What a shame !!!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1913180.cms
We refer to our country as "Bharat Maa". We worship innumerable feminine deities. We are proud of being the country of Indira Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Kalpana Chawla. And still, we find wells and ponds full of female foetuses in India !!!
This has to stop !!! More than enforcing rules to prevent this, the government needs to dig into the fact why female foeticide is in existence even today. And kill the root of the problem.
Some of the things which I can think of are :
- Strict enforcement of anti-dowry act, especially in villages. Dowry is one big reason why a girl child is seen as a burden.
- More security for women, so that safe guarding the honor of women folk is not seen as an additional burden to the male members of the family. Women related crimes like rape, sexual harrasment should be dealt to with more severely.
- Providing low cost/free old age homes. The perception of the male child taking care in old age is one big reason why parents look forward to a male heir. If people know the govenment will take care of them in old age, this feeling of not wanting a girl child will eventually subside.
This is a much bigger issue India has today than reservation in colleges, bad roads and hiking oil prices.
Why isn't there a public outcry against the government to stop this?
17 comments:
R,
Nothing much to add...you've said it all.
More power to you!
Sriraj
who on earth refers to our country as Bharat Maa.
I'd really like to meet him/her.
Venkat,
Did'nt quite get you????
Rajni,
nevermind that..., I meant I havent heard anybody but characters in my Hindi textbook use that phrase..
I respect the fact that u have brought this issue up as I know that u're not a feminist and therefore are genuine in ur concern.
But (and not intended to be chauvinistic), most of the problems with dowry and girl child infanticide are becaue of women themselves.., this need to be understood before venturing for a solution.
I think Education and mindset change should help..
and u've picked extreme examples :
there are millions of housewives who go through the ordeal of living with incompetent impossible husbands..
to me middle class housewives are the biggest heroes and yet so unrecognized..
Venkat,
What extreme examples???
The upbringing of women in India is such that she is expected to listen to the male head of the family, be it father or husband. Women, by their instrinsic nature are not rebels...with exceptions of course :). A woman who rebels against the norms gets much more flak from the society than a man who commits the same act. Hence the only thing which can stop dowry and child infanticide is mindset change for both men and women. Not only do we need more Nisha Sharmas in India, but also similiar sets of parents who support the act of protesting against dowry.
As for middle class housewives, for most of them I guess the ordeal of living with incompetent impossible husbands, is preferable to living without them. The society even today, is not kind to such women. I think it is a choice they have made, since its the "better" option for them. Since it is a matter of choice, I would refrain from saying whether it is right or wrong....or give them the title of unsung heroes.
Also, as for Bharat Ma, it is used even today quite a lot. Even outside text books. So I am suprised at your surprise. Some of the places are political gatherings, patriotic meets(like Independence Day celebrations for example) and of course movies :)
Maybe because its Hindi term, not so much heard in Bangalore.
by extreme examples, i mean drastic examples of dowry or sati to prove ur point about disprespect to women..
we dont have to look that far..,the so called normal housewives themselves have to endure a lot of hardships and their issues dont actually get attention..
your last comment has feministic undertones.., it's not about having Nisha Sharmas or rebels or mavericks..it's about having a soceity that is devoid of prejudice to the women folk! if u are gonna be preaching rebellion.., the exercise would become a farce..
Again : it's the women folks who force the upbringing in most cases...
you're wrong about housewives.., they dont prefer to stay with their husbands for the sake of soceity.., they do it as a sacrifice for the family..: please comprehend that!
if u have really understood Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivity.., it's the middle class housewives who are the living examples of the same..
feel free to ignore my thoughts on Bharat Ma, for some reason I dont have too much respect for that term..it sounds funny to me!
Venkat,
Sati could be an extreme example since its almost been uprooted from India now.
Dowry is by no means an extreme example....it is the problem faced by most families in all strata of society in so many states in India. Being from Bihar myself, I know how acute the problem is in my state. If a guy or his family decide not to go for dowry, people start thinking that there must be some severe shortcoming with the guy..hence they are getting him "married for free". Can you beleive it !!!!
A son is considered as "a blank cheque" (mind you, its a commonly used phrase) which can be cashed for a good amount when he gets married. There are lots of families which voluntarily do not give very good education to their daughters, the logic being they would need to find a more educated husband for her, whose family would demand a lot of dowry.
I know of lots of men who are actually against the whole concept of dowry but give in to their parents' wishes and agree to "get sold". Are these men not as weak as the women who agree to get married with the dowry condition? And this is not a feminist statement. Am just comparing two entities and asking a logical question.
Also I was in no way trying to preach rebellion. It is a very person dependent trait and very situational too, so I would not preach that.
About the upbringing bit, I think the men have a hand in it too!!! Or are all women in India brought up only by their mothers?? And hence they are the way they are?
About the sacrifice of housewives, one of my good friends says "there is nothing called sacrifice". He says if you "sacrifice" something for someone, it is bcoz it gives you some sort of happiness and pleasure. I totally agree with him. The housewives get happiness to keep their families happy, who in turn get happiness to keep the society happy. So where is the sacrifice???? And I cannot relate Ayn Rand's objectivity here.
Last but not the least, if you think the term Bharat Maa is funny, I can only attribute it to your lack of good knowledge of the langauge. Maybe that is why you find the phrase funny !!!
Rajni,
dowry is extreme when compared to the day to day issues that women face..it's relative..: please understand what the comment is trying to say in entirety instead of reacting to indvidual lines..
>>>>>Or are all women in India brought up only by their mothers??
Again don't react to argue! the influence that a woman has on a girl child is way more than a father does..in most cases. Please dont try to validate with extreme examples..
Objectivity is :
Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices..
Are you aware that there are many many women out there who never ever think of themselves in everyday routine life.., they live just for their family..for their husbands, kids and least of all themselves..: Don't you see objectivity in that ?? If you'd don't then you havent comprehended Objectivity in its truest sense..
You have it all flipped up.., sacrificing does not give people pleasure.., but they find pleasure in doing it..and therefore it does exist. It's attribution, I may associate happiness with success, but the greatness of these people is that they reflect happiness in sacrificing or living for others..: so ur philosophy is flawed in some cases..
Also.., I don't find Bharat Ma funny because of any prejudice, feel free to think that way though..
I find it funny on an impulse when I hear the word which says its farcical..
"finding" pleasure Vs "giving" pleasure - woah!! well, none of this will sell in a meaningful place like a "court of law"...well, blog is free - and u can endlessly argue on the difference between these kindsa things, but as Narayana Moorthy says "well, we are known for arguing - but, i'd be glad if we stop at some point and execute".
objectivism ?#?#?#?#!!! there are lots of other "ism"s in the world!! existentialism, socialism, communism and lots more - so, is that what we are going about?
Or is it about Ayn Rand or her peers Camus, Sartre, Marx, Engels etc??
Or are we going to discuss about how girl children grow up - by whose influence father or mother? - and in the process discuss Oedipus Theory (Freud) and the opposers of the same?
Well, if we want to discuss all this, we should take fews years of leave of absence, go and study and come back - there is a chance that we can meaningfully discuss. I don't think none of us are going to do that in reality...so, shut the (let me refrain from writing what I think in my mind at the moment!)
Bottomline:
----------
at least it is agreed that there is(are) some problem(s)...may be one is normal the other is extreme or may be it is the other way around...or may be solutions can be attempted to solve both??
~A
philosophy would never sell in a court of law..: it's obvious :-)
the point i was trying to make is :
we don't need to go and cite dowry and sati to prove that the women is discriminated..: all we need to do is observe day to day happenings in a womens life..
secondly..: Objectivity is something that I beleive in.., and my observation is that housewives,middleclass working women fit it into a nicety...: I have a great deal of admiration for them..
that was another point to agree with Rajni's entry in principle and not to start a parallel arguement..
thirdly, this is a blog, everybody likes to see execution, but harping on the most obvious statement of "stop talking and start executing" is really out of place...
It's understood and realised by everybody...
so your point to shut the (whatever u refrained from saying) is basically pointless here.
The generalization that people need to have a deep rooted understanding and more importantly the understanding comes from years of dedicated studying is impractical and incorrect..
in short.., all i see in ur comment is a compulsion to try to judge what others have commented as opposed to commenting on the topic..thats a pity!
My bottomline with regards to the entry :
Rajni has raised valid issues with a few examples, I have added a few examples to support the same. They need to be addressed. Let's hope and pray some of us gather enough conviction and courage to actually directly or indirectly contribute towards the endeavour in future..
As it is.., the entry has served it's purpose by addressing an important point..
Firstly>>>>
V: who on earth refers to our country as Bharat Maa. I'd really like to meet him/her (ahem!! "him" also seems to be a possibilty!)
R:Did'nt quite get you???? (well, ignore, it wasn't meant to be taken at face value)
V:Never mind that....
R:Also, as for Bharat Ma, it is used even today quite a lot. Even outside text books.
V:feel free to ignore my thoughts on Bharat Ma, for some reason I dont have too much respect for that term..it sounds funny to me!
R:Last but not the least, if you think the term Bharat Maa is funny, I can only attribute it to your lack of good knowledge of the langauge. Maybe that is why you find the phrase funny !!!
V:Also.., I don't find Bharat Ma funny because of any prejudice, feel free to think that way though..
V:I find it funny on an impulse when I hear the word which says its farcical.
Very related to the topic inspite of "repeated" requests to ignore/repeated opportunities to ignore the responses!
Very objective towards the title as well. Kudos to all involved...your aim here seems to be just to "objectively talk about the post" and "not subjectively digress"...hats off :-) keep up the good work (and i am sure this will never "end" - which is what i would hope for in an argument - like in the one we had - or rather we are close to have in the award thing - may be not entirely true to the initial post - but everything was related and we moved on/progressed - which is a good thing, in my opinion.).
Going to the next aspect:
V: it's the women folks who force the upbringing in most cases...
R: About the upbringing bit, I think the men have a hand in it too!!! Or are all women in India brought up only by their mothers?? And hence they are the way they are?
V: Again don't react to argue! the influence that a woman has on a girl child is way more than a father does..in most cases. Please dont try to validate with extreme examples.
---> while research has been trying
to analyse this aspect (for more
than 100 years - with eminent ppl
like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung etc.. I find this line of comments (on a topic which is researched extremely even today) nothing short of "silly" or "baseless". Yes, if it comes to arguement, you folks can defend saying "this is my perspective" or "this is my opinion" or "this is my gut" or "this is what I see in papers" or whatever - but when there is a huge amount of scientific thought applied to a topic already, continuing to ignore on the name gut/instinct/opinion/etc isn't very fair - in my opinion and i stand by it. And ppl whom I look upto engagin in such discussion isn't something which I'd prefer to just watch silently (If u r interested u can look up Oedipus complex, Electra Complex etc).
Next>>>>>
V: u've picked extreme examples (followed by, there are better common examples...)
R:What extreme examples??? (no...no...my examples are common enough...but the examples you give aren't really good examples)
V:(no...no..no..) we dont have to look that far! (see these more common examples)
R: (no...no...no...no) one of my examples isn't as extreme as making it sound.
V: dowry is extreme when compared to the day to day issues that women face..it's relative...(well, your not understanding anything).
Next>>>>
V: if u have really understood Ayn Rand's philosophy of bjectivity.., it's the middle class housewives who are the living examples of the same.
R: And I cannot relate Ayn Rand's objectivity here.
V: Don't you see objectivity in that ?? If you'd don't then you havent comprehended Objectivity in its truest sense (well, having not comprehended is same as having not contributed in the "truest" sense - me thinks...but that isn't obvious it looks like! my point is "obviousness" if taken as yard stick, everything written here will not pass).
Very much related to the topic (arguably yes - but u should understand what I mean).
Execution versus arguing quote of NMoorthy is there in a loose metaphorical sense and not in a literal sense - my point is arguement shouldn't be for the sake of "retorting".
If you folks feel the above arguments are only honest to the initial post and truly progressing arguments - well, then i think i can't comprehend that...may be i am an idiot....if that's the case, i stand humbled by the intellectual argumets (which i fail to comprehend...shame on me).
~A,
I get the point.., you are not the only one guilty of being reactive.., I am and in some cases Rajni has..
But to see that the very first comment from your end being a summary of sorts with no relevance to the post but to the comments was not comprehendible..
the bharat ma conversation was uncalled for..., I partly take blame but I did insist that it be ignored...
On further comments that u have taken up :.., they evolved with the arguements and I would like to beleive are pertinent to the topic albeit indirectly..
>>>>>while research has been trying
to analyse this aspect...
the fact that a Mother has more influence on a girl child is not based on gut feel..It cannot be! atleast guys can't have a gut feel on that..
We are taking about influences not patterns, so where does Oedipus and Electra complexes fit in..? Pray tell me..?
complexes are extreme patterns brough to the fore by individuals.., they are analysed and given a name..
I haven't read Freud, but have seen reasonable number of live experiences and read reasonable number of psychology to decipher that....
Why should that not be a credible yard stick until atleast proven wrong ?
I realise I am digressing but Proving one wrong by quoting somebody else is itself wrong..
I like to argue on first priciples, is there anything specific that Freud has discovered that is different from what i claim through my observations : If yes, please bring that to the table and let's discuss. But to ask me to not discuss my inferences because it's the topic of a serious research is lopsided..By this I don't mean I am correct, but I am not incorrect either..
Again, not intending to digress, but this is pertinent to the main topic..
the "extremes discussion" was not a digression in the truest sense and here's where I choose to explain the term.., there is an interpretation of a concept that goes beyond satisfying the boundaries of it's definition and thats the truest sense..so while this discussion fitted the definition of digression it actually wasn't because it was realated to the matter.., I didn't expect Rajni to retort on the point as it was matter of fact and I wasn't saying that the entry was based on extreme examples..: In short an uncalled for arguement..so guilty as charged!
IMO obviousness should not be used frivolously nor should it be a yard stick because it's relative.
>>>>my point is arguement shouldn't be for the sake of "retorting".
Correct! hard to avoid, but must try...but it's harmless in a comment section of a blog.., nothing personal ....
Objectivity discussion definitely was pertinent..
Well, oedipus talks about sexual
(point blank) influences of kids - it isn't a pattern that is observed...it is a pattern that was observed and analysed and a theory was formulated (practical science and not theoritical science - and "practical science" doesn't just mean it "an observation of patterns" there is a logical inference and a new theory attached to a practival observation of pattern.
And if you read about oedipus theory (in the web - like using normal search), u wouldn't find anything but the wierd sexual angle attached to it (to be honest, i didn't digest it all that well when i I glanced over articles on that subject few years back).
But, Freud doesn't just stop there...and neither do the other scientists who research on that aspect. They go on to discuss the influential impacts created because of Oedipus theory in great detail (and many others go on on, about why Oedipus theory isn't right - but that's beyond the point). And unfortunately, humans' grasp of their own brain (psyche) is so low when compared with the grasp of the universe - so, this isn't a "formal" science in truest sense - but, there are ppl who have tried and who understand it much more than what is "observable".
When we talk about influence of a father or mother being more towards a child of a certain sex, then we better give a thought for few minutes on how complex (and un-understandable) psychology is and if we do, we'll appreciate what a tough task it is - probably question the "common sense" which we gain out of "observations".
Saying this as a tool to convey what i intend to say: I do observe that newtons' laws in my daily life, but I "know" enough to not hold on to that observation because i know it doesn't hold good in almost everywhere(though not very observable)...So, i'll think twice before i say something based on those laws (may be a trivial example - this is the best i could think of).
And to add on to this (again, forgive me - because it isn't related to this post), there are ppl whom I know who knows much more than what I do on psychology and Freudian methods, and are reluctant to make a statement on gender based influences btw parents and children - I cannot quote the names here (cos, i hv no reason to prove anything by "quoting" names as such). Why I quoted in earlier comment is - the very topic (influences on kids) is very very highly researched and hotly debated, and as i said before - psychology isn't as formal as mathematics is - in scientific terms. So, even if Freud says exactly the opposite of what you say (and even if I quote the same), by first principle, I can argue that, being not a formal science, what makes one believe Frued's words as the "truth"? And yes, a valid argument - but I don't buy it (not all valid arguments are bought - u can stick to that - not a problem).
When talking about arguments (my main pain point about myself and blogging is that I tend to concentrate more on arguement than seeking the facts - I feel the same being done by others too - So, I hv decided not to do that anymore - feel free to disagree, but i stand by my view): (again not related to the post - more apologies)
We are in such a state where we don't know how to arugue on the veracity of "This statement is false" (Greek paradox). I am not saying that it isn't solved, but none of us have the know how to "completely" understand Kurt Godell's works (bold statement, but i am ready to bet) so that we can argue on the veracity of Greek paradox. Arguements (based on logic) isn't as straight forward as we preceive it - this is another obeservation, which I feel isn't being realized by all of us.
- my point is, when something is said (more than the argumentative aspects) the concentration should be on how correct things are, when there are means to know the correctness - if we are talking about pure perceptions (like movies, sports etc, arguably incorrect 'cos all these perceptional differences can be branded as psyche, but there is no point because we don't seem to understand "psyche" all that well).
Anyways, I have conveyed what I felt - which is, more thought has to be applied to what we write.
In retrospect, I think I should start blogging and stop commenting...may be i will soon start writing for the sake of "knowledge" and not be bothered about passing my opinions (not judgments - sorry that i gave that impression) all around..
:-)...the good aspect of blogging (on the other hand) is that one tends to be "frank" with "everyone" - no matter what :-) That's the good thing.
I meant to say, "if we are talking about pure perceptions (like movies, sports etc, arguably incorrect 'cos all these perceptional differences can be branded as psyche, but there is no point because we don't seem to understand "psyche" all that well), then opinions/observations count for something - but for things for which that are dealt by science/statistics already, then we could probably check out that and then discuss.
>>>Well, oedipus talks about sexual
(point blank) influences of kids - it isn't a pattern that is observed...it is a pattern that was observed and analysed and a theory was formulated (practical science and not theoritical science - and "practical science" doesn't just mean it "an observation of patterns" there is a logical inference and a new theory attached to a practival observation of pattern.
Thats what I meant, I'm sorry if my hurried description sounded condescending. I understand that it's a practical science..
It still seems irrelevant for reasons explained below :
>>>When we talk about influence of a father or mother being more towards a child of a certain sex, then we better give a thought for few minutes on how complex (and un-understandable) psychology is and if we do, we'll appreciate what a tough task it is - probably question the "common sense" which we gain out of "observations".
this was a discussion at a very high level, my premise was that Women are more often than not responsible for harnessing the current attitude towards women.., Rajni retorted saying that the influence on a girl child could be either from the mother or the father..
As a reply, I disagreed, the idea was not to claim an expertise in child psychology, but to point out an evident "on the face" fact that the mother's influence on a girl child is more significant..especially after the period she "grows up" and is actually forming impressions. Freud and complexes appear to me an overkill for this simple inference...
>>>my point is, when something is said (more than the argumentative aspects) the concentration should be on how correct things are, when there are means to know the correctness - if we are talking about pure perceptions (like movies, sports etc, arguably incorrect 'cos all these perceptional differences can be branded as psyche, but there is no point because we don't seem to understand "psyche" all that well).
the problem is not the existence of means to check the correctness, but each of us adopting different means...
I feel it's good to argue on first principles thereby eliminating perceptions.
For the life of me, I can't understand why we (and this is most of us) in general are misled by "hype" and refrain from forming own opinions..: I think the reason for this is that we have got to abstracted levels of judgement and have moved very far away from first principles..
Eg. :
Who's the best cricketeer is the guy with the best skills i.e for a batsmen to play all shots under all conditions : Once we have agreed to the definition, then we can constructively arrive at a conclusion..
Eitherways, arguing is not wrong..again its impt. not to take things personal...
>>>In retrospect, I think I should start blogging and stop commenting...may be i will soon start writing for the sake of "knowledge" and not be bothered about passing my opinions (not judgments - sorry that i gave that impression) all
around..
please start blogging and continue commenting.., What we have going here is the best thing that can happen for a blog entry.., verbal conflicts expanding everybody's scope of perception.Honestly look forward to your comments both at my blog and elsewhere..
But let's try and endeavour to argue on first principles : we will definitely have a clear "right" or "wrong" in "Black" & "White"...
Post a Comment