kufr: hope?

10/03/10

hope?

hope this will at least stop female foeticide in upper caste hindu families. hope, they'll stop producing obcs and muslims and stick to girls.

16 comments:

Desi Aadmi said...: That will kill democracy and hasten the demise of Indian family. That will give more and more power to feminists and marginalize men, upper caste and lower caste combined.; 7:38 am
Bhanu Prasad said...: Kufr,

This will not have any effect, except that few political families(1 out of 1 lakh)will strengthen their hold on indian parliament.

Also, it will make sure that we would never ever produce charismatic leaders as Barack Obama(Especially the concept of constituency rotation).

Also, I do not understand the complaints of feminists. They proclaim to be fighting for birth control rights, and when the women performs the same for the benefit of the family, they seem to have problem. That is plain hypocrisy.; 6:58 pm
anu said...: Ei. Ei. why won't you pretend? it is the way we live, we pretend to be academics. intellectuals. feminists... your ability to see through numbers and the way they form and reform in known configurations makes you so not 'in', you are un-indian. like totally! :)

now that all us women belong to one caste. this is what our women parliamentarians will work towards: the word abysmal will no longer appear before figures of indian maternal deaths, infant mortality, malnourishment of mothers and children, all of which until now haunted women of lower castes and minorities. we have a roadmap, a vision of this new unified caste. just you see :) why? we might even get equal opportunities everywhere. you'll see all classes and castes of women able to apply for and get those stone breaking, ditch digging nrega jobs, now, after 14 long years of waiting for this bill to be passed.; 7:16 pm
Desi Aadmi said...: @anu,

Let us wait till loksabha passes the bill :). This was just a political stunt to corner opposition over price rise issue.; 7:29 pm
gaddeswarup said...: According to http://www.quotaproject.org/aboutQuotas.cfm
about half the countries have some sort of quota system for women. And according to sveral gender gap indices, for example this one:
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/rankings2007.pdf
India ranks pretty low, for example below Qatar.; 4:13 am
Desi Aadmi said...: @swarup,

One has to see that countries that are high on gender index are either african countries that had their entire male population lost to war or AIDS.

Or there are the scandinavian countries that are in the fast lane for social decline.

We are none and do not want to be none of them. And the gender index can never be mentioned as a barometer of progress.

Japan has much much lesser participation of women in public bodies, it did not prevent the japanese from being a economic superpower. Ironically from 1985 onwards, when women came out into workforce, japanese society has been stunted. The birth rate has gone low and country is fast fading into twilight of history; 6:53 am
gaddeswarup said...: Desi Admi,
I guess that it depends on what you consider as important. All these indices (like HDI, GDP, PPP), I think, take in to account some material, measurable things. For example in gender inequality indices, relative literacy, life expectancy at birth, salaries, representation in jobs etc are taken in to account. India scores low in both gender parity and HDI but well in GDP, PPP.
I think that in India many women from both poor and non-poor families are working. Here is a story in Telugu from the poor families నా మాదిగ గూడెం యాత్రా విశేషాలు. I know many from the middle class, who work come home and cook and take care of their families. The question is whether they should get a better deal or continue to play the role 'assigned' to them in the family. There is also evidence from some experimental studies that better educated women are better for children ( including nutrition measurements...). There are also studies in which children show better development in families where women are respected ( I have to dig up the literature for these studies which took place in Delhi and Calcutta, I think). Finally, it probably comes to a question of belief and opinion whether women should be treated as persons or as cogs in a system for the 'benefit' of men and some sort of 'family system'. I tend to believe in the former even if it is detrimental to GDP though I think that any sort of system which sustains disparities is detrimental in the long run even for economic reasons.; 10:39 am
kuffir said...: desi aadmi,

'That will give more and more power to feminists and marginalize men, upper caste and lower caste combined.'

i wish this bill gave more power to women. it doesn't. neither does it kill the power of caste or family on individuals-- only those who uphold caste and patriarchy more than others would ever be allowed to contest. so people like you can rest easy, i think.; 11:33 am
sravan said...: You seem to be more critical about the female foeticides in upper caste hindu families??
There are several Backward classes and castes where this is still done in India.
And legislative representation of women would be merely translated into increased proxy representation in the nearest future. We can only see any effect of this after atleast one generation. Still it is good thing to happen. Late but desirable.
And I still don't see any reason why this would stop OBC and Muslim reservations.
And the major apprehension of some men against this bill is the prospective of men getting marginalized. LOL.
In todays male dominant society how do the remaining open gender positions are going to be represented?? Men would be dominating 10 to 1 just like now. So there is not question of men getting marginalized at all. Affirmative action for women in legislatives is a good thing given the gross social injustice being done and the ever increasing crimes against women. The increased representation may not be easily translated to women empowerment and social justice but is still a better way to go. It may be late but eventual.; 6:54 pm
Desi Aadmi said...: --it probably comes to a question of belief and opinion whether women should be treated as persons or as cogs in a system for the 'benefit' of men and some sort of 'family system'---

Your statement essentially posts the picture that men are born for enjoyment and pleasure. This has been the stale feminist line anyway.

It is not one side alone. Both women and men are treated as cogs for building up the civilization.
Most of the most hard, taxing and dangerous jobs are done by men.

--There is also evidence from some experimental studies that better educated women are better for children ( including nutrition measurements...). There are also studies in which children show better development in families where women are respected ( I have to dig up the literature for these studies which took place in Delhi and Calcutta, I think).--

On the flip-side there are thousands of studies that relate crime rate to single motherhood, the highest expression of feminism and female "individuality", in the post-feminist societies.

--only those who uphold caste and patriarchy more than others would ever be allowed to contest.--

The alternative for patriarchy is absence of family. We have experienced it during our hunter gatherer past and also in the west. If our intellectuals want such a society, they are free to dream.

---Affirmative action for women in legislatives is a good thing given the gross social injustice being done and the ever increasing crimes against women--

Men get killed in large numbers, in murders and industrial accidents. So the crime rate is not a comparison at all.You must have heard of accidents at Singareni Mines. I have never seen a women die there. The issue is that a crime against women catches our eye faster.; 12:37 am
sravan said...: Men get killed in large numbers, in murders and industrial accidents. So the crime rate is not a comparison at all.You must have heard of accidents at Singareni Mines. I have never seen a women die there. The issue is that a crime against women catches our eye faster.
I was talking about women killed by men. That includes mostly sex crimes and domestic violence.
Now tell me how many men are killed by women?; 1:05 am
anu said...: "It is not one side alone. Both women and men are treated as cogs for building up the civilization.
Most of the most hard, taxing and dangerous jobs are done by men."

So true. Why does the image of a heavily pregnant woman, with a load of wet cement on her head, balancing on a temp. wooden step on a high rise building construction site come to my mind? Maybe this activity is not civilization building.

Maybe women don't form part of the work force in road making projects, so on...

Women in the lower strata put in as many man-hours as men in just about every nation building activity. Will the women who become parliamentarians via this bill work to improve the lot of these women is what is being discussed....; 1:21 am
sravan said...: Anu,
Surprisingly the women are paid lesser wages than their men counter parts.
I remember with glaring clarity. when I was a small kid I came across a small bill board hanging on a street pole that says
Men- Rs 110/ day
Women- Rs 90/ day.
I really feel today that I was unfortunate not to have a camera then.; 2:12 am
Desi Aadmi said...: --Now tell me how many men are killed by women?--

Good question. The kind of violence of female is different.Ask any henpecked husband.

--Maybe this activity is not civilization building.--

I did not discount this. Compare the numbers from deaths by industrial accidents. The contribution from men will be greater than 95%. The picture was much more dismal in the middle and pre-historic ages. A Genealogist estimated that present population is just product of 40% of men. Which implies that 60% either did not reproduce or were dead in accidents and calamitis. While for women the number is 80%.; 6:28 am
kuffir said...: sravan,

'You seem to be more critical about the female foeticides in upper caste hindu families??
There are several Backward classes and castes where this is still done in India.'

let me see: i should be equally critical of people who enjoy several privileges and those who suffer from severe disadvantages?; 6:52 pm
anu said...: "I did not discount this. Compare the numbers from deaths by industrial accidents. The contribution from men will be greater than 95%. The picture was much more dismal in the middle and pre-historic ages."

In the context of women's reservation bill, and the chance that more women are part of decision making on policy, I am trying to understand your concern. That a policy that addresses occupational hazards, protection and insurance is likely to not receive support from women? Or do you think that the kind of world view of uc women legislators would not put male occupational death and injury as priority? I might agree with you on that. But if you are suggesting that men dying at workplace is somehow not a women's issue, I am surprised. When the man dies, he leaves behind a family comprising of men and women, his responsibilities falls on them. When he is injured, the additional responsibility of care-taking happens. Take farmers suicides for eg, the loan does not disappear on his death, the women are doubly effected..... mens death at work or through suicides is very much a woman's issue and policies to reduce and correct the processes that lead to their death and injury would be top priority for women legislators. I would think.

"A Genealogist estimated that present population is just product of 40% of men. Which implies that 60% either did not reproduce or were dead in accidents and calamitis. While for women the number is 80%."

I don't follow this clearly but would like to, can you elaborate or point to a url or name the study? I am curious how this plays out with the known skewed sex ratio.; 6:23 pm

kufr

10/03/10

hope?

16 comments:

~~~~~

Blog Archive

blogs

Followers

Labels

kufr

10/03/10

hope?

16 comments:

~~~~~

Blog Archive

blogs

Followers

Subscribe To

Labels