Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
When being born female is a crime

By Cruel Elevator in Culture
Tue May 06, 2003 at 01:05:18 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

Not even in my most perverted fantasies I'd want to be born a woman in my country. No, it's not the idea of pregnancy and periods - the things you see happening to women these days is enough to make you think that nature must have made a mistake somewhere.

Of course, all this is in reference to a poor, unknown country, Bangladesh. I believe that the situation is similar in countries like India and Pakistan.


I don't think anybody in this country subscribes to BDSM sites. The local paper is enough to either scare the living daylights out of you or if you're a true pervert, provide better entertainment then what the net can ever offer.

As seen on todays paper: the usual rape, kidnapping, torture, murder etc. just because a person happened to be female. Being born a female is a crime here, and if you are good looking, you deserve the capital punishment.

An average story on the paper goes like this - local bandit locates a good looking girl, asks for sex or marriage. Girl obviously refuses, and the bandit, obviously, kidnaps the girl, gang rapes her, sometimes keeps her locked away for days torturing her, makes her sign false documents, and finally lets her go. About half the time the girl would commit suicide shortly after.

Usually the bandits go into hiding after the crime, make association with some political party and start life afresh, maybe settling down in the same area. Sometimes the girl's family is threatened by the bandits so they don't press charges.

On some occasions, the criminals are caught, tried, and jailed.

In some situations, the girl is married off to the rapist, as per the decision of the community. This sounds unbelievably sick and I really don't know how this could work. It happens though.

Two kidnap / rape stories today (4th May). No suicides yet. Another story of a women getting sexually assaulted trying to visit her family in a hospital. There was also a weird classified - "Ms X, aged xx has run away from home after being severely tortured by her step mother. If anybody knows her whereabouts..."

*sigh*

No acid story today. For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, again, bandit approaches girl, girl refuses, bandit gets hold of some strong acid and throw it on her face.

That's basically the end of the girl's social life. The girl would have to wear veils for the rest of her life, and live with a burnt face. Nobody would ever marry her, and sometimes the injury is so severe, she'd eventually die.

The government is trying to control the sale of acid, but it's like trying to control the supply of knives so people don't butcher each other.

Sexual harassment is a part of everyday life here. It is expected that people will make obscene comments at women, rub up against them in crowded places, approach them and ask for their personal details. However humiliating that is, it is considered a part of everyday life.

As long as they don't get killed, maimed, kidnapped and raped (in no particular order / combination), it's still acceptable.

How about the culture? Technically, Bangladesh is a Muslim country, and as per the religious instructions, women should be well protected. However, the culture is drastically different from what the religion prescribed.

It is a social norm that every woman has to be married to give her an identity. A woman's identity is her husband.

Marriages are "arranged" most of the time. The bride / groom hardly has anything to say about this - it's the families who get married.

The problem is, it costs real money to get married. As per the Islamic law, the expenses of the marriage is supposed to be paid by the groom's family, and there is no concept of dowry. However, we conveniently borrowed this culture from elsewhere. So, if you are planning to get your sister or daughter married off, don't be surprised if the groom's family asks for hard cash, a bike, a 21" TV and maybe a watch. No dowry = no marriage.

It's not over with that. After the marriage, the husband may demand further freebies from his wife's family. Failing to deliver would mean torture, and sometimes, death. Death is usually administered by feeding them poison, or burning them alive. Most of the time, these scumbags are caught and punished, however, it's a common phenomenon.

Sometimes, it's torture and divorce, which means it doesn't make it to the papers.

There are a lot of poor, divorced women in this country (most with children). They are well accepted in the society because they have an identity of once having been married to a man. However, not being married will make you a pariah - you can't avoid it.

With the advent of modern science and technology, it's easy to predict the gender of the baby before a woman gives birth. Female infanticide is not uncommon. I believe that this is more of a problem in India, where such banners have been spotted - "spend xxxx now for a test, or spend xxxxxx in dowry later". Indians were always good at marketing, I'd say.

Maybe it's time for women in our country to evolve into awful looking, twice as strong, twice as large creatures with a natural talent at armed / unarmed combat. Maybe they should be bloody minded enough to show the society the finger, and not get married in the first place. Perhaps this would also take care of our population problem.

This country is unworthy of what nature had blessed us with.

Notes:

If supporting evidence for a story isn't there, it makes it a personal rant. So I dug up some ugly stories. Please don't read them if you are disturbed by details of rape, burning and murder.

It had not been a pleasure.

Rapes:

Link 1
Link 2

Housewifes tortured and killed for dowry:

Link 1
Link 2

Acid burns / burnt alive:

Link 1
Link 2
1,184 women, kids suffered acid burns during 1999-02 - A quote from this link: "one woman becomes victim of violence every hour in the country".

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Link 1
o Link 2
o Link 1 [2]
o Link 2 [2]
o Link 1 [3]
o Link 2 [3]
o 1,184 women, kids suffered acid burns during 1999-02
o Also by Cruel Elevator


Display: Sort:
When being born female is a crime | 299 comments (263 topical, 36 editorial, 1 hidden)
Where do you live? (1.88 / 18) (#1)
by Stick on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:12:02 AM EST

Texas


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
Wow, such low votes just because he's from.. (3.00 / 1) (#19)
by McMasters on Mon May 05, 2003 at 11:08:34 AM EST

the President's state.

One wonders if you like him very much. ^_^

[ Parent ]

Sir, I rated you a 1. (3.00 / 2) (#42)
by tkatchev on Mon May 05, 2003 at 02:35:41 PM EST

Because Japanese smileys incredibly suck and need to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

At least (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by buck on Mon May 05, 2003 at 05:03:41 PM EST

you won't have neck pains while looking at them.
-----
“You, on the other hand, just spew forth your mental phlegmwads all over the place and don't have the goddamned courtesy to throw us a tissue afterwards.” -- kitten
[ Parent ]
Missing an important facet (2.28 / 38) (#3)
by psychologist on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:24:21 AM EST

If you are actually bangladeshi, then this is an interesting and insightful article. If you are from America, and simply living there, this is a racist, degoratory and closed minded article that deserves to be voted down and spat on.

Bullshit.... (4.50 / 4) (#5)
by whanau on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:35:10 AM EST

You can't use cultural relativism to legitimise these practices. Human rights are universal.

[ Parent ]
Where does he claim he's American? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by ti dave on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:40:27 AM EST

You must have strong legs, from all that jumping you're doing.

I'd like to put a bullet in your head, Ti_Dave. ~DominantParadigm
[ Parent ]

Shurely some sarcasm going on there... (none / 0) (#8)
by greenrd on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:55:50 AM EST

That's like saying "I really like that guy until I found out he was French." Doesn't make any sense.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

psychologist: ive got a suggestion for you (2.18 / 11) (#14)
by turmeric on Mon May 05, 2003 at 09:29:57 AM EST

go out into the forest, later this season. look for a little bush about 5-6 feet high with little red berries all over it and a red/purplish non-woody stem and big pointy-tiped leaves. pick a bunch of those berries and eat them. thank you. then i wont have to listen to your misogynist woman hating bullshit anymore

[ Parent ]
Turmeric (1.58 / 12) (#18)
by psychologist on Mon May 05, 2003 at 10:40:05 AM EST

You are either a woman, or a short man with a small blonde beard and who is nervously left wing, and wears hippy scarves and goes to left wing luncheons. Or maybe you are some black middle class school boy living in the suburbs, who is angst filled because he feels he does not belong anyplace. Which will it be?

[ Parent ]
Wow. (5.00 / 4) (#46)
by Rocky on Mon May 05, 2003 at 03:45:33 PM EST

I feel like I'm watching the frigging "Clash of The Titans" here with these two...

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
[ Parent ]
Really? (5.00 / 5) (#55)
by godix on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:01:55 PM EST

I feel like I'm watching a South Park style cripple fight with these two....


"A disobedient dog is almost as bad as a disobedient girlfriend or wife."
- A Proud American
[ Parent ]
So you're saying (none / 0) (#189)
by RevLoveJoy on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:00:49 PM EST

Kuro is the mall parking lot?

Every political force in the U.S. that seeks to get past the Constitution by sophistry or technicality is little more than a wannabe king. -- pyro9
[ Parent ]

Wow, that's really saying a lot coming from you (none / 0) (#75)
by Tex Bigballs on Mon May 05, 2003 at 10:12:41 PM EST

because I felt the same way with you and Drago

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by Rocky on Tue May 06, 2003 at 03:49:20 PM EST

...and I felt the same way going while at it with your mom, especially after she took off the truss...

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
[ Parent ]
None of the above (4.00 / 3) (#66)
by Eater on Mon May 05, 2003 at 07:38:27 PM EST

He's turmeric. He's in a class of his own, and he prevents liver disease in rats. Really, I don't think it's much better than your options.

Eater.

[ Parent ]
Tell me, psychologist... (4.00 / 1) (#64)
by NFW on Mon May 05, 2003 at 07:30:28 PM EST

Did you deserve those low ratings, or am I the only one who got the joke?


--
Got birds?


[ Parent ]

Finally (3.75 / 4) (#86)
by psychologist on Tue May 06, 2003 at 02:46:13 AM EST

Americans invented poop jokes and "Americas funniest home videos", because that is the highest level of humor for them. They wouldn't recognize subtle humor if it were a pink elephant that wearing a tutu, and had subtle written all over it.

[ Parent ]
HEY WIAT (none / 0) (#147)
by Subtillus on Tue May 06, 2003 at 10:11:04 PM EST

AN OLIPHAUNT WEARING A TUTU ISNT' SUTTLE!

silly goose.

[ Parent ]

Do you remember the film (none / 0) (#164)
by psychologist on Wed May 07, 2003 at 02:13:31 AM EST

Cos I forget it, but I know it was a british film.

[ Parent ]
you're welcome (3.00 / 1) (#7)
by guigui on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:42:27 AM EST

but are you sure this sort of things doesn't happen in the USA too ??

not to this degree. -nt- (3.00 / 1) (#9)
by Xcyther on Mon May 05, 2003 at 07:28:17 AM EST



_________________________________________
"Insydious" -- It's not as bad as you think

[ Parent ]
ummmm (none / 0) (#200)
by kaens on Wed May 07, 2003 at 02:15:35 PM EST

maybe they do, but not to the extant that they do over there.


--I surface, and I stagnate.
[ Parent ]
but (1.35 / 42) (#13)
by turmeric on Mon May 05, 2003 at 09:28:23 AM EST

saddam hussein gassed his own people.

So what. (1.40 / 15) (#15)
by tkatchev on Mon May 05, 2003 at 09:57:05 AM EST

They were probably nothing but a bunch of dirty sand-niggers.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

you mean like john mccain? (3.00 / 3) (#32)
by turmeric on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:41:21 PM EST

the arizona pimple?

[ Parent ]
Funny you should mention McCain.. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by Apuleius on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:18:55 PM EST

He has an adopted daughter. From Bangladesh. Not kidding here.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
a note to trolls (4.12 / 8) (#33)
by turmeric on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:41:44 PM EST

do not use the 'n word' and do not act like a misogynist. its not funny.

[ Parent ]
Oh whatever do you mean. (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by tkatchev on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:52:59 PM EST

Yes, let's burn all books with the bad, bad "n"igger word.

Ellison must be spinning in his grave.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Ellison is dead? (none / 0) (#131)
by LilDebbie on Tue May 06, 2003 at 07:29:28 PM EST

Or is it not the one I'm thinking of (Bret Easton)?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
The irony of tur[d]merics subject line kills me nt (2.00 / 4) (#40)
by StormShadow on Mon May 05, 2003 at 02:32:07 PM EST



-----------------
oderint dum metuant - Cicero
We aren't killing enough of our [America's] enemies. Re-elect Bush in 2004 - Me
12/2003: This account is now closed. Password scrambled. Its been a pleasure.


[ Parent ]
fuck off (1.00 / 4) (#166)
by Trollaxor on Wed May 07, 2003 at 02:51:34 AM EST

you overly sensitive pannsy. always gotta play the victim, don't ya?

how about shining your boots up, getting a haircut, and stopping that girly crying over names and words?

[ Parent ]

amateurs (5.00 / 5) (#17)
by Cruel Elevator on Mon May 05, 2003 at 10:06:25 AM EST

We burn our own housewives.

[ Parent ]
but (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Hillman on Tue May 06, 2003 at 12:03:00 AM EST

The north-americans killed about all their native people.

[ Parent ]
Gasing someone else's people would be rude -nt (4.00 / 1) (#120)
by czth on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:56:31 PM EST



[ Parent ]
It's only humorous in moderation. [NT] (none / 0) (#136)
by emmtareu on Tue May 06, 2003 at 08:18:21 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Just a *little* condescending (3.15 / 20) (#21)
by desiderandus on Mon May 05, 2003 at 12:20:51 PM EST

I am ethnically Indian, a guy to be specific. I'm not going to deny this problem doesn't exist, and doesn't exist at a frighteningly pervasive level. But all you're doing is getting on your little podium and saying *look, there's a problem*. Even Indian newspapers and the like say that from time to time.
<P>If this situation going to change though, it's because people act. I for one don't treat women like that, but that's probably because my family is a whole lot richer and more educated - there are economic reasons for wanting boys, as they can do higher-paying work and support their parents more. I'm not saying this as justification, but it does show this is part of a bigger problem. Western people love to criticize, but they don't like to get their hands messy by helping. And raising the income and education of India is the surest way of getting rid of this problem, but America isn't, nor will it do anything about it. India's biggest aid donors are actually Britain and Japan I believe.
<P>And for those who want a little more background on why it happens, my gf and I have actually studied it academically, and it seems to stem from conversion of hinduism, the main religion, to a more patriarchal form that resembles judeaochristianity. Personally, I prefer ancient hindu writings, and in those Indian women aren't villified - actually, the most power god is a goddess, and women have a lot of power in many, not a few areas.
<P>Personally, the fact that you don't seem to know much about this problem, but are moralizing about it, I suggest you do something more constructive and close to home, like address racism in America if you're American, because that's just as pervasive (I've seen it, I live in America now), but just as many people in America ignore that as misogynism in India.
_________
Our sins catch up to us in the worst possible way; they become part of our essential identities.
How is it condescending ? (5.00 / 6) (#22)
by ColeH on Mon May 05, 2003 at 12:39:35 PM EST

Bringing attention to terrible human rights abuses is condescending? I don't understand.

[ Parent ]
Please RTFA (4.83 / 6) (#23)
by kralizec on Mon May 05, 2003 at 12:46:52 PM EST

Not even in my most perverted fantasies I'd want to be born a woman in my country.
That's the very first sentence in the introduction... later on (but still in the introduction), he says:
Of course, all this is in reference to a poor, unknown country, Bangladesh.
Now, please do explain me how you come to the conclusion that he might be american. Perhaps I'm too dumb, but when someone says "my country" I usually understand "the country where I was born" or "the country where I have lived most of my life". Either of them would qualify him for writing about it.

And about adressing the problems, I think that making them known outside his country isn't as bad as that (see the lapidations in Nigeria because of "adultery").

Anyway, I agree with you in one point. There are deeper roots in this problem, but I think the aim of the article was simply to explain a situation that was (greatly) unknown for most of us (I for one knew women were discriminated in these countries, but I didn't know to what extent).

---
Un sot toujours trouve un plus sot qui l'admire
[ Parent ]

denial (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by minus273 on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:09:22 PM EST

looks like you are in denial.
women have always been treated unfairly in south asia. Ever hear of the Curse of the Sati? According to regional lore, basically, all the women killed as Satis curse the region so that the people who benifitted from it will never succeed. No, Sati has noting to do with any other religion or culture. Don't blame others for your problems. Your refernce to Ma/devi is accurate however, how much have you seen it in practice. No hardly anyone lives in a judeao -christian society there. It is almots all hindu and muslim.
Funny how the countries like India and Pakistan are so caught up in buildng nuclear weapons but still expect aid.
I know you can say the same for many other countries but look at the number of people living in grinding poverty there.. compare it to te first world nations(im not ignoring china and russia, they are guilty of the same thing)

[ Parent ]
on sati [ot] (none / 0) (#196)
by univgeek on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:42:25 PM EST

The problem is much less severe than ANY other womens problem. May be one or two cases a year. Considering the population of India, I am sure that there are many more crazy people committing sucide on the deaths of their spouses, just not in such a public manner.

If you want a strong argument, please keep sati out of it.

bootnote: I am NOT arguing about the other points.

Arguing with an Electrical Engineer is liking wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it!
[ Parent ]

It's your brain that's in denial (5.00 / 1) (#274)
by caveat emptor on Sat May 10, 2003 at 08:12:24 AM EST

I come from the part of India where Sati was prevalent (and even happens now, once in a while). It is called "Rajasthan".

For 100s of years, we folks of Rajasthan have been invaded by muslim invaders from the west (what is today Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.). When the husband died fighting, the wife committed suicide, rather than be brutalised by the invaders. Read about Rani Padmini's johar, if you get a chance (if you can comprehend anything beyond what your TV tells you, that is).

Being a Sati was considered an honor. I have been to the "Sati Mata" temple (just FYI, "mata" means "mother" in Hindi), and there are many (I just went to one of the bigger ones).

Since being a Sati brought such honor, the practice got bastardized. If a husband died, the family sometimes "encouraged" the widow to commit sati. The government cracked down on this, and today if the local cops get a hint of a Sati about to happen, they must act. They will haul the (deceased) husband's family to jail to prevent it.

And as for aid: looks like you need some with your thinking. India does not expect aid; India has enough food stocks to last 3+ years even if not a single grain was harvested. And as for "people starving", heck, you find that here in the US too. You just don't read about it, but it is there. I've seen malnourished people here too. And remember the heat wave in Chicago, a couple of summers ago, when 100s of poor folks died? Why not send some of your precious aid to the citizens of Chicago, so that they can buy A/Cs ?

It just amazes me to see the crap that ignorant folks like you spew out. Learn about a topic first before you spout off, OK, bub?

[ Parent ]

heh. now who is being racist? (4.33 / 6) (#30)
by turmeric on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:40:10 PM EST

considering the history of india, pakistan, and bangladesh you have a hard fucking time saying that the banglas hate women because they are muslim. and when did hindu women stop burning themselves to death on their husbands funeral pyre?

[ Parent ]
Islam != JudeoChristian (3.33 / 3) (#35)
by MickLinux on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:49:26 PM EST

Islam is not equivalent to judeoChristianity.  Actually, Judaism is not equivalent to Christianity either.

When you judge a religion, you can judge it on several things, espoused, common, and anecdotal for each.  You can also divide it, often, internal and external:

   (1) Justice
   (2) Charity
   (3) Peace
   (4) Honesty
   (5+) (Probably others as well)

Just as an example:  Buddhism is going to come out with very different scores than Hinduism on justice, probably on peace as well.  

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity will all also come out with very different scores.  

I'm not going to tell you how to score these things -- I'd probably give slightly different numbers than you.  Nonetheless, I tend to think that the treatment of women should echo into that scoreboard, somehow.

Anyhow, I think it would be interesting for each person to score the different religions to the best of his ability, and then see how it looks.

Then think about why this is so.  

The nature of your God/god, and the nature of the physical system you think is yours, has a lot to do with your behavior and the inherent social problems you will experience.

Learn from the Egyptians: they saw every one of their gods killing them. When you make a false god your idol, it starts to kill you. Doesn't matter i
[ Parent ]

Judeo != Christian. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by tkatchev on Mon May 05, 2003 at 02:31:43 PM EST

Virtually nothing is in common between Judaism and Christianity. (Except the Torah.)

In fact, I dare say that "Judaism" doesn't exist at all; at least not in the Christian sense.

You cannot have "Judaism" after the destruction of the Second Temple; thus, for a Christian, anyone who claims to follow "Judaism" after the year 80BC is either a liar or a severely deluded person.

The Christians do not recognize the Talmud at all.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

nitpick (none / 0) (#61)
by wumpus on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:59:54 PM EST

Googling places the destruction at 70CE.
I'm pretty sure Jesus preached/threw out money changers before its destruction.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Sorry, I'm a retard. (none / 0) (#89)
by tkatchev on Tue May 06, 2003 at 05:47:49 AM EST

Of course. I mistyped, it should have been "80AD".

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Religion and those who practice it (4.50 / 2) (#65)
by Eater on Mon May 05, 2003 at 07:33:04 PM EST

Would you judge the teachings of a religion or the acts of those who practice it? Find me where the Bible or Koran talks about how Christians should go on Crusades to Jerusalem, or about how Muslims should fly aircraft into tall buildings. Even different groups of the same religion can have huge differences in how they behave or interpret their holy scripture. So it is not a matter of what god it is you believe in, or what faith you hold, it is how you interpret it. All major religions, even Buddhism, have both a history of violence and a history of charity and kindness. In the end, it is what sort of person you are, not your faith, that determines how you will act, and defining a religion as "violent", "charitable", or "just" is about as valid as defining a certain eye color as "violent", "charitable", or "just".

Eater.

[ Parent ]
Point a finger, there's 3 pointing back at you (5.00 / 4) (#47)
by pyramid termite on Mon May 05, 2003 at 04:02:09 PM EST

Western people love to criticize, but they don't like to get their hands messy by helping.

So, in other words, it's OUR fault that more people in your country don't want to get off their asses and do something about the problem?

I don't mind our helping others, but they need to be willing to help themselves without us telling them or paying them to do something.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I'm a pedant (none / 0) (#251)
by cdyer on Thu May 08, 2003 at 09:07:18 PM EST

I am ethnically Indian, a guy to be specific.
You got that backward. There are 3 Billion guys in the world (roughly) and one billion ethnic Indians. Thus, being ethnically indian is more specific than being a guy. Not the other way around.

Cheers,
Cliff



[ Parent ]
What's with all the acid? (2.58 / 17) (#24)
by sllort on Mon May 05, 2003 at 12:52:46 PM EST

Can't they just fucking drown their wives like a normal American? Why all the acid attacks? If you attacked some American girl with acid, it'd make the front page of CNN: "Acid Attacker Antonganizes Alexandria". Don't they have water in Bangladesh?

Where do they get all this acid? Is it sold in stores? Why is an acid attack so popular? Is it for the maiming and scarring? The quick get-away?

I just don't get it. Hopefully Super Soakers aren't being imported into your country just yet.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

Duh (none / 0) (#25)
by sllort on Mon May 05, 2003 at 12:54:22 PM EST

Guess I should have asked google first
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Jesus (4.83 / 6) (#36)
by sllort on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:50:52 PM EST

A few more minutes researching the "Bangladesh Acid Problem" have run me across some really crappy links.

http://www.contrasto.it/eng/reportage/dettaglioprod.asp?idprod=968
http://www.acidsurvivors.org/html/info_acidattack.htm
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/spring2002/swanson.php

Answers to my original questions: the acid comes from batteries, and the attackers are usually jealous young men.

A cup of acid, usually sulfuric acid poured from any car battery or purchased from auto repair shops, costs only a few cents, and is therefore both a cheap and available weapon. Some perpetrators throw acid in an attempt to obtain the victim's land, believing that the family will be forced to sell their property in order to pay for medical treatment.

First dealth penalty for an acid attack...
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:Oi7olHztv0oC:quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/web news/wed/dp/Qbangladesh-crime-acid.Rhzr_DJG.html+%22acid+attack%22+bangladesh&am p;hl=en&ie=UTF-8
...against a male victim. Interesting.

Once gun control succeeds in America, I believe we'll be reading the phrase "cheap and available weapon" again.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Acid bulbs and women in South India[ot] (none / 0) (#194)
by univgeek on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:37:28 PM EST

Acid is usually filled into light bulbs and thrown on the victim. Glass + conc. nitrous/sulphuric/battery acid, makes for heavy scarring.

Happened to an IAS (Indian Admin. Services) women officer (Chandralekha), who stood up to Jayalalitha (the ex and current Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu). However it is not in widespread use against 'civilians' or women in general.

In Madras, sporadically when some high-profile attack against college-girls/women takes place, 'white brigades' - plain-clothes women teams, roam the streets, beating up and arresting eve-teasers. Usually dies down in a month or so, when the attention dies down.

On the whole, the southern Indian states are much better off in terms of womens rights, than Bihar or (from the article) Bangladesh. However female infanticide is prevalent in the poorer sections of the community, and so is dowry. Dowry deaths have fallen-off in recent times.

Just my 2 paise.


Arguing with an Electrical Engineer is liking wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it!
[ Parent ]

Shocking! (1.53 / 13) (#28)
by moho on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:30:12 PM EST

Those poor girls, getting acid thrown in their faces, having their social lives destroyed. I just feel so sorry for them, you know. Here in the good ol' United States of America, our criminals are much more humane; they'd just have shot the girl in the heart at point blank range.

Well (4.00 / 3) (#56)
by SilentNeo on Mon May 05, 2003 at 06:12:37 PM EST

Yes, and then the criminals are almost always caught (the police will devote every resource to catching the murderer of a young female).  They then will rot most or all of their remaining lives in a concrete incarnation of hell (parole is unlikely) or be executed after a decade of appeals.  The chief problem with the system is that while someone is almost always arrested, it may not actually be the criminal.  It could be the black kid down the road who might have been in the area when the crime occurred.  

Also, it can be hideously expensive.  For every prisoner we jail the economic equivalent of at least one human being must work for every year the convict is jailed in order to keep him there.  A major trial can burn more money (and hence labor) than several average Americans earn in a lifetime.

[ Parent ]

Question (2.83 / 6) (#29)
by nomoreh1b on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:39:50 PM EST

I really appreciate when someone can look critically at their own culture. If you look at some of my posts, I'm not particularly a fan of the US government.

What has always puzzled me a bit:
Places like the US, Britain, Scandinavia have possibly the most legal rights accorded to women of any place on earth-yet my personal perception is that women there are also most likely to be the most highly critical of the culture in which they were raised. Furthermore, women in the West seem rather likely to do things like convert to Islam or an Eastern religion.



converting (4.50 / 2) (#37)
by nosilA on Mon May 05, 2003 at 01:51:01 PM EST

Most religions are peaceful, respectful, and interesting in theory.  A person often gets disenchanted with their own religion because of how they see it applied in practice, and seeks out another religion.  Without the political baggage, Islam is a nice religion, as are pretty much all religions... they enforce a certain level of personal discipline, respect for others, and spirituality.  

It doesn't surprise me the least that people in the US or other free western countries would choose to convert to religions known for being involved with attrocities in other nations.  They get to experience a much more pure and positive version of the religion here.

-Alison
Vote to Abstain!
[ Parent ]

peaceful religions? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by treat on Mon May 05, 2003 at 09:59:04 PM EST

Most religions are peaceful, respectful, and interesting in theory.

What does "in theory" mean when books like the Bible and Koran are shockingly violent, advocating what we would consider today to be atrocities, and claiming that the creator of the universe is more cruel than any human who has ever lived?

[ Parent ]

Can you be more specific? (none / 0) (#129)
by Francis on Tue May 06, 2003 at 06:32:41 PM EST

I cannot speak about the Koran, but this is certainly not the general impression I have gotten from reading the Bible. Can you point me to the passages where it states things like "the creator of the universe is more cruel than any human who has ever lived?"
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by acronos on Tue May 06, 2003 at 08:24:04 PM EST

The majority of the human race is going to eternal torture.  Those going to eternal torture are going because they are guilty of the only unforgivable sin - they failed to bow down and worship said God. This sounds very reminiscent to me of Saddam Hussein except Saddam was not nearly as evil.  For example, If you don't bow down and worship me, I am going to torture you for eternity.

Some might say that it is different because God's nature is good but my nature is evil.  Let's examine God's good nature.

Go back and read the old testament again.  Note particularly Numbers 31:18 where after God ordered their families killed, he ordered the men to divide the virgins among themselves as spoils of war.
God ordered animal sacrifice.
God punished one man for another's crimes.
God exalted Lot who gave his daughters to be raped and murdered by the men outside to protect the angels.
The specific examples go on and on.

General examples:
If God created everything and that creation goes awry, then God is responsible or God is not omniscient and omnipotent.

If a child is being raped and abused and a person has it directly in their power to stop it at no cost to themselves but failed to do so, then that person is evil to me.  God has it in his power to stop every evil that has ever been propagated on earth, yet he failed to do so.  

I don't know if you are reading the same bible I am.


[ Parent ]

You forgot... (none / 0) (#198)
by fn0rd on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:49:25 PM EST

... David collecting the foreskins of the Philistines! That was fucking awesome!

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
Okay... (5.00 / 1) (#243)
by Francis on Thu May 08, 2003 at 03:33:24 PM EST

I see now the point you are making. I made a couple of errors, I think, in my curiosity. Firstly, I was considering the Bible in a more New Testament-centric view, which is where I have had more exposure. You certainly are correct--the accounts of God's wrath in the Old Testament are quite gruesome at times.

Secondly, I think I was failing to recognize the distinction that is to be made in the way the Bible is interpreted from a secular point of view as opposed to a Christian point of view. Christianity is, in my opinion, esoteric, and therefore the essence of the faith and it's God cannot be fully comprehended without actually believing. I am not a Biblical scholar, and I think it would probably take one to properly explain the complexities of the Biblical relationship between God and his people from a secular point of view. So, while I do not agree with some of your conclusions about God's wrath (i.e. that God is evil), I can certainly understand how they are arrived at in a secular view. However, I will say that God in the Bible is not as many people (even many Christians, perhaps) might think: He has emotions. He gets angry, He becomes jealous, and, as you have pointed out, He most certainly becomes wrathful. Christianity is discomforting when considered from this perspective. If you consider that God commands men to behave in a certain way, and that men, by their very nature, are incapable of consistently behaving in this way, and then when you consider God's wrath, it is disquieting indeed. As Lewis said: "Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort...In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end..."

An acquaintance of mine (obviously a Christian) recently wrote to me: "Make no mistake, the positive message of His love loses meaning without the alternative of His abiding wrath. Indeed, what are we saved from other than our own sins that would earn us the wrath of Almighty God." So it should be pointed out that for Christians, whether or not it can be understood or justified in a secular context (I suspect it cannot), God's wrath in the Old Testament was purposeful and not capricious. The Old Testament represented the Old Law: "As you have done, it will be done to you; your deed will return upon your own head." (Obadiah 15) Yeah, pretty heavy.

Something that is easily forgotten by both believers and non-believers is that the Bible is not in an historical or sociological vacuum. It is very important to maintain sociocultural perspective when making value judgments about the events that take place in the Bible. This does not make some of these things seem any less atrocious to us, but our reaction is based in our 21st century sociocultural make up. The Bible is not often defended in this way, and perhaps I am wrong in doing so, but I have studied enough history to know that the relatively depraved behavior of ancient civilizations is normally defended with such a claim. My knowledge, however, is too thin to actually take the step of defending the behavior of, say, Moses and the Israelites slaughtering the Medianites (Numbers 31).

The existence of evil, suffering, oppression, hell, etc. is reconciled by the coexistence of free will. Evil has a parasitic relationship to free will; it feeds on it and is sustained by it. But it certainly would not be sensible to destroy the healthy organism in order to remove the parasite. Whether or not you place value in the concept of free will, it is crucial to Christianity. God is not interested in virtuous robots or toy soldiers. Man has the capacity for evil precisely to give value to his capacity for good. And while God may intercede to prevent suffering (and I believe He certainly does in some cases), doing so undermines the potency of humans' free will--there is no sense in offering people freedom and then removing any consequences that arise from that freedom.

As for the only unforgivable sin, it is Pride of which you speak. It is this competitive will that is central to Christian morality; from it springs all other sin. Anger, greed and lust are all peripheral to this vice. And so, yes, if you cannot submit to God, if you cannot confer upon yourself the humility to recognize your insignificance in the face of God, then you will not receive His Grace. The reasoning here is tricky, in that many Christians claim that there is no unforgivable sin, but clearly in order for your sins to be forgiven you must accept that Christ is your savior and repent, and in doing so you must necessarily humble yourself. The paradox is clear here: you can be forgiven for your pride, but you must lose your pride in order to be forgiven for it. Therefore, in a manner of speaking, unrelenting pride is unforgivable.

Well, I really feel like I have thoroughly steered this into the weeds. Thank you for your comment; whether or not it was your intent (hopefully it was), you have actually given me pause to reflect on these questions quite a bit.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

It was my intent... (none / 0) (#265)
by acronos on Fri May 09, 2003 at 04:36:34 PM EST

Well, I really feel like I have thoroughly steered this into the weeds. Thank you for your comment; whether or not it was your intent (hopefully it was), you have actually given me pause to reflect on these questions quite a bit.

My desire was only to present a viewpoint that it seemed clear you were unaware of. I am honestly extremely surprised that you were able to even think about what I wrote. I commend you because very few Christians with whom I have spoken have been able to do that

1 Cor 1:22-24 is a scripture that you might find comforting. I recommend starting at verse 18 and finishing the chapter.

[ Parent ]

Thank you for the kind words (none / 0) (#270)
by Francis on Fri May 09, 2003 at 08:59:27 PM EST

and the scriptural reference. You know, truth be told, I think many Christians are just as apprehensive in making claims about their belief to non-Christians as you may be in making them to Christians, in fear of the unthinking, narrow-minded response you speak of. There is a huge gulf (understandably so, I suppose) between believers and non-believers that is only bridged by respect, whether or not we think one another completely nuts. Take care...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

Funny conclusion from your statement (1.00 / 1) (#132)
by LilDebbie on Tue May 06, 2003 at 07:44:44 PM EST

You'd think those people disenchanted with their current religion because of how it is put into practice would expect similar results from other religions, but no, they believe all the stupid pamphlets and recruitment propaganda. Conclusion: people are stupid.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily stupid (4.00 / 1) (#202)
by Miniluv on Wed May 07, 2003 at 03:11:09 PM EST

Stupid would be assuming that because X sucks in practice, Y will too. That'd be like saying that since my Nissan broke down, my BMW will too.

People seek new religions for a variety of reasons, and even disenchantment with their current religion isn't necessarily going to diminish their desire for the things religion can provide them. People find solace, a sense of peace, an understanding of their place in the great scheme of things, a community, and a whole host of other things in religion.

Some of us don't need religion for that, some of us do. I'd have to say its pretty weak to go around calling this "stupid".

"Too much wasabi and you'll be crying like you did at the last ten minutes of The Terminator" - Alton Brown
[ Parent ]

Legal rights and freedoms (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by AngelKnight on Mon May 05, 2003 at 03:08:11 PM EST

Those freedoms accorded to women (and those who are not women) are what make it safe to exercise the privilege of even having a different opinion.  Which at first glance makes the freedoms that permit the dissent to be a weakness.

Personally, I happen to think the strengths that are made possible by those freedoms easily outweight the weaknesses of those freedoms.

[ Parent ]

Those are people for you (none / 0) (#285)
by epepke on Tue May 13, 2003 at 12:46:00 AM EST

Let's say that you're a person in a country where things are pretty good for you and your kind of person. Let's also say that you're a progressive kind of person, in favor of equality and against privilege. That's going to cause a kind of cognitive dissonance for you. One way of resolving the cognitive dissonance is to try to find things about your culture that are bad. Plus, if you're socially conscious, there's a drive to emulate the people that you're concerned about. It seldom extends actually to being in the place of the people you're concerned about but is usually satisfied by adopting the trappings.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
This statistic is useless (4.22 / 18) (#43)
by cdyer on Mon May 05, 2003 at 03:00:39 PM EST

"one woman becomes victim of violence every hour in the country".

I don't mean to be dismissive; this sounds like a severe problem, but this kind of statistic is absolutely meaningless. It provides a kind of shock-value impact without imparting any useful information. Given the massive population of any country, even a relatively small one, it is impossible to have any sense of what kind of rate this is. You can do a google search for the phrase "in America, a woman is raped every", and the numbers that come out tend to be 2 minutes or 90 seconds. It makes it look like Bangladesh's problem is not severe at all, but this is also a red herring. It fails to take into account the relative populations of the two countries, but it also fails to account for the difference between being "raped" and being "a victim of violence." Is one a superset of the other? Instinctively, I would say that the second encompasses the first, but this may not be true. It depends on how rape is legally defined in the U.S. and in Bangladesh. Date rape might not be considered in Bangladesh. Rape might be even more under-reported there. But it might not be. If it is commonly accompanied by the acid-face treatment, it would be difficult not to report it.

There are more accurate ways to report the statistics. What are the actual crime rates? What about number of hospital visits (per capita)? Those are useful statistics that will strengthen your argument. Saying how frequently women are raped overall is a misleading statistic that will mark your writing as unprofessional. That makes me care less about your cause, because I don't see any hard evidence to back it up. Just the usual uninformative soft evidence (if you will) that makes conservatives call liberal activists whiny. Also, put some of the data in the meat of your article, so I have some way to evaluate which links are worth following.

Cheers,
Cliff



Damn right. (3.00 / 2) (#73)
by damage0 on Mon May 05, 2003 at 09:21:45 PM EST

What I really, really hate is how newspapers and the media simplify statistics by taking the average and then do not not say that they have done it.

For example, as you say, they figure there's N rapes per year that must mean that a rape is happening every year / N periods, right? Wrong. So they report that rapes occur every X, without crucially saying "on average". This implies that they know more than they actually do, and it's plain incorrect.

The other thing is when they report on how much stuff people buy they say "every person buys N of X" when it should be "on average, every person buys N of X".

"On average" may seems like a small, unnecessary phrase but it is crucial. Not using it is just cheap, irresponsible journalism.

[ Parent ]

+1 fp (3.70 / 10) (#45)
by circletimessquare on Mon May 05, 2003 at 03:27:08 PM EST

i think that much can be said about the vibrancy and health of any culture by studying how these groups are treated within that culture: prisoners, gays, and women.

you could say that the happiness of any people and their relative prosperity can be deduced from the rights and priveleges of these three groups.

do you want to know how a society will do in the future? consider these groups to be canaries in a coal mine. when their rights improve, the society at large will probably improve down the road.

and visa versa: if a society begins to act against the rights of women/ gays/ prisoners, you can probably say that is the beginning of a slide in prosperity and happiness for a society as a whole.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Do you have this comment saved to file? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by LilDebbie on Tue May 06, 2003 at 07:49:30 PM EST

I swear, every story I see that is remotely linked to human rights you post the same message. Try putting a condensed version in your .sig or something instead of squaking the same thing like a parrot in a pet store.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Try this for a sig. (none / 0) (#252)
by cdyer on Thu May 08, 2003 at 09:20:18 PM EST

Women, gays and convicts are subterranean birds. They tell you shit.

[ Parent ]
Urrgh (3.40 / 5) (#48)
by Pholostan on Mon May 05, 2003 at 04:08:01 PM EST

Worse than the mideval times. Good article though. Reminds me of how much better it is here. Our society is not perfect, though. This needs attention.

- And blood tears I cry Endless grief remained inside
A very significant article (3.85 / 14) (#51)
by jd on Mon May 05, 2003 at 04:25:22 PM EST

Yes, every nation has horror stories to tell. There is not one country, not even one town, in existance that has not perpetrated its own horrors on those it deems "lesser".

A recent news story broke on a cop who, despite being accused of rape, being convicted of physical and sexual abuse, and being associated with a whole host of other GBH-type crimes, was not only made the chief of police, but was defended - practically to the death - by others in authority. The cover-up was discovered after he shot his wife, after some petty argument.

This wasn't the Middle East, or some other nation troubled by gender hysterics. This was the USA.

Sadly, it's not even a rare story in the USA. I have spoken to people who have escaped from cults obsessed with power, domination and control, and have heard many accounts from reliable individuals of death-cults (where people are kidnapped and murdered as part of a religious rite) of far far worse.

Is this to lessen the impact of the article? NO!! It is intended to heighten it. It is intended to point out that this sickening depravity, detailed in many facets in the article, is not conveniently at a distance. It is intended to point out that we are ALL in this together, and that - unlike the fictional "war on terror" - this really IS being fought, and losing is not an option.

Bangladesh and similar countries are the price of losing the wars of equality and social justice. They depict the battle-scarred, ravaged, festering, slow death that is the inevitable fate of those countries - and the people in them - that succumb to the greed, lust and perversity of some self-proclaimed elite.

This is why social justice and equality are the only real defences. Freedom comes out of these, it cannot create them. Freedom without limits is just a word.

For myself, I can do little about the troubles in other lands, but any opposition to this evil is better than the apathetic response of "so what?" If, over the course of my entire life, I make a difference to just one person, just once, then you can argue that I've affected one in 10 billion. A very very tiny fraction of a miniscule amount of a percent of the world. Or, you can say that I've 100% made a difference to somebody.

How much you can do is all a matter of perspective.

"reliable individuals of death-cults" (5.00 / 2) (#134)
by LilDebbie on Tue May 06, 2003 at 07:52:05 PM EST

Please, if you don't have reasonable information to back up your claims, don't bother pretending you do. This isn't the Weekly World News.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
god had nothing to do with that -nt- (3.00 / 2) (#62)
by iasius on Mon May 05, 2003 at 07:08:01 PM EST




the internet troll is the pinnacle of human evolution - circletimessquare
+1 (2.60 / 5) (#71)
by gnd54 on Mon May 05, 2003 at 09:07:28 PM EST

Whenever it comes out of edit. Good story, topic should be addressed -- it's one of those things you know happens "somewhere," but this brings it out well.

Every minute (1.78 / 19) (#72)
by tang gnat on Mon May 05, 2003 at 09:16:52 PM EST

Every minute, something bad happens in the world, and I don't care about it.

What do you care about ? (n/t) (none / 0) (#79)
by ColeH on Tue May 06, 2003 at 12:17:48 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I dunno. I'll find out when it happens. [nt] (1.00 / 1) (#80)
by tang gnat on Tue May 06, 2003 at 12:37:15 AM EST



[ Parent ]
the list of things not cared about grows (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by speek on Tue May 06, 2003 at 08:56:03 AM EST

by the minute.

Seems like a trend we ought to reverse.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

man (1.80 / 5) (#84)
by BankofAmerica ATM on Tue May 06, 2003 at 02:18:19 AM EST

for once, a good story beside mine and turmeric's stuff in the queue. i salute you.
STOP PROJECT FAUSTUS!
Incoherent (1.53 / 15) (#91)
by SanSeveroPrince on Tue May 06, 2003 at 07:22:15 AM EST

You don't really make a point.

I take offense at the fact that the article seems written on the wings of a prayer that we'd all reach for our hankies the moment we read about poor women being mutilated.

-1 from me.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


Ok-- (none / 0) (#245)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu May 08, 2003 at 03:44:29 PM EST

Someone mutilates your mother. What do you do then?

I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

What do you think? (none / 0) (#266)
by SanSeveroPrince on Fri May 09, 2003 at 06:28:01 PM EST

I'll see him in jail for the rest of his life.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Let them have cake..... (1.44 / 18) (#92)
by ShiteNick on Tue May 06, 2003 at 07:53:53 AM EST

Yet another rich-person[1], who reads stuff like in the Daily mail and then forms a completely warped and unrealistic view....

Yet another person, complaining about the misery of the masses from high up there. Faced any *real* abuse? Like the kind you mention in your story? [2]

[1] The same person who wrote the car crashes story. (do a bleeding search. I can't be bothered). So you're the rich (atleast in bangladesh) kinds. With too much time. And too little real work.

[2] You sound just like Varsha Bhosle on Rediff. Mebbe you ought to get together for a little meeting of minds? [1]do a search, am too lazy to post a link.

This negates his observations, how? (nt) (4.75 / 4) (#99)
by gilrain on Tue May 06, 2003 at 12:40:59 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Varsha Bhonsle. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by Akshay on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:09:48 AM EST

Man, too bad your Varsha reference was lost here on K5, but interesting comparison. Varsha, for the uninitiated, is a net columnist who, despite being one of the few columnists who writes spam (here's a recent edition), allegedly has a fan club. That she's unabashedly (Hindu) right-wing in her message, with no regards to grammar, stylistic nuances, or indeed, even civil liberties, probably accounts for her appeal.

But give this guy a break. At least he's raised an important point.

[ Parent ]

Maybe (1.83 / 12) (#95)
by starsky on Tue May 06, 2003 at 09:07:17 AM EST

you could run all these women over to save them from abuse? And hope that nasty men don't get annoyed with you doing as such. -1, you've burnt your posting bridges with me, sonny boy.

The Middle Class in Developing Countries (4.38 / 13) (#97)
by idiot boy on Tue May 06, 2003 at 11:46:52 AM EST

Ok, first up, you got +1 from me but only because it's an important issue that you address. It should be said though that it is one which is being  addressed with increasing but still insufficient regularity by the media (at least in the UK).

What I find particularly interesting about this and your other article though is what it tells us about the middle classes in developing countries. Your attitude to the poor of your country is interesting because it demonstrates a distinct lack of empathy with the position of the "evil-doers" in your society. That you (both personally, and as a group) may have some responsibility for the state your country (and by extension, the behaviour of such people) does not seem to cross your mind. Indeed, your sense of helplessness before "the mob" seems to have led you to hold much of your country in contempt. As you develop this attitude, you begin to engage in behaviour that serves only to perpetuate the very behaviour that you claim to abhor.

I'm not accusing you of being directly and personally responsible for the mobs or the acid throwing. However, the social conditions that lead to those behaviours are most certainly something that you can affect and something for which the middle classes of such countries as the elite are broadly speaking responsible.

Bangladesh is not a dictatorship, it is a functioning democracy. There is corruption, there is nepotism and there is censorship but by and large, it is a country in which it is possible to affect the direction that development takes through political action. As the educated class, it is the responsibility of the middle class (in order to protect and help themselves as well as their country) to work to build a better economy and state.

That means working to build the foundations of a stable society. A less corrupt, well paid judiciary and well paid non-military police force would be a start since by paying well, the need to take bribes is reduced. By employing extra-regional recruiters, nepotism is reduced and over a period of years you can build the core of a judicial system that can really begin to tackly the issues you raise above. There is little point having laws outlawing the abominations you describe if you don't have the means or the willingness to police them.

It means building a free economy within the country which allows the poor to begin to make themselves richer. Locally controlled Credit Unions, Co-operatives of farmers across communities which allow them to negotiate prices and ship goods as a group rather than as individuals. These are just a couple of little changes, there's a lot more that can be done for very little capital outlay which can make a real difference. I'm not a developmental economist but I'm sure there are some around here of different flavours who'll have something to say about this.

It means building a effective and egalitarian education system that ensures that a rising proportion of the population is educated to high standards, including the poor and emphasising the education of women. Again, this helps the poor to begin to make themselves richer and helps the middle classes by providing access to a better educated workforce who are better able to respond to the needs of industry.

All of these actions work to improve the position of women in society by beginning to provide them with the means to escape the poverty that ties them to their families.

I'm not saying that any of this is easy or will bring stability to Bangladesh any time soon but on a fundamental level, all of the problems that you go on about stem from poverty. They are not unique to Bangladesh by any stretch of the imagination and have been addressed with varying degrees of success in many countries.

The bottom line is that you need to stop whining and start trying to make a difference. Get involved in politics, do anything but perpetuate the demoralising and counter-productive attitdes that you and your friends have developed.

Idiot Boy - speaking today from his cushy western lifestyle but at least holding up the tradition of posts longer than 80% of submitted articles :).

--
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself

let me add (5.00 / 7) (#100)
by calimehtar on Tue May 06, 2003 at 12:45:50 PM EST

That your post demonstrates there's simply no way of posting a criticism of raping and acid-throwing that isn't sanctimonious.... unless you've been raped or had acid thrown on you yourself.

Blaming the middle-class for the actions of the poor is in some ways equivalent to blaming the victims. We're all guilting of complacency. There's always something that someone could have done, isn't there? Perhaps we, the among the wealthiest and most complacent in the world, are the most guilty.



[ Parent ]
Hold on... (5.00 / 3) (#102)
by idiot boy on Tue May 06, 2003 at 01:35:05 PM EST

Who's the victim here? It sure as hell isn't (directly - they do suffer but in a different way, more on that in a moment), the middle class. It's poor women. In other words, I'm most certainly not blaming the victim.

However, just look at the country for a moment. Political power is held by a corrupt political class (drawn from the middle class) which by its constant in-fighting has lumbered the country with a terrible degree of political and economic intertia.

The poor (economically) women that Cruel Elavator talks about are pretty much completely powerless. Given that is the case then you must look elsewhere for the power to change things. Realistically, the middle class are the only people with the power to effect that change.

It's not an easy thing to do. There IS political repression in Bangladesh but it's not so bad that people can't do anything, this is not North Korea we're talking about.

Back to the question of their "suffering". They do suffer, but as a group rather than individuals as as result of the horrors that are committed on a daily basis in their country. Such crimes serve to destabilise their country and ensure that Bangladesh is seen everywhere else in the world as a basket case. Why does this hurt the MC? Because it prevents FDI. It's in the interests of Cruel Elevator and his chums to work to sort their country out, not just because it will be a nicer and safer place to live but because it will make them richer.

The point is that they're the only people with the power to make the changes needed. Give the tone of CE's posts, I doubt that he has the willingness to make the effort. Should CE feel guilty for that? No. However, if he is going to complain so bitterly then I think that he should at least make an attempt to tell us what he thinks can be done to improve the situation.

--
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself
[ Parent ]

all right (5.00 / 3) (#107)
by calimehtar on Tue May 06, 2003 at 02:54:42 PM EST

point taken.

What I meant by "equivalent to blaming the victims" is really that your same line of reasoning is often used to blame victims, in some societies -- guilt by inaction, or by indirect cause (the middle class is blamed for causing crime by oppressing the lower classes, women are blamed for causing their own rape by wearing provocative clothing). Not this this reasoning is necessarily flawed, simply pointing it out. Indirect causes are in fact very important factors, just make sure you're arguing them for the right reasons.

You can't actually transfer guilt for these crimes, to the middle class. You could, perhaps, look to the middle class for long-term solutions however.



[ Parent ]
All right (5.00 / 2) (#114)
by idiot boy on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:14:13 PM EST

Point Taken :)

You definately have a point. You're right that it's unfair to "blame" the MC for the problem. I've been pretty harsh as a result of being rather pissed at CE.

In order for things to change in Bangladesh though, the MC there have a choice. As the only group in society with any real power (beyond those in government), they have to make the effort to change their society.

CE himself, needs to get over his contempt for his countrymen and understand that he, through both his action (see his earlier article) and inaction (see this one), is by no means part of the solution and may well be part of the problem.

--
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself
[ Parent ]

musings (5.00 / 1) (#170)
by banffbug on Wed May 07, 2003 at 05:10:53 AM EST

Hmm I'm trying to reconcile all of this with the idea of democracy, and it doesn't fit.

The Upper Class has the true power - money, influence, and ability - to change this quickly, by implementing the neccessary policies to make these crimes illicit, not the norm. It's much easier for the Upper Class to raise public awareness then the Middle class, who have only rallys, organizations (clubs), and petitions as swords.

On the other side of the coin, assuming they are the main perpitrators of these crimes, the Lower Class must change their notions of marriage expectations;not lower them, but they definantly need to be tended to. With the Lower Class lies the final measure of success in removing this cancer. (I really don't mind refering to the perpetraitors as Lower Class, even if they fall into the other 2 categories - it's where they belong. car battery acid that's seriously sick.)

Okay, so where did all the power go?

[ Parent ]

Empathy for "evil-doers"? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by khym on Tue May 06, 2003 at 08:45:12 PM EST

Your attitude to the poor of your country is interesting because it demonstrates a distinct lack of empathy with the position of the "evil-doers" in your society.
Why should anyone have empathy for rapists, torturers, and acid thowers? Even if they are poor, growing up poor is no excuse for crimes like those. Besides, I see no indication in the article that the middle class in Bangladesh don't commit these crimes just as much as the poor.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
[ Parent ]
Empathy (none / 0) (#280)
by idiot boy on Mon May 12, 2003 at 10:16:48 AM EST

Because empathy is NOT the same as sympathy.

Empathy with a person or object does not imply approval. It is simply part of the process of understanding peoples motivations and is therefore necessary in order to work out how to change those motivations (either punitively or via positive incentive).

Semantics aside though, I feel that you misunderstood me more deeply than that. I was trying to point out that CE actually holds all of the poor of his country in contempt and not simply those who commit the crimes that he talks about in this article. Read his other article to get a feel for his attitude.

Really, I'm not sure how you managed to read in that I feel sympathetic to the criminals from this piece.

--
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself
[ Parent ]

answer (4.60 / 5) (#141)
by gdanjo on Tue May 06, 2003 at 09:10:34 PM EST

I think you mistake Bangladesh for a computer where you can change the Operating System by following steps 1 through 578. Your comments, for example:

Bangladesh is not a dictatorship, it is a functioning democracy. [...] It means building a free economy within the country which allows the poor to begin to make themselves richer.
show a lack of understanding of poor countries. By trying to help the poor, you yourself will be seen by your fellow middle-classers as helping competitors enter an unstable, premature market.

The dynamics of "enrichment" are far more complex than just implementing a shortcut to a system that works for you - this may work with countries that value what you value, and that have similar initial conditions to yourself - but that says nothing about whether/how it will work elsewhere (to continue the OS analogy, you can't port a modern OS to the PDP-11).

And your attitude:

The bottom line is that you need to stop whining and start trying to make a difference. Get involved in politics, do anything but perpetuate the demoralising and counter-productive attitdes that you and your friends have developed.
leaves a lot to be desired. Blaming the victims is also counter-productive. Reality is not the same as marketing. You can't convince yourself to be rich, no matter what those self-help DVD's say.

We have to admit that the problem is bigger than the ideas in our head, and therefore the ideas in our head will not solve it. If you want to help, help. Otherwise ... ???

There is no quick'n'easy answer. And besides, whining is good for the soul.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Consider the size of the middle class (4.50 / 2) (#184)
by oberbimbo on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:47:43 AM EST

In a country where maybe 2% of the population belongs to what we'd consider to be middle class (actually I'd guess he is upper class rather than middle class), it's damn near impossible to really affect the poor. Sure, you could pass laws and what not, but try to enforce laws in a near war climate.

[ Parent ]
A western-centric view (5.00 / 2) (#240)
by nebbish on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:41:23 AM EST

You are likening Bangladesh's future development to the way democracy in Western Europe evolved in the C19th. There are a couple of flaws in this -

1. The Bangladeshi middle / ruling classes aren't really in charge of the country. As a developing nation in heavy debt the government has to comply with strict IMF rules on how it runs it's own country, and especially it's economy. To say that the government needs to spend more on public sector wages to cut down on corruption would be to ignore IMF regulations on keeping public sector spending low.

2. As a supplier of primary goods to the world economy, unfortunately Bangladesh has little chance of meaningful development over the next few years. The world market does not work in favour of suppliers of basic goods. Consequently money for education etc may be hard to come by.

The crux of my argument is that whilst you are looking at the needed redistribution of wealth on a national scale, as indeed was the case in C19th Europe, Bangladesh's problem is an international one. There is a solid reason why economies such as Bangladesh's didn't develop when ours did in the west, and that is because ours were growing at the expense of theirs, and still are.

By lobbying the western institutions that keep Bangladesh poor - the IMF, the World Bank, the multinationals - protesting, consuming responsibly, and trying to change OUR society to be less exploitative of the developing world, we can probably do just as much, if not more, than someone in Bangladesh about this situation.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Bravo (4.66 / 6) (#103)
by coljac on Tue May 06, 2003 at 01:54:00 PM EST

Thanks for taking the time to write this. I'm really fascinated by your life in Bangladesh - since I know nothing about this country or its people - so I look forward to everything you write.

I think it's a shame that this article has generated such poor discussion thus far, but perhaps there's little that most of us (Westerners) can say except to agree that it's a terrible thing the way these women are treated.

Besides your genetic-super-mutant plan, how do you see the situation changing? Will it get better as the level of education rises in the country? Would internation pressure help or cause a backlash?

By the way I'd like to see a diary from you that gives some more details on your situation (are you Bangladeshi, how come your english is so good, etc).



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey

English and Bangladesh (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by strlen on Tue May 06, 2003 at 02:05:04 PM EST

I'd suppose his English is fairly good, as Bangladesh, along with Pakistan and India were once a part of Great Britain's Indian colony, and English remained as a lingua france for the educated classes.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
True (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by coljac on Tue May 06, 2003 at 02:56:16 PM EST

But his English is perfect - I work with several Indians, their English is fine but a little idiosyncratic. So I am guessing the Cruel Elevator must have spent a lot of time abroad - almost certainly he studied in the USA or Britain. Of course, there's little point in guessing, since he's right here. :)



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

ok (5.00 / 1) (#207)
by Cruel Elevator on Wed May 07, 2003 at 03:53:43 PM EST

here you go.

[ Parent ]
"American" solution (3.00 / 7) (#105)
by cronian on Tue May 06, 2003 at 02:14:34 PM EST

According to this article, some women are turning to guns. Since they would probably be pretty expensive for Bangladesh women, I suggest the army should give them away for free. It might be better if they had less guns. How about a free gun for every man, women, and child throughout the 3rd world?

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
The *wrong* way to fight overpopulation [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by chemista on Tue May 06, 2003 at 03:44:38 PM EST


Stop reminding people about the overvalued stock market! I'm depending on that overvalued stock market to retire some day! - porkchop_d_clown
[ Parent ]
Guns (4.00 / 3) (#126)
by Cruel Elevator on Tue May 06, 2003 at 06:12:44 PM EST

I've seen a lot of suggestions regarding guns. The problem is, this would require almost everybody to be armed. Each weapon would cost about, say as much as a year's salary of a full time factory worker (let's say US$200). Assuming that everyone does cough up that money, it would mean that all married / unmarried women and girls should own and learn to operate a gun. Housewives should be prepared to shoot their abusive husbands (please, no reference to that crappy J-Lo movie), and that solitary schoolgirl should be able to take out the neighborhood thugs trying to kidnap her.

Impractical as that sounds, I don't think that this is a solution anyway. Would that teach men to respect women? Would that stop the society from charging a fee for every women who gets married? Would that stop men from wanting to rape and sexual harass women?

Besides, what happens when the attackers and victims are both armed?

[ Parent ]

Peacemakers (5.00 / 2) (#162)
by Guncrazy on Wed May 07, 2003 at 01:24:56 AM EST

Each weapon would cost about, say as much as a year's salary of a full time factory worker (let's say US$200).

Way overpriced. You could easily stamp out little .22s for under $5.00 each (with ammo, even). Or you could import them from other countries that are awash in old Soviet Bloc arms like the 9x18mm Makarovs, or even better (and cheaper), the ubiquitous AK-47 (available in some places for around US$15.00).

Impractical as that sounds, I don't think that this is a solution anyway.

A solution to what problem?

Would that teach men to respect women? Would that stop the society from charging a fee for every women who gets married?

No, but who ever suggested that carrying a gun would solve these problems? Besides, these are not the most pressing problems Bangladeshi women are facing; more than respect, these women need safety.

Would that stop men from wanting to rape and sexual harass women?

This is precisely the sort of problem that guns can, and do, solve--that of providing safety. Guns cannot force others to recognize your intrinsic value as a human being. But they can certainly deter or repel attacks from those who recognize you as nothing more than an object for their gratification.

Besides, what happens when the attackers and victims are both armed?

A reduction in attacks. While there may be a lot of men who are willing to rape, torture and kill when there are no consequences to themselves, that number decreases sharply when committing those crimes may cost them their lives. This is not only anecdotally evident, but statistically proven as well.

Race is irrelevant 99.999% of the time. And the 0.001% of the time it is relevant, someone is looking for a donated organ.
[ Parent ]

more info on this please (3.50 / 2) (#214)
by lemming prophet on Wed May 07, 2003 at 06:58:35 PM EST

This is not only anecdotally evident, but statistically proven as well.

as far as i know, all the serious statistics(*) show that a high percentage of weapons in a population lead to higher crime, not lower. please provide some references. and i'm looking for the studies, not some other guy saying "statistics prove it" like on most pro-gun sites...

and here a link that should interest you ( but probably won't, judging from your name )

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

(*) serious statistics as in "statistics from studies that were actually conducted, and not just made up by a gun-loving politician/writer/.."
--
Follow me.
[ Parent ]
Serious Statistics? (1.00 / 1) (#224)
by Guncrazy on Thu May 08, 2003 at 02:06:11 AM EST

I suppose I could quote study after study until I'm blue in the face (or numb in the fingers), but from my long experience debating this topic, any evidence that I provide in support of my position is likely to be dismissed as "propaganda."

However, you seem to have faith in at least the link you provided, so let's take a look at what your intellectual champions have to say. (Quotes from the link in italics.)

Firearm-Related Homicide

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."

-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999

This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.

First of all, while the PMA (the group that compiled the aforementioned fact sheet) is happy to report percentage decreases in the firearm homicide rate, I do wonder why they neglect to mention the actual numbers this percentage was derived from. If you deem this information irrelevant, then you should be even more impressed that my parents' hometown experienced a 75% reduction in their murder rate--from 4 people murdered in 2001, to only 1 murder in 2002.

Evident to anyone who pauses to think about what they're reading is a blatant fallacy in the last paragraph. The editors of this fact sheet are implying that the halving of the Australian murder rate since 1915 is due entirely to increasingly restrictive gun control laws. However, correlation does not equal causation, and the reasons for the civilizing of Australian society are likely to be far more complex.

Homicide by Any Method

The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.

The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.

What interests me about this paragraph is how they mix the statistics for firearm homicide with the statistics for non-firearm homicide. With a 30% decrease in firearm homicides, this should have a significant effect on the overall homicide statistics. Yet there was only a 9% overall decrease.

This begs the question: Why don't they show us the statistics for non-firearm homicides by themselves?

Gun-Related Death by Any Cause

The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.

The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.

"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia."

-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6

Whoa, hold on a second here. The 1997 count for gun deaths was 437, and was the lowest in 18 years, right? This could be impressive, but we're missing a potentially important piece of information--during what year did gun deaths peak? 1996 is a likely year, but it is also a statistical anomaly (that's the year a single nutcase gunned down 35 people in Tasmania, prompting the draconian Australian gun confiscation). Excepting 1996, I'm willing to bet that Australian gun deaths were trending downward for some years before 1997. Why? Because a single-year rollback of 18 years of escalating gun death numbers would be too great a public relations coup for anti-gun activists to overlook. If that were indeed the case, that statistic would have been heavily promoted in the international press.

Secondly, I may be misunderstanding something here, but this seems hinky to me. First, the PMA states that there were 437 gun deaths in 1997, and that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this number includes all accidental, justifiable and criminal deaths. If this number is correct, then the statistical significance of a 30% drop in the gun homicide rate for 1998 is negatively affected.

But wait! According to this fact sheet, 1997 was the latest date that figures were available. How, then, did the 1998 drop get calculated in the first section of the fact sheet?

As for Mr. J. Mouzos, quoted at the end of this section, the words he chooses are interesting. He seems to indicate that a great portion of Australian gun deaths prior to 1997 were suicides. He also mentions that gun-related robberies are down. Yet the numbers that would make this statement meaningful--the overall suicide and robbery rates--are missing. Which, I suppose, brings us to our next point.

Assault and Robbery

Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.

"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."

-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999

Here, the PMA tries to have their cake and eat it too. Firearm-related homicides and non-firearm-related homicides were related enough to combine their statistics. But non-firearm assault, rape and robbery statistics are summarily dismissed as "irrelevant." Personally, I find this to be illogical, as removing the arms of the law-abiding serves to encourage those who would prey upon them. And I am quite frankly surprised to see confirmation of this fact in this publication--the admission that armed robberies increased by 20%. I would also like to have seen the statistics for assault, rape and unarmed robbery as well, but according to the PMA editors, these are irrelevant. Apparently, crime is only a bad thing if there are guns involved.

Race is irrelevant 99.999% of the time. And the 0.001% of the time it is relevant, someone is looking for a donated organ.
[ Parent ]

Just for the record... (none / 0) (#287)
by Guncrazy on Tue May 13, 2003 at 03:43:28 PM EST

...this proves my point about anti-gun "debaters."

Throw out some dubious anti-gun study as gospel truth, and when confronted with the least bit of questioning about its validity, dismiss and/or insult the questioner.

The anti-gun position is, to its adherents, not a subject for intellectual debate, but religious dogma that is not to be questioned by "heretics" and "infidels".

Race is irrelevant 99.999% of the time. And the 0.001% of the time it is relevant, someone is looking for a donated organ.
[ Parent ]

yeah right (none / 0) (#293)
by lemming prophet on Fri May 16, 2003 at 03:28:26 PM EST

i insulted you? are you hallucinating?

after reading your comment i have to agree that the study wasn't a good example.. it was the first one google found for me...

and i'm not anti-gun... here in switzerland every man has his sig army rifle at home, a gift from the state :)
--
Follow me.
[ Parent ]
good study (none / 0) (#295)
by cronian on Mon May 19, 2003 at 11:00:43 AM EST

Do you know where to find a good study on gun control, et al? I have searched and failed to find one.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
probably in your local university library -nt- (none / 0) (#296)
by lemming prophet on Mon May 19, 2003 at 03:42:47 PM EST


--
Follow me.
[ Parent ]
Actually, that is where I looked (none / 0) (#297)
by cronian on Tue May 20, 2003 at 02:14:46 AM EST

However, I couldn't find any reasonable looking studies. Everything I found seemed highly biased, and I couldn't find much of anything that was comprehensive. I found a bunch of studies showing how gun-related deaths dropped after gun control was implemented, but none of them seemed comprehensive enough to portray a full view. Besides, I would assume that a crackdown on guns would generally be combined with other measures to prevent homicides, and it is hard to determine what the effect is attributable to. Maybe, if I dig through a lot of data I could put something together. However, I have failed to find much of any intelligent discourse on either side of the debate. I believe you need to consider the culture, government, method of getting firearms, and many other sociological and psychological factors along with relevant crime statistics to make a sound case on this issue, and I haven't yet seen it done anywhere.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Pardon me, but (4.16 / 6) (#106)
by shaunak on Tue May 06, 2003 at 02:15:57 PM EST

"I believe that this is more of a problem in India, where such banners have been spotted - "spend xxxx now for a test, or spend xxxxxx in dowry later". Indians were always good at marketing, I'd say."

Sex determination tests are banned in India. The bans are being implemented. Being a country of over a billion means implementation gets fucked up, sometimes. You write about all these unfortunate occurances occuring in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. 100% implementation is really difficult even in the most developed (rich) countries, so let's not bitch about the poor ones. Also, generalising about countries is so incorrect. I live in Pune (population > 5 million, I think), near Bombay and frankly, there are two or three rapes occuring here ever year - face it, they occur everywhere, even in the rich countries. Acid throwing occurs in Kashmir because some women don't wear burquas there. It's done by the millitants.
I don't say India is absolutely safe, but most of it is. So please, if you want to generalise about your country, be my guest, but don't do it about mine.

Thanks for the info. (4.00 / 4) (#123)
by Cruel Elevator on Tue May 06, 2003 at 05:37:47 PM EST

I will update my database accordingly. You say that:

1.Women are well protected in India
2.Rapes are in control
3.Crimes against women are very low
4.Sexual harassment at public places is negligible
5.Dowry is non-existent, and almost all women get married without paying dowry
6.There is no preference for male child, and women aren't "blamed" for "producing" female children
7.Women are not pressurized to be married by the society
8.Arranged marriages / love marriages are equally common and getting married is not a very expensive business

Sounds like a great place. This is not exactly what I knew about India. However, since you are an Indian, what you say about your country must be true, right?

[ Parent ]

Look. (4.00 / 1) (#155)
by Akshay on Tue May 06, 2003 at 11:55:06 PM EST

I know what he said might be a bit challenging, but which part of "don't generalise" didn't you understand?

[ Parent ]

No, I say ... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by shaunak on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:39:47 PM EST

When you say India is unsafe for women, you generalise. When you claim that I said India is safe for women, you say I generalise, which is exactly what I oppose. All I've said in my original post is that there are some regions which are pretty nice for women to live in and then there are some hell holes. So calling the whole of India a hell hole for women is incorrect. I never mentioned any of the 8 points you've updated your database with.
e.g. Sexual harassment in Delhi is much more than sexual harassment in Mumbai in public places (if you're indecent in most parts of mumbai, you're thrashed by the public - plain and simple). So there's no single rule of the thumb to go by.

Cheers,
Shaunak.

[ Parent ]

yeah right... (4.50 / 2) (#124)
by usmanc on Tue May 06, 2003 at 05:51:36 PM EST

I live in Pune (population > 5 million, I think), near Bombay and frankly, there are two or three rapes occuring here ever year... So please, if you want to generalise about your country, be my guest, but don't do it about mine.

Whatever, man. I think I'll believe these guys over you:

Sexual Harrassment, abuse, rape, pornography in India: Statistics from 2000 showed that on average a woman is raped every hour in India. Women's groups attest that the strict and conservative attitudes about sex and family privacy contribute to ineffectiveness of India's rape laws.

And though this probably doesn't happen where you live, what about that little problem of killing women by throwing them into their husband's funeral pyre? Even in the year 2000, you hear about Sati occurring in rural villages.

[ Parent ]

One per hour is pretty good, really.. (4.66 / 3) (#130)
by jmzero on Tue May 06, 2003 at 07:05:59 PM EST

...given their population.  Adjusting for population, that would mean less than 1 rape a day here in Canada.  I don't know the statistics, but I'd be mighty surprised if our rate was that low.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
Never forget (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by oberbimbo on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:55:03 AM EST

that in most western countries, it is encouraged to report rapes. Not so in most under developped countries and certainly not in Islamic ones where the brother is supposed to kill his sister because the families honor got destroyed or so I thought. The fact that most countries nowadays have laws against this doesn't mean all too much.

[ Parent ]
Certainly.. (4.00 / 1) (#190)
by jmzero on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:04:28 PM EST

All I'm saying is that one an hour seems low.  Whatever problem with rape there may be in India, it's not highlighted by this figure.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
Sati is a non-issue (5.00 / 4) (#142)
by splitpeasoup on Tue May 06, 2003 at 09:25:21 PM EST

Sati has a nice Indiana-Jones feel to it. The fact is, the number of women in India who suffer this practice is very small nowadays - perhaps one or two a year.

In contrast, dowry harassment and neglect of girl children are rampant.

Westerners would do well to focus on these less sensational but more insidious forms of oppression.

-SPS

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi
[ Parent ]

Yes and no (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by splitpeasoup on Tue May 06, 2003 at 09:02:01 PM EST

No doubt women are more liberated in India than in several other places. But let's not start celebrating quite yet.

Girls in India are often neglected with regard to nutrition and schooling. Despite the illegality of sex tests and sex-selective abortions, some north Indian states have F:M ratios in the 800's per 1000. Women are often not empowered or allowed to make their own choices. For many, the dowry system continues to ensure that they are unwanted by their own families and exploited by their in-laws.

Pune is definitely one of the most liberated cities in India and to extrapolate from it is misleading.

For most women, life still is hard in India relative to Western countries. Much progress has been made in the last 100 years or so, but still much work remains to be done.

-SPS

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi
[ Parent ]

I'm not extrapolating from Pune (5.00 / 1) (#193)
by shaunak on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:35:14 PM EST

My point is simple. It's really difficult to implement any laws when the population is this high. Secondly, generalising about any country for that matter is incorrect. You mention the north Indian states with abyssmal F:M ratios. What about Kerela? The North Eastern states? You're right, life is difficult for women in many parts, but that isn't the only India there is. There is much work to be done, but saying that women are terribly repressed in India will most probably give the impression to those who haven't been here that the whole place is like this. It isn't. I'm not extrapolating. I gave Pune as an example of a place in India where this (what was claimed in the story) doesn't happen.

Cheers,
Shaunak.

[ Parent ]

Wait a gosh-darned second... (3.00 / 4) (#109)
by Motekye on Tue May 06, 2003 at 03:20:13 PM EST

if people don't want to have any daughters, and have abortions of their daughters, then kill their daughters, their daughters get raped, acidized, etc...

Aren't you gonna run out of daughters eventually?

Remember, it takes two to have a child. Coupled with these harems I keep hearing about, I would think you'd be running out of women!


Grrr....
Developing Daugther Shortage? Exactly. (4.00 / 2) (#112)
by cmholm on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:01:59 PM EST

Modern medical technology will in fact speed up the tendency of the dominant cultures of India, China, and to some extent Bangladesh and Pakistan to end up short of potential mothers/wives.

In fact, in some parts of China, this has finally started to seriously affect the demographics.

[ Parent ]

Oh well, there's always the army -nt (4.00 / 1) (#118)
by czth on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:31:00 PM EST



[ Parent ]
won't that just encourage rape? (4.00 / 1) (#128)
by julewren on Tue May 06, 2003 at 06:30:27 PM EST

One way of looking at the growing disparity between the number of women and number of men in the nation is that, eventually, women will become a commodity. If women are a commodity, then with time the dowry should go down, and people would take better care of their women... hopefully. But on the other hand, it's entirely possible that a growing lack of women will just encourage rape and prostitution. If you can't get a woman the good old fashioned way, why not coerce her into doing what you want her to do? It's the second option that scares me...

[ Parent ]
Finally affecting Chinese demographics? (4.00 / 2) (#188)
by oberbimbo on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:59:47 AM EST

They had those problems every few decades in past centuries. Usually, they'd go to war when the male/female ratio got too messed up.

[ Parent ]
How to clean up the UN (4.28 / 7) (#113)
by truckaxle on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:13:44 PM EST

I always thought membership to the United Nations should be rescricted to those countries that meet certain thresholds. For example, providing minimum basic human rights to women such as the right to vote, equal access to education and health care, gender free laws, etc. This of course to would exclude most of the Middle East and large parts of Africa. The mistreatment of women will be the most important civil rights issues of the century as it effects 50% of the population. Also, normalizing the rights of women is key to controlling population growth and furthering the pace of progress by gaining access to the talents and abilities of half any existing population.

Some like it hot Mozilla Users get an automatic %5 Discount . . .
Do they *need* to be part of the UN? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by slykens on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:29:13 PM EST

You're making the potential mistake of assuming that membership in the United Nations is desired or necessary. Many people in many places have different opinions as to the usefulness of the UN.

Simply put, unless membership in the UN is required to have access to the World Bank, IMF, or other aid agencies, booting these countries out of the UN will accomplish nothing but diplomatic isolation. (And whether the World Bank and IMF are truly aid agencies is another discussion)

Another problem is the ingrained and sometimes religous basis for the mistreatment of women. I am trying to figure out how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all share very common roots but yet mistreatment of women is far more prevelent in predominately Islamic countries than the other two.

[ Parent ]

Renaissance... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
by nlaporte on Tue May 06, 2003 at 10:20:40 PM EST

Another problem is the ingrained and sometimes religous basis for the mistreatment of women. I am trying to figure out how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all share very common roots but yet mistreatment of women is far more prevelent in predominately Islamic countries than the other two.

Based on what I've learned in various history classes I think that the difference has to do with the lack, in Islamic culture, of a Protestant-style Reformation and Renaissance. If you leaf through a European history textbook, the treatment of women seems to improve markedly starting at about the time of the Reformation. Since Judaism was never a major religion, the Jews basically went along with the European society, since they didn't have a lot of choice and all.

Islam, in constrast, has not had an archliberal movement splinter off that way. If anything, modern Islam as it runs countries has gotten more conservative. That may be the answer that you're looking for.


--
John Shydoubie. Shydoubie. John Shydoubie. John Shydoubie.
[ Parent ]
i doubt that (none / 0) (#222)
by Alt SysRq B on Thu May 08, 2003 at 01:08:57 AM EST

In Eastern Europe the Reformation and Renaissance never had a too big echo. Yet the women always got a pretty good treatment.
Things didn't change there too much in that regard.

[ Parent ]
Not a prudent approach (5.00 / 1) (#161)
by blakdogg on Wed May 07, 2003 at 01:23:55 AM EST

How is not allowing Bangladesh to join the UN beneficial to anyone ?!

The 'atrocities' in Bangladesh are more likely to disappear due to the possession of a more open modernized society. This behaviour is generally symptomatic of perverted 'traditions' and I doubt isolation would fix the problem

I would like to note that I was of the impression that Bangladesh was merely a poor country, not the hotbed of oppression it is being described as. Also lie to point out this is a large country 133 million, more than half the size of the US.
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

Solution? (3.80 / 5) (#116)
by gandalf23 on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:20:43 PM EST

So what is the solution to the problem? Education will help, but that takes a looong time. That doesn't mean we should not try to educate folks, but is just an acknowledgement that it will take time for it to become effective.

We could work for a better/fairer justice system. Where the local police and judges acknowledge that these are crimes that should be punished. We could educate the men that this is wrong. We could work with the local elders to see to it that they know that this is wrong and should be punished with jail time, not by marrying the offender to the victim or by the gift of a bribe. But this will also take time.

So what can we do to help these women now? I say we look ot the example to Phoolan Devi. She was Indian, not Bangladeshi, but they are very simmilar cultures. She was married off at age 11, raped, beaten, finally kidnaped by bandaits. It was there that she decided enough was enough and became a bandit. She helped out other women who'd been victimized and took a measure of revenge upon her own tormentors. Eventually she surrendered to the authorities, then after she was released she became a political leader. Her book is inspiring and yet evil in it's depiction of man's inhumanity to (wo)man.

Another poster suggested, I believe in jest, that the woman should be armed with pistols, as is the option in much of the USA. However, I believe that even the least expensive "Saturday night special" |*| would be far out of the reach of most woman in trouble in Bangladesh. But arming themselves would not be an altogether bad thing, I think. Perhaps the local woman could start carrying knives?

Surely they already own at least one knife for cooking chores. And more should be readily available, I would think, as well as relatively inexpensive. If not a knife, then a frying pan, or the local equivalent (you may scoff, but ask a woman friend to whomp you upside the head with a frying pan sometime and you'll see why it's pretty effective).

I would suggest to any woman in Bangladesh, that she, whenever possible, travel in a group (safety in numbers) _and_ that she carry on her person a knife. If someone tries to attack you, slash the crap out of his arms. Don't try to stab, you'll have to get real close for that to work and then he'll be right on top of you. Slash and run. Slash and run. If he catches you, cut his genitalia. If you can, try to do this with an upward, rather than downward motion, as if you miss you'll gut him instead of missing him completely. Either way, he is screwed. Then get up and run.

If more women would do this, the attacks would lessen.

gandalf23@work


|*| Off Topic: A racist term, used by white supremicists in the 60's to describe the only guns availabe to the majority of the black population in the US. "Nigger guns" didn't have quite the same appeal. People on both sides of the civil rights fence could get behind the banning of "Saturday Night Specials" to keep them out of the hands of criminals. This led to the passing of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was aimed at stopping blacks from purchasing arms in the US (no more purchasing guns through the mail [your only option if black and in the South], no more inexpensive imported handguns [your only option if poor], no more inexpensive imported machine guns [neccessary to fend off well armed clansmen and their like] = no more guns for most black folks).

Slightly off topic, but to correct bad advice... (5.00 / 2) (#159)
by Guncrazy on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:47:15 AM EST

Slashing is not the most effective way to fight with a knife, and going for the arms makes this technique even less so.

Stabbing is the far better option. Close enough to slash is almost close enough to stab. Closing that miniscule distance takes but a fraction of a second, and the attack becomes far more effective. Step towards your opponent. Grab their clothing to pull them towards you. Stab into the lower abdomen, twist, then slash as you withdraw the blade. Repeat as necessary.

Race is irrelevant 99.999% of the time. And the 0.001% of the time it is relevant, someone is looking for a donated organ.
[ Parent ]

I stand corrected ntxt (none / 0) (#177)
by gandalf23 on Wed May 07, 2003 at 10:47:32 AM EST



[ Parent ]
it depends on the desired result (none / 0) (#223)
by Alt SysRq B on Thu May 08, 2003 at 01:54:05 AM EST

Slashing almost never results in death. Stabbing almost always does.

[ Parent ]
The Only Fair Fight Is The One You Win (none / 0) (#225)
by Guncrazy on Thu May 08, 2003 at 02:30:33 AM EST

Due to the lethal nature of combat involving knives or guns, the prime objective of the defender must be the immediate and complete incapacitation of the attacker. That is, if the defender cares at all about survival.

The more you fuck around (fucking around being defined as "remaining engaged without a committment to resolving the fight decisively in your favor"), whether it's because you have issues about hurting people or because you want to show off your Mad Skills(tm), the more likely you are to be injured, disarmed and/or killed.

Race is irrelevant 99.999% of the time. And the 0.001% of the time it is relevant, someone is looking for a donated organ.
[ Parent ]

RE: Solution? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by teece on Wed May 07, 2003 at 04:58:43 AM EST

I like your idea, in principle. However, I doubt it would work. There would be a couple of very significant hurdles.

1) Women in this culture are taught from the time they are baby girls to be submissive. I bet most would be very reluctant to carry a weapon and use it. It is against their view of themselves. Even if they did, however, they may not be very effective at using it. The knife could very easily end up in the hand of the attacking male. A bad situation has just gone to worse.

2) The way women are being treated is not an accident: it is a result of fundamental beliefs and behaviors built into the society. Many men, and to some degree society at large, will believe they have the right to treat women this way. Thus, if a woman does successfully defend herself against an attacker (say by, cutting off his balls or gutting him), she is probably highly likely to face very severe punishment. If these women live in a community where this type of behaviour is tolerated, how likely do you think it will be that folks will believe her argument of self-defense?

That said, if it was one of my sister or wife, I would want her to carry a weapon. But I suspect it may have some very nasty consequences for her if she had to use it. But in the long run, unless major changes in the society take place, this is not going to make life any better for women. Some other solution needs to be adopted.

Very sad.


-- Hello_World.c, 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...
[ Parent ]

Well, we could.. (2.00 / 1) (#171)
by Sesquipundalian on Wed May 07, 2003 at 06:50:33 AM EST

I believe that even the least expensive "Saturday night special" |*| would be far out of the reach of most woman in trouble in Bangladesh

Now if we could just get the CIA to supply them with weapons... -heh although it'd be probably M16's instead of snub nosed revolvers.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
[ Parent ]
A case of irony (none / 0) (#267)
by epepke on Fri May 09, 2003 at 06:46:51 PM EST

Fighting using any form of weapon requires a willingness to maim or kill in self-defense. It's not a decision that one can safely make in the heat of battle; it has to be made beforehand. If anything, the commitment has to be greater in the case of a knife, because the maiming and killing has to be done up close.

So, for knives to be effective for large numbers of Bangladeshi women, then large numbers of Bangladeshi women would have to be willing and able to adopt that attitude up front. This would be a very good thing. However, if they did that, then there would be other effects that would ameliorate the problem and make the actual knives or firearms less important. There might be civil disobedience, for example, or simple political pressure. One person may be reluctant to rock the boat, but tens of thousands of like-minded individuals can rock it up a treat.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
The freedom of women doesn't matter (2.16 / 6) (#119)
by the on Tue May 06, 2003 at 04:34:17 PM EST

That's how it seems to me. If this were happening to men things would be quite different. For example if it were happening to men of a particular ethnic denomination they could call upon the international community and flee the country recognized as asylum seekers. But when it happens to women nobody cares. Very sad.

--
The Definite Article
Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by usmanc on Tue May 06, 2003 at 05:16:47 PM EST

This used to be enough to get asylum in the United States - documentable proof that you'd probably get killed if you were sent back home. But the rules changed after 9/11. I'd imagine that most European countries would accept a woman fleeing this kind of violence. Getting to a "safe haven" is the problem, especially when men control what little money there is.

[ Parent ]
That was slippery (4.00 / 1) (#139)
by tebrow on Tue May 06, 2003 at 08:51:40 PM EST

First you asserted that the situation would be quite different if the people in question were men. Then in your example you made them men and "of a particular ethnic demomination". My guess is that if the women being tortured and disfigured met that same condition they could find asylum as well. On the other hand, I haven't seen a case in which men as a group have been targeted by women for some type of violence and subsequently been granted asylum.

I certainly agree that women are not equally protected within the borders of Bangladesh, but I disagree with your belief that the international community is especially apathetic towards them.

[ Parent ]
On the topic of abortion in South Asia... (4.20 / 5) (#121)
by usmanc on Tue May 06, 2003 at 05:12:35 PM EST

From India's lost girls:

A marriage crisis is hitting thousands of men in parts of rural India which are running out of potential brides.

The traditional preference for boys instead of girls has led to widespread abuse of modern pre-natal scans.

And here are a few more links: The Vanishing Girls of India and Abortion et all in India

This kind of stuff happens mostly in the villages - major cities are fairly safe for women and girls. The laws in India that ban gender selection are unpopular and selectively enforced. As long as clinics keep up with their payments to the police, they'll be given plenty of warning before a well-publicized "crackdown". But I have to question what right the state has to force a couple to have an unwanted child.

I'd also like to point out that though women are treated just as brutally in Pakistan, there is no culture of infanticide or foeticide. Additionally, the idea that a "woman can only have an identity through marriage" is nonexistant. And finally, the head of state in the early 90's was a woman (Benazir Bhutto). Sure, she's in exile now, but she still managed to get elected in an Islamic state.



may I point out that... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
by Cruel Elevator on Tue May 06, 2003 at 06:10:26 PM EST

both our (Bangladesh's) current and former Prime Ministers are females, and it doesn't amount to a rat's ass?

[ Parent ]
damn! (3.00 / 1) (#179)
by usmanc on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:26:04 AM EST

That's what I get for not following the news.

/me crawls back under the bridge

[ Parent ]

"Market value?" (none / 0) (#227)
by jeti on Thu May 08, 2003 at 06:22:40 AM EST

If there are many men around who are unable to find a bride, doesn't it make women more valueable, and give them a better social standing?

[ Parent ]
Slaves were valuable too <n/t> (none / 0) (#254)
by carbon on Thu May 08, 2003 at 09:57:29 PM EST



Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
[ Parent ]
Cultural difference (4.28 / 7) (#127)
by Cruel Elevator on Tue May 06, 2003 at 06:13:55 PM EST

See, what some people may not understand is that some women remain helpless and vulnerable because for them, there is NO OTHER WAY. Trained from birth to be submissive. Only objective in life is to get married and have children. Position of husband is like next to a god. Fighting back, standing up for their own rights - these are alien concepts here. A woman is generally beaten by her husband forever without her fighting back. Ever.

How can you ask for your rights when you don't know that you have any?

Besides, when the law and order situation is as bad as it can be (in a non-war environment), the economy is busted (I don't have an elegant word for this) and criminals are running ALL political parties, "rights" seem to disappear pretty fast.

Good example (2.66 / 9) (#135)
by SwampGas on Tue May 06, 2003 at 08:09:04 PM EST

One of the episodes of Enterprise dealt with cultural differences.

The crew encountered a new people who are tri-gendered...in addition to the normal male/female, there was a 3rd gender which contained an enzyme necessary for reproduction.  It was neither male nor female, yet they proved it had the same physical and mental capabilities as anyone else.  The culture shock?  They treated these 3rd gendered people as if they were pets...animals...they were not taught to read/write, they were not educated, they were totally submissive, they were used and given away.

Trip (one of the Enterprise officers) felt this was wrong, so he taught this person to read...showed this person around...told this person it could do anything it wanted.

The people were not used to this.  They told this 3rd gender person what they always did...and they put it down.  It ended up committing suicide.

I think that particular episode really hit home recently because of this Iraq stuff...and it totally puts this K5 aticle into perspective.

Most, if not all women in the US, could beat the crap out of me...and probably give most men a run for their money.  That's the way WE are.  To other countries, giving women equal rights and treating them as equals makes we men look weak and powerless.  We see it the exact opposite...men are overbearing and cruel in these other countries.

Anyone is capable of anything...but if their culture says otherwise, so be it.  Don't interfere.  Just like that episode of Enterprise, terrible things happen when you try and screw with a culture.

Not winning immediately != losing (4.33 / 3) (#143)
by splitpeasoup on Tue May 06, 2003 at 09:42:24 PM EST

terrible things happen when you try and screw with a culture

Not necessarily. When you screw around without doing your homework first, or you expect instant results, yes, terrible things might happen. That's not the same as saying, you shouldn't even try.

Cultures are not static things. They can and should be changed as appropriate. Should we all follow your advice, blacks would still be slaves in the US today.

-SPS

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi
[ Parent ]

Not necessarily (4.50 / 2) (#146)
by SwampGas on Tue May 06, 2003 at 10:09:40 PM EST

Should we all follow your advice, blacks would still be slaves in the US today.

If they followed my advice, they would not have viewed the Africans as lower than themselves and enslaved them in the first place. They would have left their culture alone.

Remember, the slavery concept worked for centuries. You'd become indebted, work it off, and become free again. It's the American slavery that was wrong and gave the concept a bad reputation.

[ Parent ]
Check your facts (5.00 / 1) (#178)
by CENGEL3 on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:17:04 AM EST

In many African cultures slavery was perfectly acceptable and practiced.

In fact a large proportion of African slaves that ended up in the New World were origionaly captured, made slaves and sold to Europeans by thier fellow Africans.

"Slavery" was significantly different from "indentured servitude"... indentured servents enjoyed many rights that slaves did not.
Not that indentured servitude itself was a particulary enlightened system.

Europe did have a concept of actual slavery (of Europeans) rather then indenture but you have to go back quite a bit further to encounter it.

Finally, your use of the term "American" slavery might be a bit misleading..... unless you are talking about "The Americas" in the broader sense. Since a great deal of the slavery that took place (argueably the worst examples of it)occured outside the borders of the U.S., Haiti under French rule would be a prime example.

Ultimately (IMO) "cultural relativity" is a failed arguement. While I do recognize that it is important to recognize and try to understand cultural differences that does not mean that one should not seek to promote ones own cultural mores when dealing with the world at large nor should one ignore ones own ethical/moral values when dealing with other (regardless of thier culture).

[ Parent ]

Shhhh! (5.00 / 1) (#201)
by BadmanX on Wed May 07, 2003 at 02:59:57 PM EST

You're not supposed to mention that! You're also not supposed to mention that the Europeans bought just as many slaves from them as we Americans did! Nor are you supposed to mention that the only countries left on Earth that haven't abolished slavery are Muslim ones! America was the ONLY country that ever bought, owned or used slaves, and we certainly didn't fight a gruesome war, costing several hundred thousand lives, to make things right! In fact, you could EASILY say that slavery still goes on in the US today!

[ Parent ]
do you really believe that (3.00 / 2) (#213)
by lemming prophet on Wed May 07, 2003 at 06:27:28 PM EST

the war was about slavery in the first place?
hmm then you probably also believe that pearl harbor was a genuine surprise attack, and that god created woman from a rib of adam...

--
Follow me.
[ Parent ]
Put your foot in it. (none / 0) (#239)
by CENGEL3 on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:40:59 AM EST

You seem to be in danger of falling into a trap my friend, that of oversimplfying historical events to an absurd degree and assigning thier "true meaning" to only that which some revisionist moron years later selectively decides is important in defining the event.

Historical events of the maginitude you are talking about aren't created or sustained by the actions of one or even a few individuals...they involve the initiative of a vast multitude of individuals all with thier own motivations.

Outside of the grossest generalizations it is a mistake to condense a broad historical event to be "about" any one thing, and even there one need tread very carefully. Events of that magnitude are about many different things to many different people.

Leaving aside for the moment conspiracy theories about what FDR may have known (which may or may not be true), Pearl Harbor was indeed a genuine surprise attack to the vast majority of people effected by it (including the command staff at Pearl), hence the impact it had.

Likewise the American Civil War was "about" many different things to many different people. However one of the greatest catalysts for the war WAS support for abolition in the North. Furthermore, if you listen to the letters, in their own words, of the soldiers who fought the war you will find that among the Union troops, emancipation (along with preservation of the Union) was indeed one of the major factors that led men to fight. Remember that these were volunteer armies. If a soldier writes that he is fighting for this reason, who are you to say that he fought and died for something else? Doing so is to exercise the height of hubris.

Men know why they fight. Thier reasons may sometimes be different then those which thier leaders ascribe to.... what makes you assume that the former are less true, less meaningfull and less historicaly significant then the latter?

[ Parent ]

universal human rights (2.42 / 7) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Tue May 06, 2003 at 10:09:12 PM EST

you believe that rights for females ends at the border of your western democracy.

i believe that rights for females extends across the entire globe.

strangely enough, that makes my principles more liberal and progressive than yours, and so i grow even more certain in my belief that invading Iraq was right.

especially if the argument against invading iraq are from inward-looking, nonprogressive types like yourself.

i am not american, french, chinese, russian, iraqi, or anything else. i am not homosexual or heterosexual. i am not black or white. i am not muslim or christian. i am not young or old. i am not male or female.

i am a human being, a human being first above all things.

the more people think like you, the more we are doomed.

the more people think like me, the more hope there is in this world.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I am not a Bangladeshi (3.83 / 6) (#160)
by Alan Dershowitz on Wed May 07, 2003 at 01:07:29 AM EST

we may all be human beings, but we sure don't share a common value system. I wish we all thought the same things were wrong, but we don't.

All these myriad governments and cultures exist because people think differently--its not a fabrication made up to oppress women. I might add, a lot of men women and children are starving to death in said countries. Why should we single out women? A lot of people need help right now. What about them?

I can understand your desire to help people who are oppressed, but people really do think different. What if someone came to where you lived and determined that everyone had to be Christian for their own good? How about if some other country decided that our government was too corrupt, and invaded and replaced it with their system? It's really not progressive at all, its one of the oldest flavors of oppression.

Meddling in other people's cultures is playing with fire. It's based off of a flawed and often bigoted belief that "inferior" cultures need the benefit of our help. So much of the bloodshed in the world today is due to the interference of Europe though colonialism.

We all have one right, and its a right that comes along with being an individual--We have a right to think for ourselves. If we are being mistreated, we have a right to do something about it. I can't speak for the women in Bangladesh. The women in Bangladesh speak for the women in Bangladesh. When I speak for the women in Bangladesh, I am oppressing them. Maybe I'm not throwing acid in their faces, but I'm still oppressing them. When I interfere, I am imposing my values on someone else's culture. Compared to a million cultures on the planet, I think my value system is right. So does everyone else. The doctrine of noninterference says everyone thinks they know what's best for them--the corollory is that I don't know better than someone else what's best for them. Even if I did, it's not my right to impose it.

I'm not saying that I think that Bangladeshi women aren't being horribly abused, and I'm not saying that your intentions aren't honorable. I'm saying that the best people to decide whats good them is themselves.

[ Parent ]

you stupid fuck (1.25 / 8) (#165)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 07, 2003 at 02:19:21 AM EST

it is your philosophy that means people should continue to suffer in this world

a woman is equal to a man

I REPEAT FUCKHEAD

A WOMAN IS EQUAL TO A MAN

that is not neocolonialism. that is not cultural bigotry

THAT IS PLAIN FUCKING COMMON SENSE

the planet earth is not some fucking star trek episode demonstrating the wondeful pc joys of the prime directive

a human being is a human being is a human being

until people start thinking like that, and not your walking on eggshells bullshit, we are all doomed

what is a bangladeshi compared to a european?

THE SAME FUCKING FLESH AND BLOOD

DESERVING THE SAME FUCKING EQUAL TREATMENT

the way you talk about bangladeshis is like they are some strange exotic alien species

they are YOUR EQUAL

THEY DESERVE AS MUCH AS YOU

YOUR RIGHTS DO NOT END AT THE BORDER OF YOUR PATHETIC LITTLE COUNTRY

you sir represent the most patronizing evil asshole cowardly way of thinking about the world and it's people's imaginable

you are stupid, and evil

it is EXACTLY your kind of thinking that stands in the way of progress and prosperity for all the world's peoples

speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil: makes all the world a hellish place

we are all human beings... FIRST AND FOREMOST ABOVE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR SECONDARY OBSERVATIONS

know true wisdom, you stupid, obstructionist fuck

we are supposed to CARE about each other in this world! DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT!?

all you have demonstrated is a rationalization for walling your mind away from your humanity

so all you have really done is reduced your life to that of a shell: you don't care about anyone but yourself your stupid little insignificant provincialism

die stupid xenophobic fucks

the more there are of you in this world, the more we all suffer

god do i hate you

your way of thinking truly represents the antithesis of everything i care about

because you demonstrate nothing but a mentality that suppresses caring about your fellow human being!

you are truly evil and stupid, you know that? your way of thinking stands against all progress and prosperity in this world, and is so stifling patronizing you can't even conceive of how patronizing you are.

i wish i could spit in your face right now. i have known true evil: your way of thinking about your fellow human beings.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I care about you enough to say (2.00 / 2) (#215)
by Alan Dershowitz on Wed May 07, 2003 at 08:01:47 PM EST

If this is an honest-to-God stream of consciousness from your brain, you need to get back on your meds NOW.

You don't own any firearms, do you? You seem kinda prone to violent outbursts...The men in the white coats are going to take you away now--don't resist, they know what's best for you.

[ Parent ]

hey dude (1.00 / 1) (#235)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:43:26 AM EST

you look inward, towards rot

or you look outward, and care for your fellow human being

understand where you and i stand

and then understand why i hate your thinking and the misery it causes and has caused throughout human history


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

thats funny.... (3.00 / 1) (#241)
by Alan Dershowitz on Thu May 08, 2003 at 01:49:44 PM EST

The world doesn't need your condescending and arrogant "love".

We'll see who's hated in the long run. I'd love to see your version of "love" in action, you diahhrea spouting, arrogant little twat. Every time you post, you leave the conversation a little less genial and constructive. If this is the method you'd use to make the world a better place, if this is how you demonstrate your "care for fellow man", I thank God that the nurses ignore your demands to loosen the bedstraps.

God bless...

[ Parent ]

i love hypocrisy (1.00 / 1) (#242)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 08, 2003 at 02:19:13 PM EST

HAHAHAHAHAHA

ok, help me out here...

I'd love to see your version of "love" in action, you diahhrea spouting, arrogant little twat. Every time you post, you leave the conversation a little less genial and constructive.

so what do we learn in life when we accuse someone of something... while we do the same damn thing? lol ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I never said I loved you (none / 0) (#300)
by Alan Dershowitz on Thu Jun 12, 2003 at 08:55:12 PM EST

you piece of dog shit.

[ Parent ]
yeah.. (none / 0) (#220)
by Mizuno Ami on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:34:07 PM EST

Women deserve the same treatment of men. Except when it would be bad for women.

[ Parent ]
you're a sexist (1.00 / 1) (#234)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:42:08 AM EST

because you, as an indivual, say sexist things about women, a class of people

you talk about individuals, not classes of people

if you understand that concept, everything you say is proven false

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What do we deserve? (none / 0) (#298)
by Kintanon on Thu May 22, 2003 at 02:07:44 PM EST


Ahem,
People, including women, deserve precisely as many rights and priveledges as they are willing to fight for.
If the women of Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc... are not willing to fight for their equal rights via any necessary means then there is nothing that can be done to free them. You CAN NOT free people who do not wish to be free.
Ideally women and men the world over, of all skin colors and religions would have equal oportunity and equal treatment. But women need to FIGHT for that. Not wait for some man from another country to come rescue them.
So, if one wants to be equal, one must get up off ones ass and be willing to die for ones equality. They must refuse to labor under their current conditions any longer. Fight back en masse.
Until they are willing, no one else can free them.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

WTF is this? (5.00 / 2) (#167)
by SwampGas on Wed May 07, 2003 at 03:42:35 AM EST

You, sir, need to reread my comment. You not only missed the entire point, but you went off on an unrelated tangent to further your own trolling.

you believe that rights for females ends at the border of your western democracy.

Could you please point out where I said that?

strangely enough, that makes my principles more liberal and progressive than yours, and so i grow even more certain in my belief that invading Iraq was right. especially if the argument against invading iraq are from inward-looking, nonprogressive types like yourself.

What the hell does Iraq have to do with what I said? This is not a debate on US vs Iraq. It's a debate on the cultre shock experienced when 2 VERY different cultures collide. Iraqi culture and history...not the Iraqi government and war.

Am I for the war with Iraq? Yes. Saddam was doing stuff which affected the US. Come on, we didn't go on there to "help the Iraqi people." It was a simple political statement to help the tree hugging hippies not protest the war. The reason why we invaded and removed him from power is because he would LOVE to see the US hit with nuclear and biological weapons and he's demonstrated he's willing to do so. Now, back to the subject...

the more people think like you, the more we are doomed.

The United States did think like me many years ago. It was called a 'closed door policy'; meaning we would respect other cultures and stay out of their business. After WWII we seemed to have this overbearing disrespect for other cultures and we try to change them to suit our needs. Suddenly everyone in the world hates us. Gee whiz...

the more people think like me, the more hope there is in this world.

That's PRECISELY what this is about. Not everyone thinks like you. It's what a culturally diverse world is. Heil heir ubercircle!

[ Parent ]
erm... (2.50 / 2) (#187)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:56:35 AM EST

Anyone is capable of anything...but if their culture says otherwise, so be it.  Don't interfere.  Just like that episode of Enterprise, terrible things happen when you try and screw with a culture.

you believe that rights for females ends at the border of your western democracy.

Could you please point out where I said that?

done

Am I for the war with Iraq? Yes.

my brain is frying over the cognitive dissonance with your "don't interfere" quote above.

The United States did think like me many years ago. It was called a 'closed door policy'; meaning we would respect other cultures and stay out of their business. After WWII we seemed to have this overbearing disrespect for other cultures and we try to change them to suit our needs. Suddenly everyone in the world hates us. Gee whiz...

ummm... excuse me oh my logical flipping master...

would it be correct to assume you are saying neoisolationism is a superior world attitude for the us to take?

i don't want to be accused of any fanciful leads of logic here. especially since you seem to have the fanciful flips of statement all tied up.

don't let my simpleminded ideas of consistency in what you say interfere with your righteous indignation now...

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Heh. (3.00 / 2) (#175)
by Znork on Wed May 07, 2003 at 09:22:15 AM EST

As far as female rights go, Iraq is very likely to get a whole lot worse than it ever was under Saddam.

If you imagine Islamic sharia law, which appears to be the most popular wish in the country, will be an improvement over Saddam for most women I suggest you rethink.

[ Parent ]

doh! (1.00 / 1) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:41:28 AM EST

or maybe the us will make a DEMOCRACY in iraq, which better than BOTH of your choices

DOH!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I heard those glass houses get hot in summer (5.00 / 2) (#191)
by oberbimbo on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:13:56 PM EST

The US should become a democracy itself before inflicting their fucked up view of democracy (moneycracy fits it much better) upon others. Then again, neither is gonna happen.

[ Parent ]
ah yes, people with perspective problems (4.00 / 1) (#197)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:44:39 PM EST

the value of perspective

the us has a LOT of problems (chiefly, the influence of $ in the politics)

but it comes closer to ideal democracy than most other countries in the world

but if you heap all of the us's problems together and compare it to iraq's...

well, come on now, even your remedial kindergarten level abilities of compare and contrast can summon up an idea of "perspective" here...

country with big problems versus country with small problems... ah! what a concept!

it's an interesting concept, perspective, try it out some time

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

At least Iraqs big problems (none / 0) (#260)
by oberbimbo on Fri May 09, 2003 at 05:57:07 AM EST

don't affect the rest of the world all too much.

And sorry, but the US is far from a working democracy. If you want to see a working democracy (far from ideal, but much closer to democracy than the US ever was, even before laws were only more bought), you're invited to come see Switzerland.

Then again, what Eurotrash does isn't relevant to the US, I know.

[ Parent ]

too bad that (5.00 / 1) (#211)
by lemming prophet on Wed May 07, 2003 at 06:20:24 PM EST

the majority in iraq are shiites, and most of them want a theocratic government..
it's probably going to be like in algeria, the first really democratic vote without oppression will bring an oppressive religious party to power..
--
Follow me.
[ Parent ]
turkey (nt) (none / 0) (#232)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:36:38 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Turkey? (none / 0) (#278)
by Znork on Sun May 11, 2003 at 04:59:28 AM EST

Ah, yes, Turkey. Sort-of secular democracy enforced at gunpoint. Besides the democratic shortcomings of having the military taking over every ten years I have a hard time seeing where you'd find a military in Iraq as dedicated to remaining apolitical and not taking sides so they'd actually return political power after every coup.

Not that there arent advantages to Turkeys way of doing things. If the US did things the same way I suspect two thirds or something of the US politicians would be barred from office and/or in jail. I would certainly roll on the floor laughing as the military rolls tanks onto the White House lawn every time Bush rants about God.

[ Parent ]

How do we do that? (5.00 / 1) (#219)
by fn0rd on Wed May 07, 2003 at 09:35:06 PM EST

I know this is late and off-topic and what not, but really, how does the US 'make' a democracy in Iraq? If by democracy you mean a system like the ones you find in most Western nations, with citizens freely voting for representaives in a republic, what's to prevent the Iraqi citizens from electing a bunch of Ayatollahs and having them set up a system similar to the one in Iran? Because by many accounts, that is what the mojority of Iraqis want, and if there is one thing a democracy is supposed to do it's give the majority what it wants(while protecting the rights of the minority, but if you disappear them it ceases to be a problem).

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
you're a racist (2.00 / 1) (#231)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:35:35 AM EST

according to you, only white europeans are capable of living in a democracy

but those poor angry headed brown people, they could never possibly think rationally!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, you're a racist (3.00 / 1) (#237)
by fn0rd on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:13:56 AM EST

according to you, the only acceptable form of government is one invented by a bunch of white (well, olive) europeans. anything that those poor angry headed brown people might think is a good way to be governed is by definition irrational, and something they need to be rescued from. So why don't you just hide under your sheet, you cross-burning facist?

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
democracy (none / 0) (#238)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:40:09 AM EST

...is the best form of govt we have devised as human beings yet.

period.

there is no argument that can foisted up by you that should deny any human being on this planet the right to democracy.

period.

shake your trollish fists at those rocks of gibraltar you fool.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

shmemocracy (none / 0) (#249)
by fn0rd on Thu May 08, 2003 at 08:25:19 PM EST

Well, how can I possibly argue against that rock solid statement, given the way you emphasized you puctuation by actually spelling it out? Nevertheless, the fact remains that people only get democracy when they want democracy. If they want a theocratic regime based on Shariah law, as shitty an alternative as that may be to mrs. circletimessquare and her clique of manifest destiny, white man's burden, western guilt hand-wringers, they're going to get their theocracy instead, unless democracy is imposed from the outside. And imposing any sort of rule against the will of the people is exactly the opposite of democracy.

Can you hear that? It's the sound of cognitive dissonance, as two massive rocks of gibralter grind each other into dust.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]

japan. end of story moron (nt) (none / 0) (#250)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 08, 2003 at 09:01:32 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So now you want to nuke Iraq? [nt] (none / 0) (#262)
by fn0rd on Fri May 09, 2003 at 08:43:41 AM EST



--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
change the subject: that's how you win argument?nt (none / 0) (#264)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 09, 2003 at 03:53:25 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Oh cool! I won! [nt] (none / 0) (#271)
by fn0rd on Fri May 09, 2003 at 10:45:28 PM EST



--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
a quote for you (none / 0) (#275)
by circletimessquare on Sat May 10, 2003 at 09:14:37 AM EST

"Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."

 -- George Santayana

in reference to your nice little subject change there, fuckn0rd ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Japan (none / 0) (#279)
by Znork on Sun May 11, 2003 at 06:33:51 AM EST

Japan had a democratic tradition before the army took over. So did pre-Nazi Germany.

So, what democratic traditions do you plan to build on in Iraq?

[ Parent ]

not democracy, republic (none / 0) (#284)
by Dr Wily on Mon May 12, 2003 at 08:05:59 PM EST

The best form of government not only gives representation to all, but protects the rights of minorities (in this case, those in Iraq who aren't interested in being governed by fundamentalist Islamic doctrine) from being abused by a majority.

And that is precisely the sort of government that the US would create, so it's all good.

[ Parent ]

Sharia (none / 0) (#221)
by mr100percent on Thu May 08, 2003 at 12:50:42 AM EST

What are you basing your opinion of Sharia on? Have you ever noticed how no two countries have equal sharia?

Sharia law is actually quite decent, it's just that the interpretations you've seen in some places (My money says you were thinking Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan) are ridiculous. Muslims worldwide, including leaders and scholars, say that those are both far too strict and right-wing in their interpretations.

Believe it or not, Sharia calls for representative democracy, and a form of Parliment and equal rights of muslims and non-muslims under the law.
--Never trust a guy who tattoes his IP address to his arm, especially if it's DHCP.
[ Parent ]

Sharia (none / 0) (#230)
by Znork on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:29:17 AM EST

Oh, I know Sharia is quite differently interpreted in different countries. However, this was about womens rights, and even the quite liberal versions of Sharia have serious problems with what a secular state would consider gender equality. Even the better kinds of Sharia interpretations I've seen have women and men in 'equal but different' roles.

Of course, fundamentalist Christians have similar problems.

[ Parent ]

equal but different? (none / 0) (#299)
by mr100percent on Mon Jun 09, 2003 at 02:17:21 AM EST

In Islam, men and women are equal in terms of rights.

Women have the right to conduct business, divorce men, get inheritance, keep her own property, and vote. Muslim women were able to vote before Americans, mind you.

Their responsibilites are different. Men go out and earn the money, so the woman usually raises the family. Its supposed to be the roles of each member of the family. Since the man has the responsibility to protect and provide for the family, he typically gets a greater share of authority.

Sharia isnt too bad, its just that every country tries to interpret it differently. Consequently, they're all wrong. Most try to secularize it, and those that dont give it a right-wing slant. All bad ideas.
--Never trust a guy who tattoes his IP address to his arm, especially if it's DHCP.
[ Parent ]

And leave the Krauts alones as well! (1.25 / 4) (#163)
by Lord of Caustic Soda on Wed May 07, 2003 at 01:32:50 AM EST

Sure they like to parade around other countries' national monuments every now and then, and come up with funky inventions like Zyklon B. But that's just them following their proud cultural tradition of improving themselves to their Aryan ideals. Ein Volke, Ein Reich, Ein Furher - they have their own little party and you ain't invited.

[ Parent ]
Hmmmm... (1.05 / 17) (#144)
by CmderTaco on Tue May 06, 2003 at 09:56:26 PM EST

Sounds to me like these guys sure know how to treat women... these women got what every woman has coming to her.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
are you a strange troll or a misogynist? (nt) (none / 0) (#149)
by circletimessquare on Tue May 06, 2003 at 10:31:57 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
i know i'm a misogynist and proud of it... (1.00 / 2) (#150)
by Mizuno Ami on Tue May 06, 2003 at 10:45:04 PM EST

I'm not sure about taco there. All I know is that I had to stay in for recess just because I was a boy lots of times. It was downhill from there. I'm just glad that there hasn't been a draft. I seem to be the only male who's ever experienced something like this, though.

[ Parent ]
you are trying to justify misogyny? (3.00 / 3) (#151)
by circletimessquare on Tue May 06, 2003 at 10:51:38 PM EST

even if your misogyny is somehow personally justifiable by your history as you understand it, you still suck.

hating women sucks.

understand that and shut the fuck up asshole woman hater.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

so (none / 0) (#181)
by Mizuno Ami on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:30:40 AM EST

Would you ever say that to a misandrist? I didn't think so. You probably don't even know what a misandrist is. It's a-ok to hate men all day long, but if I start hating your sex object, then I'm an asshole, ne?

[ Parent ]
it's not ok to hate anyone, fool (nt) (none / 0) (#182)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:38:24 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
blah (none / 0) (#218)
by Mizuno Ami on Wed May 07, 2003 at 09:09:12 PM EST

funny how i never hear that until i start attacking a misandrist

[ Parent ]
i am not a... whatever the fuck you said (none / 0) (#233)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:39:34 AM EST

and i amend my comment:

it is not right to hate CLASSES of people... this is called "prejudice"

this concept is a remedial kindergarten level concept you apparently forgot or nver learned

it is ok to hate INDIVIDUALS based on they way they present their THINKING

and so, i hate you

for being a stupid fuck


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You probably had to stay in at recess... (none / 0) (#244)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu May 08, 2003 at 03:38:18 PM EST

...because you were just as much of a little shit then as you are now. Hmm. Staying in at recess, or getting a faceful of acid. Let me think.

Anyway, you are almost certainly a troll, because very few people who learn to read and write are as stupid as you make yourself appear. In which case, this is no laughing matter. If you must try to wind people up, try to do it on a less important issue. You aren't being funny or original.

I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

good job (none / 0) (#276)
by Mizuno Ami on Sat May 10, 2003 at 10:35:51 AM EST

Here's a cookie. Yes, I am a troll. Now, you explain when I asked the teacher about why I, in particular was staying in for recess. She said that she knew that I wasn't the one causing the trouble, but if she would have let me go and not the other boys, that wouldn't have been fair. Now go fuck yourself.

[ Parent ]
Be strong, big man (none / 0) (#294)
by HollyHopDrive on Fri May 16, 2003 at 05:31:48 PM EST

<Now, you explain when I asked the teacher about why I, in particular was staying in for recess. She said that she knew that I wasn't the one causing the trouble, but if she would have let me go and not the other boys, that wouldn't have been fair.> And you are obviously such a mature and strong man about a pettifogging injustice you suffered years and years ago that even now you still feel compelled to complain about it online. Do your trolling somewhere else. This is a serious issue.

<Now go fuck yourself.> I'd tell you to do the same except there's no need. You're clearly going to go and whack off by yourself without any company because you are, well, who you are and nobody else will come near you. Now fuck you and goodnight.

I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Well. (3.91 / 12) (#152)
by Akshay on Tue May 06, 2003 at 11:12:49 PM EST

Not even in my most perverted fantasies I'd want to be born a woman in my country
At work now, so can't post links about this, but I can assure you that there are many in India (and, surely, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan) who would love to be. And none of them are 'perverted'; I know you were being rhetorical, but calling transsexualism as 'perverted' is as intolerant as female infanticide.

Which leads us to your article. First of all, I agree you are dealing with a very important topic, that of female rights, and one that, you're right, South Asia has to deal with immediately. The problem though, and I think this where your article is lacking, is that you've attempted to attack all angles at the same time with a single cannon. Yes, you've put links in the end, yes, you've tried to qualify this by saying that you don't want this to be a rant (wouldn't have been 'personal' anyway), but no, it's still a bad article.

What you have done, is to confuse arranged marriage, dowry, female infanticide, divorce/widow re-marriage (why are divorced women pariahs, btw?), and finally, female rights in general.

What you have not done, on other hand, is to give even a sample mention of what's being done to address the situation. I don't mean in a governmental sense, (although, I must point out that dowry, female infanticide, and those birth-check things are all banned in India), but on a non-governmental level; the Grameen Bank for instance, in your country, is a remarkable grassroots movement to give rural women economic freedom from their potentially abusive husbands. DWCRA groups in my country are another example; women in a particular community form self-help groups to produce hand-made goods such as leather bags and so on. Very cheap stuff, but very good in quality.

This is not to defend my country or the region in our treatment of women. Yes, there's a lot to be desired, and yes, there are significant challenges ahead, but it would have been better if you'd given a more complete picture. You know, something like, here's the situation, here's what folks are doing, here's why things are not working and here's what's to be done. Especially if you insist on giving such trollish conclusions as women evolving into more fierce creatures; surely, women's policy for the sub-continent can't be inspired by Species.

I think (5.00 / 2) (#204)
by Cruel Elevator on Wed May 07, 2003 at 03:27:11 PM EST

that all these programs doesn't really help the situation to a great deal.

What would I suggest? I wouldn't, because as I've said before, if there are better solutions, they'd come from a mind superior then mine.

If I *had* to, I'd suggest rather drastic steps. Feel free make fun of them.

1.Get rid of poverty. Nothing broadens the mind like a deep pocket (explained later).
2.Stop the population growth. Enforce one-couple one child policy. Make it illegal to have children without permits.
3.Spend money on Human Development, NOT Human Resource Development.
4.Lynch or jail all politicians. Yeah, that would mean eliminating 0.05% of the non-evil ones, but that's a small price to pay.
5.Privatize the police force. With the above step in place, they can uphold the law without being pressurized.
6.Get rid of the army. We don't need any. Convert all armed personnel to police.
7.Privatize most of the government services, including customs, revenue, taxes.
8.Ban all form of student politics that is not limited to the affairs of their institution.
9.Outlaw religious businesses.
10. Make the UN or somebody run this country. Make them accountable to the world, with private watchgroups monitoring and reporting the functioning of the government. We are more likely to suck the blood of poor people then others.

In fact, if any international body wants to take over the running of this country, I'd be the first one to support them.

And how does it related to the abuse of women in this country? Easy. Ensuring social justice has some prerequisites.

Like for example, for India, in some of your hospitals poor patients are amputated to gain surgical skills. Given lethal injections because they are admitted for too long. Die because scissors are left inside after a surgery, or simply wrong diagnoses. Yeah, I have heard first hand encounters of this from an Indian doctor in 2002. Considering this much of poverty, can you say that women's rights matter too much in India?

Of course, that's your country, you should know better.

No, this wasn't a cleverly disguised troll. Thanks for asking.

[ Parent ]

You're right. (2.75 / 4) (#210)
by Clayton Bigsby on Wed May 07, 2003 at 05:48:27 PM EST

It wasn't cleverly disguised at all.

[ Parent ]
Dear K5, (5.00 / 1) (#258)
by Cruel Elevator on Fri May 09, 2003 at 05:20:41 AM EST

YHBT.

Have a nice day,

Cruel Elevator.

[ Parent ]

Let's see now. (3.66 / 3) (#236)
by Akshay on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:01:08 AM EST

that all these programs doesn't really help the situation to a great deal.
And you've come to this insightful opinion because...? More to the point, have you seen DWACRA in action? The anti-arrack agitation by the women in Dubbagunta village? The There are some very strong apolitical grassroots movements that are going in, at least in my part of the country; civil society, I'd say, is fast taking a very strong stance where the government hasn't or couldn't. Denial of the success of these programmes would be deny the amount of courage some brave women took to take control of their lives; they are not, you'll be pleased to note, at the mercy of their menfolk any longer.
What would I suggest? I wouldn't, because as I've said before, if there are better solutions, they'd come from a mind superior then mine.
Right. So all you're doing is to say, "Look guys, I've been reading some articles in the newspapers that I find disturbing; I've conviniently linked them at the end of my rant, and oh, I don't know how to stop this, but I sure think this happens all the time in my country and, heck, all of the region in general. Pray people, PRAY for divine help!"

We'll come back to this later, but for now, let's consider the arguments you've put forth.

If I *had* to, I'd suggest rather drastic steps. Feel free make fun of them.
The point of course being, that in a debate, if you ask questions, you have no choice. You have to provide answers. That way, you can avoid people going off the topic, not get, as we shall see, called a troll, and definitely, avoid getting lampooned.

I will now, to be sure, make fun of your suggestions, thanks for the invitation, but if you don't mind, I'll take them in reverse order.

10. Make the UN or somebody run this country. Make them accountable to the world, with private watchgroups monitoring and reporting the functioning of the government. We are more likely to suck the blood of poor people than [sic] others. In fact, if any international body wants to take over the running of this country, I'd be the first one to support them.
International organisations such as the East India Company you mean? You know, the public limited company incorporated in London in 1600 to protect the lucrative Silk Route from the invading barbarians, but went on to fight (and win) the Battle of Plassey and rest of the country instead?

Surely you've heard of them; they were the ones who first came up with this racist suggestion that South Asians are more likely to misgovern than peoples of other races.

9.Outlaw religious businesses.
And how would you define a 'religious business'? A business where the owner is religious? Or a business that's meant to deliver a religious product, such as agarbatti (incense sticks)? I know the words 'religion' and 'business' are bad words among the socialist elite in India, (with good reason of course), but clearly, such an opinion is neither based on historical fact nor on reality. For centuries, whole communities have sprung up in and around temples and mosques in my part of India; Ajmer, Tirupati, Thanjavur, Varanasi have become big cities not only because temples and mosques were centers of their social lifes, but also because of the lucrative pilgrim-tourist industry. The Tirupati Tirumala Devastanam (TTD) is one of the richest governing boards in India, with yearly emoluments going to research institutes, libraries, universities and other charitable institutions in and around Tirupati.

Are you suggesting all this stop at once? How do you propose to implement the ban? And even if you do, how does all this relate to women's policy or even social justice?

8.Ban all form of student politics that is not limited to the affairs of their institution
I have studied in universities in India and other parts of Asia; I presume you are alluding to the fact that some South Asian universities have a habit of going on strike every now and then. Which is true; American universities too, as I understand it, had a similar problem in the sixties. (I have no idea about this; I remember reading about this stuff in a David Lodge novel once) It is also irritating; one university was conducting its classes six months late, before I transferred out of it.

But again, what is the connection with women's lib? Are you suggesting that (male) striking university students go on a rampage or something? That they misbehave with the female students perhaps?

7.Privatize most of the government services, including customs, revenue, taxes.
An admirably free-market idea, but surely, you don't believe that this will stop corruption? You mean, you presume that there's no corruption in, say, corporate India (or Bangladesh or America)?
6.Get rid of the army. We don't need any. Convert all armed personnel to police.
Sure. I presume even this would be privatised after the due conversion?

I won't comment on your border problems, heck, we're surrounding you on three sides, and I won't even raise our border problems in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Nagaland and Kashmir. But it's a fallacy to think that the Indian army is used only in war-like situations; in places such as Bhuj in 2000, for instance, where the entire district administration was basically earthquaked out of existence, the armed forces was the only organisation under the Indian Union which could conduct relief work quickly. They swooped down with their planes and helicopters, built temporary bridges etc, before the rest of the governmental and non-governmental machinery could act.

And oh, there's a very good reason why the central government in India has never used the Army for policing, even during the Emergency. Think about it; India has never seen a military takeover, even though all of its neighbours have (or are/were absolute monarchies). The reason is not because the Indian Army is particularly docile, nor is it because Indian politicians are particularly cunning; it's plainly because the Army has been allowed to grow as an institution in itself, without due meddling, or invitations to the Army to meddle with the affairs of the nation.

I'd like this arrangement to continue, thank you very much.

5.Privatize the police force. With the above step in place, they can uphold the law without being pressurized.
Sure, not by the politicians, but what about pressurisation by their corporate bosses? Who's going to stop them from degrading into private protectionist rackets?
4.Lynch or jail all politicians. Yeah, that would mean eliminating 0.05% of the non-evil ones, but that's a small price to pay.
Yes, that'll show them; let's leave all moral justice to the dogs, forget about 125 years of jurisprudence, forget about the world's longest constitution, let's go GET THOSE SOBS IN THE PARLIAMENT! Any one in a khadi kurta and a topi should be killed! Only then will our womenfolk will ever be liberated!
3.Spend money on Human Development, NOT Human Resource Development.
By which you mean, all HRD funds should be moved to the Human Genome Project? Yes, you were talking about this idea of yours where all women change into hideous monsters.
2.Stop the population growth. Enforce one-couple one child policy. Make it illegal to have children without permits.
Yes, that's very useful again! As it is, those poor bureaucrats are getting very little money through existing bribes; let's give them powers to issue yet another unnecessary licence. A sure breadwinner for them, yes.
1.Get rid of poverty. Nothing broadens the mind like a deep pocket (explained later).
But Grameen Bank and DWACRA are not working! (Which is to say, point accepted about economic liberation, not poverty as such)

Now, at this point, I might note that I've finished making fun of your points, and frankly, it wasn't as much fun as I thought initially. However, we still have one small issue unresolved, namely that of social justice, that you promised to touch in the end. To be sure, you said,

And how does it related to the abuse of women in this country? Easy. Ensuring social justice has some prerequisites.
which is fine, agreeable and all that, but scrolling down, I find only this interesting narrative:-
Like for example, for India, in some of your hospitals poor patients are amputated to gain surgical skills. Given lethal injections because they are admitted for too long. Die because scissors are left inside after a surgery, or simply wrong diagnoses. Yeah, I have heard first hand encounters of this from an Indian doctor in 2002. Considering this much of poverty, can you say that women's rights matter too much in India? Of course, that's your country, you should know better.
Now, it's a shocking and a shameful narrative, and, unlike my sniggering doctor friend whom I showed this to, will not ask for proof of its authenticity. Forget for a moment that just because I'm an Indian, I should know everything about my country; let's just say that this happened somewhere. Heck, I'll go even further; I'll point you to a damning news article that says that government-funded rural healthcare in India's most populous state is in shambles. I'll also ignore the fact that India has some world class medical schools, some of which are government-linked, and that, the issue facing us is not of quality, which is world-class in many urban pockets, but of rationalising healthcare, of spreading it to the far corners of the nation, of investment, focus, committment and political will... I'll ignore all that. I'll take you at face value:- India has very bad healthcare systems.

Do tell me how this is related to poverty or social justice. Or even, indeed, how poverty is even related to treating women with fairness and respect.

As a counterpoint, consider for a moment, Meghalaya, a beautiful, but improverished Indian state, which has one of the world's few matrilineal systems of heirarchy. Husbands go to live in their wive's houses and, if I'm not wrong, even take up their surnames. They get very little economic freedom according to tribal law, and are, for the most part, apparently treated brutally. Or so the world's only society for battered males claims; it's based in Shillong, and fights for male rights in inheritance and property.

Gee man, what do we do there?

[ Parent ]

Troll warning (none / 0) (#259)
by Cruel Elevator on Fri May 09, 2003 at 05:23:07 AM EST

Please treat all examples in this post as totally incorrect information / trolls. I love the smell of burning mojo in the morning.

OK... you don't seem to have done much except to find demerits of my 10 point plan on an individual basis. Yeah, that can be done with almost anything - no credit in that. There are more holes in each point then a rather large swiss cheese - I'd be the first one to admit. However, you fail to understand that there are two aspects of women's rights violation:

a) Culture
b) Poverty

Let's deal with b. People in Bangladesh are poor because... you know (do you?). Poverty also means shaky law enforcement and lack of education (can't think of a poor yet highly educated society of my head... care to help?) which means women's rights are not protected. Oh wait, you don't understand the relationship between poverty and human rights. OK, look elsewhere for an explanation, and once you're enlightened, read on.

So, to get rid of poverty, you must follow Cruel Elevators 10 step super plan, which, looked point by point, may seem useless to the simple minded. However, it'd work fine if you learn a bit more about the country in question, not individually, but the part of an entire program.

Few months back, there was this story by a user called Lai Lai Boy (IIRC - dude, if you're reading this, hi. I thought your ideas sucked so you could probably return the favor). Even he suggested some seemingly outrageous plan on improving the situation. Some K5'ers have suggested guns. You, on the contrary, haven't suggested anything except for gibbering something about program x being very successful in area y. Why don't you come up with some better idea, dear Akshay, so I can make fun of them?

Now, about point a. <begin troll> See, women in southern India has a high literacy rate, and it helps because they want to earn their dowry money so they can get married. If you're getting your sister married to a government officer (IAS, IPS etc), its going to cost you real money. Your culture dictates that dowry is OK.

Assuming that India turns out to be as rich as, say Germany, you would still have women's rights violation based on item a. That's India's problems, however, we have a and b to look after over here. <end troll>

So, if you plan to reply to this thread, start with your ideas on how this situation can be improved. In the start of the thread, you thought that the article was bad. 54 people (at least) thought so too. It does not make you special, dear Akshay.

[ Parent ]

your words are honest (3.83 / 24) (#153)
by circletimessquare on Tue May 06, 2003 at 11:24:10 PM EST

so i won't take potshots at your words from some sort of assumed moral superiority like a lot of others seem to be doing here.

you speak honestly from honest observations, and you serve kuro5hin and the world, and bangladesh, by bearing witness to them.

bravo.

and a note to all of those who write negatively to cruel elevator: you are all patronizing assholes.

while you sit in your moral ivory tower delivering your holier-than-thou fusilades, remember that you are probably sitting in some western democracy, leading some rich pampered life, and have no idea of the world cruel elevator lives in.

so listen to his words, and shut up, and learn some lessons about real life.

you write a reply only when you have some experience in his world, not your pampered western democratic world.

cruel elevator bears witness.

you deliver nothing but the most obvious teenage-thought-level kind of xenophobic repulsion.

there is no wisdom in your words.

meanwhile there is great value in cruel elevator bearing testament.

so shut up, listen, and learn something, my dear little teenagers. (now that's real patronization, lol ;-P )


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

So.... (1.60 / 5) (#154)
by bjlhct on Tue May 06, 2003 at 11:37:17 PM EST

Are they starting to carry shotguns or 180s or something?

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
Tragedy of the commons (3.66 / 3) (#156)
by tebrow on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:05:57 AM EST

"spend xxxx now for a test, or spend xxxxxx in dowry later"

This whole dowry situation presents an interesting problem.  Since families can now effectively choose the gender of their child, a simplified table of choices between two families looks like this:


          |          |          |
          |   MALE   |  FEMALE  |
----------|----------|----------|
   MALE   |  A: 0    |  A: -$   |
          |  B: 0    |  B: +$   |
----------|----------|----------|
  FEMALE  |  A: +$   |  B: 0    |
          |  B: -$   |  B: 0    |

No matter what the other family chooses, it is always to each family's financial advantage to have male, rather than female, child.  To me it seems as though this would lead to a Tragedy of the Commons situation in a group of many families, with all marriage-aged children being males and no dowry changing hands, and with financial loss detering any family from producing a female.

New equilibrium would arise (4.00 / 3) (#168)
by Adam Tarr on Wed May 07, 2003 at 03:55:50 AM EST

No matter what the other family chooses, it is always to each family's financial advantage to have male, rather than female, child. To me it seems as though this would lead to a Tragedy of the Commons situation in a group of many families, with all marriage-aged children being males and no dowry changing hands, and with financial loss detering any family from producing a female.
You're right that if a significant number of female children are aborted or killed due to this phenomenon, then there will be significantly fewer marriage-aged women than men. But this would mean that marriage-aged women would be in short supply, and the dowry demands would disappear, since the women (or, more precisely, their families) could agree to marry into the family asking for the smallest dowry.

I'm not saying that this would be a good thing, I'm just saying that the situation will never get near the all-male extreme.

-Adam

[ Parent ]

Too logical, Mr Spock (5.00 / 2) (#174)
by Meatbomb on Wed May 07, 2003 at 07:50:32 AM EST

From what I understand, the situation will tend to get worse for women, not better.

Rather than the invisible hand setting dowry rates in an open market, consider it from a psychological / sociological point of view: what happens in a culture that doesn't value women when there are more and more surly, sexually frustrated males and fewer female vitims to exploit?

_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

[ Parent ]

woman shortage (3.50 / 2) (#205)
by proletariat on Wed May 07, 2003 at 03:27:25 PM EST

When the supply of women gets very short then the demand gets very large. In this case families of women should have the upper hand and could demand a dowry for thier daughters.

[ Parent ]
More attacks (1.00 / 1) (#281)
by wrax on Mon May 12, 2003 at 11:32:58 AM EST

I don't think that dowery's in Bangladesh operate on an open market system. I think its more of a "Give me your daughter and pay me money, or me and my pack of bandits will kill you all." sort of thing. The only bright side is that if there are no female births for like 20 years in a row, or just very few for the same time period, the culture will just die out. Some would say that this is probably something that should happen, and its sad to say that they're probably right.

The only real and lasting solution I can see, is for one country to take over the whole world, and kill whomever went against the order. If done right, this country could dictate human evolution and progression for a very long time. We've tried this country business (which is basicly a city state scenario) for too long, its time for 1 world order.

Its time for a change.
--------------------

I don't know whats worse, the fact that people actually write this crap or the fact that people actually vote it up.
[ Parent ]

Happened already in China (4.66 / 3) (#185)
by univgeek on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:50:20 AM EST

Gender imbalance in China.
There are far more boys than girls 117:100, and there was an article on the BBC (which I couldn't find), describing how boys were having difficulty getting married.

Arguing with an Electrical Engineer is liking wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it!
[ Parent ]
Not capitalism's fault. (3.00 / 1) (#158)
by readpunk on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:22:01 AM EST

This is a power problem. Any society and apparently from what you have described, culture, which allows this, is obviously one based on extreme power structures with a violently rigid hierarchy. The further manifestation of power, capitalism (and yes I am saying saying that the USSR was another capitalist state as there were still classes, don't think I only consider the US a capitalist nation), usually through the desire for economic gain leads to this kind of patriarchal nonsense. This is just that much more disgusting because this patriarchy is sheerly based on the ability to exploit and dominate. This power has obviously created a class of power drunk males who are living for there next assault and are ready to rationalize with each other for collective protection at the expense of the female. This like all domination/exploitation/oppression is horrible and hopefully a solution will be found soon and hopefully it will end with the castration of these sick men.

./revolution
I wonder if this is like what was (2.75 / 4) (#172)
by Sesquipundalian on Wed May 07, 2003 at 06:56:01 AM EST

supposed to have happened on Easter Island (the whole economy went away after the inhabitants cut down all the trees).

Won't they all die out after they kill off all the women? Maybe these guys are just too crazy to survive and they aren't going to make it.

Can you give a Darwin award to a whole nation?


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
the obvoius solution (1.00 / 3) (#180)
by Mizuno Ami on Wed May 07, 2003 at 11:26:43 AM EST

is when you need to reproduce, you rape a woman, then tie it down for nine months while force-feeding it.

[ Parent ]
bad news (2.00 / 2) (#203)
by Cruel Elevator on Wed May 07, 2003 at 03:26:42 PM EST

We got 150 million people.

[ Parent ]
Geez (2.85 / 7) (#173)
by synik on Wed May 07, 2003 at 07:32:14 AM EST

It's almost enough to make you want to head over there, marry one of those women, and bring her back to the states/AU/EU just to show her that some cultures actually know how to treat women properly.

That said, it opens up a whole other kettle of fish, eg, the marriage would be pointless, as they would be marrying you to escape, not out of love, so it would be kinda screwed up anyhow.

Meh, maybe we should just send the military in and take the place over, enforce some law.

Then again maybe not.

The world is fucked up...these problems are beyond me, I'm going to bed now.

---
The human race has suffered for centuries and is still suffering from the mental disorder known as religion, and atheism is the only physician that will be able to effect a permanent cure. -- Joseph Lewis

Moral issues when meeting girls abroad.. (2.66 / 3) (#192)
by oberbimbo on Wed May 07, 2003 at 12:30:44 PM EST

I always have that bunch of trouble when I'm travelling and some girl starts flirting with me (which is highly uncommon where I'm from).

Coming from Switzerland usually means that you're well regarded (tho most don't have a fucking clue where it is, not too surprisingly it being much smaller than your average US state) wherever you are, mostly better off than the Americans. So is the girl talking to me because she's genuinely interested in me or is she just banking on a ticket to the first world? Strangers are interesting (usually, even European girls are much more open to travellers than to their own people), sure but how am I supposed to draw the line because of economical interest?

Or more directly: Am I supposed to put her down when she wants to sleep with me? Am I supposed to STFU and enjoy? Am I supposed to feel bad about it? Is she just interested in having a nice time for a short period?

[ Parent ]

You could always try (none / 0) (#247)
by Sesquipundalian on Thu May 08, 2003 at 04:07:33 PM EST

some "professional" advice. (your mileage may vary - heh).


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
[ Parent ]
Crime Rates (3.71 / 7) (#176)
by n8f8 on Wed May 07, 2003 at 10:14:01 AM EST

And suprisingly, yearly statistics show lower crime rates in Bangladesh than in the US.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
not surprising at all (3.00 / 3) (#208)
by infinitera on Wed May 07, 2003 at 04:11:17 PM EST

The US was like that too earlier in the century - reported rapes were just not taken seriously/not prosecuted/laughed at by police. It's not a crime if the dominant social mores don't see it as one.

[ Parent ]
Blame the Bush administration (2.40 / 10) (#199)
by duffbeer703 on Wed May 07, 2003 at 01:49:11 PM EST

I have no doubt that US imperialistic foreign policy is fully responsible for these degregations. Bangledeshi women were denied the vote in Florida during the 2000 election and have suffered as result of the unlawful actions of the US in Iraq.

About the article (4.33 / 6) (#206)
by Cruel Elevator on Wed May 07, 2003 at 03:29:01 PM EST

It's been suggested that the article is incoherent, non-specific and non-conclusive. That's OK, I don't claim to be a really good writer (like, say, trhurler), nor do I claim that this article was trying to make a point in the first case. Hey, if there was an easy and workable solution to these severe problems my country faces, it would've certainly come from a mind superior then mine.

What this article tries to do, you see, is to give a first hand encounter of how it is to live a life in a place that's stuck in low-level equilibrium trap - a vicious circle. Do you know what that means? In case you don't let me try to explain.

Think of an old, frail donkey. It is forced to work very hard everyday under abusive and difficult conditions. At the end of the day it gets the minimum amount of food required to keep it alive. It lives on with nothing else to look forward to except for the food and rest and the end of the day. Now think – this donkey is cursed with a very long life. It doesn't die, you see, because somehow, that minimal amount of food and rest keeps it alive and going.

Now that's the exact situation of our country. There is just about enough economy left to keep the majority of our population (who are below the poverty line) alive in poverty. If you've read 1984, do you remember how it feels to be completely helpless? That's how it feels to live a life here. There are some foreign aid and social workers who try to feed the donkey a little more and make sure it gets kicked around a little less but it doesn't do much except to increase the longevity of the donkey.

The article also humbly points out that certain problems does not seem to have a solution and won't just go away.

Somebody wanted to know more about me. Clearly offtopic, so it's a diary entry here. You might want to go through if you're wondering if I'm a lesbian, neo-feminist butcher who likes like a man.



This is what people start civil wars over. (3.00 / 1) (#248)
by Sesquipundalian on Thu May 08, 2003 at 04:17:14 PM EST

It may seem like a high price to pay, but bullies will pick on you if you just sit back and take it. This bully behavior is built right in to our genes. Homo sapiens is the only animal left in it's genus (major hint;we slaughtered, wholesale, all of the other member species).

Sometimes you have to kill/die for your beliefs. I highly reccomend the former if you are faced with a choice.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
[ Parent ]
too bad (4.00 / 4) (#209)
by crazycanuck on Wed May 07, 2003 at 04:37:26 PM EST

you don't have much oil.

if you did, the US would surely notice these grave human rights abuses and would quickly liberate your country...

Actually... (3.00 / 1) (#212)
by univgeek on Wed May 07, 2003 at 06:22:13 PM EST

They have a huge reserve of natural gas, control of which is an issue for Bangladesh, the USA, and the regional big-brother - India.

Arguing with an Electrical Engineer is liking wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it!
[ Parent ]
asd (3.37 / 8) (#216)
by foggarty on Wed May 07, 2003 at 08:17:15 PM EST

While you raise some valid points regarding women's rights in Bangladesh, which leaves a lot to be desired, your hyperbole resulting from your frustrations is making you sound like a idiot foaming at the mouth. Since you are addressing such an important topic, a more reasoned approach would have been much better.

Women's rights and abuse of women is a problem all over the world not just in Bangladesh. Try reading news sources from other countries. But you are right, women's issues are not handled as well they should be in Bangladesh. But that I think is in a large part because of the various other problems the country already faces at this point. It's not a vast conspiracy to subjugate women. If Bangladesh were a prosperous country and you still had that problem then you would have been justified in using crime etc. title for the article. You really need to gain a better perspective on the things that's truly ailing the country and if possible do something to make it better (or run away somewhere else). Or do *something* to improve women's rights. Complaining on a message board will achieve nothing positive.

Finally, women's condition in Bangladesh may not be as bad as you are making them out to be. For god's sake, the leaders of both the ruling party (the prime-minister) and the opposition party ( arguably the two most powerful and dangerous people in the country) are both women. I doubt there are many coutries, "developed" or otherwise ( not even US, UK, France Germany) that can claim this.

oh wow.. (1.00 / 3) (#217)
by Mizuno Ami on Wed May 07, 2003 at 09:05:17 PM EST

Women are even more stupid than men. When men are in charge, like the U.S.A., men get discriminated against. When women are in charge, everything goes to hell for women. Like I said, all they're good for is babies, and that's probably only for a few more years.

[ Parent ]
hmm (none / 0) (#257)
by Cruel Elevator on Fri May 09, 2003 at 02:58:26 AM EST

"women's condition in Bangladesh may not be as bad as you are making them out to be".

Rephrasing:

Women? Discrimination? Never! All propaganda.

You sound familiar. Have we met before?

Side note: Did you know that in the independence war of 1971 (Bangladesh separated from Pakistan) about 300,000 people zilched out and some people claim that it never happened?

(Official statistics were actually 3 million people, which I have reasons to believe is crap.)

[ Parent ]

Dowries and female status. (5.00 / 6) (#226)
by Paul Johnson on Thu May 08, 2003 at 04:15:02 AM EST

See also this story in The Economist. Its about India, but the points about female abortion and dowries are the same.

The custom of Dowry is a bit of a puzzle. Its been a sufficiently widespread practice around the world that it cannot be put down to a cultural aberation in the sub-continent. It clearly correlates with low social status for women, but low social status is not itself sufficient to explain the practice. Slaves had even lower social status than women, but when slaves were traded the purchaser payed the seller, not the other way around. Dowry implies that brides have negative value: the groom has to be paid to take the bride off her fathers hands. And yet to the groom the bride has value: she will do the housework and more importantly she is his route to having children.

Of course from the brides point of view (or her family) the groom is not only going to father children but he and his family are going to support them as well. So the dowry is the brides half of the cost of raising the children. This works in evolutionary terms as well as social. Parents invest their wealth in their children to ensure their success and therefore more grandchildren (Affluent western society is an anomoly here: more wealth means less children. But thats a different story). So initially the dowry is the bride's family's way of investing in her children. But once the dowry becomes standard practice what happens to a woman who does not offer it? There are enough other women that she seriously damages her chances of marriage, and especially to the wealthy high-status family who will provide her children with wealth and high status. So women (and their parents) become locked into a bidding war for wealthy husbands. Its an example of what economists call a Nash Equilibrium: no single player in the game can improve their position by a change in strategy.

So what happens when a shortage of women occurs? Simple market economics (and The Economist) says that the value of women goes up, and hence the dowries go down. But if simple market economics applied here then dowries would never have happened in the first place.

The bidding war I mentioned above is not to gain a specific status, but to gain the maximum possible status (and hence wealth and chance of survival and subsequent reproductive success) for the woman's children. A change in the number of males does not change the supply of high status because high status is measured in relation to everyone else, and hence is always in short supply.

The result will be that high status males will continue to demand the same dowries that they always did, whilst low status males will be left unmarried. Their only chance of reproduction will be through rape or adultery. High status males will therefore lock up their women even more than before.

This is going to get very ugly.

Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.

Once again super man saves! (1.00 / 1) (#228)
by auraslip on Thu May 08, 2003 at 07:59:28 AM EST

no one.

and where are those x-men too?
124

I hate it (3.00 / 5) (#229)
by askey on Thu May 08, 2003 at 09:40:00 AM EST

I hate it when people make uninformed generalizations such as "I believe that the situation is similar in countries like India and Pakistan.".

India is not the same as Pakistan and Bangladesh - which are Islamic countries. I think even you can understand the fact that women are much worse off in Islamic countries. By lumping India along with Pakistan and Bangladesh, you're just demonstrating your ignorance.

Women are much better off in India. Agreed in some of the rural parts women are treated less than ideally, but trust me things are changing very fast all over. With a minimum 30% reservation for women in all educational institutions and a similar resolution being passed for the parliamentary institutions. Please try to refrain from making uninformed generalizations such as the above in the future.


the same in india! (none / 0) (#246)
by ruchi on Thu May 08, 2003 at 03:52:12 PM EST

It is true, that in places as Delhi or Mumbai women are much better off in India. But the weak point in your argumentation is that these "some rural parts" make the huge majority of India and there the situation of women is exactly as described by our bengoli friend! Just go out of the capital, can you explain me why in Haryana for 1000 boys not even 900 girls are born? India is not an islamic country. Hindutva is becoming more and more reality. But this only makes things worse!

[ Parent ]
Dear askey, (none / 0) (#256)
by Cruel Elevator on Fri May 09, 2003 at 02:52:59 AM EST

please go down two posts below, #226. Read it. Scroll down further more, and read post #121. You will find few more posts supporting my "uninformed generalizations", kindly read them too. Thank you.

If you need more ammo before replying, may I recommend you post #236?

Side note - I seem to have gotten some posts in the line of "No, India is good, this kinda shit don't happen here no more" from some (seemingly offended) Indians. Would some Pakistani gentleman like to step forward and defend the practices of his country?

[ Parent ]

Earth calling Cruel Elevator (none / 0) (#263)
by askey on Fri May 09, 2003 at 11:32:54 AM EST

It is amusing to read your comments, your articles and your diary entries. You seem to be having a whale of a time whining about how bad things are in your country. Of course you know very well that you are pandering to a largely western audience, which will greedily lap up any tales of how fucked up "those third world countries" are - this feeds well into their morbid fascination with the east. You are doing a great job of that. Tales about the fucked up east are soooo much better than tales about the progressive east after all, aren't they?

In your bid to moan about how bad things are you are dragging other countries into your descriptions - apparently just whining about your own country is not enough for you. You have to drag down other countries into it too. I am sorry to disappoint you but truly things are not as bad in India. If they were, we wouldn't have an practically a million new immigrants from Bangladesh to India every year - yes illegal Bangladeshi migrants to India make up a staggering 1% of our population and are a signigicant law and order problem - not surprising at all. Incidentally, the large migrant population from Bangladesh is also among the poorest of the poor in India.

As for the comments you refer to - if you truly believe everything you read in the media then you really need to wisen up.

That is all.

[ Parent ]

More Indian jingoism (none / 0) (#292)
by Lai Lai Boy on Thu May 15, 2003 at 10:00:05 PM EST

" If they were, we wouldn't have an practically a million new immigrants from Bangladesh to India every year - yes illegal Bangladeshi migrants to India make up a staggering 1% of our population and are a signigicant law and order problem - not surprising at all. Incidentally, the large migrant population from Bangladesh is also among the poorest of the poor in India."

That is the most idiotic, racist diatrible I've read in quite some time.  The slums in Calcutta are FAR worse than any place in Bangladesh.  

Here is another Indian trying to prove the supoerity of their country over their neighbor.  Why not wake up and realize, religious differences aside all three subcontiental nations face the same set of issues and share a common background?

India creates a signifigant law and order problem on the Bangladeshi border and in Kashmir (the UN recommended a plebicite for the area - but will the BJP let that happen?  Of course not!).  

And there would be no issue if Bangladesh were allowed natural borders that include Bangla speaking people.  

The Indian goverment has no interest but keeping the flames of hatred going and keeping India as big and powerful as possible.  Certain people use historial inquities and half truths to make India look better and to "prove" the country's supoerority over its neighbors.  

[Posted from Mozilla Firebird]
[ Parent ]

not so much (none / 0) (#261)
by nirajks on Fri May 09, 2003 at 08:02:23 AM EST

I don't think u can any way compare Bangladesh with India. Admittedly there were huge no of dowry cases back in early & mid 90's, but how many do you find them now ? Indian society reacted slowly but surely to it & now u don't see much of them, do you ? As for rapes & other brutalities, well it really gets bad at times. Specially in states like Bihar & UP... there are shame on us. Metros are not so far behind. But at least there is some awareness & cases where victim stood against the rapist. e.g. jalgaon case, satara case etc. But no way, I don't accept the comparison between India & Bangladesh.

[ Parent ]
The BBC saves the day (none / 0) (#290)
by Lai Lai Boy on Thu May 15, 2003 at 09:35:46 PM EST

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3027683.stm

[Posted from Mozilla Firebird]
[ Parent ]

The World is A Deep Mystery (none / 0) (#255)
by t reductase on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:49:26 PM EST

The whole middle part of the earth and the south of the earth is fairly un-understandable. There is no sane reason for the terror in Algeria, the repression of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the killing of females in Bangladesh, the former success of the Taliban, or army sergeants with grade school educations running African countries. One of the best places to be a Muslim is the United States. Perhaps as some have alleged the United States is a cultural wasteland but still the individualism and freedom here is much better than the 'community' of say Algeria.

What's with you guys? (2.25 / 4) (#268)
by mindlessmobile on Fri May 09, 2003 at 06:54:10 PM EST

Don't you see how close-minded you are. YES it is wrong to hurt women. YES rape is horrible. But these cultures have a lot to give to us and a lot to teach us about tolerance and tradition. There may be horrible things going on in these countries but there are MORE horrible things going on here in the U.S. We are the ones who made all the problems for Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, by the way. Also, I'd like to point out that we have a much larger underclass than they have. Also, this news that this person found is from a FAKE website. Some people in this world want you to think that its ok to look down on other countries. But its not ok! These things might actually happen. BUT much worse things are happening in your home town right now. And most of these stories were just made up. I think its really sad that we can't show a little more compassion for some underpriveleged nations. I think its wrong that we assume all the horrible things that we hear about that supposedly occur in them are true. I think its unethical to sit in our priveleged chairs in our airconditioned rooms with our televisions blasting rock and roll while our food gets warmed in the microwave and critisize the poorest people in the world and not even listen to their side of the story. Disturbed

Strange spin... (4.00 / 1) (#272)
by Francis on Sat May 10, 2003 at 03:44:44 AM EST

When I read the article it occurred to me that perhaps the author was embellishing somewhat, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt for two reasons: 1. I decided that it wasn't sound judgment to disbelieve something simply because it sounded too heinous to believe, and 2. I couldn't determine what motive one would have in making this stuff up and posting it on Kuro.

...these cultures have a lot to give to us and a lot to teach us about tolerance and tradition. There may be horrible things going on in these countries but there are MORE horrible things going on here in the U.S.

Can you be more specific? The problem here is that you are being too broad. Yes, these cultures may have much to offer to the rest of the world, and to the West in particular, but it would seem that their treatment of women should not be considered among those things, and that's what this article is about. And yes, crimes against women occur in the U.S., as they do in every country, but I think one of the main points of the article is the reluctance of the State to get involved and become proactive in handling the situation.

We are the ones who made all the problems for Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, by the way.

Again, can you be more specific about what you mean by this?

Also, I'd like to point out that we have a much larger underclass than they have.

I'm wondering what is the point of this statement? Also, what do you actually mean when you say "underclass?" Does it mean people at or below the poverty level by U.S. standards? And when you say that the U.S. underclass is much larger, do you mean in total or in proportion to total population?

Some people in this world want you to think that its ok to look down on other countries.

I did not at all get the impression that this was the author's intent.

These things might actually happen. BUT much worse things are happening in your home town right now.

The last homicide in the town where I live was over three years ago. There has only been, to my recollection, one violent crime here so far this year (a drunken assault). Please do not presume to tell me how crime-ridden my town is...

I think its really sad that we can't show a little more compassion for some underpriveleged nations.

Again, not at all the impression I got from the article. Quite the opposite, I was left feeling rather sympathetic to Bangladeshis, particularly the females.

I think its unethical to sit in our priveleged chairs in our airconditioned rooms with our televisions blasting rock and roll while our food gets warmed in the microwave and critisize the poorest people in the world and not even listen to their side of the story.

Well, I agree with your warning about the temptation of being self-righteous. But it seems if we all followed your advice then there would be no room to point out injustices in the world. And whose side of the story should we be waiting to hear? The government's? The men's? The rapist's? As far as I'm concerned, the article, if accurate, more than likely represents the general objection of the people of Bangladesh, or at least the women. And if the article is accurate, I don't care how plush my life is, it is not only my right but my obligation to condemn these acts.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

Misunderstanding (3.00 / 1) (#282)
by LobsterGun on Mon May 12, 2003 at 04:58:35 PM EST

Francis, I think the parent poster was writing satirically. He was poking fun at the mind set that everything that the US does is wrong, but developing nations can do no wrong. Either that or he's bat-shit crazy.

[ Parent ]
Thanks... (3.00 / 1) (#283)
by Francis on Mon May 12, 2003 at 07:42:52 PM EST

I'm beginning to think that I'm too trusting for this site (or perhaps too gullible). In this case, I should have known better...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

I believe you bro! (4.00 / 1) (#269)
by TommyVercetti on Fri May 09, 2003 at 08:41:09 PM EST

I have never been to Bangladesh, but met many people from that country, and heard these kind of stories. I am from Pakistan, but living in a Western democracy leading a pampered lifestyle. So I guess my opinion is automatically discounted.


But I think you are painting the wrong picture in your article. You are exagerrating a bit.


Most of the things you describe, are common in Pakistan too. A lot of rural places have their own "Council of Wise Men" and that is just a mockery of justice and logic. The most stupid and illogical decision regarding matters of female rights are made by those "wise people".


I read somewhere on top someone said that in Pune there were only 3 rapes last year. Yes, 3 reported rapes. Most of them are probably not reported.

this is not all.... (2.00 / 1) (#273)
by moksud on Sat May 10, 2003 at 04:19:46 AM EST

hello cruel elevator. i am in now. what u wrote is true, true. but let's apply simple statistics... it is not a REPRESNTATIVE SAMPLE. It does not portray the general picture. And i say it, because i live in it. i live in bangladesh, too! and to other readers of this site..... with all due respect to y'all.... how can u generalize a country and its people thru' a simple article? does a country and its culture seem that easily understandable? so easily comprehensible that 2 or 3 articles or a travel guide is enough to describe it? And i thought u were like.... whatever! Besides, if u really want to know about this country, definitely this site is not the place. it never can be. because those who can browse are not who represent the common people. and to all, if anyone of u really knows what subsistence economy and gini ratio mean, then please contact me. it'll be lot easier for me to explain to him or her what bangladesh actually looks like and smells like.

Hi Moksud... (none / 0) (#277)
by Cruel Elevator on Sat May 10, 2003 at 05:29:10 PM EST

Good to see that you made it. Well, statistics doesn't do anything except to scare me. Remember, I got a D+ in statistics (the teacher was being too kind). I read somewhere that 99% of all statistics are made up. Life has been better ever since.

See, if you're researching say, human rights in China, you can probably come up with nice looking numbers that you can get very upset over. I was focusing on personal experience instead. My job here isn't convince by providing documented facts that this place is a) sucks b) will continue to suck. I was sharing experiences. See, K5 articles don't need to resemble an entry in an encyclopedia. People demanded some facts and I gave them some. But the thing I matters the most is that some people got to know about life in another part of the world as seen from the eyes of a person actually living over there.

Oh, here's a random excerpt from a Douglas Adams book.

"The Census report, like most such surveys, had cost an awful lot of money and didn't tell anybody anything they didn't already know - except that every single person in the Galaxy had 2.4 legs and owned a hyena. Since this was clearly not true the whole thing had eventually to be scrapped."

[ Parent ]

Death penalty for 3 in acid attack (none / 0) (#286)
by ebonkyre on Tue May 13, 2003 at 02:18:15 PM EST

In what is seen as a first, 3 Bangladeshi men have just been sentenced to death by hanging, and a fourth given life imprisonment, for an acid attack which took place late last year over a dispute with the woman's husband.

news article

The truth hurts sometimes... Nothing beats a nice fat cock. ShiftyStoner

I apperciated (none / 0) (#289)
by Lai Lai Boy on Thu May 15, 2003 at 09:33:44 PM EST

Well, for a Bangladeshi going to the country in a week, I enjoyed (well, apperciated) elevator's view of the nation. And as much as I admire him for bringing up a picture of women's life in Bangladesh, I have to disagree. Of the majority Muslim countries, Bangladesh is among the most progressive. While these things may happen in rural areas, elevator leaves out Dhaka and other metropolitan areas; in the Islamic world, Bangladeshi women are on the forefront. Need I remind the readership that Bangladesh's last two prime ministers were women. Additionally, to those commenters attempting to blame the sorry state of women in Islamic countries on Islam: you have no idea what you're talking about. Islam preaches against female infantide, saying there is special blessings in raising a girl. To the commenter who posted that this type of situation is uncommon in India...HA! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3027683.stm This is newsworthy because it is SO uncommon for a women to do something like. Might I also point the commenter to Mira Nair's "Monsoon Wedding"?

[Posted from Mozilla Firebird]

Properly formated (none / 0) (#291)
by Lai Lai Boy on Thu May 15, 2003 at 09:52:21 PM EST

Well, for a Bangladeshi going to the country in a week, I enjoyed (well, apperciated) elevator's view of the nation. And as much as I admire him for bringing up a picture of women's life in Bangladesh, I have to disagree. Of the majority Muslim countries, Bangladesh is among the most progressive. While these things may happen in rural areas, elevator leaves out Dhaka and other metropolitan areas; in the Islamic world, Bangladeshi women are on the forefront. Need I remind the readership that Bangladesh's last two prime ministers were women?  Indeed, in upperclass Bangladeshi homes, women tend to rule the roost in a fashion similar to that of the sterotypical Japanese or Korean mother or grandmother.  

Additionally, to those commenters attempting to blame the sorry state of women in Islamic countries on Islam: you have no idea what you're talking about. Islam preaches against female infantide, saying there is special blessings in raising a girl.

To the commenter who posted that this type of situation is uncommon in India...HA! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3027683.stm This is newsworthy because it is SO uncommon for a women to do something like. Might I also point the commenter to Mira Nair's "Monsoon Wedding"?  I've seen several comments where Indians are trying to voice their country's moral superority over Bangladesh and Pakistan over women's rights and I think they're blind to the fact that throughout most of their country (the rural areas) things are as bad as they are in Bangladesh or Pakistan.

Life for India baby girl killers:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2956065.stm

India's lost girls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2723513.stm

India faces rape debate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2508929.stm

India's gender 'holocaust' warning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1829000/1829892.stm

I post these links not in attempt to deride India in anyway, but to show the commenters below that the majority Hindu country is suffering the same problems Bangaldesh and Paksitan are, because of years of imperalism and shared cultural views of women.  

[Posted from Mozilla Firebird]
[ Parent ]

get the facts straight (none / 0) (#301)
by zoderono on Mon Jun 16, 2003 at 02:42:11 PM EST

i do agree with akshay about the improvement of the situation in india. i am indian, i am a girl, i am not a hindu. and yet the men of my country have not treated me any differently then the men of other, let's say developed countries. what you say about acid burns,assaults and bandits is true. i do not deny it. but many important facts are to be considered. the number of people, their standard of living, we are a country which is still very much engrossed in the complex task of rebuilding and fortifying. we need time. and i am sure all indians understand the need. as akshay said, grass-root programs do exist and given their limitations, they are working wonders. we need time. and the women of our great nation do have the patience. we are a nation little more than 50 years old, burdened with the future of more than a billion people. it is not easy to visualize the task before our leaders sitting in your arm-chairs. the politically correct in our country are few, agreed. but there again we cannot generalize. we do have visionaries. unfortunately western media reports fail to see or should i say do not try to see their deeds of valour. but we the women of india know. our country, one among the first civilizations in the world was also the first, and make no mistake, the first matriarchal society. in the early hindu religious texts men were required to shift to their wife's house, women were the owners of property, man was considered as a means to ensure a succession, nothing more. the supreme godess was, is, and always will be maa kaali. perverted men exist in the americas, in europe, in the africas, in asia, everywhere. it is a universal issue. an issue that afflicts all the downtrodden classes of people. it is what arises out of poverty, ill-treatment, frustration of dreams. it is not something to be discussed so loosely, not a forum to degrade your country in the eyes of other cultures. it is something to be acted on. if you know a way, if you are willing to come up with a solution which you can and will dedicate yourself to, then and only then do you have the right to speak on the topic. can you? i am an asian female and consider your article a serious insult to all asian women. an insult to generations of fathers, brothers and husbands who have kissed the ground we tread on. and yes, if in the cycle of births which i as a christian am advocated not to believe in, but nevertheless if true, if i were to live another life as a woman in india i would consider it the greatest gift of god.

When being born female is a crime | 299 comments (263 topical, 36 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!