Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: tushantin on November 18, 2011, 11:28:21 am
-
In order to answer the question of reactions towards Anti-Misogyny law in my nation, this post was meant to go in the Fuck Sexism thread. But because we need a proper understanding of the level of reform that caused the law in the first place and redefine our primary goal of "justice", I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone by explaining what makes the Indian culture different from the American and why there is a dire need for literary reform in America (and try to curb those wretched "knee-jerk law" reaction while promoting productive activism). And as such, this post needs a completely different thread, though the post will be divided into two parts.
Following this thread, feel free to discuss how you'd like to participate in helping your nation's culture to evolve beyond the need for Goverment/Totalitarian intervention and become self-reliant. The future resides, not in crutch of politicians who screw up, but in the hands of the commoners who dare to dream and live. So let's get started with...
Sexual Inequality
Sexual inequality. What can I say about it? A primary concern in domestic / social, urban and rural, political and corporate environments, it leads misogyny wherever cultural values are only a virtue of selected few rather than one of universal acceptance. America (I say this because the majority of the Compendium are Americans) is currently dealing with this frustration, but I would like to point that a few select states in India -- in lines of industrial development, education and high cultural values -- have actually effectively dealt with it at a grand scale (it still exists, but only at orthodox and illiterate backgrounds, such as Rajasthan or slums anywhere). And, unlike what some of the Compendium members suggested, we didn't need totalitarian restrictions on "free speech" (which is almost never effective) or criminalizing sexism, mind you; it was something much more subtle, much more powerful and even more beneficial, progressive and liberal. It was Social Reform Movement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement)
The persistence of security has quadrupled in the last decade, mostly due to constant national security threat from Extremists. However, the Judiciary, while asserting public security and stability, can rarely do much to improve the "Public Life", especially since justice is blind and is influenced by flawed principles in power. The question is, must we rely on the Judiciary and Government to recognize injustices and, hence, correct them? America is a Representative Democracy, and it's time to put that power to test.
Shortcomings of Law
I suppose anyone from a Developed Nation would place support in strengthening "law" in areas where crime rates are higher, but depends on the level and method of restriction of power and rights which a nation can either be judged a Democracy, Communism, or Totalitarian -- after all, Judiciary exists for the stability of the nation. But how much can the law actually achieve in an active regulation? Allow me to describe this in a satirical tone.
Our laws currently are sufficient to provide free speech to the commoners and penalize those who threaten that stability, such as thieves or murderers, and yet ordinary people tend to "complain" that there's too much of "evil" going around while quietly awaiting the Government to do something about it. When patience wears thin, and they notice more "evils" being conducted, they suddenly have a reckless knee-jerk reaction, "There should be a law against this and that" as if it's so easy to pass a bill and change something without consequences. Some of the best of them study law and politics to become lawyers and politicians, and in the end do the same thing others before them did: constantly bicker self-righteously, while the public stays in the heat for too long. Then somebody gets a bright idea to "restrict" freedom of speech and action to reduce domestic abuse and hopefully solve all crimes. What do you get? (Note: I actually had friends named Sophia and Tim, and that was the actual dialog they once used)
Tim: "Hey, Sophia! What's wrong with your hair today?"
Sophia: "Dammit! You disgusting prick, I'll see you in court!"
So apparently everyone's being sent to prison one way or another (http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/03/florida_banishe.html), either for accidentally tripping over the stairs and damaging the walls, scratching you neighbor's brand new car, or simply inquiring about your ex-girlfriend's weird new hairdo, and what you call "Jail" has now become a vacation zone, the ticket's of which aren't available this summer. The only ones that usually don't find their way in those prisons are actual criminals -- those professional criminals who know the shortcomings of the law and are always capable of escaping, those who are mostly recognized as serial killers, organized criminals, human traffickers, drug dealers, organ thieves, etc. and slip in the shadow of commoners to do their business. These are the professionals who role their eyes when civilians bicker with the police and quietly do devious things while looking innocent in the face of the law. The best of predators always get away, leaving their preys to rot.
And hence my Psycho-Analyses of Psychopaths and similar potential predators, because in order to track and predict such perpetrators of crime there is heavy need to understand such minds beforehand lest we make fools of ourselves afterwards. We need to understand how they function, how they think, what classes of criminals have what patterns, where to get the next resources, what's the frequency of visits, how and what to prepare with, surveillance before the heist/murder, necessary bluffs and back ups, etc. (don't ask how I know all this). Hence why many law enforcement recruit criminal psychologists and profilers to make their task easier (http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/dubai-behavioural-scientists-help-solve-crimes). And even then it's not enough, because with limits on law enforcement would render further limits on being able to establish control, and if the citizens merely notice the crime being committed and turn a blind eye, mumbling that "the government isn't reliable", it's simply doesn't help. And even if the citizens do responsibly inform beforehand of the offenses, there are times that even the police will be of no help, especially places beyond their jurisdiction, places law hasn't established fully, or even places where law exists but you're at the mercy of corruption. These are usually the places where you'll find an incredibly large number of human trafficking and organ thefts. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/03/world/meast/pleitgen-sinai-organ-smugglers/)
"Hey, my neighbor's being annoying. Why can't the government do something about it, while I'm too busy twiddling my thumb?"
"But Tushantin," you'd say, "surely Totalitarianism would a least get rid of domestic sexual and racial abuse?" Unfortunately, while it sounds like a good theory on paper, it's hardly practical or ethical. For one thing, Totalitarian would cause more harm than sexual and racial abuse, which our current culture and law manage to curb sufficiently anyway. Secondly, just because you force everyone to be vegetarians doesn't mean they're going to like it (it does reduce crime, but depends what you actually call "crime" anyway). They'll find ways to "sin" by eating a chicken or two, and you'll have more criminals in your hands, or perhaps more rebels who simply aren't pleased (http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Occupy-Wall-Street-lacks-a-leader-who-can-say-No-43581-3-1.html). So yeah, there goes your "Stability". While nations like Kazakhstan have managed to achieve this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Kazakhstan) doing the same at America would be destroying the very values the nation was founded upon.
(Note: There's a reason I posted that article regarding the Occupy movement; I actually sympathize with the Occupy protesters and whatever motivated their hatred, but if there's one thing the article got right was that, firstly, lack of leadership breaks them and, secondly, these mobs can suddenly turn violent at any given moment, beyond control. These two points may cause a severe impact, but they have no proper resolve or plan to achieve what they strive for).
Social Reform Movement
You might say that "every system has flaws" and that you'd help perfect it, but unfortunately, a Judiciary system can only do so much. And you probably think that there's simply no other alternative: "Law" is simply the only choice, right? Actually, there was always a second choice, an appropriate choice, and one that has succeeded time and time again, provided we have a proper, mature leadership -- one that served politically, but aimed at the society instead, and one lead by all that is good rather than "prejudiced Radicalism". While law handled the "tough guys" like kidnappers and wanted criminals, Social Reform Movements did unthinkable like end untouchability (http://readerswords.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/martin-luther-king-racism-and-dalits/), establish "cultural ethics", abolished harmful orthodox traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Reform_Movement_in_Maharashtra), unify religions, uniting science and spirituality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalist_movement), encouraged scientific (http://words.jasonfernando.com/post/3160275624/the-role-of-the-scientific-revolution-in-catalyzing) and literary pursuits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Renaissance), and more importantly, end Sexual Inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage). And the movement didn't need to "force" individuals or societies long-term either, but simply establish "capacity" to help people judge between right or wrong and maintain a line of creative and empathetic negotiation within society. When schools were affordable only to the rich, Social Reforms educated the masses. When poverty denied Agency, Social Reforms gave it to them. When a damsel was in distress, Social Reforms turned up like a Superhero. Social Reforms was your friendly neighborhood Revolution, and created newer, better social order via education since intellectual and emotional development, and of course 'Liberalism', was its first priority.
Reformists' ideas are often grounded in liberalism, although they may be rooted in socialist (specifically, Social democratic) or religious concepts. Some rely on personal transformation; others rely on small collectives, such as Mahatma Gandhi's spinning wheel and the self sustaining village economy, as a mode of social change.
The reason this movement works is because, unlike an angry mob, it isn't a group of 'protesters', but a community of intellectuals who bring about change with activism, education, empathy, and literature, art, songs and poetry. Such a movement is always targeted first to the public to 'benefit' them rather than face 'against' them, and as such is always welcomed with open arms. It then enables the capacity to establish 'moral principles' for the society to follow, and these principles are social and virtuous rather than forceful. What makes such a movement powerful and 'pure' is that under the guidance of a strong and wise leadership, revolutionaries, innovators and artists, any and every negativity and prejudice in such a movement is diluted with the involvement of other powerful thinkers. For instance, if one thinker realizes that superstition stems from unchecked traditions but his prejudice makes him eradicate the tradition system entirely, and while another thinker spots something beneficial in the same tradition system, then a third thinker approaches to eliminate what creates superstition while retaining the positives of traditions. And they manage to accomplish this by playing on collective sentiments of the society, just as many playwrights like Goethe and Shakespeare did.
One thing Social Reformers such as Gandhi understood was that it isn't the Government that makes a country, but the People. Basically, the heart of this Social Revolution isn't to 'Change Others', but to actually 'Redefine Yourself' and help others acquire the same. If you want others to stop being violent, then you wouldn't be violent yourself. If you want others to donate blood, then go do it yourself first. That is because your nation is simply a mirror of your inner reflection. You represent your nation, and the spirit of your culture can be seen from your eyes -- if you're overly aggressive and prejudiced, then that might be because you've dealt with it in your neck of the woods. You don't war with others because of their differing views, no matter how sick, but you embrace them and make them better. Gandhi knew that an eye for an eye never works when you're striving for peace, and that the only way to stop violence is to not be violent in your contention. Social Reformers don't wait for the Government to do something about their social problems. They take their social problems upon themselves, and create opportunities and capacity for the society to slowly and gradually improve via pure artistic and humanitarian methods. So before I can get to its involvement with Feminism and Sexism, let's give you a gist of my nation's background and why such a movement was required.
Unity Is Paramount
I'll make this as simple as possible.
In the beginning, there was nothing when there was no distinction between "science" and "magic" (it was actually referred to as "secrets of nature"), the bards, sages and scholars from all across the Bharatvarsha gathered together to pool in sacred knowledge from the far and wide, endless horizons. Some were sciences unheard of, some were stories of events that changed history, and everything was recited in songs, written in the most beautiful and sacred language of the time called Sanskrit. But as the knowledge exploded across several empires, the language itself degenerated and many could not read the scriptures. Then came the Brahmins, the most learned ones of the lot, and then came the wretched Caste System that divided the people. The Brahmins wanted power and stature, and they corrupted the Dharmic culture with a ruthless game of politics -- other classes were condemned as inferior, ruthless traditions such as human sacrifices were initiated, and the lesser classes (such as the Sudras) were regarded as "untouchable", denying them knowledge of sciences and religion, denying them worth in the society. Over time, however, some Kingdoms grew powerful, and many tried to abolish all these practices with sheer severity of law, but the Brahmins never gave up and they managed to infiltrate into the Royalist parties and established their Dominionist-Orthodox ideologies, and they did their very best to destroy any lines of "Reason" and make the game unfair. Some Sages like Gautam Buddh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) managed to escape and tried to return the scriptures to its former glory (Read: created Buddhism) so that the commoners could read them without knowing Sanskrit and regardless of their Caste, while some others from segregated Kingdoms enjoyed the lack of threshold of the orthodox. But others weren't so lucky.
Patriarchy was one of the biggest evils of the Caste System, where females were oppressed like nobody's business. While some Kingdoms had strict reign on what goes on in the world they build, they had no jurisdiction in segregated villages where orthodox was prevalent. A dark shadow of Misogyny and Ignorance spread over the common Hinduism, and being born as a female in those times meant "curse", both for the family and for the girl -- it was hell on earth with "Widow Sacrifice" this, and "New Born Milk and Glass package" that. I won't go into depths of how horrible the societies were, lest I make this post M Rated and gruesome. But rest assured, there was no savior -- no Kings or Prince Charming or Angels would come to their rescue, until...
...a Superhero appeared, disguised as Raja Ram Mohan Roy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ram_Mohan_Roy), and he saw the wrongs of the society. He saw women burning at the pyres of their dead husbands, and he hated it. He tried to reason to the narrow minded, but his words fell on deaf ears. Once and many times he wished if all this could disappear, but his practicality won him owner and he knew just what would work -- a reform, the first of his kind. Pursuing his vocation as a Super Pandit, a scholar, he challenged the Orthodox by reviving the superpowers of the Vedant philosophy and did something incredibly impossible with the powers of Education, Practicality and Reason -- Uniting the diverse religions into one which we now call "Combined Hinduism" (imagine if Judaism, Christianity and Islam re-united), destroyed the Dominionist tendencies of Caste systems, put "Reason" back into Religions and turned it into a positive Humanitarian force, and abolished Sati and sexism, thereby saving thousands of women. He pledged then that no woman would suffer while he was alive, but people carried his spirit even after his death and the persistent shadow was finally lifted.
But that to paradise was long. One of the biggest weaknesses of Hindustan (as it was then called, and still is) was its diversity -- religions hating each other, kingdoms warring each other, genders oppressing each other, and politicians poking each other. It was pretty easy for the East India Company to simply walk in and take over (while I support Shivaji's badass battle against the Mughal oppression, his final blow was what made the empire weak and defenseless for foreign invasion), and because of the inner frailty the Hindustani rose and fell ceaselessly. They thought that they needed "Warriors" to take on the oppressive British rule. They thought they needed "Power" to beat a greater power. No matter how hard they fell, they never learned their lesson. Then, came the non-violent catalyst reformers.
"Ik Onkar Sat Nam"
One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth.
One of the biggest problems with the commoners were their "beliefs". Like currently in America, back then the people fought over their religions, or whether a person was a believer or not. Sometimes Religion was a privilege for the rich, and sometimes contradictions caused clashes. Before the Belief system could turn political in nature, an enigmatic unnamed sage appeared at Shirdi. Nobody knew who he was, and nobody knew where he came from, except for the fact that he was poor as hell, he forgave people for hitting him with rocks before they even apologized, and he was the most humble man in the world. The weirdest thing was that he was neither Hindu, nor a Muslim, nor a Christian -- he was all of those at the same time. Nobody understood the man until a poor girl approached him, and each day she left to her family "enlightened" by his wisdom. When the word spread that the guy could do "Miracles" many folks from every religion, caste and belief approached the old man and placed their seemingly impossible problems before him.
<satire>
Man: "Baba (respectful term for "Old Man"), my son doesn't believe in Allah! I tried hitting him, but it doesn't work. What should I do?"
Baba: "Try not hitting him. Allah is loving, and it doesn't matter if the boy believes or not. Love the child and support his belief, guide him and don't hurt him, because Allah loves children."
</satire>
His words were few but wise, and he helped people solve their impossible problems in life. He challenged the orthodox and the cruel with questions that can only be answered if you have love in your heart. He then resolved religious conflict and established Pluralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism), by knocking some sense into people that "if every religion's God created the universe, then obviously every God is one, right? So why fight?" He then proceeded to open the festival of Diwali for the rich and poor alike, and promoted social love. He was hailed as the legendary "Sai Baba" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi) (aka, "Divine Old Man"), and became a teacher to both the religious and non-believers. By the time he was done and kicked the bucket, every individual, no matter what their beliefs or thoughts, embraced each other as brothers and sisters.
But the battle was far from over. While the spirit of unification was there and played a strong role in the Great Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857), the combined efforts of the Princely States turned futile -- the unification did not win, even with the badass feminine power of the legendary Rani of Jhansi, Laxmi Bai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi). Further rebellion was later divided between the rebels who argued what was the "better way" of getting the country back. Bombs? Fail. Coup de Tat? Fail. Threatening the government? Fail. Chaos? Fail. Taunting? Fail.
And then came Gandhi, who clearly understood that the people were kicking a wall and cursing at the pain in their toe. He realized that fighting fire with fire would only serve to burn his nation, and so he decided to do the opposite -- approach with love. With the spirit of unification as before, he stated that it's a sign of strength to not pull the trigger and still win the battle, and his philosophy stemmed from Hinduism, which he enforced with practical reason. All he did was march into the office and "ask", stating that millions of Indians with him at the time clearly won't take "no" for an answer -- and Freedom was won without pulling a trigger.
And just like Sai Baba and Raja Ram, Gandhi managed to influence humanity, not just the Indians but also Martin Luther King Jr., by redefining what it means to be human, not just politically but also Socially. The nation was founded on his philosophy, for the People and the Government, and his influence lead to easing poverty, expand women's rights, encouraged philanthropy, unify religions and build ethnic amity, end untouchability, and increase economic self-reliance. And that was all thanks to approaching the People, and not the Government, with love, because love, truth and understanding binds humanity into an unbreakable force, the power of which cannot be broken come what may.
Momentum of Social Reformers
Following Gandhi's success in establishing ethical philosophy, many artists, scientists, teachers, poets, businessmen and politicians followed in his footsteps to take that dream a step further. The unification of our diversity was our greatest strength, because when someone thought differently it benefited the entire nation. Social Reform had only begun, and it caused extremely positive impacts in every corner of the Indian civilization. The greatest Indian Poet, Rabindranath Tagore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore), unified spirituality with aesthetic naturalism, and his poetry reflected the wonders of human emotions and the glory of "One World" idea. Swami Vivekanand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekanand) was a great rationalist; credited with the revival of Hinduism and integrating Religious Philosophy with Scientific Reason, he further promoted education, religious amity and human empathy. Inspired by many of these revolutionaries, many Indians took it upon themselves to promote similar philosophy to help their culture grow. One of them, inspired by Rabindranath Tagore, is a Gujrati newspaper columnist, playwright and journalist Taarak Mehta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taarak_Mehta), helped the masses look at our world from a different perspective (hence "reverse the glasses") and helped benefit from his various philosophies (such as abolish superstitions while retaining the sentiments of tradition, being a "better, pure-hearted human being", standing up for social injustices, etc.). Another being our beloved cartoonist R.K. Lakshman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._K._Laxman), who drew his comics from a common man's perspective when the Government refused to hear the commoners' voice. And, how could I forget, Chetan Bhagat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetan_Bhagat) -- a novelist and columnist who brought the nation's fallacies in plain sight, then proposed and encouraged the nation's youths to rise.
The power to change the world almost always resides in the pen of a common citizen, but the majority often think that it's not worth it, simply because the change is slow but steady and sure. If you still don't believe me when I say that the effects of progressive change and the power of love and empathy can triumph any problems and the efforts of Radicalism, look at the new Goverment at Libya. Then look at the successful reformers who did the impossible in India. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_reformers_of_India)
And why is that? It's because unlike America, and thanks to Social Reforms efforts, we are not divided due to needless conflicts of "Christian this" and "Atheist that", nor do we judge people based on their sex. We learned the alternative the hard way, but that doesn't mean America has to go through the same horrors as we did. We may be Men or Women, we may be Sikh, Jain or Hindu, but first and foremost we are a powerfully united force, we are Proud Indians, and we dream to change the world. And you can see that spirit in plain sight: The Anna Hazare movement when the guy went on hunger strike, the whole nation gathered together for Civil Disobedience as a single entity with a dream to eradicate political corruption once and for all, and our weapon was simply the love for our nation in our hearts. And I was there, waving the tri-color flag, and I witnessed my nation's united voice win over an impossible dream.
And there you have it. Elect a politician to do it, it takes days, he enjoys his luxuries for months, self-righteously talks things over for years, and just maybe he'll try fixing our primary concerns (by taking the easy way out, despite its long-term damaging effects). But when a poet lifts a pen on one day and looks out the window the next, he sees that the world has changed with every ink he transcribes. And that is the spirit of Social Reform, and its triumph in intellectual evolution. That is why I became an artist and poet.
But Social Reform can be powerful indeed, and when the voice of the people outweighs politics then even the Government would bend to our will. The war against Misogyny grew stronger by the day as the "controversial topic of Feminism" suddenly turned into a nation-wide concern, and Feminism itself grew in support over the years, a good thing indeed. However, the path itself was built on emotions, and no one knew the inherent consequences of the act. The Anti-Misogyny law was enacted due to the voice of the people, and what followed was something horrible that messed with the balance of equality, something apparently "unheard of" in America. I'll separate that topic into another post.
-
I will leave this post brief: Life and work beckon.
Misogyny is a dreadful thing. In many areas of humanity, you still witness atrocities committed simply because a person is born as the other gender. Even India isn't exempt from it. Despite our revolutions and ethics, there are still several areas which are darker with misdeeds -- if anything, in those areas where culture is least of people's concerns, life is far more horrifying, bloodier and brutal beyond imagination, and not just directed towards women but also for fellow men. Culture moves with literacy, and India currently is has the highest illiteracy in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India) (yes, there still are people living in mud-huts in various states), hence a lot of injustices go beyond control and notice. When industrialization moves without culture the incidents get worse, and hence we plead for law. When law is incapable and lame, we try our best to push education, first and foremost, towards those that haven't benefited from it.
But over time, especially since the past decade, feminism began to dominate India. First as controversial, but then as a proud judgement. Based on the ethics our nation was founded on, based on the newer values brought by unification of religions, we believed that a woman's voice could unlock all the doors of the universe. The Vedant philosophies encouraged the rights of women to participate equally in social, political and corporate worlds as men, and women were well represented in terms of sexual equality. Those who once discriminated against the women eventually became their defenders, their protectors, and eventually the force against misogyny grew stronger. All thanks to Social Activism and Reform.
What's bizarre is that the proposal in the Fuck Sexism thread someone placed was against "Misogyny" rather than Sexism in itself; while we're all against Misogyny unanimously, such a reckless proposal was doomed for failure. Social Reform is already powerful enough to change the way societies think. But my people wanted to take this Activism to a whole new level. They included politics.
Criminalizing Misogyny
Sorry, no links this time, since I couldn't figure out the exact dates and place. I've read the whole damn thing on a Hindi paper, but can't remember if it was Andhra Pradesh or somewhere else entirely.
The rates of misogyny dropped greatly in states that possessed the highest rate of literacy, thanks to the widespread of cultural ethics began promoting feminism further. However, such slow but progressive growth simply wasn't enough for some, especially since cultural values only affected the most literate classes (such as those in Maharashtra) and not the backward or illiterate families. Anti-misogynistic laws were proposed by some Feminists, including ministers such as Renuka Choudhary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renuka_Chowdary), and "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Women_from_Domestic_Violence_Act_2005) and similar acts were considered and implemented.
So what happened? First of all, it outlawed "Dowry", which was an excellent move. Secondly, everything (seemingly) went according to plan. Again, I don't remember which state or city, but... First month, about 40 men in a small city were arrested in their crimes against womankind. Second month, the numbers dropped to 24. Third month, it was merely 18. Fourth month, it was 6. For the fifth and sixth months the numbers remained as low as single digits. Then suddenly, in the seventh month, the numbers increased to 15. Eight month, 29. Ninth month, 60. In the following months, the numbers touched three digits.
So what do the numbers signify? You might consider that violent men were pretty common in that city, and they were getting what they deserved. As for the rapid decline and rise? Isn't that simply a fluctuation of uncertainty and fear, where the "men just wanted to rebel against the womankind"?
No, there was no such rebellion from the men at all. The answer was even more baffling.
Anti-Misogyny Backfires
Considering the majority of the Compendium are actually from America, stating that "women can abuse/harass men" sounds laughably ridiculous to you; then, I implore, go travelling, because if you find it that ridiculous then you make a horrible "activist" -- plus, that also makes you sexist for promoting sexual inequality. Let me explain:
About 8% from the first month, 40% from the third month, 80% in the seventh and eighth month, and 74% in the ninth month among the people who were arrested for misogyny were innocent men, and were released after receiving reports of a thorough investigation. What happened was that the act itself was biased, and the reason for the failure of this reckless proposal was that tilt in power at the favor of the females side rather than focused on eliminating Sexual Inequality altogether. The thing was, ever since the implementation of the Act, while some arrests were legit, certain abusive women felt empowered by the law and abused it to get what they want, because the law itself gave them a blank check to use it against the males. This even gave rise to blackmailing incidents where women oppressed against men with law at their side, and other crimes that were swept under the hood by political feminist movements. All it took for a woman passing you on the street, who you probably never met or weren't interested in, to simply point at you and scream, and she suddenly acquires all the public support to defame you and arrest you.
Indeed, the police required evidence, and eyewitnesses were glad to point out the perpetrator as a male. But eyewitnesses can be misleading (http://www.livescience.com/16194-crime-eyewitnesses-mistakes.html): there was a study conducted by Indian psychologists who determined that the perspective of the onlookers was biased in women's favor (the abusive ones who claim to be the victims) because firstly they are unaware with how a circumstance begins, secondly because of the chaos that follows, and thirdly because of the "righteousness" to defend the weak (which is exploited by women trying to acquire their sympathy) -- all because the society was already trying to eradicate female oppression.
Here are a few comments from this link (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100721081030AAmlm8x):
Misogyny and misandry are prevalent in EVERY country. India is neither the rule, nor the exception. However, let's not forget that drastic measures have been taken in India by Feminist ministers like Renuka Choudhry in what she calls, are "measures to save innocent women".
According to this law, ANY relative of a man can be jailed for as much as raising his/her voice at the bride in the family. Apparently, based on an interview that's on youtube, this law and many other such laws are being misused and abused by clever lawyers and vindictive women to jail innocent men. Talk about a good idea gone awry!
India is one of those countries [along with Mexico] where a man can be jailed simply because he didn't give his wife physical intimacy.
It is one of those countries where new laws are being ratified that would implement vastly differing tax threshold level between men and women.
We'd all agree that the law should be fair and unbiased in its handling the genders, but laws that specifically promote gynocentric progress while victimizing men?
Abject misandry.
Thanks to feminism garbage India has already become a gynocentric hellhole. There's a law there where men can be jailed & fined if they simply insult any female member of their familly. Not to mention the India "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act" - which aim to protect women only and complete ignore men, so much for equality eh?
I understand the situation of misogyny and the horrors therein, but we cannot approach it carelessly and in turn create a brand new problem. I've received a lot of flak and contempt for mentioning this, and mostly because people here feared their ideas would be contradicted. But haters are gonna hate and Truth will never change. The flawed belief that women can't be wrong stems from ages old oppression -- people are subconsciously convinced that the oppressed can never be oppressors because of the endless sympathy and firm stance to defend them. While that is a good cause in defensive view, it is hardly logical to base long-term decisions on such perspective, because given sufficient amount of power over someone even a saint has the capacity to abuse it (http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Effect-Understanding-Good-People/dp/1400064112). But 'Methods' are everything, and it pays to be careful. Why not promote Sexual Equality by actually promoting Sexual Equality?
And so began another round of Reform, where female representatives of Feminist movements came forth and discussed their concerns that such criminals gave womanhood a bad rep, and that one mustn't consider females as infallible. This time it was a unanimous effort, from both genders, to help stabilize society from the persisting new threat of Female Supremacy, while battling the orthodox Misogyny at the same time. The best weapon, again, was literature and media -- because the Government cared a shit, but the commoners are our strength.
As a closing note, however, I'm proud to understand that our nation is doing our best to fix all the social problems, and that we have acquired a level of equality where women are valued (well, at least in the developed states). No matter how much one tries to ignore or dismiss, you can't turn a blind eye to the records. Gandhi is India's mind, and Tagore is India's soul, but the face of our nation has always been an Indian Woman (http://bhavanajagat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bharat-mata.jpg). Our great industrialists are women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra_Nooyi). Our renowned Media leaders are women (also promoting Social Reforms and Feminism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekta_Kapoor). Our astronauts are women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpana_Chawla). Our most influential politicians are women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi). Even our President is a woman! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratibha_Patil)
But alas, my nation is far from perfect, and there are still primitive areas where education is scarce and poverty is common. We already had an emerging culture, and what was needed most was education; Renuka Choudhary and other ministers could have instead focused on expanding education and preparing an unbiased "Domestic Violence" Act rather than stir the powers of Female Supremacists. There is sexism and other horrid practices in those orthodox cultures where Law exists and Dowry and injustice is outlawed, but Social Reform hasn't reached, and there are still so many women and men suffering out there, pleading for mercy. And I can hear their cries echoing through the woods. It breaks my heart.
-
What an interesting story! In particular, your use of the unreliable narrator creates good tension between his wise ideals and foolish perceptions. The Wikipedia links are a nice touch of comic relief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_relief). This is very much a work in your distinctive style. My only criticism is that you need to introduce a climax to tie things together and emphasize the plot. Good work overall, and as a fellow writer I am well aware how the writing of fiction can aid one's personal philosophical development.
-
And what's gotten you so insecure and angsty?
@Everyone else: You guys must have heard of the minority Sikh and Muslims in the USA that are usually primary targets for racism bullying, which occasionally leads to violent social circumstances with no fault of the victim's own. Sometimes this racism persists because "Muslim" suddenly means "terrorism" to some folks, while sometimes it may be because the Sikh look (or think) so radically different from the American citizens, what with their turbans and beards.
One such victim is Gulshan Singh, 18 of age. He wanted to tackle racism in his social life, and so he approached the way we Indians do best:
He broke into a song! http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/11/18/sikh-teenager-raps-against-bullying/
I post this here because such vigilance and creativity is what kickstarts a good, empathetic social revolution. An individual wants his voice to be heard, and he encourages others in turn to stand up to social injustices in language they'd love to recognize.
Michigan-based Gulshan Singh, 18, felt strongly about countering the widespread bullying of Sikh teenagers in the U.S. “I wanted to do something about it but never knew how to, or never had the means to do it,” said Mr. Singh. In the end, he chose to rhyme about it – and to make a three-minute music video to go with it.
The clear distinction between progressive social revolution and radical activism is that, unlike activism, this isn't a "war against this and that", but an encouragement and empowerment to the minority class. Saving lives matter more than petty duels.
-
And what's gotten you so insecure and angsty?
Is this more of your stylish Social Reform? Or are you trying to lob an insult that you lack the strength to lift? Either way, methinks you should stick to fiction yet...
-
I'll try to give you something a bit more actionable, Tush. When you imply near the start that the United States has a problem with allowing political speech, that's where you lost me. For all it's faults, the US has some of the strongest protection of free speech in world. Starting off from the premise that free speech is one of the weaknesses, rather than one of the strengths of the US is a hit to the credibility of your message.
-
I'll try to give you something a bit more actionable, Tush. When you imply near the start that the United States has a problem with allowing political speech, that's where you lost me. For all it's faults, the US has some of the strongest protection of free speech in world. Starting off from the premise that free speech is one of the weaknesses, rather than one of the strengths of the US is a hit to the credibility of your message.
I think I lost you there, because I don't think I said it was a "problem" to allow free speech, but actually the "problem" is that people complain without showing their responsibility as a citizen. Or am I missing something? If I am, I'd appreciate if you could quote the statement which troubles you.
-
This is the quote I'm referring to. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but given that the framing of your article is to contrast India and the United States, this seems to imply that the US is a country with weak free speech protection, when the opposite is true.
And not by totalitarian restrictions on "free speech" (which is almost never effective) or criminalizing sexism, mind you; it was something much more subtle, much more powerful and even more beneficial, progressive and liberal.
-
Ah! Radical Dreamer, thanks for pointing that out. I'll re-frame it.
I actually said that as a response to some Compendium members preferring "restricting Free Speech" as a means to abolish misogyny back at "Fuck Sexism" thread, and I for one do not believe that Totalitarian attitude is necessary in order to stop sexism. I'm actually trying to promote social liberty here, implying that there is a more powerful and liberal alternative if we are to abolish sexism. As you said, the USA already promotes freedom of speech, and that's a good thing to keep.
-
Oh, bother. Why not a few criticisms beyond the presentational? You did put so much effort into it, after all, and since you're still being petulant maybe you would benefit from useful feedback.
Sexual inequality. What can I say about it? A primary concern in domestic / social, urban and rural, political and corporate environments, it leads misogyny wherever cultural values are only a virtue of selected few rather than one of universal acceptance. America (I say this because the majority of the Compendium are Americans) is currently dealing with this frustration, but I would like to point that a few select states in India -- in lines of industrial development, education and high cultural values -- have actually effectively dealt with it at a grand scale (it still exists, but only at orthodox and illiterate backgrounds, such as Rajasthan or slums anywhere).
No place in India at the level of a state has “effectively dealt” with sexism such that it only exists in the fringes of “orthodox and illiterate backgrounds.” You are revealing your nationalistic pride, but also your ignorance of the nature and pervasiveness of sexism.
And, unlike what some of the Compendium members suggested, we didn't need totalitarian restrictions on "free speech" (which is almost never effective) or criminalizing sexism, mind you; it was something much more subtle, much more powerful and even more beneficial, progressive and liberal.
Referring to me, of course. More of that passive-aggressive bollocks of yours, and after I so painstakingly emphasized the exceptional nature of calling for a restriction on what I consider to be one of the most important freedoms in the land. Totalitarianism? Right...
That said, RD misunderstood you. You were referring to "restricting free speech" and not "free speech" as "almost never effective."
I suppose anyone from a Developed Nation would place support in strengthening "law" in areas where crime rates are higher, but depends on the level and method of restriction of power and rights which a nation can either be judged a Democracy, Communism, or Totalitarian -- after all, Judiciary exists for the stability of the nation.
The phrase “anyone from a Developed Nation would place support” is a fallacy. I’ll attribute it to an artistic embellishment, which is excusable. However, the actual substance of your assertion is wrong regardless of the fallacy. Unless you are using an incoherently broad sense of the word “law,” it is not the case that people’s only recourse to the scourge of crime is to call for more laws. That’s true even if we don’t accept your insinuation that these would be criminal laws. Many actual liberals, as opposed to your grasping construct of what a “liberal” is, prefer community organization, social action, and policy adjustments, as well as laws—both criminal and not. And, of those two kinds of laws, liberals usually prefer laws which promote socioeconomic development in distressed areas, rather than laws which punish the downtrodden.
What you did was describe a conservative position and attribute it to all Americans. No points for that.
Our laws currently are sufficient to provide free speech to the commoners and penalize those who threaten that stability, such as thieves or murderers, and yet ordinary people tend to "complain" that there's too much of "evil" going around while quietly awaiting the Government to do something about it. When patience wears thin, and they notice more "evils" being conducted, they suddenly have a reckless knee-jerk reaction, "There should be a law against this and that" as if it's so easy to pass a bill and change something without consequences. Some of the best of them study law and politics to become lawyers and politicians, and in the end do the same thing others before them did: constantly bicker self-righteously, while the public stays in the heat for too long.
It’s not clear whether you’re talking about the U.S. or India, but your assertion that the law is sufficient to provide free speech and penalize offenders is flat-out wrong in either case. Indeed, the absurd logical conclusion of such a position is that we do not need to make changes to the law—that the law is perfect. We should then therefore dispense with our legislative branch of government.
Your comment about how people react to it is no better. You disparage—you actually disparage—the ones who bother to do something about perceived social ills around them. You play the public against itself, blaming those who twiddle their thumbs for doing nothing and blaming those who take action for not achieving progress. That’s a caricature, and a false dichotomy. It’s true enough that the public often behaves poorly, but what would you have them do if neither nothing nor something?
So apparently everyone's being sent to prison one way or another, either for accidentally tripping over the stairs and damaging the walls, scratching you neighbor's brand new car, or simply inquiring about your ex-girlfriend's weird new hairdo, and what you call "Jail" has now become a vacation zone, the ticket's of which aren't available this summer. The only ones that usually don't find their way in those prisons are actual criminals -- those professional criminals who know the shortcomings of the law and are always capable of escaping, those who are mostly recognized as serial killers, organized criminals, human traffickers, drug dealers, organ thieves, etc. and slip in the shadow of commoners to do their business. These are the professionals who role their eyes when civilians bicker with the police and quietly do devious things while looking innocent in the face of the law. The best of predators always get away, leaving their preys to rot.
This is one of the excellent passages in your entire story. Here, your narrator’s voice truly shines light on real injustices without getting sidetracked in wacky interpretations.
Ah, I’m afraid I’m just about out of time for this. I’ll have to pick and choose a few more rather than proceeding thoroughly.
The reason this movement works is because, unlike an angry mob, it isn't a group of 'protesters', but a community of intellectuals who bring about change with activism, education, empathy, and literature, art, songs and poetry. Such a movement is always targeted first to the public to 'benefit' them rather than face 'against' them, and as such is always welcomed with open arms.
Your “social reform movement” is a good idea, but this passage here describe your only mechanism for implementing it. You’re essentially saying that “intellectuals” will show up, be welcomed by the masses, and achieve the kind of reforms that you yourself could support.
That’s not usually how it works. Indeed, the United States has an anti-intellectual climate. But even in more tolerant places, the public never bows to intellectuals. Also, intellectuals are not uniform do-gooders who can be trusted to right wrongs purely because of their intellectualism. Thirdly, what exactly do you mean by these “intellectuals,” since just a few paragraphs earlier you were denigrating people who decided to get involved and become professionals. Are lawyers and politicians exclusive from intellectuals, to you?
Considering that your entire thesis rests on the social reform movement being functionally viable, you need to put a lot more work into your design. Again your unreliable narrator illustrates not the road to the change you want to see, but his own folly.
Gandhi is India's mind, and Tagore is India's soul, but the face of our nation has always been an Indian Woman. Our great industrialists are women. Our renowned Media leaders are women (also promoting Social Reforms and Feminism). Our astronauts are women. Our most influential politicians are women. Even our President is a woman!
I think, of your story, that was the real crux of the villain’s voice, coming as it did from someone who claims to be committed to sexual equality. At some point in the sequel you will have to confront your romantic misogyny and choose whether you want to continue to let that view corrupt any positive contribution you might make to the sexual equality movement, or whether you want to actually pursue sexual equality for the sake of the human beings who suffer from sexist treatment.
I can’t discern whether you actually don’t realize that what you are saying is in contradiction to your stated ideals, or whether you interpret sexual equality to have the room to accommodate the doctrine of “separate but equal.”
This is not trivial to me, because I still can’t determine whether you are simply a mook in the tradition of many Compendiumites before you, or whether you are a supremely misguided but well-intentioned humanist who wants to achieve change and is stymied in that by getting caught up in cultural biases and personal ignorance.
All right, I’m outta time. Gotta fly...!! Seriously, though, it’s a good piece of writing and I think you make many points worth appreciating even though the overall work is deeply flawed and unacceptable. Like I said before, wise ideals and foolish perceptions.
-
but the face of our nation has always been an Indian Woman. Our great industrialists are women. Our renowned Media leaders are women (also promoting Social Reforms and Feminism). Our astronauts are women. Our most influential politicians are women. Even our President is a woman!
There are several hundred Indian feminists who would disagree with you. This argument also goes back to the deeply patriarchal and problematic idea of the state/hearth as a woman that must be protected by male soldiers and statesmen. It's a vile form of patriarchal nationalism. Women, after all, are the incubators for the state and its soldiers, and must be protected.
-
Oh, bother. Why not a few criticisms beyond the presentational? You did put so much effort into it, after all, and since you're still being petulant maybe you would benefit from useful feedback.
And I'm going to do the wise thing and ignore your "accusations", "insults", "bullying" and "antagonism", which you like to falsely call "criticisms", because you hardly have anything productive to add these days.
but the face of our nation has always been an Indian Woman. Our great industrialists are women. Our renowned Media leaders are women (also promoting Social Reforms and Feminism). Our astronauts are women. Our most influential politicians are women. Even our President is a woman!
There are several hundred Indian feminists who would disagree with you. This argument also goes back to the deeply patriarchal and problematic idea of the state/hearth as a woman that must be protected by male soldiers and statesmen. It's a vile form of patriarchal nationalism. Women, after all, are the incubators for the state and its soldiers, and must be protected.
I'm not so sure whether you're informing me, Z, or actually supporting the backward patriarchal nationalism (I'm assuming the former, just to be on the safe side). Nevertheless, I'm a Modernist Indian, and I'd beg to differ. While Indian Feminists required the support of the male gender (and still do, otherwise all hell goes lose), the female representation (as in, represented by their own gender) didn't exactly grow strong enough until 2007, I think. At this point of time, however, Modernists and Liberals have value female liberty, disregarding the earlier patriarchal system. As I mentioned, Patriarchy still exists, but its grip in my nation is starting to lessen with the rise of female literacy and cultural evolution. These days, Urban Indian women speak for themselves proudly. For instance, my family is among the rising ones that actually have equal "heads" rather than the father being dominant.
The reason I call the poor, orthodox and illiterate as "backwards" is because they're stuck to older times and social systems, and cannot progress without proper support. I'm hoping to help promote educations in these areas. Question is, "How?"
EDIT: There's a point to be made, though. Even if Patriarchy were to decline, there will still be some sort of dominance in some families (either of male or female), though it couldn't cause too much problems so long as we manage to abolish sexism altogether.
-
Canada has anti-hate-speech laws. I don't think it's made a noticeable dent in the amount of prejudice here. Education and exposure of the young to competent [women/people from other disadvantaged groups] are, IMHO, the only real and lasting fixes. Anything else just drives the problem underground without getting rid of it, and it can smoulder there for generations.
(I'll leave it there before I say something nasty.)
-
And I'm going to do the wise thing and ignore your "accusations", "insults", "bullying" and "antagonism", which you like to falsely call "criticisms", because you hardly have anything productive to add these days.
You always make the wrong choice, tush, the choice to diminish yourself. If you are so fragile, so incapable of self-contemplation, so rigid and unwilling to learn and grow, then you are not worth the time and energy of others. You can spill all the ink in the world, then, and will attract the avidity only of fools.
I suppose the evidence is all in. A mook, then. Longwinded--and much after my own heart, in that regard--but not an intellectual and no force for good in the world as far as I can see, though you lay claim to honorable goals.
What a waste. Enjoy your fictional crusade.
-
If you are so fragile, so incapable of self-contemplation, so rigid and unwilling to learn and grow...
To cherry-pick what fruit or bread could be beneficial for growth and what could be toxic is considered to be "fragile" to you? Do I really need to take the bitter grapes you offer me in the form of all your "bullshit"? I think I'll pass, thank you.
(I'll leave it there before I say something nasty.)
I think for a bit I ought to give you the freedom to say something nasty, just out of curiosity. XD Anti-Hate-Speech is something quite different, though, as no specific gender or caste is targeted, save a disruptive "element" which could cause problems to the social stability. Right you are on the "noticeable dent" thing -- it's restrictive and cautionary (that's one of the points of Law) but it doesn't build in citizen responsibility.
-
And, unlike what some of the Compendium members suggested, we didn't need totalitarian restrictions on "free speech" (which is almost never effective) or criminalizing sexism, mind you; it was something much more subtle, much more powerful and even more beneficial, progressive and liberal.
Referring to me, of course. *
Our laws currently are sufficient to provide free speech to the commoners and penalize those who threaten that stability, such as thieves or murderers, and yet ordinary people tend to "complain" that there's too much of "evil" going around while quietly awaiting the Government to do something about it. When patience wears thin, and they notice more "evils" being conducted, they suddenly have a reckless knee-jerk reaction, "There should be a law against this and that" as if it's so easy to pass a bill and change something without consequences. Some of the best of them study law and politics to become lawyers and politicians, and in the end do the same thing others before them did: constantly bicker self-righteously, while the public stays in the heat for too long.
It’s not clear whether you’re talking about the U.S. or India... **
*So apparently you are multiple Compendium members.
**He was talking about India.
I think it's so strange how we can all read the same passage and somehow all read something different. The words are the same to everyone, but...
For example, Z's criticism (?) seemed to support Tush's arguments, from my reading.
Also, Josh, I'm not sure where you're from, though I think you live in the Seattle area at present, but what makes you think that you have more knowledge about India and what is going on there than SOMEONE FROM INDIA WHO LIVES THERE? Because half of your criticisms are "you don't know what you're talking about."
It's fine when you correct him on what life is like in America because obviously he's an uneducated foreigner who can barely even write the language properly and so of course has no idea what life and politics are like here, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he knows more about Indian life and politics than you and has experience and knowledge to back up his claims, even if he chooses not to. "Reasoning" with you is a lost cause, after all. I'm not surprised he didn't let himself fall into that circular pattern again.
Um, what I did actually want to ask about, was, What was dowry and why was it a bad thing? I'm really not even familiar with non-Indian dowry traditions, let alone Indian traditions.
-
what makes you think that you have more knowledge about India and what is going on there than SOMEONE FROM INDIA WHO LIVES THERE?
Lifelong study and devotion to sexual equality. As for me, I've read a couple books by Indian feminists and attended a lecture. Everything about tush's newfound equality rings hollow. The portrait I was given (supported of course by myriad studies and scientific data) is that sexism is (as expected, of course) still widespread across the world, particularly in India. India is one of the prime offenders in son preference, especially the northeastern states. And the picture of Indian homelife was one of unrelenting servitude for women, who must maintain a household that (because of Brahmic tradition) usually includes taking care of elderly family members in addition to everything else. Try to break your role as homemaker, and you will be punished. But so it goes in almost every civilization.
I'd quote more statistics, but I've loaned out my Atlas of Women at the moment.
-
tush, when say something like that, it's usually because I don't have the emotional energy (and you've already seen what happens when I run out of that unexpectedly) to deal with the potential fallout that might come my way if I actually expressed what I feel, so for the time being, I'm going to remain silent. I'm sorry if that comes across as passive-aggressive, because that isn't my intention—it's self-defense mixed with the frustration of a chronically ill person who has to take his limitations into account even if he doesn't want to.
-
What was dowry and why was it a bad thing?
I think this should sum it up as a simple explanation: http://www.indianchild.com/dowry_in_india.htm
Dowry is actually a case where the family of the groom demands a heck-load of wealth from the the bride's family and out of various bull-shit reasons, sometimes even going so far as to threaten to "break the marriage and defame the bride". The amount of wealth the groom's family demand is so outrageous that the parents actually have to strive their asses off for twenty whole years to gather that sum; thus if a girl is born then off the Dad and Mom go to slave away and dive into poverty. This in turn promotes misogyny and has renders an idea that when a girl is born into the family it's an ominous sign, thus breeding incredibly disturbing thoughts.
Dowry is one of the worst evils in my nation. Being a rebel, if I sight any instance of Dowry in my neck of the woods I will bring retribution. But so far in Maharashtra, I haven't yet, besides the once in Bengal when I was 9. But the biggest problem is at Rajasthan.
tush, when say something like that, it's usually because I don't have the emotional energy (and you've already seen what happens when I run out of that unexpectedly) to deal with the potential fallout that might come my way if I actually expressed what I feel, so for the time being, I'm going to remain silent. I'm sorry if that comes across as passive-aggressive, because that isn't my intention—it's self-defense mixed with the frustration of a chronically ill person who has to take his limitations into account even if he doesn't want to.
No probs, Alfy. Whenever you're ready. 8) But I suppose your health matters most at the moment. Godspeed.
Lifelong study and devotion to sexual equality.
Except that you studied about the backdrops of Caste-based societies, where Sexism still exists in full force. However, I won't argue with you here because you're right that the influence is massive considering these societies have scarcely developed much since the initial formation, especially the Northern states (did I mention how we Maharashtrans despise the Northern folks? They're hellishly uncultured, rude and abusive).
However, my prime focus was the states which actually have been successful at curbing misogyny a great deal. Not every victory is marketed, though, and especially such victories are never a 100%, and hence our continual struggle to maintain integrity. The only difference is that... meh, how do I put it... *scratches his head*
-
To Tush: Ah, I see...augh that's awful. >~<
To Zeality:
The portrait I was given (supported of course by myriad studies and scientific data) is that sexism is (as expected, of course) still widespread across the world, particularly in India. India is one of the prime offenders in son preference, especially the northeastern states. And the picture of Indian homelife was one of unrelenting servitude for women, who must maintain a household that (because of Brahmic tradition) usually includes taking care of elderly family members in addition to everything else. Try to break your role as homemaker, and you will be punished.
So, I was talking to Josh, not you, Z, but I can respond to you anyway because you bring up a good point.
You have more than a layman's knowledge of Indian social dynamics, from the sound of it, and what you know reinforces what most (in my experience) Americans "know" about India and its women. But the fact that there still is misogyny doesn't mean that reform isn't happening, which is, I think, the core of what Tushantin is trying to say here.
And I still say that someone from India who lives there and especially if that person is active in Indian politics as Tush seems to be (I may have misunderstood, but even if he is not personally active and has merely done his research)--that person still knows more about their own country than even a well-read foreigner who has never been to India. But perhaps you have been, and I am in error. Reading a couple books and attending a lecture really doesn't add enough credibility (though it adds a lot) to override a native's firsthand knowledge, in my opinion.
Not to mention I'm a bit dubious of feminists, what with how ridiculous our American brand can be sometimes...but maybe Indian feminists are different. (and that's an entirely different subject altogether, so I'll leave it at that)
-
I think you live in the Seattle area at present, but what makes you think that you have more knowledge about India and what is going on there than SOMEONE FROM INDIA WHO LIVES THERE?
Ah, you are drawing upon the fallacy that one must experience a thing to be qualified to speak about it. The old "You don't know what it's like until you've tried it" argument--a concept they presumably teach in college philosophy courses if you ever care to take one.
I know that, scientifically, one must always speak with a certain tentativeness. However, in my travels, I have met so many people who know less about a thing that I do despite their being immersed in the experience of that thing for years or even a lifetime. I know more about religion than many if not most religious people. I know more about the South than many Southerners. I know more about sexism than most victims of it.
I do not particularly know much about India, but neither is my knowledge trivial. Years of reading the news, on top of a modest but notable study of history, will do that to a person. It's called being informed, and I very much encourage you to try it. I encourage everyone to do the same. Tushantin lives there, but what he says makes it seem to me that he doesn't really know much about his own homeland. Sexism, for instance. He says that in many areas of India it has been effectively curtailed. That doesn't jive with the fact that India is one of the worst countries in Asia to be a female. (Nor is that an assertion I pluck out of thin air. You may scrutinize it at your convenience.)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he knows more about Indian life and politics than you and has experience and knowledge to back up his claims, even if he chooses not to.
I wish it were so, but it is frustratingly uncommon that people who really ought to know a whole lot more than me about a given thing only know somewhat more, or no more, or significantly less, or practically nothing. It's a testament to how people waste their lives and to how injustice suppresses people from developing their potential.
"Reasoning" with you is a lost cause, after all.
I doubt that. People considerably smarter than yourself would say otherwise. Oh, but that's a fallacy. Here's something more defensible: Prove it.
What you're really saying, when you say something like that, is that you're annoyed by the fact that I am firm with foolish people, or perhaps that you are annoyed by my particular style. That's fair, but irrelevant. You would not know much about my ability to reason, not least because I'm fully aware that most of my criticisms at the Compendium take a shortcut from exhaustive substantiation and precision proof. But, also, I suspect that you're not particularly adept at culling the chaff from the wheat yourself, at least so far in your naive youth, so that even if I were to be more thorough you would somehow come around.
What can I say? Humanity has no shortage of people who are weak and strive to be weaker, people who learn a little and know a lot, people who think their level of passion or their particular opinion entitles them to metaphysical truth. And, after fifteen friggin' years of being more respectful and giving many benefits of doubt, I have lost my patience for endless repetition to unappreciative mooks. The thinkers, the curious, the self-improvers, they look at what I write and although they can be off-put by the feisty attitude they understand that I have a point. Lesser individuals see only what they want to see, and it's probably not cupcakes and daffodils.
Here's a piece of counsel for you: If all you have to say to me is to chew me out for interacting with others, save it. I'm not interested. You're probably better off just avoiding me entirely. If you want to engage me directly, on some matter of your own, do that. But I'm not going to participate in your jejune social dramas.
-
:lol:
That doesn't jive with the fact that India is one of the worst countries in Asia to be a female. (Nor is that an assertion I pluck out of thin air. You may scrutinize it at your convenience.)
As a whole, I believe it. It's what my limited experience has shown me. But I am willing to accept that not all of India is uniformly terrible, even if most of it is, if presented with such a statement that is then supported in a way that I can identify and agree with. Which I was presented with.
As for my "jejune social dramas" (Oh look, Josh knows words! See how very learned he is!), I will cease them immediately after this post, until such a time as I feel the need to resume them. Keep in mind that I would, actually, take your side if you ever said anything that I agreed with. As it is, either I disagree with you, or I agree more strongly with someone else. It's nothing personal in that respect. I understand that you "have a point," I just find that it is a badly-supported point because I have never been remotely convinced by any of your arguments. The opposite...reading your supporting statements generally causes me to disagree with you more strongly...
But your "particular style" is abrasive and rude and you seldom back up your arguments with more than "no, you're wrong because this is right" or "you're not understanding me properly, let me restate my views and be more condescending," or even "I'm right, and you are foolish!" and that is why I clash with you so often these days. I guess what I'm saying is, being an ass doesn't hurt your arguments or diminish the strengths of your beliefs or the credibility of your ideals, but it sure doesn't help any!
But, also, I suspect that you're not particularly adept at culling the chaff from the wheat yourself, at least so far in your naive youth, so that even if I were to be more thorough you would somehow come around.
You'll have to restate this in simpler terms--I'm just too young to understand. You're saying that "even if [Josh] were to be more thorough [Katie] would somehow come around."
Do you mean that even if you had better arguments, I still wouldn't agree,
or do you mean that if you had better arguments, I would agree?
-
I guess what I'm saying is, being an ass doesn't hurt your arguments or diminish the strengths of your beliefs or the credibility of your ideals, but it sure doesn't help any!
That's possible!
But of course I wouldn't be being enough an ass if I didn't point out that, going by my sense of the term there are some far worse offenders 'round these parts! That gets into layers of individual blind spots as a result of societal norms. I suppose Diogenes was an ass when he cavorted through the streets of Athens carrying a lantern in broad daylight in search of an honest person!
-
tushantin, thanks for opening a bit of a window into some initiatives associated with the Feminist movement in your country. I've barely had a chance to dig up the text of the 2005 anti-domestic violence act (http://webapps01.un.org/vawdatabase/uploads/India%20-%20Protection%20of%20Women%20from%20Domestic%20Violence%20Act.pdf), but seeing as it's only as long as some of the posts here, I do hope to read it over!
Even in hindsight I think passing this was a damn brave thing for your government to do, judging from all I've read about it so far. I agree that the battle must finally be won at the cultural level, but laws also have a very critical role to play in redressing problems. A social revolution might take longer than a battered spouse has -- and some diehard old-fashioned people will be a lost cause any way you slice it. The law's shortcomings and unforeseen consequences deserve to be satirized, but a responsible social activist also has a duty to recognize in equal measure whatever successes it's had in achieving the goal set out for it, I think. The difference between a fair approach and a totalitarian one is whether innocent men who get swept up in it have a chance to prove themselves innocent. That, in itself, is a different question from whether the innocent are actually proclaimed innocent, and the guilty are proclaimed guilty. Those are concerns I can't comment on for not being near enough to the situation, but as an outsider I am heartened to see that's the law's implementation is being monitored by UNIFEM (http://webapps01.un.org/vawdatabase/uploads/India%20-%202nd%20Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation%20Report%20-%20DV%20Act.pdf) at least.
If I may go on a tanget: tushantin's mentioning literacy rates, together with seeing that UNIFEM's got some pretty good data on reports per area, got me interested in some statistical research regarding this law. If I can find literacy rates for all the areas that reporting data are available for, I want to run a regression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis) of violation reports on female literacy/graduation rates. I think it's reasonable to infer that areas with low female literacy/education also see greater rates of domestic violence. But will we find more violation reports in low literacy areas, or actually less? Perhaps the answer would be an indicator of whether the law is meeting the goal the legislators had in mind when creating it?
-
I agree that the battle must finally be won at the cultural level, but laws also have a very critical role to play in redressing problems. A social revolution might take longer than a battered spouse has -- and some diehard old-fashioned people will be a lost cause any way you slice it. The law's shortcomings and unforeseen consequences deserve to be satirized, but a responsible social activist also has a duty to recognize in equal measure whatever successes it's had in achieving the goal set out for it, I think.
The laws do indeed have a critical role, but a common man can hardly do much at a political level, and hence my satire towards "twiddling thumbs" because every citizen has a role to fulfill towards social stability. Problem is, Feminism in India is a divided cause, and hence maintaining cultural responsibility and women's freedom rests upon social reformers (hence my "R. K. Laxman" approach when I wrote the first post) who educate the masses via accessible means (and this works even if the majority of the population are anti-intellectuals). The only problem is that the laws in India, unlike in the US, don't have their kinks worked out (quite a number of crimes are actually committed by those in power, such as higher classes and Police officers) and hence the domestic justice retains within the hands of the commoners and reformers. Hence, social vigilance is every citizen's responsibility. (http://www.jaagore.com/sochbadlo/main.php)
The civic authorities might have turned a blind eye to the sorry condition of our roads. The community might have learned to live with it. But Shahabuddin Khan of Boisar, Mumbai didn't.
Where others saw a pothole, he saw an opportunity to make a difference. When not ferrying passengers, he repaired potholes by filling them with gravel. This selfless act has possibly saved hundreds of his fellow commuters a great deal of inconvenience. A truly positive act.
Shahabuddin Khan fills potholes. A hundred, thousand, or a million people might be inspired by his story. Not everyone can fill potholes, but everyone can contribute one click towards sharing this story - A small action that could make India a more positive place.
Do you see what I'm talking about?
The difference between a fair approach and a totalitarian one is whether innocent men who get swept up in it have a chance to prove themselves innocent.
That's a good point, thanks. I mentioned the restriction of Free Speech as "Totalitarian" because in some cases such severe laws actually lead to public restlessness, despite its control over civic life. As far as "proving themselves" goes, trying to defend in a trial is usually a lost cause unless you have a professional lawyer to help you, despite the evidences for your innocence (and hence "Justice is blind"). Domestic matters such as public shaming and gender oppression has a far greater power than law when the citizens are capable of recognizing such actions and are willing to help curb it when the law enforcement aren't around. The only difference is that the citizens need to approach with a positive outlook rather than hateful, and in the areas I've personally been to the citizens are incredibly helpful folks. These are empathetic actions, to be able to help a fellow stranger in need, that help strengthen national integrity.
If I may go on a tanget: tushantin's mentioning literacy rates, together with seeing that UNIFEM's got some pretty good data on reports per area, got me interested in some statistical research regarding this law. If I can find literacy rates for all the areas that reporting data are available for, I want to run a regression of violation reports on female literacy/graduation rates. I think it's reasonable to infer that areas with low female literacy/education also see greater rates of domestic violence. But will we find more violation reports in low literacy areas, or actually less? Perhaps the answer would be an indicator of whether the law is meeting the goal the legislators had in mind when creating it?
Do share your finding, and thank you for looking up. XD I'm curious to the data myself. It is fairly reasonable to connect literacy with domestic violence (and, not to mention, caste systems and dowry), so I wouldn't be surprised with the numbers rising in states like Rajhastan, but I certainly hope it isn't so with Punjab. What I can say, however, is that while numbers among the highest violating states may give some good impression on public life, the numbers may not be accurate -- this is usually in accounts quite a few cases get swept under the rug.
But I am willing to accept that not all of India is uniformly terrible, even if most of it is
Then it makes you the wiser. Also, it's not just about India, but any nation thereof.
Ah, you are drawing upon the fallacy that one must experience a thing to be qualified to speak about it.
It's not fallacy. It's "Psychology". You need to know what the heck you're talking about, Josh.
I'm fully aware that most of my criticisms at the Compendium take a shortcut from exhaustive substantiation and precision proof.
I don't think I even need to comment on that.
I know that, scientifically, one must always speak with a certain tentativeness.
And you violate your own tentativeness, regardless of debates.
I know more about religion than many if not most religious people.
Then let us know what you think of the principles and monastics of the Bowries. I can't wait to laugh at you.
Years of reading the news, on top of a modest but notable study of history, will do that to a person.
And "years of news reading" will let you know that news medias rate and forward news based on their "Shock value", which, if taken from foreign simplistic perspective, will implant a flawed image of someone's country. For instance, the US Government allows its students to use calculators in Mathematics, in which case my boss's niece went there for education and managed to solve mathematical equations in half the time it took for the other American students, and only relying on critical thinking rather than gadgets. Not to be racist here, but this circumstance (by simplistic value) paints a picture among other non-Americans that the "students of America are stupid". If you'd argue, then the other non-Americans would gladly point that you don't know about your own homeland.
Josh, while I respect that there is more to the American culture than I know of based on "reading the news" and second-hand info, I expect you to do the same. Don't let your racism and ignorance bleed onto every post you write just because you "saw something on TV". And further more:
"You should not venture to be pompous when you know not whereof you speak."
Here's something more defensible: Prove it.
There, proved it.
-
I know more about sexism than most victims of it.
I realize this is a tangent, and perhaps should be moved to the "Fuck Sexism" thread, but I'd like you to explain what you meant by this statement.
I may be misinterpreting what you said (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but this offended me. It offended me very deeply. At the most basic level, you will never understand sexism "more than most victims of it" simply because you are male. What you said (as I read it) seems akin to a white person who has done extensive research on racism who claims that they know more about racism than those directly affected by it. A white person will never know more about racism than a minority, no matter how much they have read and studied. An able-bodied person will never know more about ableism than someone with a disability, no matter how many degrees they have in that field. A cisgendered person will never know more about trans*phobia than someone who is transgendered, no matter how many books they have read. Because those aforementioned people--no matter how many books they have read, or how many degrees they have, or how many years of their life they have poured into understanding these social injustices--are among the privileged. You are among the privileged, Josh, because you were born a man. Yes, you are likely more book-smart than the vast majority of people on this forum. You are most likely more book-smart and well-read on sexism than most victims. But at the core of it, you will never know more about sexism than women.
Again, if I'm misinterpreting what you said, let me know, but as it stands I take serious issue with your statement. As someone who has suffered both mild and severe forms of sexism, what you said dumbfounded and disturbed me.
-
I know more about sexism than most victims of it.
I realize this is a tangent, and perhaps should be moved to the "Fuck Sexism" thread, but I'd like you to explain what you meant by this statement.
I may be misinterpreting what you said (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but this offended me. It offended me very deeply. At the most basic level, you will never understand sexism "more than most victims of it" simply because you are male. What you said (as I read it) seems akin to a white person who has done extensive research on racism who claims that they know more about racism than those directly affected by it. A white person will never know more about racism than a minority, no matter how much they have read and studied. An able-bodied person will never know more about ableism than someone with a disability, no matter how many degrees they have in that field. A cisgendered person will never know more about trans*phobia than someone who is transgendered, no matter how many books they have read. Because those aforementioned people--no matter how many books they have read, or how many degrees they have, or how many years of their life they have poured into understanding these social injustices--are among the privileged. You are among the privileged, Josh, because you were born a man. Yes, you are likely more book-smart than the vast majority of people on this forum. You are most likely more book-smart and well-read on sexism than most victims. But at the core of it, you will never know more about sexism than women.
Again, if I'm misinterpreting what you said, let me know, but as it stands I take serious issue with your statement. As someone who has suffered both mild and severe forms of sexism, what you said dumbfounded and disturbed me.
If you mean that I'm not subject to misogyny by virtue of my sex, and thus don't have the firsthand experience of it, you are completely right. I have been fortunate not to be the direct target of misogynistic behavior, partly because as you say I was born into the privileged sex and partly because I'm picky about the company I keep.
I will say, to be clear, that I have often been the indirect victim of sexism as told by how it directly affects the world I live in and the people who are important to me, and occasionally I have even been the direct victim of misandry.
But the emotional experience of a thing is not the same as a conceptual understanding of that thing. I am literate in sexism. I know all about what it entails, how it works, where it occurs, why it happens, how to recognize it, where it comes from, and so forth. Many of the victims of sexism--sometimes even as a direct consequence of the sexism against them--do not know some or all of these things. They may only know the sting of oppression. In addition to my personal interaction with many friends and others over the years (which is not to be marginalized, I thank you), I have studied the issue more thoroughly than, almost certainly, everybody else here. Nor have I simply memorized details, but come to understand the nature of sexism as fluently as I speak the English language.
It's sort of my pet issue, and all that.
As I mentioned earlier, in philosophy there is the question of whether firsthand experience of a thing is necessary to understand that thing. The issue comes up precisely because there are those who say "If you have not experienced a thing yourself then you cannot know more about it than those who have," which is what you have said here. That assertion is generally incorrect. It gets down to what "understanding" means. Suppose I were blind--which is a much more severe scenario than knowledge of sexism, as it assumes a fundamentally lower level of sentience. Let's say I studied all about eyesight, the concept of visual stimuli, the nature of how it works, the texture of one's exposure to it, and so on. If I were really passionate about it, I could easily come to know more about eyesight than the vast majority of sighted people, who take it for granted and would be hard-pressed to say many pertinent factual things about it because they have never really thought about it or become scientifically literate about it. Without experiencing eyesight, I could come to imagine it, to wax artistic about it, to conceive of it using reference points that are meaningful to me, and to appreciate the power that it gives a sighted individual. What I would not be able to do is directly experience it myself. If I were able to cast off my blindness and directly experience the power of vision, the only things that would change are that I would be able to derive utility from it, and, more pertinently, the experience of vision would combine with my conceptual understanding of it to make my understanding more literal--more personal.
With misogyny, it isn't even the case that I am missing one of my senses. What I am missing are the ill-effects of misogyny. Instead of being fundamentally cut off from the experience, however, the ill-effects of misogyny are specific versions of more general ill-effects--such as the subversion of the will, selective treatment on irrelevant grounds, irrational hatred, and actual physical violence. I have experienced all of those things, and they are cousins of the experiences of misogyny. I hope you can appreciate the significance of the fact that the experience of misogyny is not unique in human existence.
However, even if the experience really were something as fundamentally unique as, say, eyesight--something which cannot be experienced in any other way--it would still not be the case that I could not come to know a thing as well as or better than many (not all!) among those who can experience it. To objectively understand of a thing--to understand how it affects people, how it works, etc.--personal experience isn't necessary. The personal experience certainly helps. But it isn't a prerequisite, because the nature of comprehension transcends emotion. Emotion--that is, direct personal experience--colors our understanding. It adds to it. It does not diminish it. But the structure of the thing being understood exists independently of the tones in which it is colored.
None of the above ought to be a point of contention. If you construed my wording in my earlier post to somehow diminish or demean the experience of those who suffer from sexism, then please accept this clearer explanation in its stead. More than that, I cannot offer. I have been on the receiving end of bigotry before; I know what the feeling of it is like if not necessarily the flavor of any one form that bigotry takes. And I empathize more than perhaps you appreciate with the victims of sexism. Human experiences, after all, seldom occur in a vacuum, and one person's experience can affect people connected to that person. To say that I have not personally known the pain of misogyny belies the pain that I feel of it through others, the pain I feel to see all of my species brutalized by sexism in all its forms, and to a lesser extent the pain I feel from occasionally being the target of misandry--which is what you did to me in your very post.
I may seem like an arrogant intellectual, because after all I am. But that appearance does lead people to mistake me sometimes. For some reason, of all the discrimination I have suffered in my lifetime, the one that hurt the most was back when I worked at my student newspaper at university. I was in the newsroom, where several of us were talking about something to do with racial poverty. When I made a point (I don't remember exactly what), the news editor, who is brown-skinned, asked me something to the effect of what I could possibly know about being poor. It's true that I'm white-skinned, but I was also probably the poorest person in that room. He didn't know that, and maybe you don't know that any male who is not utterly disconnected from humanity can come to know and understand the evils of misogyny even without being a personal victim of it.
You are very good at being clear with your feelings. I appreciate your telling me that my earlier post dumbfounded and disturbed you. I hope this explanation eases your discomfort. Even so, I am wary of posting such an honest reply. Romantic breakups are a rotten time to be getting into arguments, and if this post doesn't ease your comforts then I have done nothing but add to your pile of frustrations, which I would really hate to do. Nevertheless, I gave it much thought and I am posting it anyway. There isn't much I can do for you, Saj. You are so often hurting and I always feel helpless to do anything to help you feel better, despite wishing that there was something I could do--because I empathize with your plight and also because I happen to think you're a good person. But there's not, not a thing I can do to help. The most I can do is respect you, and try and be your friend, and be honest with you when you ask me a serious question. So now you have my honest answer. Sexism isn't just an academic issue for me. I take it very, deeply personally. You cannot say I am not wounded by its existence in this world, or that I don't know about it--or at least you cannot say those things and be correct. In a thread dominated by people whose intellectual contributions I not only disrespect but in tush's case outright disdain, I hope that you, at least, will understand what I mean. If not, then at least I have made the effort.
-
With that, I have definitely monopolized tush's ill-conceived crusade beyond what is appropriate. I'll leave this topic to those of you who care to participate in it.
To ZeaLitY: Go ahead and move Saj's post and my reply to another thread. Thanks.
-
Thank you, Saj. And you are right.
No amount of reading, researching and devouring second-hand information can ever trump first hand experience. No amount of learning can synthesize the actual scars in the flesh and in the psyche of the victims. None of us here can ever comprehend the emotional and physical trauma that such victims undergo, and especially since we're the privileged lot. While I know what it feels like to be living in poverty or slums, while I have a good feeling what it feels like to be discriminated against simply because of our status and race, I can never understand the pain of those who were born without a voice, those who lost their limbs or sight, or those who are oppressed and mutilated just because someone finds it interesting.
But my nation is a mix of interesting diversity, where you'll find things one can't find anywhere else, where hell and heaven both exist. You will see the darker side of humanity, but you will also see angels who risk themselves to save someone in need. And I'm fortunate enough to be living in places similar to Maharashtra and Goa where folks are respectful and civilized, misogyny is nearly* non-existent -- here you can take an evening stroll and peek into the public life at its heart, and you will find women proudly proclaiming to be equal to men, and a few of those who actually claim to be superior to men -- and the public will gladly stand up to social injustices.
But there are also darker areas in my nation where women have no such privileges. They can't voice their despair. They can't stand up to the injustices. And there is no one to represent them, and their cries go unheard.
And hence the purpose of this thread. We are privileged enough to discuss about it, but at least we have a voice. Then so too must we defend the victims and provide them Agency, give them the freedom to speak for themselves. The least we can do is responsibly try, and I'll do my dang best to make sure no other woman suffers as Saj did.
*I say "nearly" for obvious reasons.
-
I'm gonna leave this here (http://news.yahoo.com/video/tech-15749651/india-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Ftech-15749651%252Findia-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html), regarding sex selectiveness in India. tushantin, let me know if you can't see it, because I think you've referenced this problem earlier. I'll try to find it on Youtube if the Yahoo embed isn't showing up for you.
I view it as an example of why campaigning for change at the cultural level is important. For one thing, it seems a bedrock cultural change has to go hand-in-hand with legal changes, because otherwise a corrective law might not even be seen as something to be enforced. Then again, this is a complex battle to wage in the first place: mothers must have autonomy over whether they carry their babies to term after all.
-
I can't seem to view Yahoo Videos, Faust, although I think I know what you're trying to show me. That's no surprise to me. Here's a different link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP22lCP3c5w), though with the same idea (from ActionAid UK).
Looking at it again I'm actually glad I live in a much more privileged, blissful and educated culture where these cases are incredibly minimal. Most of the sex selection cases are, unsurprisingly, the direct consequences of Dowry. This situation usually drives families into desperation, especially in orthodox and poorer areas, and they end up abandoning girls entirely. A gender which gets them more "profit" is considered a fortune. However, while dowry has been outlawed the social pressure still retains among the people (mostly because a family that has been "shamed" with its association with law will considered as outcasts). But as the dude in the video says, corrective law alone cannot help curb this offense -- there is a great need for a social movement to raise awareness, and there is a great need to help better the status of women.
As I mentioned before, there are two kinds of India that reside in my nation, and this one is the ugly, backward majority (I say "backwards" because they remain in the past and can't seem to help elevate themselves to the national ideal we've set for ourselves), and to be fair the majority of these cases occur from areas of lower literacy rates. I've even explored the state of Maharashtra further and found, based on sectoral division, that the eastern parts are in the shadows of industrial influence which results in financial drops (by which case, the drops would result in further dowry, and hence more sex selection cases).
Here's a literacy range map of the past decade: (http://makanaka.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/census2011-paper2-lit2.png) Places like Maharashtra, Goa and Kerala still triumph, and correlate directly with their sex ratio, while states like Rajasthan, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh are the worst offenders of both sex selection and literacy (although, with the Women's Rights bill, Andhra Pradesh does fair better than Rajashthan and Bihar in terms of, well, women's rights). Punjab seems to have lifted itself well in the last decade, but even then...
THIS! (http://makanaka.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/lancet-female-foeticide-6.jpg)
....
The battle against the backward classes is still on. Here's a good blog worth some people's time (http://makanaka.wordpress.com/tag/census/).
I view it as an example of why campaigning for change at the cultural level is important. For one thing, it seems a bedrock cultural change has to go hand-in-hand with legal changes, because otherwise a corrective law might not even be seen as something to be enforced. Then again, this is a complex battle to wage in the first place: mothers must have autonomy over whether they carry their babies to term after all.
Indeed. Problem is, in those areas, they just don't have the choice. Desperation and destitution can drive societies into insanity. They need a rope of some kind to pull through, and if the Government is too lazy sitting on its ass all day then it's up to us commoners: if it disgusts us so much then why not go about bringing change ourselves?
That said, law usually follows with cultural traction, not the other way around, so indeed they have to go about hand-in-hand.
-
Was gonna post this at the "WTF check this link out" thread, then perhaps at the "Amusement" thread, but realized that this was probably the best place. This is also something ZeaLitY would be interested in taking a look. These are merely what I found, but I must say that crowd-sourcing brings excellent government-public integration.
I'll try to go through it chronologically:
1) In Iceland, constitutions are written on Facebook:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/14/in-iceland-constitutions-are-written-on-facebook/
Ah, Iceland -- home to the Blue Lagoon, Sigur Rós and, most recently, crowdsourced constitutionalism. With its economy still reeling from the 2009 financial crisis, the country has begun hammering away at a brand new constitution, and is asking its online citizenry for help. The draft is being prepared by a democratically elected, 25-member council, but any Icelanders with an internet connection can add their own suggestions, engage in online debates, or follow the proceedings in real-time on Facebook. All suggestions are moderated to weed out the really dumb ones ("FEWER VOLCANOES"), and those approved by the board will be directly added to the draft, due to be completed at the end of this month. It's a fascinating social experiment, but one that could probably only happen in a place where nearly 90 percent of all households have a broadband connection, two-thirds of the entire population is on Facebook -- meaning their politicians are always within poke's reach.
1) Governments are the best institutions to benefit from crowdsourcing. Redefining the constitution may seem like a bit of a stretch when you think of how younger generations are leaning more towards technocracy then democracy but it still seems like an interesting experiment. I recently wrote an article on crowdsourcing, it might be an interesting read: http://michael.moreyne.co/2011/07/10/crowd-sourcing-and-crowd-funding/
2) Talk about transparency. Something we don't have here because then we would see how all the interest groups make sure that the loopholes stay wide and open.
2) Iceland's crowdsourced constitution submitted for approval, Nyan Cat takes flight over Reykjavik:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/31/icelands-crowdsourced-constitution-submitted-for-approval-nyan/
Link 2 (shortened) (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=stjornlagarad.is%2Fstarfid%2Ffrumvarp)
A committee of 25 Icelanders submitted the first draft of a rewritten constitution to the country's parliamentary speaker Friday, and despite our recommendations, Rebecca Black was conspicuously absent from the proceedings. The democratic experiment bravely asked citizens to log on to Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and Twitter to engage with the committee in a discussion about the nation's future. While the project's Facebook page played host to pleads for free ice cream and more volcanoes, the constitution's creators managed to stay on task, focusing on issues of decentralization and transparency in government. The draft is slated for review beginning October 1st.
1) America has a very different view of what a constitution is and quite frankly what government is. It's the nature of the country and the people: left and right, red and blue, right and wrong, America does not do well with ambiguity, nor the idea of a collective society being something desirable. In America you hardly ever hear the word civil servant because, as a people, they do not believe this to be natural. America believes that people make the best decisions they can as individuals and that in aggregate the result is representative. It's an adversarial concept that so long as different branches of government are at cross purposes they will struggle and evolve and keep each other in check. And as a result the USA constitution is narrow in scope and far more specific than Iceland would ever want.
Iceland, as the constitution is written, demands a strong civil service. They have a number of very prominent people in positions of power whom must commit to neutrality and to work in the interests of the public good. Since Americans are weary of concept, and perhaps rightly so given their own and world history, such positions could never exist there.
I think it's very interesting that in America the idea of a crowd sourced constitution is unfathomable, while in Iceland it's the exact opposite. Size of the country is part of it, history another.
From a technology side of things I will say the Iceland constitution seeks privacy while in the USA a bill where were every single IP address you visit would be recorded is made relatively easy to get is being passed. You would expect that in a country who crowd sources their constitution. I think it's a little sad this is not even on the radar for most Americans where privacy is given away for a free copy of Angry Birds.
2) If someone developed a keyword algorithm, I see no reason why this wouldn't work in America. People who are bashing this are probably the same people who vote their candidates into office based on hair-do's and posture instead of issues, political acumen, and voting record.
Wikipedia seems to work just fine with millions of people collaborating. I don't see how a crowd-sourced Constitution is such a stretch of the imagination, except to the political elite who rule with impunity nowadays and don't want to be bothered with things like accountability and transparency when they can just keep taking kickbacks from special interests.
On a side note, interesting link. Not sure about its accuracy: http://lawdelta.org/world/Main_Page
-
"Be the change that you want to see in this world." -- Gandhi
In a world without Sherlock Holmes, the citizens should stand bravely, courageously, and watch each others' backs. Only then can we destroy injustice!
http://www.facebook.com/zerotolerancecampaign
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/zero-tolerance-campaign.html
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-06/mumbai/30366166_1_zero-tolerance-amboli-murders
http://www.zerotolerance.org.uk/
And, to help your fellow brethren:
http://deviantcare.deviantart.com/
-
Satyameva Jayate (Truth Stands Invincible)
http://www.ndtvmovies.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20120202003&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=206935
http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/idiotbox/aamir-s-satyamev-jayate-review-truly-soul-stirring_110819.htm
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/satyamev-jayate-aamirs-tv-show-is-a-movement/255255-44-124.html
A lot of us rant that the public is too stupid and ignorant for not wanting to learn about the atrocities of the world. But this guy has no time to rant, because he's too busy doing what most of us simply can't. Do the impossible!
-
Problems of Stagnation -- Both in Religion, Philosophy and Science
Look at this video:
[youtube]F0sszxXlzlY[/youtube]
You clearly begin to grow biased against the religious endorsements in school, even though you'd justify it for the sake of scientific curiosity. But how fair would the newer paradigm be compared to the previous one in the current system itself? Take a look at the next video:
[youtube]e9yUXVzs0Qw[/youtube]
The problem is neither of the "contents" of what we're actually being taught, but the "system" we're being taught in. We already know that both religion and science grew parallel from a single point, but eventually branched out into two separate entities in time, and for a good reason: Religion, being politicised, became stagnant and frictitious to human progress. What's worse is that modern science is also slowly enveloping this same mechanism of rigidity, at least in educational fields if not research, that hinder the growth of curiosity and perseverence.
The problem? Let's see if you can recognize these terms: "It is what it is, there's proof, so don't question it."
I'm not sure if I need to say anything beyond this. Now, it would sound fair for science to directly challenge religion with its innovative systems of acquiring knowledge, but we've also had several clusters of inconsistencies that actually made us revise entire paradigms to make way for a more accurate perspectives. Hell, I lost grades in last year's Psychology paper just because I had a more accurate paradigm available when the school was using an older one: The academy insisted (rigidly so) that the tongue actually has a "standard map" of where certain kinds of neurons interpret certain kinds of tastes, which I rejected because this theory had been disproven long ago, and people STILL seem to cling to it. The only reason I failed was because the schools function in the same way: "We have the proof, so don't question us", without the examiners considering even once that I may have an equal proportion of evidence too.
I call on the fallacies of cultural inconsistencies than the "content" we're being taught, whether Religious or Science. If we manage to fix the core of the problem, then creative thinking will pave a better path of progress for both the branches, and more efficiently so