. Thats why. Fear of law? Crime? What are you talking about???! The legislations of over a hundred nations protect a woman's reproductive rights and YOU have some sort of bias that you would like the law of an entire country to cater to?!!!

"What if the same happens to a man?"

In either case. if a marriage has broken down then I would rather have the woman make a decision as to whether she would like to bring a child into a dysfunctional relationship.

"Why should I be bothered about benefits accrued to a women, who wants kill an unborn child. However, I see that child care becomes critical issue. In "that" case where woman wants to abort child based on her personal judgment and aspirations, let the father decide if he is willing to care and nurture child in the absence of the mother.....etc etc etc"

I wouldn't expect the likes of you to care about any woman. But remember: UNTIL THE CHILD IS BORN it is a FETUS, INSIDE the uterus of this woman that you claim you don't give a damn about. The woman's psyche, health, mental and emotional condition have a direct bearing on that of the fetus. If you cannot understand this, you are an idiot whose sole purpose of this argument is ego...you want a court to side with your ego. Thats not how it works.

If the father wants to raise a child thats wonderful. But a man cannot raise a fetus.

Deal with it.

"You got to choose between Killing an unborn child or rearing a child without mother. Which one will you choose?"

Thats the thing, I WILL NOT choose anything....the woman in question WILL. Her uterus, her womb, she gets to decide.

I ask you again in the hope that you will educate yourself before voicing your IGNORANCE:

Have you read the MTP 1971 with post-2000 ammendments?

IF YOU DON"T KNOW THE LAW that prevents illegal abortions then thats your deficiency...not the system's.

Men like you want control. If it were upto you, you would want a court's dictation in controling everything women do.

You have to face the fact that until a child is delivered it is not a child...it is a fetus. In the early stages of pregnancy it is an embryo. Most IMPORTANTLY it is inside the uterus of a woman whose rights as a human being over her own body have to be respected.

My consolation lies in the fact that even if you were to have the final word on this debate, the progressive world that we live in will NOT allow a court to interfere with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy unless they see enough cause to.

#78
Jay
August 24, 2007
05:45 PM

Aditi, men like Hardy here care only about being right in theory. In practice all this talk about "raising a child" falls apart.

They don't give a damn about the woman who is bearing their child but they want to raise a child. They think raising a child is feeding it, cleaning after it and putting it to bed. They do not want to give a thought to what life would be like for a kid who grows up knowing that his/ her mom was forced by a court of law to give birth to them. These men don't care if the child sufers health issues due to the stress suffered by the mother during pregnancy. They treat women like the "box that my baby comes in".

They speak of a fetus like it were a human being not becoz they pine to be fathers but becoz they wanna make an ego battle out of the whole situation and use legalities to make life hell for the woman who divorced them.

Its the same kinda men who take pride in a "son" but treat daughters like burdens.

They want courts to decide what a woman does with a pregnancy that is progressing inside her body. Whats next? Will courts get to decide when she gets pregnant too?

Female infanticide is a big social issue but it will be years before attitudes of people in India change. Even today I hear educated colleagues speak of how much their mothers want their wives to have a boy. Makes me wonder if being educated really does anything towards changing basic attitudes.

One of my female colleagues had an anxiety attack on the day of the ultrasound because of this pressure and it sadly resulted in a miscarriage.

But such things seem like "cooked up" stories to Hardy because they are somebody else's. To him his own story, only his case should drive everybody else's logic, even the courts' :)

#79
poiuy
August 24, 2007
06:40 PM

I agree with aditi that reproductive rights of a woman are just plain and simple reproductive rights of a women. Until a child is born, the fetus is a part of a women's body and it's her choice. One thing i don't like in the tone of aditi's comments is that just as fervently she writes about the pain and suffering a woman goes through during pregnancy, she equally disregards abortion as a off-hand procedure. I believe for no matter why abortion takes place, woman do go through lot of emotional pain which can lost a lifetime. With rights comes responsibility. I've always heard from some of my female friends who gave births that they had formed an emotional bond with their un-born child all during pregnancy. So i believe its not that easy to let go of something that is a part of you. Have you heard of something called as Post-traumatic stress disorder? It's all fine and dandy to be for woman's power and reproductive rights but just don't trivialize abortion as an off-hand procedure.

#80
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 24, 2007
08:10 PM

#79 poiuy: Which statement of mine projects abortion as an off-hand precedure?!!

Some of my early work was with genetic counsellors who spoke to pregnant women about the potential risks of familial disease. Sometimes the woman had to have an abortion because the abnormality was detected early on. So I have witnessed first-hand the kind of pain and anguish that women suffer when they have to go through with the abortion. In fact even a miscarriage has severe effects on a woman's emotional bearing.

I don't know why you would think that I feel abortion is an "off hand" procedure.

You said: "It's all fine and dandy to be for woman's power and reproductive rights but just don't trivialize abortion as an off-hand procedure."

Fine and dandy? :) Doesn't that make it all the more important that a woman's right in this circumstance be respected....the choice isn't a fun one to make. It is a very tough choice.

BTW, pouiy, I hope you took notice of the fact that I am a woman myself.

#81
temporal
URL
August 24, 2007
08:13 PM

(with a priori and a posteriori apologies to kavita, s-s, jawahara, dee, and adi)

anthem of the Von_SIFfer legionnnaire

consumed with rage and angst these inferior
men who have things stuck in their posterior
become women baiting uncouth warrior
by insisting on owning women's interior

we can only concede if they inquire
how they can all post-partum pain acquire
if they carry on farting from their posterior
then they deserve losing their anterior

#82
poiuy
August 24, 2007
11:38 PM

Aditi : "You have to face the fact that until a child is delivered it is not a child...it is a fetus. In the early stages of pregnancy it is an embryo. Most IMPORTANTLY it is inside the uterus of a woman whose rights as a human being over her own body have to be respected."
This is the statement i'm a bit puzzled about. When the question comes to who is best suited to raise a child, gain custody in case of divorce, the laws are clearly in favor of the mother (I agree with that BTW). One of the prime reason stated is that the mother and child share a special bond. But you come around and state that until the child is born, its not a child as if its a alien creature. So what's the special bond everybody is talking about. You can't if i'm keeping the child, its a child but if aborting its a fetus.

#83
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 25, 2007
12:09 AM

Poiuy: If I wanted to say "alien creature" I would've said alien creature...but I said "fetus and embryo", becoz I meant "fetus and embryo" and if you think that an unborn fetus is an alien, I really cannot help it. To me, as a healthcare researcher AND as a woman those are two very perfectly clear terms.

"One of the prime reason stated is that the mother and child share a special bond."

This is all great if you want the baby but if for some unfortunate reason a woman doesn't then the law shouldnt tell her how to feel about the fetus in her womb, right?

"You can't (say) if i'm keeping the child, its a child but if aborting its a fetus."

Never mind what I say and think...the law says that :)

*****
This issue isn't about what I think but about what law should dictate and who the choice should rest with. So basically YOU can choose to think of an unborn baby as a baby BUT someone who due to very unfortunate circumstances cannot keep her baby should be allowed to view it as a fetus...not a child that she is murdering!! Ironically the latter line of thinking actually would greatly increase the likelihood of the post-abortive syndrome that you were asking me if I was aware of in comment #79

*****

In reference to earlier comments: FYI for some other people who haven't taken the time to check it out: the rights of a fetus are also protected to a certain extent. Intentionally harming a fetus, causing/ inducing miscarriage without just medical cause or by illegitimate means IS ACTUALLY punishable by law (India Section 312 and regulations of the MTP Act).

#84
SFF_India
URL
August 25, 2007
01:16 AM

Supporters of right to abortion, and right to reproductive rights for women.

I am all with you. Women should have sole right to decide on whether to keep the child or not even if the reasons are atrocious and flimsy. Its her body, no debates on it, she has right to kill whatever is inside her.
-----------------------------------------------
Please don't involve men in this process. Stop treating them as a machine. They have helped in conceiving, go to hell now, its my body now and I don't want you to be part of anything now. Yup, will come to you only when child support is required.

Also, please start conceiving without men . Its your body, nobody should interfere with it except you.
-----------------------------------------------

#85
Deepti Lamba
URL
August 25, 2007
01:54 AM

Insider, there is no partnership between Desicritics and SIFF. We have an author who happens to be a SIFF member. We are a big tent, opposing voices co-exist well on DC.

#86
Jay
August 25, 2007
09:46 AM

84 Sff_India: You don't want to pay child support please don't drag abortion laws into it. You don't wanna pay child support coz it burns a hole in your pocket NOT becoz abortion is legal.

Also you are comparing a living child that the couple had together with a fetus that is still living inside the mother. This is like saying "Since you can exercise your right to abort a child I no longer have to pay for the one you actually gave birth to"

Nice try.

Any sane person understands that if things are good between the couple, abortion should be a joint decision. But if they are not and a woman has to take consent from her husband to abort the fetus that is growing in her womb, she would be at the mercy of a man who could put a stay on the abortion just to get her back for ego reasons. In cases where abortion/ miscarriage has been induced without consent and by illegal means one can use the Section 312 that Aditi mentions. So stop squawking about men's "reproductive rights".

In a recent case of a Siffer Swarup Sarkar money was ultimately awarded for child support EVEN THOUGH carges of abortion without consent were levelled.

If you Siffers cannot deal with the fact that women do have the right over their own bodies then YOU should be the ones finding another means to "procreate". For you having a child is just "procreating". That is the problem. If ever you were to think of a child as a life that would go on you would never demand that a court of law decide whether it should live against the will of the mother. You would leave that opinion with a doctor and with the woman who will have to bear that baby for 9 months.


Some of you should watch this following video to see a debate between SIFF representative and women. While they are logically addressing the section and its implications, Mr.Sarkar SIFF member is sitting and talking about Sita, Kunti and Shurpanakha. No kidding:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V0Q4Q6lrGWQ

The problem like I said is attitudes. We have men who believe that women should just take it. It bothers them that women can now do something about it without fearing for their lives.

The Siffers who are squawking for the rights of a fetus would not like to be held for murder because they mentally tortured their wives and brought on a miscarriage. If the fetus has the same rights as a child then causing a miscarriage by mental harassment should be equivalent to murder. Right Siffers?

You know those families where a son is everything and the daughter is just a burden: those are the kind of families that feed this kind of mentality. These men grow up believing that they are somehow superior, somehow entitled to bully the women around them and if they are caught doing it they are outraged. If these attitudes cannot change how will those of the families in the rural areas? We have educated men on this forum who are forever fighting feminism. Who will fight female infanticide?

#87
ravi
August 25, 2007
02:28 PM

Jay
#78
!!!!!!They do not want to give a thought to what life would be like for a kid who grows up knowing that his/ her mom was forced by a court of law to give birth to them.!!!!!!!!

Assume a situation, where woman want a child and man don't want now.But woman gave birth to her children, then tell me what is the situation of the child knows that his dad don't want him/her but mom did it with her will.


!!!!!!They speak of a fetus like it were a human being not becoz they pine to be fathers but becoz they wanna make an ego battle out of the whole situation and use legalities to make life hell for the woman who divorced them!!!!!!

well, i agree that men of the kind you explain are exist, but all are not like that.many men really want to become dads.

___________________________________________

Man can't give birth to babies. Only a woman can give.Woman have the right to decide when she want to do that. Think what ever you want, can i ask you one thing.If men also think same and don't like give thier sperm to woman(wife), who want babies.(yeah, you can show some sperm banks, and technology which allow woman to get pregnancy without sperm..., but the result is divorce, because men don't accept that baby as thier own son/daughter).It must be men's right to deny(giving sperm).
_______________________________________

woman's decision respected. But the reason for she don't want that baby is need to be concidered. If it is not a good reason, must be rejected. because she has responsibilities after marriage.men have the right to become father.

I don't know what law is saying(not a tough task, google can help but i am not interested), i don't know what the proggressive world's attitude towards this, but i told this because many men want to become fathers.If every woman don't want to give birth because it is the part in her body,it will be a hell for men.

#88
ravi
August 25, 2007
02:42 PM

Jay
#86
""Who will fight female infanticide?""

Every one, and I am not including siffers.Because i don't want to give statements on them.

#89
Sumanth
August 25, 2007
04:06 PM

Words like
dowry, domestic violence, female foeticide are old and misused. Lies lies and lies

We at SIFF engage all the feminist [EDITED] lurking in Internet
first. We spray SIFF DDT on one feminist, and she will bring other
feminists to fight with us and get sprayed with DDT.

Search for feminists spray SIFF
DDT on all feminist blogs with articles written in last one week.


For these feminist [EDITED], glass is always half full even after
driving 22,000 men to suicide.

Who are our opponents?

a) Feminists
b) Chivalrous males who feel women need to be protected at any
cost. These men are brainwashed for decades by a biased medai.

When one is in a war, one must not worry about what kind of image we
have. If you use some principles of game theory, then in our case
being a mirror image of the feminists works best for us "Now".
Later, we can change the strategy.

If we are afraid of getting a bad name and try to protect our so
called good name, then our opponents can easily disguise themselves
as SIFF members and start tarnishing our image with false stories in
Internet and Blogs.

So, what is the way to guard against it?

Ans:- Just do not mind about what image you have. In a conflict,
people will criticise and they will criticise brutally. Get ready to
face it from a perspective of "no expectations" .

It is upto SIFF members to decide, if they want to keep suffering or
would like to create momentum in the movement by enabling the
political dimension and partnership with Youth for Equality or
Paritrana.


Feminists and their Patriarchal lovers will not change overnight.
Patriatchal MCPs want to see all women as victims and sex objects.
Feminists want all women to behave as victims so that their
businesses can run.








#90
Jay
August 25, 2007
04:06 PM

ravi: If a guy denies participating in the conception of a child then nobody can force him, unless you are suggesting that a woman wanting a chilkd is going to jump on him and hump him. That is unacceptable but unlikely as well :) and quite comical.

Also, a man can walk away from the pregnancy but the woman cannot.

The sperm bank houses sperm samples from men who have voluntarily given/ donated sperm, its not forced out of them.

"But the reason for she don't want that baby is need to be concidered. If it is not a good reason, must be rejected. because she has responsibilities after marriage.men have the right to become father."

Whatever the reason may be any man should not get to decide if the reason is good enough...doctors, medical professionals should. Responsibilities?? Do you mean to say that a woman who gets married owes her husband a child? If she doesn't want she be forced to stay pregnant becoz men have the "right" to become fathers?

"If every woman don't want to give birth because it is the part in her body,it will be a hell for men."

You rejected the idea of looking up the law on google but you should. Because this discussion isn't about what were to happen if all women were to not want a child. It is about whether a woman's right to abort is equivalent to murdering a female child. A court is smarter than to assume the possibility that suddenly one day all women will wake up and not want to be mothers.

#91
Sumanth
August 25, 2007
04:12 PM

UN and UNICEF are two organisations which

1) Support 498a
2) Support and pressure for DV Act.
3) Support and advocate for Abortion.
(Even when UNICEF is a Children's Organisation, it promotes Child
Kiling)
4) UNICEF funds feminists in India where as innocent small children
work on the streets. UNICEF is a children's Fund.

Today, UNICEF CEO in India is accused for womanising, harassment at
workplace, misusing money of UNICEF and attempt to SUBVERT Justice.

UNICEF has advocated sending of our innocent parents to JAIL.
Now, it is our DUTY send UNICEF India CEO Cecilio Adorna to his rightful place and give him a taste of his own medicine.

That is the only way we can get JUSTICE for an Organisation and its
CEO who support child killing and JAILING of our mother and sisters.

Why don't you first take into task the UNICEF chief who is accussed of harassing a woman and supporting child killing?


#92
Jay
August 25, 2007
04:20 PM

89 Sumanth!! Ahh the [EDITED] SIFF boss is here!!!

Siffers are the [EDITED] becoz the rest of the community doesn't want them. Ask me why? Becoz they spew crap on the very forum that allows them to express.

DDT is not necessary for these Siffers. Just swat them with a bit of logic and they'll be gone. Beware of the Siffers disease that infects discussions on this forum. [EDITED:PERSONAL SPECULATION]....this is probably what got them in trouble.

If female infanticide is a LIE then guess what is the BIGGEST LIE: 498A MISUSE. NOW THATS A REALLY BIG LIE. You guys just got away with it. We will not buy YOUR "cooked-up" stories and if YOU don't care about your image then DON'T show up on a public forum to wage your ugly battles.

By the way, what chivalrous men who were brainwashed??....you mean men who were raised to believe in the equal rights of women, to respect those rights? I think you lost your ability to think when you were put in jail....thats how the world gets Siffers.

#93
Jay
August 25, 2007
04:24 PM

91 The law of over 150 nations legalizes lawful abortion, so go scream at the door of every court.

Using words like "child killing" does nothing...it just shows us that you are an aidiot who is so pro-life that he is anti-human rights.

Rights of the fetus are also protected by laws so don't get your panties in a knot. Improper and offending abortions can be reported and booked.

So what do you want: a girl who was raped and is pregnant should give birth becoz YOU had a bad experience with abortion?????

Yes, lets all cater our legal and judicial systems to the Siffers. Ha.

#94
temporal
URL
August 25, 2007
07:51 PM

sumanth:

you lose;)

godwin!

Words like dowry, domestic violence, female foeticide are old and misused.Lies lies and lies

and don't whine and fret because YOU (and von siffers) are only playing to your delusional mind-set and your own 'charged' legionnaires

and before you invoke game theory please understand john forbes' .... :)

;)

here, again in case you missed it earlier:)

(with a priori and a posteriori apologies to kavita, s-s, jawahara, dee, and adi)

anthem of the Von_SIFfer legionnnaire

consumed with rage and angst these inferior
men who have things stuck in their posterior
become women baiting uncouth warrior
by insisting on owning women's interior

we can only concede if they inquire
how they can all post-partum pain acquire
if they carry on farting from their posterior
then they deserve losing their anterior

#95
Kavita Chhibber
URL
August 25, 2007
08:28 PM

Thank you every body for your comments. Weekends are a little crazy for me, because I'm out covering events and I have only just started reading the thoughts of everyone who wrote in. It will take me some time to absorb everything, but thank you for such an overwhelming response.

No matter what anyone says, everyone of you obviously feel strongly about the issue and are taking the time to say how you feel. Cyber space is a strange space-it gives you the freedom to speak more candidly but also stops us all from getting to really know each other, see each other's body language and at times just presume the worst about each other's intentions.

And so along with some very thought provoking comments I see emotions running rife all over this space.

One thing that has stayed with me in a recent conversation with a spiritual master was that the moment we start thinking of ourselves as"we" a lot of the discord will disappear.


This is obviously an issue that has touched our hearts and touched a raw nerve,but more than that it has made all of you who are here think-and for that I'm truly grateful. From dialogue, dissension and confusion comes clarity and resolve, and that often translates into action.
So thank you for participating-it shows you care.

#96
Sanjay Garg
August 25, 2007
10:11 PM

Well, Kavita, one hopes that for issues that one thinks are serious and perhaps worthy of joint action by Indians, we will have less of the poorly-researched, tabloid style articles and more that are balanced, more nuanced and more objective.

A surer prescription for less discord, in my view.

#97
Jay
August 26, 2007
12:45 AM

Sanjay Garg: Interestingly when something doesn't match with YOUR opinions or knowledge you categorize it as a "poorly researched tabloid style article"....that gives you the opportunity to "research" ONLY those precise statistics that match only your views. You want to ignore any other conflicting piece of evidence, statistical/ rationale because it doesn't fit YOUR OWN take.

A surer prescription for less discord is for you to grow up and realize that not all opinions will always match yours. This maturity is obvious in Kavita's comment 95 and completely lacking in yours.

If one were to use your approach we would all be ignoring social issues because of the following:

1. Oh we've always had this issue
2. The issue just isn't that urgent
3. The issue resulted due toe the British, the "westerners", the Moghuls....etc etc etc
4. You foreigners have no right to criticize our Hindustan no matter how big the issue
5. The statistics I dug up on the internet doesn't match yours.
6. Female infanticide doesn't exist because I say so and I can do some mathematical calculations to prove it. What? Have I actually been to a village to do a population study?? No, of course not. We just need "statistics".

There's a river in Egypt named after this syndrome!!

:)

#98
Sanjay Garg
August 26, 2007
02:03 AM

@Jay: Thanks for the pop psychology but unfortunately, in the key area of understanding, explaining and re-stating my own views back to me, this falls far short.

For serious discussions & debate, we have an established methodology in India called"purva paksha". It says that if you are really interested in getting at the truth by engaging others who may differ with you, you must first study the other's viewpoint very seriously and become an expert in it. So much an expert that the other side is forced to say "you have stated my view as well as I would have". Only then can you debate against it.

Let me illustrate how you failed purva paksha, using just one item you attribute to me:

1. Oh we've always had this issue

Personally speaking, I have no clue whether "we've always had this issue" and here is the reason. It is because I suspect that any culture/ sub-culture/ group that engages in sex-selective infanticide for any length of time will soon cease to exist. If this were not the case, and there were no adverse effects on the community as a whole, why are we worried about it now?

a. surely cannot be because of infanticide because there are plenty of existing Indian laws to deal with this issue
b. if about sex-selective abortions, then why are we questioning the Indian woman's right to abort?

As you can see, your attempt to represent my views are very far from accurate. About as far away as that river is long.

#99
Jay
August 26, 2007
02:45 AM

Sanjay Garg:

"It is because I suspect that any culture/ sub-culture/ group that engages in sex-selective infanticide for any length of time will soon cease to exist"

Yes, you are right. Good job at the math :) It will however take extreme sex selection for that stage. Meaning: a man who has 2 daughters and kills the 3rd born female still has given to that community 2 female members. That does not disprove the fact that he murdered the 3rd. The community will still have the female members needed for procreation but more will be killed during attempts to produce a boy.

*****If I have to sit here and lay this out for you without you using your own grey matter, I can only conclude that your interest lies solely in winning an online debate, not in truly researching the evidence*******

"If this were not the case, and there were no adverse effects on the community as a whole, why are we worried about it now?"

You don't seem worried about it at all to me!! Only those who have the courage to do something about it will worry. This has continued for generations. There have always been some who face the issues and work towards reforming the situation and some who are never worried. If you come fom the latter segment of society and are not aware of the ones who have been worried about it for so long then thats your ignorance. If you think murdering a female child should be ok becoz it hasnt had any "adverse effects on society" then I can only express my outrage at your callous attitude towards this issue.

You can engage in debate and discussions like the several corrupt committees put in place by our politicians to deal with social issues. BUT I can guarantee the people on this forum that you will be the last person to actually step into a village in Haryana or Rajasthan and ask the police how many female babies are dug out every year.

And no adverse effects you say?....there are states where mail order brides are being bought from Bangladesh because there is a deficit of girls in the village. There are carcasses of female babies buried alive/ poisoned that are recovered in these areas. The police cannot trace back the babies becoz the level of crime in the areas is high and it is not treated as a high priority case. Besides in those rural areas villagers are actually sympathetic towards the parents who buried a third daughter becoz they couldn't afford a dowry for yet another daughter. There are several villagers who have admitted to seeing such infanticides being performed.

For me this evidence is FAR greater reason to accept the existence of this issue than deny it based on technicalities and let it grow until its "adverse effects" put me on the world map as a glaring statistic.

While you sit on your ass and peddle "purva paksha" some of us are working towards social reform so that people like you can pretend that the problem doesnt exist and spend time on online forums convincing readers that female infanticide is just yet another hoax created by "westerners" to feed their need to portray India in a bad light.

Get a good night's sleep, Mr.Garg. For you have never had to watch a baby being dug out of a shallow grave. One such scene would've smoked the statistics right outta your system.

#100
ravi
August 26, 2007
03:33 AM

Jay
#90

!!!!!!That is unacceptable but unlikely as well :) and quite comical. !!!!!!

you said that it is unlikely and comical.See once again what i wrote, I use the word IF. that means i want to say something by relating this situation to the problem(here i am not talking about "female" infanticide).

It may be comical, almost all men not reject to give their sperm to wife for a child who bring joy to whole family.But IF man don't give his sperm to his wife, then is it true that woman should not ask him for that?what would you suggest to that woman other than divorce and things which lead to divorce, remember other than divorce and things which lead to divorce.According to some people woman should not have any right to ask her husband, because sperm is a part in men's body.which i feel not acceptable.

So what i want to say is, men and woman entering in marriage bond means they are expecting a family and agreeing to some conditions.they must obey them(both men and woman). If woman want abortion,what is the reason for that is very important.My opinion is even though only woman can give birth and it is a part of her body she should not veto birth of child without proper reason.
after all what men and woman expect from marriage...a family.

!!!!!!Because this discussion isn't about what were to happen if all women were to not want a child. It is about whether a woman's right to abort is equivalent to murdering a female child.!!!!!!!!!

abortion is not always a murder. Sometimes it is ok. One example i agree is " pregnancy after r_pe".

#101
Sanjay Garg
August 26, 2007
09:53 AM

@Jay #99: Yes, you are right. Good job at the math :) It will however take extreme sex selection for that stage. Meaning: a man who has 2 daughters and kills the 3rd born female still has given to that community 2 female members. That does not disprove the fact that he murdered the 3rd. The community will still have the female members needed for procreation but more will be killed during attempts to produce a boy.

This is evasion. I was talking about sex selection that actually impacts the sex ratio i.e. declining # of females per 100 men. It is usually the sex ratio stat that is dutifully trotted out to prove that "extreme" sex-slection is indeed taking place. Kavita Chibber is quite predictable when she trots this out

"According to latest statistics, the three northern Indian states -- Punjab, Haryana and Delhi -- have one of the most skewed male-female ratios in the country, with Punjab having only 874 females for 1,000 men.

Adding the word "extreme" in front of sex-slection does not change my basic question. If Punjab, Haryana and Delhi have been practicing "extreme" sex selection for ages, then why have Punjabis not ceased to exist yet?

The fact that you choose to avoid answering this question in lieu of self-righteous table thumping tells me that you really have no clue how to answer this.

Maybe we can pick this up again when you're back from the village.

#102
Jay
August 26, 2007
12:22 PM

Sanjay Garg: OR we could take it up when you find let go of your prejudice, grow a conscience...and some sense to go with it.

You don't get the simplest of statistics! :) Its funny that you think the word "extreme" is put in front of it to increase its intensity. Hehehe.

There is a difference between extreme sex selection and systematic sex selection which will give rise to progeny without wiping out the community but will assist murder of the other female children born during the attempts of producing a boy.

The male to female ratio is not being "trotted" out. It is one of the statistics used to bring attention to this situation. If the situation continues then yes someday the community may either be wiped out or will face extinction.

BTW who said that extreme sex selection is taking place? The male to female ratio is less now but that does not mean it is "declining" in a linear manner...that of course would've led to extinction. Even if the ratio stays put at 874 girls per 1000 boys, it still means that there are always less girls than boys. But doesnt wipe away the community.

Do you understand any statistics at all...even the simplest? I dunno why its so complicated. I even gave an example to aid your understanding! I looked through the comment and Aditi has given you some examples as well...which you called jargonic to cover up for the fact that YOU don't get it :D

DO YOU MEAN TO SAY that you are ok with a man killing a couple of girl children as long as the community isn't being wiped out?

Are you sure of what your question is? :)

Here's what I think:

You have some sort of a complex where you feel that people are trying project all this without any of it being true but maybe one of these days sit down and try to come up with a few reasons as to why anybody would do it...why would we all try to "project" (trot out) things that just don't happen? Is our imagination that wild that we just all simultaneously come up with the idea of female infanticide somewhere in Punjab.

OR Is it likely that YOU are the one who just doesn't want to believe that something so ugly is taking place in your country...or maybe YOUR community even?

#103
Sanjay Garg
August 26, 2007
02:15 PM

@Jay: OR we could take it up when you find let go of your prejudice, grow a conscience...and some sense to go with it.

Not sure about you but I'm not here to get a spiritual certificate. If you're looking for a religious discourse, then its the pandal on your right.

BTW who said that extreme sex selection is taking place? The male to female ratio is less now but that does not mean it is "declining" in a linear manner...that of course would've led to extinction. Even if the ratio stays put at 874 girls per 1000 boys, it still means that there are always less girls than boys. But doesnt wipe away the community.

So, what exactly is the problem then? if the community is not being wiped out, infanticide is illegal and punishable under Indian law then why is this a "pressing issue", as some have claimed in this forum?

Do you understand any statistics at all...even the simplest? I dunno why its so complicated. I even gave an example to aid your understanding! I looked through the comment and Aditi has given you some examples as well...which you called jargonic to cover up for the fact that YOU don't get it :D

Are your comments meant to be understood only by those with a knowledge of statistics? if yes, why not put in a disclaimer upfront so we can just scroll right through them?

DO YOU MEAN TO SAY that you are ok with a man killing a couple of girl children as long as the community isn't being wiped out?

why this bombastic populism? are you running for office here? I've already stated several times that infanticide should be punished to the full extent of Indian law.

You have some sort of a complex where you feel that people are trying project all this without any of it being true but maybe one of these days sit down and try to come up with a few reasons as to why anybody would do it...why would we all try to "project" (trot out) things that just don't happen? Is our imagination that wild that we just all simultaneously come up with the idea of female infanticide somewhere in Punjab. OR Is it likely that YOU are the one who just doesn't want to believe that something so ugly is taking place in your country...or maybe YOUR community even?

This is uninformed naivete. Feminist scholars like Lata Mani, Tanika Sarkar, Uma Chakravarty etc have noted how the British colonial state in India projected the private sphere in the colony as a space of "barbaric" tradition that required redemption.

This produced the structure of the "scandal" or the "crisis" as the mode through which the private sphere was made available to public scrutiny. Criminalizing cultural or traditional practices was the way the colonial state was able to get out of its own proclaimed stance of non-interference in local customs.

Not surprisingly, the Brits loved this because the intervention in private matters helped strengthen the sovereign power of the colonial state. Female infanticide was one of the profitable "scandals" the British produced way back in 1829 which allowed them to begin interfering in private matters.

You are merely carrying on the tradition of the former colonial master and placing yourself on a pedestal in the process.

In the final analysis, neither you, nor Kavita nor Aditi have been able to answer my question: what is the real problem with the sex ratio? is it infanticide? or is it sex-selective abortions?

#104
Jay
August 26, 2007
03:48 PM

103 Sanjay Garg:

Ok let me try one last time to answer each of the issues:

1. "So, what exactly is the problem then? if the community is not being wiped out, infanticide is illegal and punishable under Indian law then why is this a "pressing issue", as some have claimed in this forum?"

Good question. The problem is that in the rural areas culpability, legal responsibility is not assigned based on whats written in the constitution. Even today things go by a panchayat and what village elders say. There is large scale corruption and hence by saying that "The law already makes infanticide illegal" we are assuming that an effective apparatus is in place to tackle this problem. But for women who do not register a pregnancy at a hospital, who have a mid-wife deliver a baby that doesn't go on record, how can the law even begin to trace the birth and death or murder of a child??

In this situation organizations are required to go to the villages and speak to these people, educate them, offer them alternatives, such as giving these baby girls up for adoption, educating the girl child etc. This requires a larger force and hence it is a pressing issue. If we had a few more people offering to help in such drives instead of disproving the existence of the issue, we could've gotten a lot done.

Instead we find it astonishing that a group of men question the very existence of the issue. Why? What good does it do? Should the key to solving this issue be proving it to skeptics?

2. "Are your comments meant to be understood only by those with a knowledge of statistics? if yes, why not put in a disclaimer upfront so we can just scroll right through them?"

No, the comments contain statistics but they are accompanied by examples that should aid your understanding. Aditi and I, both have given you adequate examples to elucidate the biostatistics that is used to derive the numbers. You just don't wanna see it. In your own comment #31 you used a statistical premise to peddle your theory which as Aditi pointed out is a very common biostatistical fallacy. A decrease in ratio for year 1 cannot be used to calculate the decline or incline for preceding or proceding years. This is statistics but to understand it you only need basic logic. The examples that we have provided to try and educate you are ones we use to aid the understanding of high school students and they get it but you don't. This could mean only 2 things: you don't want to get it or you just don't have the basic capacity to get it. Either way, its your deficiency. Nobody else seems to be expressing skepticism about the statistical explanations.

3. The entire following paragraphs is a part of your insecurity. You want to believe that the "West" or the colonial "masters" need to create such scandals. But the fact is that nobody needs to prove it to you. If female infanticide exists, the primary issue would be to ascertain how it can be prevented. If it doesn't exist, the "scandal" should die away pretty soon.

I don't carry on any tradition :) I speak of this issue because as a doctor I have interviewed several rural residents about instances of female infanticide which they had witnessed. The techniques employed in the killings and the anguish suffered by the mother upon murdering her child were a matter of discussion. Leave alone murdering a newborn, some parents fed their daughters so little that they died before attaining puberty of malnutrition. The British did not tell us this, we worked on case studies. I am not just blindly buying somebody's theory. I have been involved in projects relevant to the issue. If you have no respect for that you are a pseudo-patriot...those who worry about the nation's image but do nothing to improve it.

4. "what is the real problem with the sex ratio? is it infanticide? or is it sex-selective abortions?"

Either way it shouldnt matter which one is the real problem because both are equally disturbing and need to be dealt with. Both are representative of sex selection and discrimination based on gender. Both are criminal and both are issues deserving attention. Moreover there is evidence of both occuring.

#105
SD
August 26, 2007
03:53 PM

Mr.Garg "sphere was made available to public scrutiny. Criminalizing cultural or traditional practices was the way the colonial state was able to get out of its own proclaimed stance of non-interference in local customs."

you think practices like sati, female infanticide, gender based abortions are cultural and traditional practices which shouldve been allowed and not criminalized? :) Interesting.

"Not surprisingly, the Brits loved this because the intervention in private matters helped strengthen the sovereign power of the colonial state. Female infanticide was one of the profitable "scandals" the British produced way back in 1829 which allowed them to begin interfering in private matters. "

should it matter what the Brits gained out of this? or is it more important that some social reform did come about. it wasn't only the "Brits" who brought about this change. Several Indian social reformers of the time were involved in this.

#106
Sanjay Garg
August 26, 2007
08:20 PM

@Jay: But for women who do not register a pregnancy at a hospital, who have a mid-wife deliver a baby that doesn't go on record, how can the law even begin to trace the birth and death or murder of a child??

I'm puzzled. If there is no record of the "birth and death or murder of a child", then how does one know anything about it? do we just assume things as we go along?

This requires a larger force and hence it is a pressing issue. If we had a few more people offering to help in such drives instead of disproving the existence of the issue, we could've gotten a lot done.

To me, this raises a lot of flags but the one I'm most concerned about is this call to public vigilantism. Sets a dangerous precedent, in my view.

Instead we find it astonishing that a group of men question the very existence of the issue. Why? What good does it do? Should the key to solving this issue be proving it to skeptics?


Most right-thinking people in a free society should be sceptical & think many times before we take it upon ourselves to meddle in the private lives of complete strangers. Just because we believe that the government is not doing a good job, that is no excuse to take the law in your own hands.

Either way it shouldnt matter which one is the real problem because both are equally disturbing and need to be dealt with. Both are representative of sex selection and discrimination based on gender. Both are criminal and both are issues deserving attention. Moreover there is evidence of both occuring.

I beg to differ. Women have the right to abort but not to infanticide. it is dangerous to mix and match the two.

#107
Jay
August 26, 2007
09:26 PM

#106 Sanjay Garg:

I'm starting to wonder if I'm dealing with someone who is in the right mind here...

"I'm puzzled. If there is no record of the "birth and death or murder of a child", then how does one know anything about it? do we just assume things as we go along?"

I AM PUZZLED....if you find bodies of female babies, poisoned, buried in shallow graves in a village and receive information/ eye witness accounts of infanticide you would just be like "We don't have a record so who cares whose body this is?" Really?


"To me, this raises a lot of flags but the one I'm most concerned about is this call to public vigilantism. Sets a dangerous precedent, in my view."

Hahaha. You are very amusing when you aren't frustrating :D

"Most right-thinking people in a free society should be sceptical & think many times before we take it upon ourselves to meddle in the private lives of complete strangers"

Private lives of complete strangers? :) The sytematic murders of female babies is a private matter that shouldn't be considered a societal issue? Are you trying to be funny? Skeptical is acceptable but to be so prejudiced and close-minded that you will not under any circumstances consider alternative possibilities is a bit callous when it comes to such a grave issue.

"Women have the right to abort but not to infanticide. it is dangerous to mix and match the two."

Women have the right to abort....not the right to abort based on gender! Gender discrimination and selection has many forms.

Mr.Garg: If you are a skeptic (not sceptic, but skeptic :)), that is fine. You have a right to be skeptical. I will not try to convince you that female infanticide exists. I find it a bit futile to convince someone who finds research and social work comparable to vigilantism. I am just grateful for the few who don't think like you.

My argument ends here. I have nothing more to say to you. A few of your statements have enlightened me about your views. We cannot possibly agree. You seem to think that law shouldn't interfere in cultural practices even if it involves murder. You also are of the view that all this is a big hoax. :) How can I convince you? I can't. Only you can educate yourself.





#108
Sanjay Garg
August 26, 2007
09:33 PM

@SD:should it matter what the Brits gained out of this? or is it more important that some social reform did come about. it wasn't only the "Brits" who brought about this change. Several Indian social reformers of the time were involved in this.

This topic is too vast to be covered here. In a nutshell, the single biggest change the British introduced in India was undoubtedly the Anglo style land tenure and private property in agriculture, as I noted in an earlier comment to Aditi.

It was a secular change but its impact on the economic, social and cultural life of India (90% agrarian at the time) was profound and far reaching. By commoditizing land as something that could be bought & sold, it commoditized the entire colonial economy, it commoditized women and it also commoditized obscure practices (like sati) that were once limited to a negligible portion of the population. It was multiplier effect, multiplied numerous times.

The Brits did not invent Sati but they caused it to become a Frankenstein; they did not invent dowry but they caused it become commoditized as an economic transaction rather than a cultural one; the Brits did not invent jati but they caused it to convert to Caste.

When they saw all these issues emerging in the 19th century (land tenure changes were substantially complete by 1800), the Brits panicked. Rather than owning up to their own errors and admitting their own mistakes, the Brits decided to "reform" Indian society.

#109
SD
August 26, 2007
10:34 PM

108 Sanjay Garg

I am trying to get your side so pls help me here...

"The Brits did not invent Sati but they caused it to become a Frankenstein; they did not invent dowry but they caused it become commoditized as an economic transaction rather than a cultural one; the Brits did not invent jati but they caused it to convert to Caste."

What does this even mean? I don't get it....so are you saying that the British were wrong in demonizing Sati and dowry when all they were is cultural practices/ transactions? Or are you bothered by the fact that Jati was given an English name, "caste". I don't get it honestly. I think that the caste system, the custom of dowry and sati all pre-dated British rule. So how was British "comoditization" responsible for all these customs?

If these things existed before the British arrived and they didn't invent it then what mistakes should they have "owned" up to?

I am very confused and am trying to get your perspective but I sincerely hope that you are not justifying dowry, sati and jaati. They may have been cultural practices but since they were man-made they were not free of error and could've used reform.

**********************
The one thing you seemed to have not addressed is my mention of the Indian social reformers: Raja Ramohan Roy, Jyotiba Phule, Sarojini Naidu, Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak and other such Indian leaders also were involved in social reform. Were they also seeking a pedestal?

Here's a QUESTION: Jyotiba Phule initiated widow-remarriage and started a home for new-born infants to prevent female infanticide as early as 1854. He also tried to eliminate the stigma of untouchability surrounding the lower castes. Was he doing this to put himself on a pedestal and aid the British in portraying India as a backward society that early?

I would like to hear about your perspective on this. So please comment. Thank you.

***********************

#110
Hardy
August 27, 2007
04:09 AM

#77...Aditi

Have you read the MTP 1971 with post-2000 amendments?

IF YOU DON"T KNOW THE LAW that prevents illegal abortions then thats your deficiency...not the system's.


Oh I see...Having no escape route, you are now looking up to law for help. Dear Aditi, the law in current form, is in principle, is in favor of what I have been saying all along.

Please tell me where does the law say that woman has unquestioned, exclusive right to abort the child. It is only people like you who want to push for more and more laws/social acceptance which assist a wife to murder the unborn in broad daylight without being answerable to anybody else. Did I ever voice concern against the current India law (MTP Act 1971 and 2002 amendments)? Please double check. I am rather against the dangerous mindset of your gang has which sooner or later will cunningly twist the law to meat your own petty goals. The law clearly acknowledges the right to life of a fetus independent of woman carrying it. FYI, here is a link for your ref...

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/pregact.htm


My only concern in the law is when it tries to define/include mental aspect of woman as one of the reasons. And that is because mental has such a wide scope that many unscrupulous women(who happen to be good actors) can potentially go scot-free almost every time.

The legislations of over a hundred nations protect a woman's reproductive rights and YOU have some sort of bias that you would like the law of an entire country to cater to

Are you saying whatever gets imprinted as legislation is all fair and does not need to undergo change with changed times and circumstances. What is that crap you have in your head? Feminists have been spreading bias, hatred and misinformation at mass level due to which it became feasible for people in political establishments to frame bad laws. Should that mean we should not question bad laws or at least revise them for make them suitable in current context.

#111
Hardy
August 27, 2007
04:12 AM

In either case. if a marriage has broken down then I would rather have the woman make a decision as to whether she would like to bring a child into a dysfunctional relationship.

But Why?

Does the man have no right whatsoever on the child. After the child is born, you still favor giving give custody to woman. Before the child is born the women has the right to kill the unborn. When does man have any right on child? Is he there only to be used as ATM all his life?

I wouldn't expect the likes of you to care about any woman.

Of course, Just like I do not expect the likes of you to care about fetus or the man to whom the the to be born child is may be so dear.

UNTIL THE CHILD IS BORN it is a FETUS, INSIDE the uterus of this woman that you claim you don't give a damn about. The woman's psyche, health, mental and emotional condition have a direct bearing on that of the fetus.

So does that mean women should kill the unborn?
In a family, Any individual's psyche, health, mental and emotional condition has direct bearing on others in family. Does that mean everybody else in the family should be killed. Please do not loose sense Aditi...


If you cannot understand this, you are an idiot whose sole purpose of this argument is ego...you want a court to side with your ego. Thats not how it works.

I can see your frustration at not being able to stand and debate on principles.

If the father wants to raise a child thats wonderful. But a man cannot raise a fetus.

Deal with it.


Why should man have to deal with it? If he has the right to ask for justice(right to live) for an unborn whom he can then rear and raise, why should not he.

#112
anon
August 27, 2007
04:58 AM

since when do homosexuals are bothered about children or having babies?

#113
Hardy
August 27, 2007
06:38 AM

#112...Is that the reason that you speak against female infanticide/foeticide? (My sixth sense tells me you are a female feminist).

;) ...

#114
Bihari
URL
August 27, 2007
06:42 AM

When does man have any right on child? Is he there only to be used as ATM all his life?

And the woman is a baby making machine?

So does that mean women should kill the unborn?
In a family, Any individual's psyche, health, mental and emotional condition has direct bearing on others in family. Does that mean everybody else in the family should be killed. Please do not loose sense Aditi...


Clearly, you have a tough time comprehending the difference between a child and a fetus! A woman forced to carry a fetus will never be a productive member of the family.

Even a man can tell you that! Do not loose perspective here. It is a woman's body that you are talking about and advancing reproductive rights over her body by men and the state.

What you are talking about is Reproductive Slavery! And in India that will never happen since we have too many tots meandering as it is.

Want to be a father? Go adopt a child from an orphanage. There are too many unwanted children suffering in India.

#115
Ruvy in Jerusalem
August 27, 2007
06:58 AM

Talking about the really hard things - is really hard. Kavita Chhibber did not write a piece about child custody, or feminism or abortion. She wrote about the tragedy of her society in the way it seems to choose to either abort female fetuses - or murder newborn girls - because females are viewed as a curse in her society.

It takes real guts to hold up to a candid world, the glaring faults of one's own society that people would rather not talk about (see comment #4 and subsequent shucking and jiving).

She is to be applauded.

#116
Hardy
August 27, 2007
07:09 AM

Clearly, you have a tough time comprehending the difference between a child and a fetus! A woman forced to carry a fetus will never be a productive member of the family.

I am clearly not talking the about the woman who wants to murder a child. I am talking about the life within her, who currently has all the moral, legal, social rights to life since it is assumed that that life is not endangering the body/life of that woman. Do you have any idea how many women stay in marriage(for their financial security) even after undergoing abortion against the wish of their husband.

BTW, you seem to be suggesting that a man can be forced to be productive because even though you can tear him apart both mentally and emotionally by denying him access of child (before and after child birth) but you can still force him to pay through the nose. Kudos to your fabricated justice.


Want to be a father? Go adopt a child from an orphanage. There are too many unwanted children suffering in India.

Now how cheap was that. Sounds like you are suggesting a woman if you do not like to stay in marriage go find a brothel.

A couple marries so that they can bear a child of their "OWN". Can not get any simpler than that? If the woman did not want to bear child, why did she marry in the first place. I hope we are excluding forced marriages or marriages where it is agreed upon that no child will be born from the wedlock, from the ambit of this discussion.

What you are talking about is Reproductive Slavery!

Somehow it looks like, emotional and financial slavery is something, you have already assumed to be the final and necessary fate of men.

#117
ravi
August 27, 2007
07:17 AM

Bihari

#114
!!!!!!!!Want to be a father? Go adopt a child from an orphanage. There are too many unwanted children suffering in India. !!!!!!!!

can you say same to the woman, who want a child and her husband reject give his contribution.If she got pregnancy without his contribution( by some technology) her husband definitely divorce her,because he never accept the baby as his son/daughter.

#118
Bihari
URL
August 27, 2007
08:59 AM

Hardy, the whole argument boils down to the point where you refuse to acknowledge between a fetus and a child.

As per the laws of the land till three months a woman has the right to abort the fetus but beyond the said period legitimate medical grounds have to be provided for abortion.

Also in India partial birth abortions are also not allowed.

What you are doing is nit picking where there is no argument.

A man does not carry the fetus for 9 months. Its the woman's body that goes through the wear and tear. By that yard stick alone since the fetus is a parasite that leeches off her body she has the right to terminate the pregnancy till the laws of the land permit her to do so.

Ejaculation is one time affair for a man. Beyond the act of sex there is no action involved on the part of the man in procreation.

I am a firm believer in joint custody but that is a separate issue and has absolutely nothing to do with a woman's right over her body.

My sense of justice is not screwed. While you are seeing the trees I am seeing the forest in its entirety.

It is not easy in India for women to live with the stigma of being a divorcee. A divorced man can easily get married but for women it is tough. This one of the main reason why women continue to live in loveless marriages and continue to cave in to their husbands' and in laws wishes.

Also, you are deliberately not talking about the double income that comes into most homes. Women also have careers and at the same time come back home and do the wifely and daughter in law duties.

You probably must be talking about the socialites with money and time at their hands but most women are too busy working or running a tight ship at home or doing both and leading stressful lives.

Tell me Hardy, how many of your SIFFers actually helped out their wives at home? or changed the diapers of their babies? Or held their wives in their arms when they cried in pain?

Something tells me not too many



#119
Bihari
August 27, 2007
09:12 AM

Lots of childless couples adopt children. Its this myopic concept of 'OWN' child which deters Indians from adopting. Those who adopt are special people because they understand that there is no difference between a child born under the heart and one that finds place within the heart.

#120
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 27, 2007
09:50 AM

110 Hardy:

"Oh I see...Having no escape route, you are now looking up to law for help. Dear Aditi, the law in current form, is in principle, is in favor of what I have been saying all along."

Answer: Escape route? Hehehe. Oh well, one does wanna escape illogical arguments so you may be right on that count...***but if you check you will see that I have mentioned law and legislations as early as comment 58 I believe. You just took notice of it much later***** :)

I have been arguing against spousal consent while you have been arguing for it, as I understand it. The law does not make spousal consent a requirement and hence t is in favor of what I have been saying. I dunno why suddenly you think its in favor of your view. Is it possible you just realized it now? :) This is why I had been asking you to read it in almost 3 different comments.

"Does the man have no right whatsoever on the child. After the child is born, you still favor giving give custody to woman. Before the child is born the women has the right to kill the unborn. When does man have any right on child? Is he there only to be used as ATM all his life?"

This discussion needs to be between a man and a woman who are planning to conceive. The fact that this discussion did not occur and the couple are now debating over an abortion indicates that the relationship is not a healthy one. Bringing a child into a dysfunctional relationship may sound like an ok thing to do for you, to me its unfair for the child.

Forcing a woman to have a baby will affect the health of the fetus very poorly. Stress suffered by the mother can cause a wide variety of problems in the fetus and if you are willing to overlook those, I dunno what to say to you. It only goes to show what kind of a father one could become if they are going to make decisions about the child's life using ego and legal force instead of concern for the baby's well being.

"So does that mean women should kill the unborn?
In a family, Any individual's psyche, health, mental and emotional condition has direct bearing on others in family. Does that mean everybody else in the family should be killed. Please do not loose sense Aditi..."

Hehehe. Whats really funny is YOU asking ME not to lose sense. I hope you re-read this comment of yours and see the idiocy :)

You are comparing a fetus that is inside a mother's womb and will undergo immense mental and physical stress that have been known to cause premature labor, developmental issues, mental retardation etc with the stress family members cause easch other :D

"Why should man have to deal with it? If he has the right to ask for justice(right to live) for an unborn whom he can then rear and raise, why should not he?"

Because as I said earlier, a man can raise a child, not a fetus. A fetus is inside the mother. If there is adequate reason for her to abort and medical professionals think it is a legitimate reason, spousal consent should not be required.

YOU are assuming that every man would put a stay on abortion only becoz he plans to raise her child becoz of your experience or some cases you've witnessed. BUT the court has to think about the possibility that some men will use it as a legal weapon against estranged wives.

#115: "Now how cheap was that. Sounds like you are suggesting a woman if you do not like to stay in marriage go find a brothel"

You are comparing an adoption center to a brothel? It is quite a window to your mentality.

"A couple marries so that they can bear a child of their "OWN". Can not get any simpler than that? If the woman did not want to bear child, why did she marry in the first place"

I don't know which section of society you belong to but people marry to find companionship. Whether one wants to have kids is a discussion they need to have instead of making assumptions such as the one above. There are plenty of marriages where people decide not to have children. Your assumption is not simple at all. In fact it could make life really complicated. Why did she marry in the first place? Maybe for companionship, love? Maybe she didn't realize that "procreation" was the sole reason for the marriage.


Your manner of arguing amuses me :) You have absolutely no respect for women, none and your views about marriage belong somewhere in the 17th century where marriage was viewed as a means to procreation. People like you should not look for an educated wife who will expect the same social and political rights as men. You speak of "female feminist" as if it were a bad word. Truth is it just threatens you, thats all.

#121
Jay
August 27, 2007
10:32 AM

Hardy: I am a man and I can understand your frustrations at not being able to stop an abortion because you want a baby and the woman doesn't. But the bottomline I think actually is in this part of Aditi's comment above...

"YOU are assuming that every man would put a stay on abortion only becoz he plans to raise her child becoz of your experience or some cases you've witnessed. BUT the court has to think about the possibility that some men will use it as a legal weapon against estranged wives"

While your intent may be to raise the child, there will always be men who won't and are doing it just to make life hell for the baby. I have seen plenty cases where couples use the children, custody battles etc to get even and the innocent kids are caught in the middle of this.

Also being a doctor I can testify that the one thing I completely agree with is when Aditi says that a fetus can suffer irreversible damage due to to stress caused during gestation. In fact the case she has detailed in comment 66 results from such stress.

It is not something that one should overlook if they are indeed inclined to be a parent. If one wants to be a father, the child has to come first. By putting the fetus at such a grave risk you are putting your own needs above that of the baby.

It is more advisable for a man to move on and find a woman who wants to bear his child instead of forcing the one woman who doesn't.

Please accept my views in an unprejudiced light because as a man I can relate to your predicament. But for the sake of the fetus forcing the woman to carry the baby is not a solution. Sometimes the effects of such stress become visible later in life. It is not advisable and inhumane in a way.

#122
Hardy
August 27, 2007
10:40 AM

The law does not make spousal consent a requirement and hence t is in favor of what I have been saying. I dunno why suddenly you think its in favor of your view

The law(MTP) defines

1) what an illegal abortion is

2) It defines the right to life of an unborn child.

3) It states that the woman can be the accused and hence liable to punishment.

It does provide husband a means to check(though theoretically) if the wife has aborted fetus for illegal reasons.

Forcing a woman to have a baby will affect the health of the fetus very poorly. Stress suffered by the mother can cause a wide variety of problems in the fetus and if you are willing to overlook those, I dunno what to say to you

Depending on what stage of pregnancy the child is in, the "Mental State" of mother may have varying to no effect on the overall health of child where is not depending on what stage of pregnancy a woman is she is equally capable of killing the child.

Secondly, That all men would be blind to health of child, is your conclusion and is remotely removed from reality. That a woman if not allowed to act in haste or to act under the influence of misguided scrupulous relatives, will not abort the child, is much closer to the reality than your preconceived notions.

And lastly you seem to come from the line of thinking that if the woman is stressed the unborn must be killed. A spousal tension being just one of the reasons for the woman to be stressed.

#123
Hardy
August 27, 2007
10:48 AM

I don't know which section of society you belong to but people marry to find companionship. Whether one wants to have kids is a discussion they need to have instead of making assumptions such as the one above. There are plenty of marriages where people decide not to have children. Your assumption is not simple at all. In fact it could make life really complicated. Why did she marry in the first place? Maybe for companionship, love? Maybe she didn't realize that "procreation" was the sole reason for the marriage.

Your far from practical approach eludes me. People who do not expect children from marriage are exceptions by any standard.

Even taking those exceptions into account, there is a well understood expectation that when people marry they will want to have children and if they do not they are amply clear to each other before marriage. So your of the cough remarks means nothing in practice.

#124
Hardy
August 27, 2007
10:52 AM

Your far from practical approach eludes me. People who do not expect children from marriage are exceptions by any standard.

Even taking those exceptions into account, there is a well understood expectation that when people marry they will want to have children and if they do not they are amply clear to each other before marriage. We are not talking about those exceptions where people enter marriage with an understanding that there will be no child from the wedlock. I hope I had been making that very clear right from the beginning.

So, your of the cuff remarks means nothing in practice.

#125
Sanjay Garg
August 27, 2007
11:30 AM

@SD #109: What does this even mean? I don't get it....so are you saying that the British were wrong in demonizing Sati and dowry when all they were is cultural practices/ transactions? Or are you bothered by the fact that Jati was given an English name, "caste". I don't get it honestly. I think that the caste system, the custom of dowry and sati all pre-dated British rule. So how was British "comoditization" responsible for all these customs?
If these things existed before the British arrived and they didn't invent it then what mistakes should they have "owned" up to?


Yes, these existed before the British but they existed at level 1 or in a completely different form. During the British period & following the implementation of Anglo style land tenure, the incidence of these went up by a factor of a 1000, if not more. So, the Brits had to own up to the increase of 999, which they didn't, of course.

It is no accident that so many Indian reformers you cite came about during this period and it is an example of, and testament to, Indian society's capacity of reforming from within by producing great reformers, rather than depending on foreign funding.

Veena Oldenburg's Dowry Murder: Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime traces how the implementation of Anglo land tenure in Punjab negatively impacted the status of women in that region, how it made Indian women "invisible" in the new colonial economy . Oldenburg assess the Anglo land tenure system "undoubtedly the greatest social revolution brought about by the colonials in India" and characterizes the unfolding drama in the Indian countryside as "Sheer Bollywood".

In his book, Late Victorian Holocausts - El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World Scholars, Mike Davis records the devastating famines in India during the British period. Other scholars have noted that there were 30 major/ minor famines in India during the British period compared to less than a dozen in the 1000 yrs before the British. Dr. Abdel-Wahab El-Messiri, Emeritus professor of comparative literature at Ain Shams University, Egypt wrote that "famines that afflicted India as a result of the implementation of modern Western property laws."

Prof Nicholas B. Dirks book Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, shows the mechanism of how Indian's traditional jatis were transaformed into rigid castes. It was of course significantly more far reaching than a mere name change.

Thanks for hearing my perspective.

#126
Aditi Nadkarni
August 27, 2007
11:42 AM

#122: Hardy why are you repeating what I told you in all my earlier comments? I have not justified illegal abortions anywhere! Pls refer to my comment starting from #74.

Your latter comments sound like you think that a woman owes the guy a kid when she marries him.

"Depending on what stage of pregnancy the child is in, the "Mental State" of mother may have varying to no effect on the overall health of child where is not depending on what stage of pregnancy a woman is she is equally capable of killing the child"

You a doctor? An ob/gyn? How did you decide this? In a legal matter don't you think a doctor should ascertain this and not the spouse?

#127
Bihari
August 27, 2007
11:49 AM

But at the same time marriage does not mean that the spouses loose freedom over their bodies and thinking. Compromises can be reached and yet some decisions need to be respected and a woman's right over her body is one such right.

She is the one who gestates for nine months and she in most cases is the primary care giver. A man's rights begin when the new born comes into the world. Before that it is between the pregnant woman and the laws of the land.

#128
bd
August 27, 2007
11:56 AM

good article!

I wrote something about this a wee bit earlier

http://piquancy.blogspot.com/2004/04/equality-is-value.html

#129
anon
August 27, 2007
12:48 PM

My sixth sense tells me you are a female feminist

You do not need 6th sense to figure that out. It is plain common sense rather just some sense--that you lack terribly.

#130
SD
August 27, 2007
01:49 PM

#125:

Mr.Garg: Thank you for the clarifications. I actually have MORE questions since honestly your answers have confounded me even more...

A) You said: "During the British period & following the implementation of Anglo style land tenure, the incidence of these went up by a factor of a 1000, if not more"

Questions:

1. Could you please provide a reference for this statistic? A factor of 1000 is extremely dramatic and I would like to see the report as well as how the study was conducted.

2. Now before you show me the report, is it possible that during British regime merely the "reporting" of the cases became more documented and hence one sees an increase?

3. What did the the British do for the Indian mentality to prefer male child over a female child...meaning how did the British cause female infanticide to rise? How did colonialization/ property laws etc cause a change in mentality?

4. If the practices were cultural in nature and existed before British regime how come they suddenly went up during British rule? Could it be that they just became more known during the period? Only when there is a cultural clash are the cultural practices questioned.

B) You said: "It is no accident that so many Indian reformers you cite came about during this period and it is an example of, and testament to, Indian society's capacity of reforming from within by producing great reformers, rather than depending on foreign funding"

My response:

1. Frankly, when I read the exchanges between you and Aditi and you and Jay I thought you were refuting/ questioning the existence of female infanticide all together not questioning the use of foreign funding in dealing with the issue (starting from comment 4).

2. In fact you accused Jay of trying to find a pedestal by being active in the social reform. Did you assume that he was operating by foreign funding? (comment 103)

3. You haven't objected to the use of foreign funding thus far but instead in most of your previous comments questioned the validity of there being such an issue as female infanticide. This stance may have initiated the outrage, I think. (comment 31 I think)

4. Some of your comments also indicate that you don't think of the issue as a serious one. Have you conducted or read studies that disprove the existence of female infanticide? Should the infanticide be very large scale before measures are taken to curb the mentality that assists this type of practice?

5. How do you know that the work currently being done in terms of social reform/ prevention of female infanticide is by foreign funding?

6. And LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST: if social reform is taking place should it be dismissed because of the source of funding? Should we be so suspicious as to assume that if foreign funding is being provided then some agendas must be at work? Would it be wise to refuse foreign funding when it could potentially help a good cause?

Is this applicable to disease/ medical/ clinical research which has foreign funding also?

Thanks.



#131
Sanjay Garg
August 27, 2007
03:47 PM

Mr.Garg: Thank you for the clarifications. I actually have MORE questions since honestly your answers have confounded me even more...

I would be worried if you didn't have more questions ;-) quite honestly however, we can go only so far in a forum such as this and I fear that you may perennially remain in a confounded state unless you decide to educate yourself. A good start will be to read some of the works I've already cited, following which - I am confident - much of your curiosity will be satisfied.

At a general level, however, keep in mind that the effective outcome of the Anglo land tenancy implementation was the creation of numerous small, mom & pop farm businesses, all competing with each other and all taking their harvests to market at the same time. An unmitigated disaster. It was easy enough for the Brits to carve up the land (they seem to good at it) but not quite so easy to divide the water equitably, the single most crucial factor input in farming.

In fact, the clueless Brits had absolutely no idea how many of these small farms would even survive the rough and tumble of the free market. Oldenburg reports that, within five years of the British land reform in the Punjab, fully 40% of the land got churned. So, if you think a factor of 1000 is "extremely dramatic", try a million :-)

As far as the foreign funding issue is concerned, looks like I hit a nerve. Be that as it may, I have a few questions for you: (1) why would any Indian seek foreign funds to reform society from within? (2) even if the need for foreign funds is somehow justified, what safeguards are in place that one is not executing someone else's agenda?

#132
temporal
URL
August 27, 2007
04:18 PM

SG:

you just rammed an explosive laden car into the foreign NGO truck

:)

#133
temporal
URL
August 27, 2007
04:37 PM

SG:

i had read somewhere about how the mughals reorganised' revenue collection..and while searching for that came across this:

Ultimately the maintenance of armed guards and the obligation to render military service became the qualification for making grants of land with revenue collection rights. These grants were made in recognition of valour displayed by the various feudal lords in the battles in which the particular kingdom was involved. The Jagirdari, Subahdari and Inamdari grants of the Muslim period which came later were also of this type. But the feudal relations were established in the Post-Maurya period, much before the coming of the Muslims. LINK

your comment?

#134
SD
August 27, 2007
07:05 PM

131 Mr.Garg; You are very smug with your bookish knowledge you know. But what about logic? If these are the theories you believe in, you should have some of rationale in doing so, right?

I asked you a few logical questions that deserved an answer based on your own perspective. You didn't answer any of them and instead listed a few books. I could've listed more books about female infanticide and research publications...but I didn't.

How would tenancy laws cause female infanticide? Simple question. You can't answer, don't beat around the bush.

As for foriegn funding, your answers:

1) why would any Indian seek foreign funds to reform society from within?

Not for reform but for research. Indian gov. provides very few funds for researchers looking to find details such as behavioral factors, heath risks etc. There are plenty of people like you who wouldrather cover up the mess than aid the recovery of the facts. Information uncovered in research indirectly aids reform. This is only SOME research. There are social reformers who work without foreign funding. But that still doesnt explain why you would refute the very existence of female infanticide?!

(2) even if the need for foreign funds is somehow justified, what safeguards are in place that one is not executing someone else's agenda?

Agendas such as?

If you are so rude and dismissive with someone who is open to your theory then I'm afraid you lose a lot of credibility. This defensive attitude is indicative of a half-baked theory, which is based on a few books but devoid of rationale.

I can at least try to educate myself with my open attitude but what about you?

#135
Sanjay Garg
August 27, 2007
09:05 PM

Temporal: In the context of this discussion, The key point is that the Brits went one major step further than the Mughals to streamline & rationalize land revenue collection. While the Mughals were here to stay, the Brits were here solely to exploit.

#136
ravi
August 28, 2007
01:21 AM

Bihari

#127

!!!!!!!!!!!!A man's rights begin when the new born comes into the world. Before that it is between the pregnant woman and the laws of the land.!!!!!!!!!!!

that means men should not have any right on the unborn baby. Then it is also true that men no need to take any responsibility on that unborn baby, it is the sole responsibility of the woman.Men no need to provide any thing towards the health of the unborn baby.is it true?

#137
Bihari
URL
August 28, 2007
01:40 AM

If women want total right over the fetus then it is their job to ensure that the fetus gets adequate nutrition.

There should be no legal compulsions forced on a man towards the fetus but after the birth of the infant he does have to share the responsibility since it is medically and by the laws of the land considered to be a human being.

#138
ravi
August 28, 2007
02:15 AM

Bihari

#137

!!!!If women want total right over the fetus then it is their job to ensure that the fetus gets adequate nutrition.!!!!!

O.k a woman taken total care solely and gave the birth to child now is it possible for her to deny fathers right on that baby.

because woman can't be pregnant without the role of man.He has his contribution, of course comparatively less than woman. But it is enough.

And what my question is, there is contribution of both even though woman will carry upto 9 months. So how can she take decision with her own. She has to refuse it first.Other wise continue to carry if there is no proper reason. If she continuously rejects to become pregnant what about the husband? there is only one option for him, divorce her and marry another woman who accepts pregnancy.

#139
Bihari
URL
August 28, 2007
06:05 AM

If a spouse denies sex or refuses to procreate the denied party has full rights to divorce that individual.

DNA testing would ensure that the father has a role to play in the new born's life.

#140
temporal
URL
August 28, 2007
06:17 AM

it says something about those who consider half of humanity as rent-a-womb franchise

(no icons)

#141
Sumanth
August 28, 2007
06:32 AM

Both boys and girls face discrimination.

Girls are considered as burdens in patriarchal society where as women folk consider small boys as unpaid emotionless bodyguards.

Men/boys are also considered as disposable by whole society. If a man commits suicide due to harassment by wife, the chance of his parents filing a FIR is very remote. Thousands of boys work in roadside restaurents and clean utencils on the street.

If society has to change, then patriarchy has to be rooted out. Unfortunately, feminists want women/girls to be free from patriarchy where as they find it beneficial if men/boys remain stuck in patrirachy.

It is the urban middle class which indulges in female foeticide. Why? Because, feminists brainwash the whole society that if you a daughter is born in the family, then there is a 80% chance that she will be beaten, slapped, kicked, raped, burnt for dowry in her life time.

The goal of feminists is to promote female foeticide so that they can get more recruits and more funds. Thats why they indulge in false propaganda to showcase women as weak and hence burdens of family.

Boys bring more misery for parents than girls. But, Indian feminists want to prove otherwise as most of them are brainwashed fanatics.

On one hand they claim killing of unborn child (abortion) as their birth right and on the other hand raise a hue and cry when fetuses are found in a dust bin in some city. It is the feminists who promote abortion and yet shout out when fetuses are found.

It is feminists who have done little for women in India even after misusing millions of dollars or funds. Even today, they are against a law to ban extravagant marriages. They in favour of arrest of innocent women in false dowry cases.

Just watch, how women have come out in big numbers to protest against blood thirsty radical feminists who are in no way different from religious terrorists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awW3gsNqBCA

It is feminists who are responsible for female foeticide. It is feminist alarmism which is making people reinforce the belief that girls are burdens.

Unfortunately, the mentally challenged libertarians do not have common sense to see the hypocrisy all around it.

In US, the sex ratio at Birth is 956 girls for 1000 boys. That is a kind of world standard. 5 more boys are always born 100 girls. Because, it is boys who are disposable and can die.

Half of Indian states have sex ratio at birth which is better than that of US.

Only poor African countries have sex ratio of 98 to 100 boys for 100 girls.

#142
Sumanth
August 28, 2007
07:03 AM

Jay, temporal and others,

Before teaching logic to SIFF members, please teach them to hypocrite feminists and mentally challenged libertarians. Then come to us.

SIFF is against abortion (as a hobby) and is against foeticide and Patriarchy.

SIFF wants both men and women to be free from patriarchy.

SIFF does not want men or women to work 16 hours a day. We want both men or women to work only 10 hours a day (in job, commuting and child care). Other 6 hours has to be personal time for hobbies, relaxation and remaining 8 hours for rest/sleep. If men and women, both are working fo 10 hours in a job, then must not go for a child. Thats not good for the body and mind of child or the parents on a long run. In case, they are desparated about a child then either the husband should be a house husband or wife should be a house wife to take care of the child. It is better to have no children than to produce future criminals in a family where there is no nucleaus at home.

We in SIFF believe that men are still stuck in patriarchy and they still crave to fullfill their patriarchal traditional duties of protecting, providing, competing and risk taking.

Because of our ideology, we have grown rapidly in last 2.5 years and today even have branches in almost every state of the country.

Look at our national meet and Protest and New Delhi, where SIFF founders and activists from all over India participated. Please take a look at women activists as well.

SIFF Protest at New Delhi

We are not a bunch of armchair social activists who just rant their opinions in Internet.

We ask serious questions. We ask why men's suicide rate is more than womens if men are never abused. We ask why parents earn more money by sending boys to work in a garage or roadside restaurent than sending girl as a housemaid.

We know that parents prefer boys, because boys are disposable for family or for society (at the country's border). Parents feel, boys will protect and provide for them. Many parents also feel, a boy in a family of 2 or 3 girls will work from a tender age to arrange dowry for his sisters.

The feminists and libertarians fail to understand that social evils hit everyone. So, wholistic (not piecewise) solutions are needed.

#143
ravi
August 28, 2007
07:16 AM

sumanth

#142

!!!!!!!We are not a bunch of armchair social activists who just rant their opinions in Internet.!!!!!!!

good sign. every one, who are not blind to see men's problems, will appreciates that.

#144
smallsquirrel
August 28, 2007
07:28 AM

sumanth... you said
"The goal of feminists is to promote female foeticide so that they can get more recruits and more funds. Thats why they indulge in false propaganda to showcase women as weak and hence burdens of family."

that is one big effing load of shite. I am sick of you just making all kind of crap up to incite problems.

SIFF simply lies, and that is a sick, stupid and careless statement. [EDITED]

#145
Sumanth
August 28, 2007
07:48 AM

If a woman suffers, the men in her family also suffer. If a man suffers, the women in his family also suffer. I know junior colleagues of mine in 20s, who try to save as much as possible, so that it can be used for sister's marriage.

53% of Indian children get abused and 21% of Indian children are severely abused. Boys get abused slightly more than girls. (refer study by WHO).

Why I am saying this?

A large number of population irrespective of gender face abuse in one way or other. Most problems are also deeply interconnected.

Often, "popular" solutions for a problem can in fact contribute to the same problem after sometime.

Alarmism is fine for any social cause up to a certain extent. Alarmism and fire fighting if continued for a prolonged period, can cause severe damage.

Today, Indian women are much better off than the women 10 years or 20 years earlier. But, this betterment has led to more (not less) radical behaviour and usage of extreme language or misandry. Many such women talk the language of revenge on men (all men) and are in no way different from MCPs.

Female Foeticide will stop if people are told that girls or women have a better life than boys or men. This is truth as men commit 75% more suicides than women. It is time for women to celebrate what they have achieved so far,so that they can consolidate their gains and help create a better society for all.

In stead, feminists off all kinds are eager to break family, promote abortions, work 16 hours a day, propagate lies in Media, propagate gender hate and create a family-less society with the only dream that they will convert India into US in 10 years.

These mentally challenged people do not understand that India can never become US so far as social and family scenario is concerned. Because, Indian is not comparable to US interms of Natural resources and population. India can only become Taiwan,where average age of marriage for women and men are 27 and 32 respectively.

I wish feminists stop alarmism and talk sensible stuff and work for implementable reasonable laws. That would have helped the abused children, the abused elders and all.

If feminism is all about fascism, terrorism and hate with only goal to talk about wife's issues (not even women's issues), then feminism is not contributing to solution of any problem in the nation.

We the SIFF members celebrated "Women's Equality Day" on 26th August. It is the day,when all women (mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, girlfriends) are to be treated equally.

Senior SIFF members and Delhi Activists Preparing for Protest on 25th Aug

#146
Sumanth
August 28, 2007
07:56 AM

Smallsquirrel,

You are a woman and you are a mother. Right?

You talk about decency and logical behaviour. Right?

--------------------------
You wrote to me:

[EDITED]
--------------------------

Do not you think this comment of yours in abusive, indecent and disgusting?

This is a simple proof of to what extent feminists can go.

I only gave SIFF or my opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, you could have set a better example. Especially, when you and your fellow feminists and MCPs are hell bent in teaching some SIFF members about decency, I do not understand how you guys can have such double standards.

Most probably, you thought it is perfectly fine for a woman and[EDITED:PERSONAL MORALISTIC JUDGEMENT] to use "indecent Language" and get away with it.

------------------------
From now onwards, we SIFF members vow to ignore all the preachings by feminists and all others to be decent or reasonable.
------------------------

Sumanth - A Founder of SIFF

#147
Deepti Lamba
URL
August 28, 2007
08:09 AM

Sumanth, the comment has been edited. But lets not forget that a lot of SIFF members have called women who have fought with them on this board a lot of things that I have personally edited.

Gender wars are emotional issues and name calling has been a two way street on DC.

#148
smallsquirrel
August 28, 2007
08:28 AM

sumanth... no I do not think it was indecent. I think you must have something seriously wrong with you to propagate the myth that feminists SUPPORT and PROMOTE female infanticide to further their agenda.

There is a difference between disagreeing with a movement's agenda and just being plain nasty. frankly I am just plain old fucking sick of you making up anything you wish, parading it around as fact, and going on your merry way.

The truth is that I, along with other people on this forum, have tried to see your viewpoint and engage in dialog with you. but you and your cohorts just acted up continuously and spread hate and lies. that statement is a perfect example of the shite you preach.

#149
Sumanth
August 28, 2007
08:57 AM

Deepti,

I must acknowledge your effort and patience in editing so many comments in emotionally charged debates in DC, where inappropriate language is used.

Personally, I am used to all kinds of language against me and I have love for the people who do so.

I do agree that some SIFF members used inappropriate language. That leads to a catch 22 situation, where both feminists and siff members ask each others to stop this.

In this whole game, feminists make the bigger force. They have positional power with NCW or highly funded 450 NGOs, which make WomenPowerConnect. Usage of inappropriate language, provocative and hate speech by feminists in blogs, TV Media is often tolerated by common people. I can still see images of vicious talk by Dr.Ranjana Kumari (director of CSR India) or Pooja Bhatt or one sided claims by Dr.Aruna Bhuta of JNU. It is important that feminists stop this indecent behaviour, lying or misrepresenting facts and work towards making a positive contribution to the society.

Alarmism, Misandry or hate speech by feminists will not solve any problem. Men will also use equally harsh hate speech with the excuse of free speech.

Moral or ethical standards have to be applicable to all irrespective of religion, caste, creed or gender.

#150
ravi
August 28, 2007
09:07 AM

!!!!!!!!!Moral or ethical standards have to be applicable to all irrespective of religion, caste, creed or gender.!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope at least here onwards in DC both Feminists and Siffers follows this.

#151
Sanjay Garg
August 28, 2007
09:29 AM

@SD #134:If these are the theories you believe in, you should have some of rationale in doing so, right? I asked you a few logical questions that deserved an answer based on your own perspective. You didn't answer any of them and instead listed a few books. I could've listed more books about female infanticide and research publications...but I didn't.

For every statement I made, I cited some of the supporting research, books, publications etc that I was aware of and which are available in the public domain. The rest is up to you. If you want to play the game of "my research is bigger than yours", feel free to list all the books you want about infanticide, but that would be apples to my oranges. Why? because none of the books I've cited deny the existence of infanticide so listing more research on infanticide is irrelevant. The need of the hour is also go beyond the mundane and look at larger structural issues.

And, fyi, the main reason I did not bother responding to your questions is because of the consistent misrepresentation of my position on various issues. I would not want to dignify that.

How would tenancy laws cause female infanticide? Simple question. You can't answer, don't beat around the bush.

This question is incorrectly and simplistically phrased. No one said "tenancy laws cause female infanticide", rather Anglo tenancy laws caused what was a minor/ negligible issue in a few Indian communities to become much broader and deeper. So, if your revised question is about the latter, Veena Oldenburg's book answers it. It took her years of research and an entire book to demonstrate the connection and it would not be fair to her to have me feed you short, dumbed-down one liners from her thesis. The anglo tenancy laws were a massive & revolutionary structural change in Indian society of that time and the fact that we continue to have 115 million small, fragmented farms, farmer suicides in India etc. is a direct result and legacy.

Let me add that what I - and many other Indians - should particularly disturbing is that the so-called professionals (and I include the author of this article in this) who are active in this field and who should - indeed must - be up to date with all the latest research in this area, apparently do not even know of Veena Oldenburg's work. This is a disservice to Indians.

Not for reform but for research. Indian gov. provides very few funds for researchers looking to find details such as behavioral factors, heath risks etc. There are plenty of people like you who wouldrather cover up the mess than aid the recovery of the facts. Information uncovered in research indirectly aids reform. This is only SOME research. There are social reformers who work without foreign funding. But that still doesnt explain why you would refute the very existence of female infanticide?!

What happened to Oldenburg's research? How was that missed? and how much of the research being done is "behavioural" i.e the type that studies Indians like dumb, anthropological objects, pathologizes their behaviour and links them to health risks?

If you are so rude and dismissive with someone who is open to your theory then I'm afraid you lose a lot of credibility. This defensive attitude is indicative of a half-baked theory, which is based on a few books but devoid of rationale.

If you think this is rude, then I suggest more Indians be rude. More Indians should be taking a closer look at self-proclaimed activists before they are let loose upon the weaker sections of the populations; we need to assess the degree of unbiased professionalism, their ability to see beyond their nose at the larger picture, the capacity to see where larger patterns, structural disconnects that may exist.

Thanks for your interest.

#152
smallsquirrel
August 28, 2007
09:46 AM

why is it hate speech when I tell you that what you've said is hateful and patently false (you cannot prove what you said, can you sumanth???), but if I cuss at you it's inappropriate, hateful, etc?

talk about double standards.

#153
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 28, 2007
10:48 AM

Sumanth: Haven't seen you on here in a while :)

You know, whenever you speak of feminism you bring up the people at NCW like Renuka Choudhary but I wish one of these days you would realize that while you guys think they are feminists, they are just politicians.

See when you spew hatred against us on this forum its frustrating for us women. We have nothing against you but you constantly come here in a belligerent mode ready to fire, ready to throw unfair abuses at us. You started writing on this thread by refering to women on this forum as "feminist b-t-rds" right? Do you not remember that?

All this may have led to smallsquirrel's outburst. You remind us now that we are wives, mothers etc but do you know what some of your members have called us?!!

You cannot just verbally abuse people, falsely accuse them all the time and not get a vehement response.

If you remember, a few months back Smallsquirrel was the one who tried to engage you in a dialogue and all you threw at her were insults like you do every time.

Nobody can teach anybody decency: you are either decent or indecent. Smallsquirrel was provoked, you guys have being throwing indecent remarks at us for a very long time without just cause for something some politician is doing which has nothing to do with us.

#154
temporal
URL
August 28, 2007
11:16 AM

149:

please don't be too clever by half;)

if this is your issue:

Usage of inappropriate language, provocative and hate speech by feminists in blogs, TV Media is often tolerated by common people.

take it up there...spare DC the uncouth von-siffer behaviour

(thanks dee)

#155
ravi
August 28, 2007
12:42 PM

!!!!!!!!take it up there...spare DC the uncouth von-siffer behaviour!!!!!!!!

here in DC also feminist are doing the same. I saw them in number of threads.I am not saying that other(you know whome i am talking about) hasn't used that type of language.I am just saying both used such type of language.

#156
temporal
URL
August 28, 2007
12:57 PM

#155:

with thanks to george orwell: the churchyard
wisdom of the peasant.

Solomon Grundy,
Born on Monday,
Christened on Tuesday,
Married on Wednesday,
Took ill on Thursday,
Worse on Friday,
Died on Saturday,
Buried on Sunday,
And that was the end of Solomon Grundy.

#157
ravi
August 28, 2007
01:28 PM

aditi

renuka chaoudhary is a politician but what about lot woman activist. they freely critisized all men.It is very sad that woman like you, who did nothing horm to these men critisized badly.you told woman in DC are provoked by some men here. The same thing applies to men who critisizing feminist here. They are provoked by the feminists.


But what ever may be the reason using such type of words by anyone is not good.I will control my self from using such type of words.

#158
ravi
August 28, 2007
01:33 PM

temporal

#155

my request to you is don't use your poetry on me. Actually i didn't get any thing from that post. Ofcourse somewhat it is better, no need think and answer it.

#159
smallsquirrel
August 28, 2007
01:36 PM

See, when we talk about "that type of language".... hmmm.. what is worse... me saying a few cuss words or someone accusing a whole group of people of promoting infanticide.

how in hell do you get your hackles up over the use of the word shit, which is allowed on TV for God's sake, but not be incensed that someone has falsely accused others of promoting MURDER??

You seem to have your priorities totally ulta... cuss words are just that... misrepresentation and hate speech are evil.

so while I might use some colorful language I have never accused Sumanth or any other SIFFER or crap they have not done

so tell me, who is more offensive in the end?

#160
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 28, 2007
01:56 PM

157 Ravi: Which of these "women activists" are on this forum?

We respond to the men who provoked us...these men are attacking women who werent the ones who harassed them!! We have never had anything against the SIFF members.

Its like what Temporal said in #154...take your fight to the media that's fighting you, don't bring it to a public forum that doesn't direct any "hate" towards you! You may not get his poetry but at least you can fathom that?

In fact you should check some of our articles and just peruse through the comments to see the kind of vicious and completely out of line comments made by some of them. The editors were able to edit SS's comment because guess what?, twas JUST ONE comment. But the editors had difficulty keeping up with the flow & large volume of indecent comments that the SIFF members unleashed on female authors on this forum. This is not anti-feminism...its is just plainly direspectful towards women or people in general.

None of you came forward with this holier than thou, "I will control myself from using such type of words" crap when Sumanth called us Feminist Ba-t-rds? Why such double standards?

Smallsquirrel has ALWAYS responded to their harsh comments with dignity and I will not forget that just because she used one stray curse word out of frustration.

People on this forum know what kind of crap we've been dealt for absolutely no fault of ours just becoz we have the courage to speak our mind. We don't represent Renuka Choudhary. We represent our own line of thinking.

SIFF has been wasting their time fighting us because frankly they don't have anywhere else to vent their frustrations. So basically it is the attitude of finding a victim who'll take your shit because of decency.

The one time they get it back they are so offended!! Suddenly it is like "Oh, she used a curse word!!" But what about the zillion times we were at the receiving end for NO REASON!! It is just bizarre.

#161
temporal
URL
August 28, 2007
02:07 PM

ravi sahib:

hum kehtay haiN aap
aap kehtay haiN kya?

hum kehtay haiN Mashriq
aap kehtay haiN maghrib

hum kehtay haiN aurat
aap kehtay haiN mar'd

hum kehtay haiN comprehende
aap kehtay haiN haiN?

;)

#162
smallsquirrel
August 28, 2007
02:24 PM

thanks aditi and temporal! :) I get sick of explaining myself. I am glad there are people out there who are more patient than I to help me out when a sister flips her top!

and ravi... go check thru my comments.. see how many times I have had to be edited. to my knowledge it is ONE TIME. *ever*

now go back thru and see how many times sumanth or other siff members have been edited and/or told to stop using personal attacks, etc.

#163
ravi
August 28, 2007
02:39 PM

temporal

aap kehtay haiN comprehende
hu kehtay haiN dellusionism.

#164
ravi
August 28, 2007
02:42 PM

small squirrel

I know the truth. kindly read #150.I told my opinion there.

#165
A Survivor
August 28, 2007
04:12 PM

Sumanth dear

Let me show you the reality. Maybe you can take your blind sniffers (how true) for a ride but that is not possible for the rest of the readers on this forum. You know why? Coz we have a mind, that thinks and thinks independently, analyses and gauges. We all know why siffs are against abortion (because you have your own vested interests) what with your theory of woman- turning- 30 -and- stuck- with -a -kid -who- will- have- no -option- but- to- return -to -her- dowry- seeking- abusive- husband. What with your theory of women with a baby is option less and helpless because you siffers feed on helpless and vulnerable women as that is a sure cut way to make her dance to your whims and fancies and cater to your illicit demands. We know and you know we know! If a woman aborts the baby who fears that she does not want to bring a child to this world where her relationship with her spouse is abusive, you are dead against that coz that means you loosing one precious cash-cow and the perks that come with her. Okay so save the crap to yourself and your vested interests. Maybe repeating these hashed and rehashed white lies brings happiness to your miserable siffers but NOT us readers.
-------------------------------

Btw...this past Sunday I sat all day in front of the television flipping from aajtak to samay to star news to ndtv but much to my dismay I did not have the pleasure to watch a tiny bunch of sniffers shouting (barking) at jantar mantar.....what happened ? no coverage? Was due to the Ms Ranajana Kumaris hard cutting view-that was a final instruction to the reporters of leading channels not to telecast anything...? Or was is Salman Khan's deserved publicity
OR
were you guys who were well seated with pillows in the comfort zone with a shades/roof listening to music chit chatting just did not attract any attention of being victims...HA!

I saw your posted links ( they are nothing but pictures taken from personal camera and videos downloaded on youtube). Comon......you can do better than that! Better luck next time. Let me give you a tip, collect more funds(yes) and use those funds to pay for medical bills for those daring guys(if any) who decide to show their outrage by going on hunger strike. That is a mark of a victim a true victim and comes naturally only to a true victim.






#166
Man singh
URL
August 28, 2007
06:59 PM

Yes its a matter of shame. But how to eradicate the evil?

Poor Law and order makes women more vulnerable lot and puts additional strain parents in bringing up girl child.

Girl moves to her in laws place after marriage and hence parents need a boy in family to take care of them in old age. I feel its quite genuine insecurity feeling.

Dowry is definitely third important factor and my feeling is that it strated mainly because girls were not getting their share in property in old days. So it was a civilised way to give her share to girl at time of mariiage or other cultural occasions. Today greed has taken over. Culture has been killed. Every institution has been abused by greed.

Democracy has been abused by Greed. Should we abandon democracy?
Judiciary has been abused by Greed. Should we abandon Judiciary?
Security system of country has been abused by politicians. Should be abandon security forces?

Similarly those social institutions established by our forfathers with all human touch has been abused by greed.

Therefore let's kill the greed from our minds. Greed is the root of evil. Greed can be killed by sprituality n Dharma. Unfortunately India is Dharma Nirpekhsa and hence does not recognise importance of Dharma in solving social problems.

Truth is that Dharma only has potential to solve social problems. Laws can'nt do that as they can be misused by greedy ppl.

let's teach Dharma to our kids and withing a generation you will see the difference.

have you ever heard of Sri Ram Sharma Acharya the founder of Shanki Kunj Haridwar(Gayatri vaale). I have seen him transforming around 1 crore Indians to sprituality and vowing to get married without any Dowry.

We need just 50 more Sharma's to solve our problem. But we never recognise such hidden great personalities and their contribution to society and humanity due to nasty secularism.

Please re-think utility of Dharma in transforming society.

Jagegi bhai jagegi Naari Shakti jagegi

#167
ravi
August 29, 2007
12:34 AM

aditi

!!!!!!!!!!None of you came forward with this holier than thou, "I will control myself from using such type of words" crap when Sumanth called us Feminist Ba-t-rds? Why such double standards?!!!!!!!!!!

I am new to DC. I am talking about me aditi. Not about sumanth or some siffer. go to #150 what i told there, read it.

And it is true that no one will come to support when other attack you or me.No woman came to defend men when feminist criticize them for every reason.If any body have some negative feelings on someone they never oppose when other people bashing that person.Where were you aditi, when some one here call me as Hom_se_ual.I can give best answer to him, but i have to degrade my self to do so. that's why i explained him in different way.





#168
Deepti Lamba
URL
August 29, 2007
02:08 AM

Ravi, enough women on DC have spoken up against 498a and many do not consider themselves to any way close to the definition of feminism that SIFF believes in.

Freedom of Speech should be exercised with caution and sense of responsibility, while DC has an open comment board and welcomes all opinions but the moderators cannot excuse the hijacking of threads by people whose sole purpose is to promote their agendas and drive away others by the sheer volume of repetitive copy pasted material.





#169
Deepti Lamba
URL
August 29, 2007
02:10 AM

Also, we try our best to edit out personal attacks. If someone calls you names you have the right to bring it to the moderators attention.

#170
Preeti
August 29, 2007
02:56 AM

Sumanth, you said..."SIFF is against abortion (as a hobby)",I don't where you derived such an asinine observation that abortion would be a "hobby" for some women. Even if it was suppose to be a humorous remark, must say it comes across as imprudent (but that can be expected from you)

Specifically talking about married women who when abort have compelling reasons to do so. When a married woman suffers in an abusive relationship, she takes the abuse for a long long time hoping that one day a husband will transform his nature. Many a times she's in life threatening situations at the hands of her abusive husband but takes things for granted all in the name of trying " to save her marriage". But if at some point when she gets pregnant, suddenly it is not about her safety only but she is NOW responsible for the safety of her unborn child and there begins her agony process, her dilemma, she is in a predicament whether she should give birth to the child in this abusive relationship where the baby's long term safety/shelter and future of her child could be in jeopardy--an unsafe environment!!!!!!!! And thus, she comes to a decision to abort, lest another innocent life suffers for no fault. Most of the time when a woman aborts its a emotionally painful for her as well. I know such women who even years after the abortion are still bitter about their loss and helpless decision that they had to take at that time. In anycase it is a loose-loose situation for them.


#171
ravi
August 29, 2007
03:41 AM

deepti lamba

#168 & #169

thanks to those woman who voiced against misuse of 498A.Ok you asked about hijacking of topic.But what i did here is just answering some post in this thread. they are related to that comment only. so i didn't think that it is hijacking. Any way I will stop this "answering" to those posts which are not related to the topic.

#172
Sujai
URL
August 29, 2007
04:05 AM

#4, Sanjay Garg:
Jawahara: I fail to see how this is a "really pressing issue".

Well, your failure to see this as a 'pressing issue' is why this has become a pressing issue! You will not get it. Nor will those parents who run for abortion when they realize its going to be a girl kid. It is a 'pressing issue' because such people don't realize it!

#173
Sujai
URL
August 29, 2007
04:18 AM

While they keep killing the girl fetus, they don't even allow gay marriages! So what are the guys supposed to do? ;-)

Ah! the Indian Culture always had a solution for this!

DRAUPADI

#174
Sujai
URL
August 29, 2007
04:22 AM

#55, Hardy:
Why should woman have exclusive right?

Well, you are entitled to have this right. First, you have to prove that you can conceive a child. If you can do that. You have right to bear the child, and also abort the child.

#175
Hardy
August 29, 2007
07:48 AM

Well, you are entitled to have this right. First, you have to prove that you can conceive a child. If you can do that. You have right to bear the child, and also abort the child.

That is useless argument,because

1) When one opines that the right to destroy should not rest with woman exclusively, does not mean he insists that the right to destroy should rest with the man. I hope the first step will be for you to get that correct with your assumptions.

2) The fetus has right to life independent of woman and it is acknowledged by law. Fetus is not your chair which you can purchase, own it and then break it if you do not like it.

3) The creator need not to have the powers of the destroyer.

4) Fetus borrows equal genetic material from both the parents. Tomorrow if instead of a woman's uterus, the science comes up with an artificial apparatus where one can conceive babies, then as a parent to baby one has every right to sue the owner of apparatus if apparatus owner kills the baby (PROVIDED the baby is not harming the apparatus)?

5) That one sex carries fetus is purely biological and natural. That it happens in this way is because evolution favored it in the interest of life. However, the right to life is a civil, social and constitutional right.

6) Going by your logic, since a man supports(provides, protects and feeds) a family (wife and children), he should have the exclusive the right to terminate life of dependent children, which obviously is plain stupid. Even more stupid is that people can not see the parallel.

The only way you can give woman an exclusive right is if you believe that fetus has no right to life on its own. In that case you will have to first define what life is and when does life come into existence.

Next you have to define why rights should be granted to a person, based on her/his birth.

If you can convince me that a person has no right to life by birth, and that this right to life can only be earned, I may still accept your argument.

Somebody from feminist wing compared fetus with parasites and leeches. Even if that comparison was gruesome and ruthless by my standard, I still am looking for somebody who can explain to me the vital deciding difference between a somatic leeching (for less than 9 months) and financial leeching that extends to years.

#176
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 29, 2007
10:30 AM

Some of you Siffers fellas (etc):

Your opinions are a result of mentality. While each one of your points can be systematically refuted, they also reflect a tendency to treat the woman like she were nothing except the womb housing the baby. This line of thinking is related to upbringing, attitude, the way you were raised to view women. It cannot be changed.

If you grew up believing that a woman is the baby-maker and the man the provider who gets to make the "big" decision, you will always feel angry and frustrated in the face of a decision that a woman can make without your consent: such as abortion.

It is a common problem among those who seek to control everything.

Some of you in previous comments to other threads speak of women using terms like "behavioral correction" (meaning slapping her to put her in her place), "man suppports/ provides" (plenty working women do too but you dont consider this), "abortion as a hobby" (due to your own limited experience).

Sumanth, I looked at those pictures on the link and one of the slogan said something like "Dowry Kanoon Hatao, Parivar Bachao" when frankly it should have said "Dowry Hatao, Parivar Bachao"

My problem is: you aid a man in justifying what he did to his wife without knowing or being sure if he was falsely accused or not. The 498A survival manual is on the internet for all men, guilty/ innocent. Do you guys have any training in determining whether the case was true? Wouldn't such indiscriminate "survival" guides out there aid men who were responsible or guilty?

No matter how many ways you find to justify dowry the fact remains that no self-respecting man will accept money from his in-laws or demand money from his in-laws. We all know that dowry killings are part of nobody's imagination. These exist. But by refuting the claims all you do is deny some of your guilt.

No matter how many ways you find to justify spousal consent for abortion, if the legislation of so many independent nations does not require spousal consent then there must be a reason. Many people in above comments have explained it to you but you don't get it...why? coz you don't wanna get it.

Sumanth, you are the SIFF leader and you have formed a group of men who due to their sense of belonging to a larger group believe that what they did was right, that it was ok. You are helping some abusers justify their acts of cruelty and for this there will be retribution. Not now, not in a few weeks but there will be. What goes around comes around.

If you guys had the means to ascertain which ones of the cases are false and which ones are true, I would've considered it some form of social research but to claim that all abuse cases are false only because the case is dismissed is like saying everybody who commits murder gets punished....when in reality there are always some who get away. And that is what you are helping some of these men do: get away.

It is not easy when someone you love beats you up. The shock, the pain, the scars, you don't want to face them. You are afraid to look in the mirror because it will remind you fo what that person did to you. There are times when a beating or mental torture causes a miscarriage...since you are fighting the rights of a fetus, let me ask you, should the guy who causes this be held for murder and if it is true how does the woman prove it in the court of law.

Nobody can change the way you think. While some of you may have had false cases lodged, a majority of you have the kind of mentality that justifies abuse.

It is obvious by the kind of force you are on these forums: You engage in bullying and verbal abuse on a public forum! If we the women on DC were called to court as your character witnesses we would be able to narrate the numerous times you have shown us disrespect and engaged in verbal harassment. It doesn't prove act/ motive...but it does show tendency!!

I have always wanted to say a few things to you but my memory isnt very good. So I made a list:

1. When you guys use verbal abuse all it shows me is that you have exhausted your flimsy logic in the face of scrutiny.

2. When you type out long rants, all you do is bare your mentality and your views to the people on DC. We shudder and thank gods that we didnt have to deal with you and pity the woman who did.

3. When you express frustration at there not being a spousal consent required for abortion, all it tells me is that you want control over everything. If you don't get it, you claim the abortion is not for a "good enough reason". Well, you not thinking its not a "good enough reason" is not good enough reason for the court to change its laws. So we can all breathe easy.

4. When you try to bully us on this forum using harsh words and attacks and accusations, it tells us that this how you are. It makes us wonder if this type of behavior resulted in some woman's trauma. It is not easty to live with a bully who wants his way all the time.

5. When you give excuses for why a man would beat his wife up, all it tells us that these are the excuses you give yourself and the SIFFers give you so you could escape you guilt.

It is only human to err. But to lack remorse is evil.

The fact will remain that you guys are not aware of how many guilty men are lurking under the roof of "498A Misuse", using the group to justify their own actions. And by aiding them you are doing a great disservice to humanity.

#177
Sujai
URL
August 29, 2007
10:52 AM

#175, Hardy:
2) The fetus has right to life independent of woman and it is acknowledged by law.

Which law? Are you talking about the right-wing ultra conservative Republicans? Or the Indian Law?

4) Tomorrow if instead of a woman's uterus, the science comes up with an artificial apparatus where one can conceive babies, then as a parent to baby one has every right to sue the owner of apparatus if apparatus owner kills the baby (PROVIDED the baby is not harming the apparatus)?

Yes. If that is written in the agreement prior to the conception that if the apparatus decides to terminate the baby then it is liable to a penalty. In case of no such agreement, the apparatus can decide whether it wants to deliver the baby or not! :)

The only way you can give woman an exclusive right is if you believe that fetus has no right to life on its own.

Yes, I do believe that. The way so many eggs get terminated and since millions of sperms get terminated. I do indeed believe that a fetus has no rights.

In that case you will have to first define what life is and when does life come into existence.

Why is the onus of such a proof thrown onto me? Why don't you go ahead and define it!

#178
Hardy
August 29, 2007
11:31 AM

Which law?

Indian Law.

If that is written in the agreement prior to the conception that if the apparatus decides to terminate the baby then it is liable to a penalty. In case of no such agreement, the apparatus can decide whether it wants to deliver the baby or not! :)


Exactly...there is an well understood agreement at the time of marriage that woman will not kill the fetus if it is not a danger to the life of women.
I suggest you marry women, who beforehand tells you very explicitly, that she will terminate fetus whenever she feels like. And let us see how many men would marry such women who gives such kind of undertaking.


A lot of you talk about spousal consent...please bear in mind that there is nothing like consent of mother when she wants to abort. The fact is law correctly defines

1) the right to life of mother above the life of fetus. No body has any objection to it.

2) The law describes what illegal abortion is.Thus if a woman aborts life without any justifiable reason she is liable to be prosecuted.

3) Thirdly the law considers that if the fetus life is endangered(because of woman inside whom the fetus is residing) for reasons which are beyond the control of woman, the fetus can be aborted.

#179
Hardy
August 29, 2007
11:35 AM

This line of thinking is related to upbringing, attitude, the way you were raised to view women. It cannot be changed.

There is no penalty for hypothesizing. The million dollar question is ...Can you prove it?

You keep ranting those page full of comments...In the end try making the law gender neutral and see the fun...The low conviction rate of 2% will shoot up by many folds.

#180
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
August 29, 2007
11:53 AM

Hardy:

Ha, I don't have to prove it...you guys do a pretty good job with some of your comments. Your thinking reflects your mentality. Its not a hypothesis. It is an observation. Conclusion will be upto those who read your comments.

My rants are pretty rare and adhere to logic. What about the million disconnected ones that you guys take credit for :)

********

Sujai, you should probably answer this but nonetheless, I couldn't resist:

Hardy, which section of the Indian law states/ acknowledges that "The fetus has right to life independent of woman"

I think that even goes against the basic law of Nature! How can a fetus have a life (leave alone a right to one) independent of a woman?

Fetal rights are only protected in cases of abortion due to gender discrimination, illegal abortion. No spousal consent is required for abortion. Medical opinion and legal opinion matter...not Hardy law.

Get your facts right.

#181
Hardy
August 29, 2007
12:03 PM

Aditi...Check out definition of illegal abortion...A hobbyist style abortion is illegal.

Also read

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/pregact.htm

#182
Hardy
August 29, 2007
12:04 PM

No spousal consent is required for abortion.

Did you even bother to comprehend what I said?

#183
temporal
URL
August 29, 2007
12:05 PM

"apparatus"?

sheesh!

#184
Hardy
August 29, 2007
12:43 PM

The way so many eggs get terminated and since millions of sperms get terminated. I do indeed believe that a fetus has no rights.

Your analogy is flawed, because no one can be blamed for death of those sperms/eggs. They die their own death. Add they are not life with a potential because they never had one(once the did not meet the selection criteria). A fetus with 3 to 9 months has a very high potential to be a person.

Similarly a miscarriage in normal course of life can not be treated as a murder, because

1) It happened because of reasons beyond the control of mother.

2) The natural law of selection discarded the fetus because of sub optimal quality.

#185
Aditi Nadkarni
August 29, 2007
01:29 PM

What is this "hobbyist" style abortion?!!! Do you think going thru abortion is a joke? Do you know the range of risks a woman knowingly faces to terminate a pregnancy? You think women do it for fun even when there is the option of contraception available?

And does a doctor get to decide if the woman shouldn't go ahead with the abortion or do you?

An excerpt from the link that you sent me (which you should read before pasting it on here!!):

"Section 3(4) of MTPA clarifies as to whose consent would be necessary for termination of pregnancy.

....It is important to note, in this section, that the consent of the woman is the essential factor for termination of her pregnancy. The husband's consent is ***IRRELEVANT***. Therefore, if the woman wants an abortion but her husband objects to it, the abortion can STILL be done. However, if the woman does not wants an abortion but her husband wants, it cannot be done. However, the consent of the guardians is needed in the case of minors or lunatics"

Hardy: "Did you even bother to comprehend what I said?"

This was pretty self-explanatory in you comment 178:

"...there is an well understood agreement at the time of marriage that woman will not kill the fetus if it is not a danger to the life of women"

***The law states that there are other perfectly valid reasons for the pregnancy to be terminated, not just grave danger to her life.

"I suggest you marry women, who beforehand tells you very explicitly, that she will terminate fetus whenever she feels like. And let us see how many men would marry such women who gives such kind of undertaking"

***That is if you think marriage is only about procreation. If a woman feels unable to raise a child because she is married to an abusive loser then he is the one responsible for the abortion, albeit indirectly.

Hardy, there are plenty of men who are aware of women's reproductive rights and still manage to have a good, fruitful marriage based on respect and consideration. There are plenty of men who won't force their wives to bear the child only because she owes them a kid. They just aren't in the SIFF and so you don't know them. Thats all.


#186
Senior SIFF Activist
August 29, 2007
02:48 PM

[Self serving balderdash edited]

#187
Senior SIFF Activist
August 29, 2007
03:09 PM

[Self serving balderdash edited]

#188
Senior SIFF Activist
August 29, 2007
05:31 PM

[Self serving balderdash edited]


#189
Senior SIFF Activist
August 29, 2007
08:12 PM

Aditi,

To your comment # 176

Lets get some facts straight for you........

1)SIFF is not a social service organization, it is MOVEMENT and not a foundation. Therefore we are not going to do any research on any new members who join. The fact they are implicated in 498a is enough for us to believe they are innocent. If a woman wants a divorce 498a is not an option, there are peaceful ways to work them out. We will leave the social service work to NCW and its miscreants.

2) Our useful 498a manual guide, that is our answer to 498a and NCW. Lately NCW is encouraging new brides to register the marriage compulsorily and make a note of gifts that were given. We say before the marriage is registered , be ready for 498a and proactively apply for anticipatory bail in court, take bail and safe guard the interests of oneself and family. What is wrong with 498a survival guide? We want all young men who marry to be aware of the powers that lie with the wife and he should be ready to combat those.
If anyone who is guilty and using that then I would say to the victim( if any) fight the case in court.

3) Regarding our sign display(Dowry Kanoon Hatao, Parivar Bachao) in our protest,it was perfect, we do want dowry laws to be removed and made gender neutral. Our aged mothers are being arrested, are they not women, our sisters being arrested, are they not women? Per your suggestion, to curb dowry( dowry hatao), that is job of NCW and not ours.

4) Yes, we are against abortion and we have valid reason because we want to save family, SAVE. My own wife who kidnapped my kid and left me a few years ago and who took the help of laws and told the cops that I was monster, is now begging to come back to me. Because now our kid is ready to go to school and she needs help. Women who pass the age of 30 and who have kids but have no option but to return to us. If we encouraged abortion there would not be any reason for them to return to us and they would happily go for a divorce and misuse the laws and more families would break. Retaining the baby is one way to save the family, the baby bonds the family and makes the women more attached to her husbands family. Age plays a big difference. When women in her 20s, she thinks she has a second chance and if she does not have kids she thinks she has a brighter chance. If she past 30 her insecurities get the better of her and she has very limited options if not none. If a woman becomes a mother, she becomes more responsible, matured and for the sake of the kid will come back. I speak from my own example, after 3 years of my wife running in courts she has no choice now. So I know.

I hope your doubts are now all cleared.




#190
Aditi Nadkarni
August 29, 2007
08:34 PM

#189:

"The fact they are implicated in 498a is enough for us to believe they are innocent"

Ahh! Of course!

You can help whoever you like. Just stop playing the victims. If you have the whole "anticipatory bail" plan worked out then why do you need the laws to be changed? You already seem to have an easy enough antidote.

"We want all young men who marry to be aware of the powers that lie with the wife and he should be ready to combat those"

Or you could have young men accept that women are not just baby-making machines who cannot have a say. You could even have them take a little more than the customary 3 weeks to discuss things before marriage.

"Our aged mothers are being arrested, are they not women, our sisters being arrested, are they not women?"

If they are guilty of dowry harassment (and you yourself admit you don't know who's guilty who is not) then I don't care if they are women. To me the law is gender neutral. It could be a man or a woman who beat a woman up, they'll be charged. That is gender neutral.

"Women who pass the age of 30 and who have kids but have no option but to return to us. If we encouraged abortion there would not be any reason for them to return to us and they would happily go for a divorce and misuse the laws and more families would break."

:) Hmm, just what I thought. What a strategy, truly!! Geniuses. So finally we find out why abortion is such an issue with you...its not about fetal rights at all! Its about you believing that a woman with a kid is likelier to come back. What twisted logic!

I say, no woman should come back to a relationship that is based on the "she has no other option" scenario especially if the guy is using a child to evoke helplessness. That is low.

My sympathies to your wife. If she had to take her kid and run from you, one cannot imagine what her situation was.

A decent man would've thought that she wanted the kid's father to be in his life but you assume its her helplessness. Mentality never does change!

As for my doubts, they were never about your activities and by-laws...they are about your intentions. And thanks to your responses my doubts are confirmed.




#191
Senior SIFF Activist
August 29, 2007
09:32 PM

[Conjecturing balderdash removed]

#192
Hardy
August 30, 2007
01:26 AM

It is important to note, in this section, that the consent of the woman is the essential factor for termination of her pregnancy. The husband's consent is ***IRRELEVANT***.

I sincerely do not know how you read English...

consent of the woman is the essential factor BUT "****NOT the Only and NOT the Deciding Factor***"

I never said husband's consent is binding in our law. Yes husband's consent is not required (and probably that is where we are fighting for suitable amendments)..

HOWEVER, HOWEVER!!!

As for protection to unborn child




Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, defines the offense of 'causing miscarriage' as follows "whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: a woman, who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of this section.




And this is how a husband can ask for justice for innocent unborn and ask for punishment to the murderer.

His consent is irrelevant (as per law), but his asking for punishment to murderer for the injustice inflicted on unborn child is "NOT".

#193
Woman
August 30, 2007
02:06 AM

So ...in that case section 312 is very under used. Trust me, half the men in India would be behind bars for directly or indirectly committing this action/sin or being party to such a cruel plan.

Lets start with digging the sif...lots of skeletons behind the closet, my ex included and many of your siff chiefs are guilty of this henious crime. So shall we?

#194
Hardy
August 30, 2007
02:12 AM

If a woman feels unable to raise a child because she is married to an abusive loser then he is the one responsible for the abortion

Who decides who is abusive and who is loser. I will tell you that the Woman are Abusive and Women are Losers. You should stop making and stop generalizing associations of words with gender.

And then if woman can not raise the child herself because she is "ABUSIVE" and "LOSER", why not allow a decent, polite and caring husband to raise the child.

On side note...There is something I have observed on this forum and let me dare to generalize it...Women are much more devious that men...It is just that they know how to use suitable words to get around it. Women are gifted with manipulating words but are poor in thoughts and ideas. Linguistic and Verbal juggleries are their forte because of their genetic makeup. Men have to learn to overcome this trick in the bags of women.

#195
smallsquirrel
August 30, 2007
03:14 AM

hardy.. give it a damned rest. we are talking about individual cases. surely you can concede that in certain relationships a man could be abusive and his wife decides that having a baby with him is not a good idea.

I just **love** that you can make blazing generalizations about women, but when someone come up with a case that doesn't even make generalizations you are all up in arms.

You are such a riot man. In the same post (#194) you admonish for making generalizations when none was made, and then go on to make blatantly stupid and useless ones yourself. what's even more humorous is that you say that women are poor in thoughts and ideas, all while spouting forth your half-baked, half-arsed ridiculousness. oh and let's not overlook that you just called women genetically inferior.

you a joke, dude.

#196
Hardy
August 30, 2007
03:24 AM

Side note in 194..should be taken with a grain of salt.

Inferior??? Women are genetically manipulative and clever with words/linguistic prowess. Prove it otherwise if you disagree.

#197
smallsquirrel
August 30, 2007
03:48 AM

yeah I will prove it. I am a linguist with a master's degree. so you picked the wrong chick to start that particular argument with.

No one gender is born with any kind of special "prowess" when it comes to language, dear. Both men and women have equal abilities to express themselves, they just tend to do it differently.

there is no language gene... language is a learned behavior just like walking.

what you have said is akin to people spouting off crap like "japanese people are good at math" or "blacks are good at sports"... it's total mumbojumbo (much like the rest of the crap you spout)

don't believe me? go road. start with Chomsky, the father of modern linguistics... he has a lot to say about language acquisition. Move on to Deborah Tannen and Deborah Schiffrin, who have each published extensively on language and gender.

here's a book on gender and discourse written for the layperson. I suggest you read it. YOU NEED IT.

http://www.amazon.com/You-Just-Dont-Understand-Conversation/dp/0060959622/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8046981-6570239?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188460060&sr=8-1

#198
temporal
URL
August 30, 2007
04:11 AM

ss:

(just another tangent - since you mentioned noam)

don't you find pathological this attempt at manufacturing consent by the con-siffers?

#199
smallsquirrel
August 30, 2007
04:28 AM

why yes! although I would hardly categorize the siffers as an elite group, they are certainly (and probably unwittingly) using the propaganda models outlined by Chomsky in the book/movie.

it is pathological, and in the end humorous... they are not skilled nor adept at the art of not contradicting themselves.... and they forgot the part about not alienating potential allies. Very important!


(god I love Chomsky. Met him a couple times.. he's a handful!)

#200
temporal
URL
August 30, 2007
04:35 AM

you lucky dawg!

i came to him via edward (said) and ekbal (ahmed)

and another confession... thought i keyed-in von-siffers in #198...but con is also apt

;)

#201
smallsquirrel
August 30, 2007
04:42 AM

hey, I typed "road" instead of "read" in #197

am sure it makes no difference, I do not think they read what we have to say anyway... LOL

ASIDE:
I was presenting at a conference, looked in the audience and saw him sitting there. lost my sh** and stumbled over my words for a bit. afterwords he said something like "nice job" then debunked half of my theories in one quick go. but he did it nicely! :)

#202
ravi
August 30, 2007
04:53 AM

aditi

#190
!!!!!!!!To me the law is gender neutral. It could be a man or a woman who beat a woman up, they'll be charged. That is gender neutral.!!!!!!!!!!!

ok, tell me, if DIL beat her MIL or harass mentally, this law protect that MIL. It is not gender neutral.It is wife centric law.

#203
Hardy
August 30, 2007
04:55 AM

Not to be get swayed by your usual off the cuff usual disparaging rants, here are the lists of Some proofs...

Meyers-Levy, 1989

Checkout Linguistic Skills section ...

http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1997/cjsm/v1n1/tbush1.htm

AND


Journal of Psycholinguistic research at

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g24x86547p5252g0/

#204
temporal
URL
August 30, 2007
05:06 AM

:)

he who knows not and knows not he knows not......

#205
Hardy
August 30, 2007
05:24 AM

204...I shun you long back ;).

#206
temporal
URL
August 30, 2007
05:33 AM

:)

she who knows and knows she knows....

#207
smallsquirrel
August 30, 2007
05:44 AM

thanks for your armchair linguistic attempts, dear but if you knew ANYTHING about linguistics, you'd know that Meyers-Levy are hotly disputed... and that is some old as hell research.

#208
Hardy
August 30, 2007
05:45 AM

201...Did you present(to him) only half of your theories that day.

To Mr. Chomsky, What's the big deal?

;).

#209
temporal
URL
August 30, 2007
05:50 AM

"In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language" - mark twain

#210
smallsquirrel
August 30, 2007
07:01 AM

hey hardy... that is what academics is about. we learn from each other... something you might want to consider, yar?

and it was an honor that he simply chose to attend my lecture and comment...

#211
Aditi Nadkarni
August 30, 2007
10:00 AM

196 "Women are genetically manipulative and clever with words/linguistic prowess"

Which genes are involved in this gender based clever and manipulative behavior? While I might even agree with clever :) (coz we are clever...lil too clever for you) but I'm not sure we have identified genes for manipulative :D

Also, 192, Hardy my man, your googled up legal info is a bit botched. Section 3 of the MTP Act which was ammended in 1971 and again in 2000 overrides that mention in 312. Abortions are now carried out by the MTP regulations. In order to bring to court a section 312 case you have to show sufficient cause in your report. Section 312 is used mostly by the law to arrest people who have forcefully caused an abortion in a woman without her consent. It is not used against medical practictioners who have a license to do so and the mother's consent. Also the section 3 states the reasons for which the abortion can be done. Those reasons override the "in good faith" dictum of the 312.

Do some reading. Get some journal articles. And don't just yap w/out info.

Also, if you are rallying for an ammendment of spousal consent in abortion well, not gonna happen buddy. That will be very regressive. No liberal democracy (especially one that is trying to control the populations) will want to bear the shame of coming down on a woman's reproductive rights. When the world is moving forward why move backward?

As I said earlier, for whatever reason one guy may wanna be a father but someone such as Siffer in 189 may be doing it to pin the woman down with a child, to make it an ego battle. Some men have such twisted agendas and the court has to take that into consideration.

Comment 189 now brings to our attention why SIFF fights abortion.

See what I said in 176 clearly explains why you guys feel the need to have control in the whole abortion issue. Mentality is hard to change. You grow up seeing women being treated a certain way, you expect thats how it will be. So while the world has moved into the 21st century you are still in the 17th. You need to hurry up and join us here. It is so much better!

And, yeah, this will be my last response to you. I get a little bored when I see that the person I'm dealing with has little or no knowlege in the area and is just acting like a reactionary zealot who think his backward vies actually influence legal ammendments. I've asked you questions before in our exchanges that you did not answer. That I think was a better strategy compared to what you are doing now.

#212
Hardy
August 30, 2007
10:06 AM

[Restrain yourself please- comment edited]

#213
Hardy
August 30, 2007
11:06 AM

211...

Section 3 of the MTP Act which was amended in 1971 and again in 2000 overrides that mention in 312.

First of all, Was there even an amendment in 2000? From what I know there was a major amendment in 2002 which can be found at

http://mohfw.nic.in/MTP%20Act%20(Amendment)%202002.htm

the section 3 of this amendment says...


3.

In section 3 of the principal Act, in sub-section (4), in clause (a), for the word "lunatic", the words "mentally ill person" shall be substituted.



Refer link(to Ministry of health and family welfare) provided just above...

I will be obliged if you point me to any mention of Section 312 in this amendment.


Secondly, let me tell that the link I provided in 196,says (w.r.t 2002 amendments)

Gradually, with an increasing number of centers and with new problems cropping up, the Act was amended and passed on December 18, 2002.Essential features of the amendment are as follows: -

# In the amended Act, the word "mentally ill person" covers a wider variety of mental diseases and disorders than the word lunatic" of the Principal Act.

# In the amended Act, recognition of a place for the purpose of carrying out MTP is now at district level rather than the state capital and hence procedural delays should be less.

# In the Principal Act, there was dependence on IPC to enforce discipline. In the amended Act, the punishment is incorporated in the Act itself.

#214
Hardy
August 30, 2007
11:27 AM

[rant deleted]

#215
Jay
August 30, 2007
11:41 AM

Hardy

You have pasted only a certain sub-section of section 3 that was ammended (the mental illness). that is not the entire section 3. The whole section 3 deals with duration of pregnancy, consent etc.

This does seem like an internet scouring for info.

Not of it is accurate. Most of it is disconnected becoz it is pulled off the net without knowing medical implications.

If a man drags a woman to court under 312 and a doctor testifies/ provides information that the abortion is being conducted for specified reasons, the abortion cannot be stopped. Also, the sub-section/ explanation that states the "use of contraception but failed" is a huge advantage since there is no way a court can really confirm that. The woman's consent with that of a doctor's approval therefore has the ultimate bearing. Only in cases where there is evidence of multiple abortions/ forceful abortions/ invovement of a 3rd party, is the 312 applicable.

Women face serious risk such as uterine damage, increased risk for breast cancer, hemorrhage, mental health issues etc. So aborting a baby is not a "hobby" procedure. Also licensed medical practitioners who do perform abortions don't do it for fun either. They could get into serious trouble if they did so.

Most cases I have seen were where the girl's parents filed 312 becoz the man was forcing the woman to abort due to financial reasons etc. If 312 were to be applied then as someone says it is grossly underused. A lot of miscarriages are caused due to domestic violence and a woman should be able to file 312 against a man who does so.

I am an OB so I should know :)

Aditi may have typed in 2000 instead of 2002 but she knows what she is talking about. Most pharmacists, doctors etc have this detailed in their coursework. We don't have to pull it off the internet.

#216
Jay
August 30, 2007
11:47 AM

"the most likelihood, Man will discover scientific techniques to raise babies without women."

Looney fringe?!!

Hardy: you have typed in one sub-section of section 3...the entire section includes consent, duration etc. The ammendment did include that the word "lunatic" be substituted by "mentally ill" but thats all...the rest of it you havent yet found on google.

BTW, just a heads up. Doctors, pharmacists, have the MTP somewhere in their coursework. They don't have to google it :D

#217
Hardy
August 30, 2007
11:57 AM

[second warning: Please restrain yourself]

#218
Hardy
August 30, 2007
11:59 AM

[balderdash edited]

#219
smallsquirrel
August 30, 2007
12:05 PM

WOO HOO.. go jay go! :)

#220
Woman
August 30, 2007
01:42 PM

Way to goooo Jay.....you take it away. The final word :)

(unnecessary provocation removed)

I also think/ know that alot of miscarriages and abortions happen but this is something for "various obvious reasons" is kept under wraps due to the social pressure. Many woman are not even aware of the law.

#221
Sumanth
August 30, 2007
04:56 PM

[Conjecturing self-promotion edited]

#222
Sumath
August 30, 2007
06:05 PM

Aditi you wrote:

---------------
If you guys had the means to ascertain which ones of the cases are false and which ones are true, I would've considered it some form of social research but to claim that all abuse cases are false only because the case is dismissed is like saying everybody who commits murder gets punished....when in reality there are always some who get away. And that is what you are helping some of these men do: get away.
------------------

SIFF do not support dowry and a dowry taker gains nothing from SIFF.

[Conjectures edited]

--------------------
It is not easy when someone you love beats you up. The shock, the pain, the scars, you don't want to face them. You are afraid to look in the mirror because it will remind you fo what that person did to you. There are times when a beating or mental torture causes a miscarriage.
---------------------

[Conjectures edited]

#223
another woman
August 30, 2007
10:03 PM

Sumanth

SIFF do not support dowry and a dowry taker gains nothing from SIFF.
What a baloney ??

How do you know a dowry taker gains nothing from SIFF? Did anyone tell you that? Do you have a report? Do you have any examples?

I do have an example....my ex is hiding inside your group, follows your tactics, evades court dates per your guidance and valuable suggestions. He religiously follows and followed your SIFF manual guide that helped him tremendously to play around with the loop holes of the law and court procedures( happy.. sumanth with the good news?). To him that was the winning mantra. The inconvenience caused to me is his gain. So he gained from SIFF. And you know what else? He even tells me the same, to him you are his Guru, his GOD.

To me siff is nothing but a movement that camouflages the criminals. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

It appalls me that he was part of your very comfortable so called protest cum picnic cum meet and greet session in delhi, where in he was rocking. I know what he did and he knows it best also and you know everything.

Please do not bother writing the long rants...we have read and understood your crooked hogwash "mirror image" theory.

Jay,
What a surprise? I have been reading all your comments since the last few weeks. Everyone above has been giving their views on abortion , throwing their unrealistic expectations on women irrespective of her health/mental criteria with regard to when it comes to the decision of an abortion and here you are reading all those comments knowing fully better.

Sometimes one has to be careful who they are conversing with on the internet otherwise we are all in for a pleasant googly!! What say Mr Hardy??



#224
Sumanth
August 31, 2007
03:39 AM

Comment 223,

How do I believe that your Ex husband took dowry? For me, before the trial is concluded in a court in India, every person is "innocent till proven guilty".

The manuals of SIFF are open for all. It is not just men, but also women evade the court dates to make the other party run around.

Because, dowry law is biased against men and their families, and there is no equivalent law against women who extort money, I work to correct this imbalance.

Women who extort money under the treats or physical violence or harassment of husband's families are criminals just like men who indulge in dowry harassment.

Feminists have sheltered thousands of legal terrorists and told the unsuspecting girls who wanted just divorce to file 498a. You do not have any concern for that.

Because most probably you feel that only feminists have a right to shelter criminals and terrorists. For you it is perfectly ok if feminists pay a crminal prostitute to go naked in steet to put innocent husband and mother-in-law in jail.

SIFF has not done anything illegal. SIFF creates legal awareness for all. Both women and men can read material in SIFF and find methods to prevent harassment by spouses and also Indian courts.







#225
Sumanth
August 31, 2007
03:50 AM

[Comment policies are for everyone here. If you do not conform your comment will be edited]

#226
Sumanth
August 31, 2007
05:26 AM

The alarmism and panic about violence against women created by feminists reinforces the the patriarchal belief that women are weak and vulnerable and hence they are burdens. So, undue alarmism contributes to female foeticide and feminists have to take the responsibility for the same.

#227
temporal
URL
August 31, 2007
05:35 AM

grasping at straws?...twisted logic almost bordering on delusions...obviously you have abandoned rationality

;)

#228
Sumanth
August 31, 2007
05:47 AM

The peom in this beautiful article is valid for all the 4 crore (40 million) children (male and female) aborted in this world.

[Insinuation and conjecture edited]

#229
another women
August 31, 2007
11:20 AM

How do I believe that your Ex husband took dowry
That was so expected of you...you and your twisted logic , more of self-pacification and illusion. If everyone is innocent according to you until proven guilty, then why evade courts? Why play around with court procedures? If he is man enough come and face the court, the judge, and ask his old parents to come too who even bigger criminals. So what if they are old, crime is a crime and age is no excuse. It requires guts.

Sif shelters lakhs and lakhs of legal terrorists, dowry takers, child abusers, wife abusers and what not! And for you it is perfectly okay to hide a murderer, an abuser, a rapist under your wings that too for free( yes you are sensible not to collect any money) and you know what coz the murderer, the abuser, the rapist is guilty.

The false wolf -cry created by you is there for everyone to see and no one pays heed to it. Sif is responsible for its own pit that it has created and fallen into face on.

Sif men only want male children as he is a future bank account and force their wives to abort or abandon the baby if a girl.


#230
ravi
August 31, 2007
01:58 PM

another woman
#229
!!!!!!!!!!Sif is responsible for its own pit that it has created and fallen into face on.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we are also thinking same about all woman organizations.

And one thing if your ex is really guilty, don't worry, try hard and just convince the court with at least one proof, he will be awarded maximum punishment.

All the best.

#231
another women
August 31, 2007
01:58 PM

if feminists pay a crminal prostitute...

How can you call her a criminal, a prostitute? Do you have some inside information? What?
How do you know? Were you there? The real story is that her husband and inlaws were asking for a MALE child only and the harassment that goes with it. and putting her out for services and demanding money from her.

Also you all sniffers feed off the money from the so called victims who join your group, by way of forcefully extracting money(extortion) all in the name of charity!In the past there were commentators on this forum who voiced their concerns on the extortion tactics of siff so that some jerk could live his dream of being a political leader! Got it? ( and please dont ask me for references :) )

#232
another women
August 31, 2007
03:26 PM

Ravi

I do not need you best wishes..so cut it out, and neither do I need your poor dumb suggestions. The pit that I am talking about is understood by Sumanth and the conversation was with him.

#233
ravi
August 31, 2007
11:02 PM

another woman,

i am not forcing you to accept my wishes, if you don't want, i don't bother about that. But my suggestion is not dumb.It's the fact every where.
now showing an evidence to court become dumb,huh....

You talked about SIF, so every one who support SIF in fight against legal terrorism will respond to it.

#234
another women
August 31, 2007
11:26 PM

Ravi,

How dumb you suggestion was , let me not get into that. It is common sense and that is something you dont have. Did I ask for your suggestion your view . NO. I never said you forced it on me..where did I say it? I said keep your suggestions to yourself and only suggest when asked about it. And as you said " I dont bother about that"...please practice it.

#235
ravi
September 1, 2007
12:07 AM

another woman

it's a public forum, did sumanth asked you to comment on SIF.NO.But you did it.I did the same .every body here doing the same. I know you will remain silent or appreciate me, if i gave support to you. To understand this you seed some common sense. but you don't have that. so bye.

#236
ravi
September 1, 2007
12:36 AM

it is need not seed, understand it.

#237
another women
September 1, 2007
12:52 AM

Okay ravi--the most intelligent guy. I will go to court next week and give my evidence (only one huh) and even though my culprit will be absent( per sumant suggestion as said by me) the judge of India will give an exparte judgment and thus create history by announcing a 7 year sentence with no hearing, or defense from the alleged culprit. Ravi, if things only worked by your asinine dimwitted suggestion!! That's why I said keep your dumb suggestion with you ie # 230.

And I also request you to don't respond to my comment and I'll do the same. Thank you

#238
another women
September 1, 2007
12:56 AM

Per Deepti in one of the above comments # 168, S*f has been intruding almost all threads.

Was this article about s*f? No. So why did you comment on s*f?

Did I start the comment on s*f? No

Sumanh responded to me and I responded as well.

Did he have objection? No.
Just do not pick up and bump in anywhere with your dumb suggestions.

(btw..thank god s*f is filled with great sensible people like you--it makes our day happy)

Kindly don't respond to my comment and I'll do the same. Thank you and I appreciate it!

#239
another women
September 1, 2007
12:58 AM

Per editor in one of the above comments # 168, S*f has been intruding almost all threads.

Was this article about siffy? No. So why did you comment on siffy?

Did I start the comment on siffy? No

Sumanh responded to me and I responded as well.

Did he have objection? No.
Just do not pick up and bump in anywhere with your dumb suggestions.

(btw..thank god siffy is filled with great sensible people like you--it makes our day happy)

Kindly don't respond to my comment and I'll do the same. Thank you and I appreciate it!

#240
A. S. Mathew
September 1, 2007
05:28 AM

I read recently that in China, the most profitable business is to start a marriage bureau
because there is a great shortage for girls. The bureau manager made a lot of money but he had no luck to find a matching girl. In India, due to the system of dowry, girls are
terribly mistreated as a burden by the society.
India must stop the evil dowry system. Since the
parents will have depend on the male children, they will get a lion's share of parent's wealth.
The system has to change from top to the bottom.
How the vested interests in materialism leads to
abominable and abhorrent end! My son used to complain that I love my daughter more than I love him, but God knows the truth, I love them
both equally as God's precious gift.

#241
Kavita Chhibber
URL
September 1, 2007
06:36 AM

Thank you for all the responses. I'm struggling through it due to lack of time-I read a few responses, questions come to mind then more comments come in with so many different threads on related topics running in the responses. However it has been enlightening to say the least to see the cross section of who visits here. Many armed with all kinds of knowledge, information, strong opinions. I wonder if many of the responses that seem to be posted here would have even been aired in the same language had we all been sitting in the same room. I can only hope that discussions can be done with respect without demeaning any one. But then when emotions run high, things get out of hand especially when you are not in close physical proximity.

I just saw this report a little while ago on Yahoo news. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you think or say to the contrary-the facts just stare at you in the face. I happened to see a documentary where a five month old unborn child was being aborted. Its eyes were closed but it shied from the pain, its mouth opened in a silent scream of agony..it was the hardest thing to watch..This will be I guess my last word on the subject, but I think if all of us can look at things with compassion, and think of everything as " Our" issues, there will be much more balance in just the way we look at anything in life. Thanks everyone. I have learnt a lot here because of the time all of you took to write in.


"Rise in India's female feticide may spark crisis

By Nita Bhalla Fri Aug 31, 2:17 AM ET

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Increasing female feticide in India could spark a demographic crisis where fewer women in society will result in a rise in sexual violence and child abuse as well as wife-sharing, the United Nations warned.

Despite laws banning tests to determine the sex of an unborn child, the killing of female fetuses is common in some regions of India where a preference for sons runs deep.

As a result, the United Nations says an estimated 2,000 unborn girls are illegally aborted every day in India.

This has led to skewed sex ratios in regions like Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh as well as the capital, New Delhi, where a census in 2001 showed there are less than 800 girls for every 1,000 boys.

"The 2001 census was a wake-up call for all of us and much public awareness have been created on female feticide since then," Ena Singh, assistant representative for the United Nations Population Fund in India told Reuters.

"But initial figures show sex ratios are still declining as female feticide is becoming more widespread across the country and it is likely to be worse in the next census in 2011."

In most parts of India, sons are viewed as breadwinners who will look after their parents and carry on the family name, but daughters are viewed as financial liabilities for whom they will have to pay substantial dowries to get married off.

DEMOGRAPHIC CRISIS?

Activists say female feticide is rising because of the availability of technologies like ultrasonography and amniocentesis to determine the gender of fetuses at the request of the parents.

If the fetus is found to be a girl, it is aborted.

As a result, the government says around 10 million girls have been killed by their parents -- either before or immediately after birth -- over the past 20 years.

Experts warn that fewer women will spark a demographic crisis in many parts of country.

"There already is this phenomenon all over the country where there is a lot of sexual violence and abuse against women and children across the country," said Ranjana Kumari, director of the Centre for Social Research, a New Delhi based think-tank.

"But when there are less women in the population and more men of the same age group, there is certainly going to be much more demand for women for marriage, for sex and this pressure will certainly increase violence against women."

Experts say practices such as polyandry -- where several men, often brothers, share the same wife are already emerging in areas where there are fewer women.

Brides are also now being sold and trafficked by their parents to areas like Haryana and Punjab where bachelors are being forced to look beyond their own culture, caste and social grouping to find a wife.

Activists say these women have to adapt to an alien culture with a different language, diet, and social norms and are often treated as second-class citizens by the community who view their value based on their ability to produce male off-spring.

"There is this myth that fewer women will give them better status in society but this is a fallacy," said activist Sabu George.

"Women in India are already being treated as commodities to be bought and sold and their plight will worsen as sex ratios continue to decline."

#242
smallsquirrel
September 1, 2007
07:20 AM

Kavita... just so you know... according to the MTP Act it is illegal to perform an abortion on a 5 month old child except in wildly EXTREME circumstances... so while I agree with you that aborting at that stage is horrific, there must have been a good reason why it was performed. Are you sure the fetus was at 5 months? That would involve something called a partial-birth abortion and not the D&C that you seem to be describing. Also, the likelihood that ANY doctor would perform an abortion on a live 5 month old fetus is very very very exceptionally small. Are you sure you were not just watching a propaganda video? Where did you see this video???

#243
Kavita Chhibber
URL
September 1, 2007
09:27 AM

Hi SS,
It is indeed illegal to perform abortions at 5 months but I know of at least 3 cases where it was done simply because the fetus was female. A close friend's aunt ran a hospital near a major city in India and had performed the abortions. Though trained as a pediatrician she did gender based abortions because of the ill treatment she saw being meted out to the mother to be-she was making more money doing abortions than even her husband who was in family practice-even now though she has stopped, many of her colleagues continue..the last time it was a woman who already had 3-4 daughters. One woman nearly died because she had been so weak having produced 4 kids in 5 years- all girls..

The segment I mentioned was one of many captured a few years ago by some students who pretended to be trained midwives but were actually medical students who had gone in to the villages and some small towns like Jammu, where I hail from and seen doctors perform these operations some of which resulted at times in terrible consequences. Their expose led to some arrests-most of the doctors were fined a small sum and let go, others had bribed some politicians and got away. A couple landed in jail. It was not a propaganda video.

However such vigilant students today or conscientious ones are few, and the ones there were were terribly disheartened by the corruption in the system-but those haunting images have stayed with me. I interviewed Rita Jitendra, whose poem I translated and found out that my home state of Jammu and Kashmir is one of the worst states for these kind of stories and for just womens issues in general.

In my mom's circle itself, I know of at least 15 cases where gender based abortions were carried out. One friend of mine ate some weird concoctions to abort the baby- given by some quack when she found out she was carrying a second girl and she was too weak to have an abortion at 4 and a half months-the quack said she will have a natural miscarriage. She didnt-she ended up with a child with a severe deformity..we dont know if it was due to whatever he fed her or just a coincidence.
The girl is 13 now and still undergoing surgeries.

I do recall seeing another documentary here in the US where it was clearly shown how an unborn fetus reacted to lights been shone at it, a sharp object touching(it had a quick reflex action from the pinch it felt) I think these experiences became have stayed with me. There are some tragic circumstances where people dont have a choice..but in others we can exercise sensible and rational and most of all humane choices.

Strangely even among the childless couples I know who eventually adopted, only ONE specifically asked for a baby girl. Everyone else wanted a boy.

#244
smallsquirrel
September 1, 2007
09:45 AM

kavita... thanks for sharing and being more specific.

you know, no offense to these women, but who in hell waits that long to try to have an abortion? you can find out gender LONG before 5 months, and waiting until 5 months to terminate your pregnancy is negligent. and doing it at that stage because your baby is a girl is the foulest act I can think of. the women in question are obviously disturbed and the doctors should be jailed.

But I feel now like you have very much confused the issue of abortion and female infanticide. abortion, when done within the legal time limit specified, is really no one else's business. but you cannot confuse that with people who terminate illegally (and immorally) at 5 months.

#245
Kavita Chhibber
URL
September 1, 2007
09:55 AM

Hi SS,
got to run for a meeting(my life on a weekend!) Many villages still dont seem to have early detection tools. In my friend's case she was unwell off and on and things just slid..and no confusion about abortion and female infanticide really-the cases I specifically mentioned were all female infanticide..sorry if it came off any other way.
Abortion is another blog..but I think many people have already discussed that as well.
weekend!

#246
smallsquirrel
September 1, 2007
10:17 AM

Kavita... yeah, we do not have to rehash it... sorry about your friend, one must have to be pretty desperate and in a bad situation to resort to that... as for detection, if the women are finding out at 5 months by ultrasound they can very well find out much earlier too (although gender detection is usually only reliable after the 20 week cut-off anyway, but still... huge difference between those 2 timeframes!)

cheers!

#247
Ruvy in Jerusalem
September 1, 2007
02:16 PM

I'm glad the author, Kavita Chhibber, came back and brought the topic back to where she started it - killing infants for fetuses because they are girls.

That is the bottom line topic that many here are reluctant to discuss, preferring any topic but.

#248
poiuy
September 2, 2007
03:58 AM

its funny how both the groups make sweeping generalizations but still taking the moral high road. SIFF'ers say that all women are out to get a man through slanted divorce laws while female activists quote
"Women in India are already being treated as commodities to be bought and sold and their plight will worsen as sex ratios continue to decline."

#249
Ruvy in Jerusalem
September 2, 2007
07:50 AM

The refusal to discuss the issue at hand, female infanticide, continues in comment #248.

Women's rights are not the issue here. Abortions are not the issue here. Whether women trick men into marriage or not, or whether marriage laws are slanted in India or not, are all irrelevant to the basic point raised. Attitudes towards females even being born in India is the basic point raised. While I'm not an Indian and do not participate in Indian society, I can see avoidance behavior when it's being practiced.

Sure as shit, there is a lot of shuckin' an' jivin' going on here...

#250
smallsquirrel
September 2, 2007
07:58 AM

ruvy, well I do see your point, but unfortunately life and reality do not come in neat little compartments marked "female infanticide" "abortion" and "women's rights" Here in India, as in many countries, these issues are all bundled together... you could see it as a freshwater stream that runs into a marsh that runs into an ocean. There are 3 separate water bodies, but they overlap and run into each other. Here that overlap is great.

women's rights are at their worst in the areas where female infanticide is at the highest. abortion is generally the means used to carry out the infanticide, albeit illegal abortion. so you can see, the issues are not altogether separate and it is such a huge topic that people focussed on the part which interested or irked them most.

#251
Ruvy in Jerusalem
September 2, 2007
08:18 AM

"...life and reality do not come in neat little compartments marked "female infanticide" "abortion" and "women's rights" Here in India,... these issues are all bundled together... you could see it as a freshwater stream that runs into a marsh that runs into an ocean. There are 3 separate water bodies, but they overlap and run into each other. Here that overlap is great."

All this is clear from the comments, smallsquirrel. But the real issue at hand is not abortion (a tool to carry out an idea), nor woman's rights (which could be used either to defend the right to abortion, or assert the right of a female to live), nor marriage laws or customs (which provides the environment where the attitude of judging female babies as worth less than male ones emerges). The issue is the attitude itself.

This is the ugly beast at the center of the cesspool. The arguments about abortion, woman's rights and marriage laws and customs all look askance of the ugly beast - the evil of societally sanctioned murder of innocents.

Put simply, the more one avoids the ugly beast at the heart of the matter, the more secure that beast becomes.

There are similar evils in other societies. I know Israeli society has such evil beasts that people similarly avoid. Not all of them involve murder.

But Ms. Chhibber happened to put her finger on the face of one such beast, and having seen her do so, I'm reluctant to allow others to permit it to slink away in the octopus's ink of arguments over what are really side issues.

#252
smallsquirrel
September 2, 2007
09:13 AM

ruvy, while I mostly agree with you, you are missing the point that female infanticide occurs in the context of the others issues you mentioned. people might have used those issues to obscure the other (and for their own purposes).. but they cannot be discounted nonetheless.... that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

#253
poiuy
September 2, 2007
03:02 PM

Ruvy: Nobody denies the issue at hand is an ugly beast. If female infanticide is a tree, then divorce laws, abortion, woman's rights are its roots. Only way to deal with the beast is to cut down its roots.

#254
Jagga
September 3, 2007
10:51 AM


It seems they have a group dedicatedly working for the welfare cause.
Check out this link:

http://derasachasaudawelfareactivities.blogspot.com

I have heard that they have started an ashram for the girl child.. they request the people not to kill the girl child either in the womb or after her birth.....must say that their effort is praiseworthy.

#255
Sumanth
September 3, 2007
02:32 PM

There is no way one can stop female foeticide in north India except telling the people the truth that "boys can bring more misery and tears to a family than girls".

Female foeticide will not stop till all women start working and take responsibility in protecting and providing just the way men do.

Female foeticide will not stop till all extravangant marriage are stopped and girls are not forced into marriages by their parents. There must be a law against forced marriages in India.





#256
smallsquirrel
September 3, 2007
02:44 PM

sumanth... you said

"Female foeticide will not stop till all women start working and take responsibility in protecting and providing just the way men do."


hmmm, you guys are starting to lose it with your party line. somewhere else, on another post just today, SIFFers were preaching that women need to learn the value of being housewives and stop trying to compete with men by working outside the home. which is it? get out and work or stay home and cook? sounds like the SIFFer PR machine is breaking down! cannot have it both ways!

#257
Sumanth
September 4, 2007
12:27 AM

Smallsquirrel,

SIFF stands for gender equality. SIFF will never compromise on this.

There are some elements (which are opposed to SIFF) including brothers of 498a females, who write comments as SIFF members to defame SIFF.

We are not bothered though.

SIFF is against patriarchal mindsets which (we believe) harm men.

The official views of SIFF are published if SIFF websites and we do not take responsibility for views by some mischievious elements.

#258
Sumanth
September 4, 2007
12:42 AM

Comment 231,

Do not make baseless allegations. SIFF is a non-funded non-profit organisation which is registered as a Trust.

There are some criminal elements who try to get clients in the name of SIFF and may be there are so other elements who ask money to SIFF members for PILs etc.

But, collection of money for any purpose is discouraged in SIFF.

Feminists did pay money to a sex worker Pooja Chauhan and gave her a baseball bat and under garments to go semi-naked in streets of Rajkot. If you are ignorant, then that is not my problem.




#259
Reader
September 4, 2007
02:07 AM

If you are ignorant about SIFF fund collecting activities and do not want to acknowledege the truth, then that is your major problem . People who know better know the truth. What proof do you have that feminists gave money to anyone or a baseball bat? You may want your blind followers to believe that crap who these days are very few (almost none). The truth is her husband (like most dowry takers) use to sell her and eat off her money and he wanted a male child. Period. Has siff the guts to even touch or help this man--the pimp? No. Why? Because a man who turned his wife into a selling product will be of no use to siff. You want rich guys in your kitty bag who has the potential to fill the bank accounts in the name of sif. Like the famous south indian actor you guys went after.

The more you ignore the truth the better for mankind. What PILs are you talking about? In the last 5 years how many PILs have you collected successfully? How many successfull morchas have you had? Anyone who does not agree with you is a criminal? Anyone who fights you is a feminist of some sort funded by a feminist? You know the truth and good for us. You can continue fooling your few followers.

#260
ravi
September 4, 2007
02:15 AM

#259

!!!!!!!!The truth is her husband (like most dowry takers) use to sell her and eat off her money and he wanted a male child. Period. Has siff the guts to even touch or help this man--the pimp? No. Why?!!!!!!!

hmm..do you have proof for this. #259 just shows your innocence.

#261
reader
September 4, 2007
02:19 AM

ravi, You show your proof first? Are you the guy or brother of some siff that Sumanth talks about who has some criminal activities and creates trouble ? For your kind help...do a google search and HArdy will help you in that.

I would also request you, that I am also not interested in conversing with you. Go play some place else. Please oblige.

#262
Hardy
September 4, 2007
02:43 AM

#256 smallsquirrel...you are one cunning feminist...

1. Firstly I am not associated with SIFF "The organization" in any way.

2. Secondly here is what I said...

Women have been blindfolded to believe that the only way for them is survive in this world is to compete with men or to displace men.

Women(mothers) hardly have pride these days that they are good housewives. Feminists have made women believe that It is more like a good for nothing task. They have degraded the task of managing the whole household to statements like "training to be a useful wife".


And you rather in a simplistic manner(as are your thoughts)

translated it into

women need to learn the value of being housewives and stop trying to compete with men by working outside the home

A division of labor while working for a house based on ones skill set/competency is not a white skin idea and hence it must be trash.Is not it? I am sure that is what you were trying to put across And where exactly did I say that men should not try to learn to manage house when required.

Did not I warn everybody that feminists are manipulative with words and you kept ranting about proofs? I do not think we need any more proofs now.

#263
ravi
September 4, 2007
02:44 AM

#261

what proof do you want from me.
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=244767
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=STATES&file_name=state1%2Etxt&counter_img=1

copy and paste them and read about that pooja chauhan.If you want more i can provide more on her. How she mis used the law and harass her husband, and in-laws.

!!!!!!!!Are you the guy or brother of some siff that Sumanth talks about who has some criminal activities and creates trouble ? !!!!!

I am above your prediction, so don't try to predict me, you always fails. and i don't need any bodies help to search in google.

that's very nice you don't want to converse with me. But you asked me to show your proof, so i give this. And i hope you know the truth about pooja chauhan by those two links. If you want more, just use google with key word "pooja chauhan".

I never post any thing on this "issue" in this thread. So try to use google for more info.

#264
temporal
URL
September 4, 2007
02:50 AM

PRESS RELEASE:

(New Delhi: SEP 04)

Searching in India For Faustus (SIFF) has changed its name to Anybody But Me (ABM) All feminists, pseudo feminists, entrenched feminists, wannabee feminists, interpol, parole chasers should henceforth direct their attention to ABM.

ABM has also applied for membership in NIMBY.

#265
reader
September 4, 2007
02:51 AM

Why dont you learn some basics and learn to teach men not to lie and stand up for themselves.

One man says to woman to get up and work and stop feeding off your husbands money and luxories.
Other man says to woman to learn to take care of the house.
Other man says to woman to be a nurse to my old sick parents.
Other man says to woman to produce only male chldren
other man says to woman "i am a gay" and continue to my wife , serve and clean my parents and house. (sounds familiar)
and the list continues.

Dissassociating yourself from sif is a good thing to do...it is the need of the hour now. What say? Didnt EVERYONE say that siffers are the first ones to run when the ship is sinking?

And you are one cunnig gay who could not use the delete button and preferred to stike out.

#266
reader
September 4, 2007
02:58 AM

# 263..yawn...Please show proof with regard to exact alleged words that Sumanth pasted "Feminists did pay money to a sex worker .." with proof . Any judgement or copy or Email...that would be nice

we are not talking about misuse now, we are taling about proof that she was paid by the feminists to carry out a task? Do you have one? Do you undersand english? Do you want to continue making a fool of yourself? time and again? As usual you have always failed failed and failed.

#267
Sumanth
September 4, 2007
03:46 AM

Feminists did pay money to sex worker Pooja Chauhan and I will not give any proof for this.

Who are you? A Judge?

It is not part of DC comment policy that every comment must be attached with proof.

[Edited]

#268
Sumanth
September 4, 2007
03:50 AM

[rant edited]

#269
ravi
September 4, 2007
03:56 AM

[Rant edited]

#270
ravi
September 4, 2007
04:02 AM

ok, what about #266

#271
smallsquirrel
September 4, 2007
04:07 AM

hardy... you crack me up again.

let me edit myself and leave it at that.

[HILARIOUS LAUGHTER AND GLOATING SELF-EDITED]

#272
Hardy
September 4, 2007
04:10 AM

Yeah cracking "NUTS" is my passtime

#273
Hardy
September 4, 2007
08:13 AM

Feminists at WCD Ministry, hijack Children rights because of their imprudence.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=2cef17ef-f024-474c-9051-112c525be97b

When will they separate Women Development from Child Development?

#274
Reader
September 4, 2007
12:11 PM

Exactly it is not proof of DC comment policy to give proof and neither will I.

Therefore every guy who is implicated in 498a and hiding in sif is guilty to the core, a hard core criminal on the run. This is mirror image theory aptly applied. Husband of Pooja Chauhan is a pimp. Have a good day!

#275
ravi
September 4, 2007
11:24 PM

#274

#260 is the answer for this.

#276
reader
September 5, 2007
12:23 AM

insanity at its height which leads to being speechless.

#277
reader
September 5, 2007
12:26 AM

and read 266 again:)

#278
kela
January 19, 2008
05:51 AM

female infanticide is part of evolution and natural selection

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/6080)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!