Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Fewer girl babies now means fewer child-bearing women later,
    which means a decline in the population, which is just what the
    government wants.
    
    						Ann B.

    Its not just in China. Check out Allen Dershowitz column in the
    24Aug88 Boston Herald edition. Amniocentecis is allowing couples to chose
    the gender of the baby they wish to have. 
    
    Jim

    There's historical precedent for this type of gender selection in
    Western cultures as well as China/the Far East.
    
    In times of famine or when means dictated a limited number of mouths
    that could be fed, girl children were abandoned to the elements
    in ancient times [and some not so ancient].  Girl children were/are
    more frequent foundlings in industrial areas [i.e. mill towns, the
    garment district, and large cities in general].  Newborn girls found
    in trash cans and airplane lavs and such still outnumber newborn
    boys found in similar circumstance -- at least from the news reports.
    
    In societies where men have traditionally had greater status, this 
    sort of artificial selection is inevitable. It is to be hoped that as 
    the sexes travel toward equal status -- perceived, as well as
    legislated -- that this selection process will eventually die out.
    
      Ann [J.]

    It seems that the ability to determine the sex of a fetus and then
    abort it based on sex (oh, the miracle of modern technology)is just a
    modern-day extension of the fact that the Chinese culture has never
    valued women...instead of leaving newborn females out in the elements 
    to die, the medical men are now aborting the female fetus.  I'm sure
    foot-binding still exists in remote areas of China as well, and
    probably infanticide for those that cannot afford abortions.
    
    And ditto to .1, yes, less women to bear children would reduce the
    population which fits nicely into their goals.
    

    We still live in a woman-hating world, I suggest Andrea Dworkin's
    book, Woman Hating.  Although it was written maybe 8 - 10 years
    ago she may as well be writing it for today's times.
    
    This is not a book to read if you're prone to depair or depression,
    but it's powerful.

    
    I believe I read something last night about this.   
    
    Apparently some countries still believe in paying a dowry for the 
    marriage of a daughter.  These dowries range in amounts up to $10,000
    (the average annual income of these families).  
    
    This was the reason stated in the article I read for the abortion of 
    the female fetus.

        
  

	Before I begin, I would like to state that I offer this view
	in the interest of a philosophical discussion.  I am not necessarily
	stating that this is my belief.


	More in line with the basenote's request about the effect
	on the culture, I wonder if "supply and demand" would apply....

	Since there would be fewer women, would they perhaps attain higher
	status?

	Would the society then go full circle, with couples trying to
	conceive females?

	-sjk

    re .4:
    
    > I'm sure foot-binding still exists in remote areas of China as well,
    > ...
         
    Wasn't foot binding a purely Japanese "art"? (I am not certain) and
    at that only for the aristocracy. Peasant farmers surely could not
    afford to cripple half the work force.
    
    As I understand it, the biggest reasons for devaluing girls is a)
    the marriage dowry, and b) the family name (and supposedly family
    property) follow the son.
    
    In the _Nova_ episode "China's Only Child", part of the story concerned
    a family whose first child was a girl, and they were eager for a
    boy to continue the family name, as the father had no brothers.
    With the limited economic reforms, they were making enough to afford
    a second child. The rest of the story details the badgering the
    couple went through until at last submitting to an abortion.
    
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                                                

    RE: .7

    I can't believe that women would achieve higher status just by their
    being fewer women.  If that were true, people of ethnic and racial
    minorities should be valued in our society.

    I should think that any serious shortage of women would probably have
    the reverse effect.  Increased rivalry for women would make men become
    even more possessive of them, probably to the detriment of their personal
    freedom.

    Certainly, the level of infanticide and child abandonment that has
    occurred up till now has not had much effect on the male/female ratio.
    If this use of abortion to select for the sex of children should become
    very popular, either here or in Asia, what *does* happen as a
    result of women becoming a minority in the population will be very
    interesting to observe.  This doesn't seem likely, however--both the
    testing and possibly repeated abortions would be fairly expensive
    (though not as expensive as $10K dowry).

    On a related note, there is some new technique which allows genetic
    examination of the fetus during the first trimester.  It is called
    "corillary villi sampling" (this is just a guess at the spelling). 
    This technology might make sex selection by abortion even more popular,
    since it can be done earlier, when abortion is somewhat safer, and
    probably before the mother is even visibly pregnant.

    What bothers me most about all this is that this use of abortion, no
    matter what you may think of it in general, seems pretty petty and
    vain.  If it becomes widespread, it can only hurt the cause of abortion
    for reproductive choice.

    							-- Mike

    <--(.8)
    
    Foot binding is an exclusively chinese custom, to my best knowledge. (I
    know for certain that it is chinese and not japanese, but don't know
    for certain whether it is/was practiced elsewhere;  I say "is"
    because I can remember reading that in certain remote villages, girls
    are still subjected to foot-binding despite the rather severe penalties
    imposed by the government if the perpetrators are caught out.)
    
    						=maggie 

    small nit in re .9
    
    it is corionic villi...
    
    which refers to the villi or finger like protruberances that
    project out of the corion which surround the fertilized egg.
    Coronar as a root word refers to the heart.
    
    and thanks for the information that you gave in your note.
    
    Bonnie

    Foot binding was done by the Chinese back in the time of Kubla Khann.
    The pratice started out of the myth that a woman could loose her
    virginity by taking to big a stride while walking. Bound feet will
    shorten your stride.
    
    Anyway back to the subject. The female fetuses are not the only
    ones being aborted, although they are the majority. Couples who have
    a male child will abort a male fetus in order to have a female,
    because they want one of each.
    The Oprah Winfrey show had American couples on that have done this.
   
    The thing I believe would happen to societies that practice femicide
    through aboriton, is that the society would wipe itself out. 
    Take the US for instance.
    Women make up the majority of the population yet our population
    growth due to births has grown little, and in some years has declined.
    What will happen if women are the minority population ? 
  
    I read a newspaper that, in Isreal, Jewish women have the highest abortion 
    rate per capita amoung any country. The experts say that the Jewish 
    population is in decline and Isreal will loose its Jewish population
    if it continues. 
    
    Whenever societies play with nature for economic
    purposes, negative consequences result.
      
Jim

    re: .8
    
    That's just the problem, this attitude that men want to carry on
    the family name...what does that mean anyway?
    
    Names are powerful, and the continuatin of women's names has no
    value.  Women are generally given their father's last names.  But
    then that is just the point of patriarchy.  We can make women
    invisible, we can abort them when it is deemed better to have a
    son.  Males have value, women have no value.
    
    Concerning the foot-binding, it existed in more than just the
    aristocracy.  If you were a peasant woman you were still expected
    to stand on your mutilated feet and walk like a woman.
    
    The thing that is so horrible about the extermination and mutilation
    of women is that it has its basis in providing sexual pleasure for
    men.  Foot-binding was practiced because men believed that these
    tiny, mutilated feet would enhance their sexual pleasure with women
    because small feet had something to do with making the woman's vagina
    different in a way that would be more pleasurable to men.  Snuff
    movies, where women were literally being killed (snuff movies always
    are pornographic), and in fact, the word pornography means the violent
    depiction of whores (see Andrea Dworkin, Pornography for exact history
    and references).  Foot-bound feet would eventually start to rot
    and decay and required heavy perfume in order for those men to get
    near the object of their sick obsessions.  I see some 'fashionable'
    women's shoes on today's market as not unlike foot-binding, in that
    repeated wearing of certain kinds of shoes cause damage to women's
    feet.  For details re: foot-binding and other discussions of woman
    hating, read Andrea Dworkin's Woman Hating.
    
    But going back to the root, it doesn't matter what culture or country
    you can go to, women are not valued and are second class citizens.
    

    I read somewhere (I can't remember where or when), that when testing
    for the sex of the unborn baby:
    
    	1) if it shows a female, there is still a chance that it could
    still be male;
    
    	2) if it shows a male, chances are good that it is male.
    
    This is, of course, in early stages.  The stages where abortion
    is usually done.
    
    K.C. "I-am-not-a-doctor-and-don't-pretent-to-be" Fahel  ;)

    re: .14
    
         I would imagine that it depends on the method of determining
    the sex.  I agree that using ultrasound to determine the sex has
    the problem that you stated in your note.  Does anyone know the
    accuracy of genetic testing?  I'd imagine that its in the high 90's
    percentage wise.
    
    ASP

    Re: .13
    
>    								   Snuff
>    movies, where women were literally being killed (snuff movies always
>    are pornographic), and in fact, the word pornography means the violent
>    depiction of whores (see Andrea Dworkin, Pornography for exact history
>    and references).  

    Could you complete this sentence?  I'm curious as to what connection
    you are trying to make between "snuff" movies (which nobody has
    ever proven actually killed anyone) and foot-binding.
    
    Also, I'm sorry, but I cannot take Andrea Dworkin seriously.  There
    was a big discussion of her in WOMANNOTES-V1, which makes interesting
    reading.
    
    				Steve

I feel that the abortioning of female fetuses is an unintential side effect of
individual goals (having at least one son) being at cross purposes with the
group/government goals (lowering population).  This is borne out by the fact
that the Chinese government is now allowing parents with first born girls to try
for a male child again without penalties. 

As for this being indicative of woman-hating...  I can't see that chain of
proof.  Just remember that more then half of the people having abortions are
women.  If women do not value women, does that necessarily imply that these
women hate women?

The fact that the people have reasons for wanting a male instead of a female
baby is real.  This being necessary and sufficient proof of woman-hating or even
of woman-devaluing in every case is unreal.  Perhaps the reality of the reasons
should be changed; then again perhaps there is a better solution.

"I can't believe that women would achieve higher status just by their being
fewer women.  If that were true, people of ethnic and racial minorities should
be valued in our society."

Minoritys are not ""necessary"".  Having 'reproductive stock' (including men) is
necessary for survival.  But then again I don't think women will necessarily
become valued if they are scarce.

JMB 
     

    The dowry is an issue as well as the fact that when a woman gets
    married she goes to live in her husbands home.  They take care of
    his elderly parents - this is the family structure.  If a couple
    has a daughter there is no one to take care of them when they get
    older, after she has been married off.
    
    I just recently finished reading Hawaii by James Michner which included
    quite a bit of info on the structure of the Chinese family and their
    beliefs.  Interesting reading about foot binding, children and spouses.
    
    Suzanne

    re: .16
    
    It was missing more than a verb.  The sentence that should have
    been included was to draw the connection between foot-binding
    (mutilation of women) and pornography (mutilation of women) as a
    basis for sexual turn-on for men.
    
    
    re: .17
    
    
    "I feel that the abortioning of female fetuses is an unintential
    side effect..."
    
    Right.  Ultrasound and abortions just spontaneously or unintentionally
    happen in China.
    
    
    "Just remember that more than half of the people having abortions
    are women."
    
    So what does this have to do with the systemactic aborting of female
    fetuses in China?
    
    
    "As for this being indicative of woman-hating...I can't see that
    chain of proof."
    
    And I am not surprised that you cannot see.
    

        re: .17 and .19

        "Just remember that more than half of the people having abortions
         are women."        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
         A nit here, ALL of the people having abortions are women.
        
    

    Re .20, all of the people who are actually having abortions performed
    on their bodies are women.  But, I wonder if the women have any
    choice in this, or is this a policy that was set up by men and which
    the women, through economic necessity, have to follow?
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .20
    
    Well, all is "more than half", isn't it?
    
    Re: .21
    
    It is important to realize that most of the women affected in such
    cultures thoroughly and firmly believe in the rules of their
    society.  It does not occur to many to question what, to us, seem
    absolutely inhuman and horrifying policies.  
    
    As we have seen in our own society (case in point, Phyllis Schlafly)
    women can be just as stubborn in opposition to social reform that
    is in their benefit as anyone.
    
    I want to suggest that this is a general cultural problem, and not
    a dire plot of all the Chinese men against the women, but I'd just
    be accused of diluting the problem again....
    
    				Steve

    Re: .15, how accurate is genetic testing?
    
    With amniocentesis, sex is determined by the presence or absence of
    male chromosomes.  If any are found, then the fetus is male. If only
    female chromosomes are found, they may indicate a female fetus, but on
    the other hand the chromosomes may all belong to the woman being
    tested.  For this reason, a large number of samples are tested, but
    it's still possible for a male fetus to be incorrectly identified as
    female.
     

    I hate it when I join a conversation late and all the good arguements
    or general statements have been claimed.
    
    In the traditional Chinese culture, I've seen the higher importance
    that are placed on the men in the family, not that I condone it.
    The men are usually the breadwinners who supported the parents in
    their old age and carried on the family name; in that culture, the
    continuation of the family name is VERY important.  The women are
    expected to get married and go to their husbands' families.  The
    Chinese parents thus see that they will have to bring up a girl
    who will eventually leave and not be around to provide for them
    in their old age.
    
    Because of the emphasis on the males in the family, the Chinese
    culture seems to place more importance on the wives of the sons
    over the daughters (sisters of the sons).  During the precession for
    my father's mother's funeral,  my father was first in line (oldest),
    my uncle was second (younger), and then me (only son of a son).  My mother
    came after me and then my uncle's wife followed. THEN came my father's
    sisters.  My sisters came before everyone else's kids because all
    the other grandson's were "someone else's" grandkids.
    
    It took me a long time before I realized why my mother got so upset
    when I dated a girl who was not Chinese.  I was the only one to
    carry on the family name, until my two male cousins were born; however,
    I am still the first grandson and it's important to them.
    

    The Mad Chinaman

	The good arguments are hardly all exhausted.  

	It seems to me there is a clearer way to look at
the issue, that indicates a course of action to those who
want to do more than speculate on or curse the way of the world.

	Clearly, there is a proportion of Chinese families,
on the order of 9 out of 10, who are committed to having 
small families in a country with adequate food for the
population at hand.  A commitment to a happy family in
an orderly society leaves many families with one female
child.

	Some families are committed to other traditions
than simply a happy family in a prosperous country --
some to ancestral marriage customs, dominance of elderly
or male members, fetishes, etc.  Tools for carrying out
these petty goals include force, ritual, mutilation of
feet and fetuses, and so on, as described previously, and 
they are reasonably effective for the remaining percentage
of the population.

	Why is this?  In our view, it's a particular 
perspective that is missing, a sense of freedom from
stuffy archaic practices.  Our American worship for the
new and decadent strikes them equally improbable. 
In both cases a rigidity of thinking and lack of clear 
responsibility for concerning oneself with the extended
family of humankind and its survival on the green planet
seem to be the basic cause.

	The real question is how to reach people who have
lost touch with their responsibility for sustaining the earth
and to motivate them to act more appropriately in general,
rather than rather remain occupied with petty fantasies. 

	I don't have the answers - just the bigger questions!

     I took a detour through the library after lunch. I read an extremely
    unsettling article from which I just had to quote here. The article is
    called "Crimes of Gender" and is in the World*Watch magazine. The
    author of the article is Lori Heiser.
    
     "Today a disturbing convergence of modern technology and traditional
    beliefs threatens to skew some countries' sex ratios even further.
    Faced with enormous social pressure to bear sons, women in India and
    China have begun using amniocentesis- a genetic test designed to screen
    babies for birth defects- to determine the sex of their unborn child.
    When the test reveals a girl, the fetus is aborted."
    
     "Of 8,000 abortions performed at a clinic in Bombay, for example, 7,999
    were found to be female. One study estimates that between 1978 and
    1982, 78,000 female fetuses were aborted in India after
    sex-determination tests."
    
     "The misuse of genetic testing for sex selection has become a
    flourishing business in India, especially in the north. Until recently,
    sex detection clinics boldly advertised that it is better to spend $38
    now on terminating a girl than $3,800 later on her dowry. Protest by
    women's groups, however, brought this flagrant advertising to a halt,
    and has led to a ban on prenatal tests for sex selection in
    Maharashtra, the state in which Bombay is located."
    
     "Some proponents of testing argue that it is better to abort than
    bring an unwanted child into the world. But as activists point out,
    dealing with the cultural devaluation of girls by preventing their
    birth is a gross capitulation to sexism."
    
     The article, which is well written, goes on to other related subjects.
    Bride burning, sexual mutilation of females, etc are all covered and
    are accompanied by graphs etc showing the regions where such atrocities
    are committed.
    
     I must admit, I was horrified when I learned that these barbaric
    practices continue today. As the father of three female children, I am
    simultaneously disturbed and heartened that I happen to live in an area
    of the world where the worst crimes are not a part of the traditions
    and customs. I shudder to think of what life would be like in some of
    these other areas for my girls.
    
     The Doctah

    
<     "Of 8,000 abortions performed at a clinic in Bombay, for example, 7,999
<    were found to be female. One study estimates that between 1978 and
<    1982, 78,000 female fetuses were aborted in India after
<    sex-determination tests."
    
    There is no way to understand this without uderstanding the facts of
    Indian culture that create it. There was an article I read called
    "One son is no sons" (author unremembered) which discussed why this
    is prevalent in India. The entire social system is set up so that the
    only protection a person has for old age care is a son. The
    daughters go to their husbands family and care for his parents. No
    sons equals no social security. The birth rate in India is affected
    by that fact that a couple WILL NOT stop having babies until they
    have two sons. The second son is "just in case" the first dies.

    The issue of female infanticide has been around for thousands of
    years. The difference is that now the females are killed before
    birth, before it happened afterwards. Given that it probably won't
    change in the near future, which is worse?

    If the people of a culture use the selection techniques (how long
    before you can guarentee that a male will be concieved?) to diminish
    the female population it won't be too many generations before the
    excess males start pressuring for more females to be born.

    Is this a horrible thing? By our cultural standards yes, but this is
    not our culture. I'd rather see fewer female children than the
    gruesome practices that deal with excess (and thereby devalued)
    females.

    The anthropology course I am taking has really opened my eyes. I can
    now see the "why" of what seem to be cruel and senseless practices.
    I am also appalled at just how long women have been chattel to be
    treated as prize animals when desired and as excesss animals when
    not desired. Got too big a herd? Just kill off some of the females.
    As I look about me today I am forced to realise that many men still
    view us this way. liesl

>    The issue of female infanticide has been around for thousands of
>    years. The difference is that now the females are killed before
>    birth, before it happened afterwards. Given that it probably won't
>    change in the near future, which is worse?
    
    I dunno. Do we have a right to impose our standards of conduct upon
    other cultures? One would believe so- otherwise why whould there be so
    many organizations fighting for human rights? It seems to me that there
    are certain elements of certain cultures that are "wrong." Practising
    the maiming and killing of people is an example of this. I believe we
    have the right, if not the obligation, to pressure these societies
    which engage in such barbarism to forgo those traditions and elements
    of culture.
    
>    Is this a horrible thing? By our cultural standards yes, but this is
>    not our culture. I'd rather see fewer female children than the
>    gruesome practices that deal with excess (and thereby devalued)
>    females.
    
    I think it IS a horrible thing. I also think that it doesn't matter
    that it is not our culture. Certain human rights exist for all, IMO.
    I'd rather see more enlightened societies than mistreated children of
    any sex. Make that mistreated people, for that matter.
    
>    The anthropology course I am taking has really opened my eyes. I can
>    now see the "why" of what seem to be cruel and senseless practices.
    
    The "whys" may explain the "reasoning" behind these barbaric practices,
    but it doesn't justify them at all (IMO).
    
>    I am also appalled at just how long women have been chattel to be
>    treated as prize animals when desired and as excesss animals when
>    not desired. Got too big a herd? Just kill off some of the females.
>    As I look about me today I am forced to realise that many men still
>    view us this way.
    
    And that's _wrong_.
    
     I guess I'm really judgmental today. But I am still really bothered by
    this.
    
    The Doctah

    I don't believe (especially as a member of the affected sex) that
    killing and maiming females is "right". I also don't believe we
    (meaning our culture) can force another culture to change their
    behavior without walking very carefully. In fact, if we don't change
    the underlying problem which causes the actions, any attempt at
    change will fail.

    The closest example I can think of are the coca growers in South
    America. They keep growing coca for cocaine because it's the only
    crop that produces enough income to feed their families. The
    government walked in and thought paying them some lump sum, one time
    only, would make them stop. As soon as the money ran out they
    returned to the fields. Wouldn't you, to feed your children?

    India has a massive population problem. Would you make it 10 times
    worse by increasing the population? Where will all those children
    get food? Do we not just change the date of the childs death? If you
    think foriegn aid will help who will provide it? In our own country
    the poor are going without food and medical care on a regular basis.
    This is a global problem. liesl

>    India has a massive population problem. Would you make it 10 times
>    worse by increasing the population?
    
    If this is the case, why not kill male babies as well? After all, a
    woman can (in general) only work on one baby at a time, a man's ability
    to father children is limited only by his stamina and supply of fertile
    women. Seems to me that it would be helpful to have very few males.
    
    Or why not kill anyone who reaches the age of forty? That would reduce
    the population.
    
    I don't think that killing people or children or fetuses is a good way
    to control population. I don't think maiming women's genitals has any
    redeeming value whatsoever. I don't think that the practice of
    bride-burning is justified to enable the male to marry another woman
    (and thus incur the windfall of an additional dowry).
    
    The Doctah

    I think that limiting the number of females is considered to be a
    better way of controlling the population than limiting the number of
    males.  From .30 :
    
    	"a man's ability to father children is limited only by his
    	stamina and supply of fertile women."
    		    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    If you have a room with 10 women and one man, you get 10 babies.  
    If you have a room with 10 men and one woman, you get one baby.
    
    When your interest is in controlling population, it's more helpful to
    have fewer women than men.
    
    Pam

    Consider also - the old-age survival mechanism requires a *son*.
     Daughters don't cut it, because they have responsibility to the
    husband's family, not the parent's.  There is economic/social cost
    to having a daughter, there is economic/social benefit to having
    a son.  Makes a very powerful inducement to have sons.  This phenomena
    is common among non-Western, pre-government social security cultures,
    not just India.
    
    Interesting demographic note.  To ensure survival into adulthood
    of one son, something on the order of 7 infants need to be born
    into a pre-industrial family.  (This is due to the high incidence
    of infant and child mortality in such cultures.)  With improved
    sanitation and food supplies, more of these children survive, but
    it takes a couple of generations for family sizes to decrease, because
    it takes that long for people to have confidence that their security
    needs will be met.  When it becomes clear that children are an economic
    hardship, rather than being security, family sizes decrease *without*
    explicit government control.  (Interestingly, also without reliable
    contraception.)  Early 1800's Europe, especially France provides the 
    historic evidence for this.
    
    My private conclusions:  Population pressures will probably get
    worse before they get better in countries such as India, China and
    most of Africa; micro-economics is more important to succesful
    resolution of major ecological problems than *anyone* has been willing
    to admit; and the best that we as caring humans can do is to encourage
    the development of living conditions which improve infant and child
    mortality statistics.

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Perhaps some members of our community who grew up in India could give
    us their perspectives on this issue.  (Arun?)
    
    						=maggie

Re .32:

Your statements that "old-age survival mechanism requires a *son*" and
"daughters don't cut it" raise more questions than they answer. *Why* do 
you think these are true? *Why* is the woman's responsibility to her 
husband's family and not to her own? *Why* should property, name, etc. be 
passed down through males and not females?

Sounds like plain old-fashioned misogyny to me. And the attitude isn't
limited to India and China. It's right here. Some years ago my husband and
I had a baby boy who died several days after birth. More than one person,
after offering condolences on our loss, went on to add, "especially since
it was a boy..." 

Women are devalued, second-class citizens almost everywhere, it seems to
me. In our society, misogyny is institutionalized in religion, politics,
pornography, business, you name it. Maybe this imbalance is worse in India
than in other places, but to me the real question is, why does *any* such
imbalance exist. My own view is that the answer has something to do with 
some men's gut fear and envy of female reproductive power and their
resulting need to control it. And you know, they're doing a good job. 

Back to the goddess,

Dorian

<Re .32:
<
<Your statements that "old-age survival mechanism requires a *son*" and
<"daughters don't cut it" raise more questions than they answer. *Why* do 
<you think these are true? *Why* is the woman's responsibility to her 
<husband's family and not to her own? *Why* should property, name, etc. be 
<passed down through males and not females?

    Why is this true? Because that's what their culture teaches them as
    children. A daughter leaves the family and has a first
    responsibility to her husbands family. She is required (culturally)
    to support them in their old age.

    Why is this true even in our culture? Because old habits die hard.
    The bottom line is economics. The reason women are in the work force
    in record numbers has as much to do with money issues as it does
    with a new "vision" of women's equality. In America passing the
    property on to sons rather than daughters is not the norm that I am
    aware of. It is not a legeal requirement as it is in some countries.

    RE: doctah. Please do not think that I advocate violence against
    women in either our culture or any other. I most certainly do not. I
    am saying that you (the general you) can not step into a culture and
    wave your magic hands and cause things to change. The text books are
    full of case studies on well meaning westerners trying to turn
    around other societies and the mess they've made of it. Just look at
    what BIA did on the reservations when they forced the Indian
    children into school and tried to deny them their culture. I'll put
    money a lot of those teachers thought they were doing the right
    thing. liesl

	Liesl has answered most of the questions raised. And I think
	she's done a better job than I can do. Thanks Liesl.

	There are a couple of reasons why male children are valued over
	female children in India.

	a. Dowry : It is common for the groom's family to demand dowry
	and for the bride's family to give it. It is the parent's 
	responsibility to get their daughter married and they would rather
	pay the dowry than have an unmarried daughter. I don't have the
	vaguest idea how this practice started. But it's not going away
	in the near future. At least, not as quickly as i would like it
	to.

	b. Social security: Once married, the daughters live with the
	husband's family and care for his parents. Somehow there's this
	feeling of the daughter not belonging ( for lack of better word)
	to the parents after she's married. Her responsibility lies to
	her husband's family.

	c. There's social prestige attached to having sons. I suppose
	this is connected to carrying the family name etc. 

	About banning aminocentesis in Maharashtra ( the state Bombay's
	in) I have mixed feelings. On one hand I feel good that fetuses
	cannot be aborted on the basis of sex. But I don't know how to
	reconcile this with my pro-choice position. And I wonder if the
	value of women will increase as the supply decreases. 

    	Manisha     	who grew up in various cities in Maharashtra
			including Bombay.

>>      the dowry than have an unmarried daughter. I don't have the
>>	vaguest idea how this practice started. But it's not going away
>>	in the near future. At least, not as quickly as i would like it
>>	to.
    
    
    Like so many well-intentioned things, I believe the concept of dowry
    started from a good premise, but went bad from there... Since women
    were not allowed to own property, the only means parents could use to
    "endow" a daughter with their wealth was through dowry, legally.
    
    my understanding,
    Marge

Could someone enlighten me as to what bride burning is?  Why is it done?  
In a previous reply, someone mentioned that it was done in order to gain
another dowry.   Is this some hideous method of "divorce"?!?

Sue

    Bride burning is a practice in which husbands in India who have not
    been given the promised dowries or for whatever other reason decide
    they no longer wish to be married pour kerosene on their wives and
    ignite them. The cause of death is listed officially as a "kitchen
    accident."
    
    The reasons given in the article I read for bride burning were as
    follows: husband not given promised dowry, husband finds another
    potential wife who may be capable of getting a more lucrative dowry,
    etc.
    
    For whatever reason, lighting someone on fire is a hideous act.
    
    The Doctah

    	The way it works is that the dowry is given at betrothal at around
    age 11 or 12.  The dowry of choice is typically a motor scooter.  By
    the time the wedding is due the motor scooter is worn out, and the
    groom has no further use for the betrothed.  At that time he goes to
    his betrothed's house, throws kerosene on her and throws in a match. 
    He is then free to go looking for a new motor scooter (and bride). 
    There have been few if any convictions, and not very many prosecutions
    for this.  The position of the authorities is that it is all hype. 
    There are some other quaint customs that are still practiced, like
    throwing the untouchables down the well, etc.  

    re .137.37 Marge.
    
    Dowry was initially a form of giving gifts to the daughter. The
    jewelry is sort of her social security. But the word dowry does
    not normally refer to gifts given voluntarily by the girl's parents.
    I'm talking about the demands made by the groom and his parents.
    
    This is a big hot button of mine.
    Manisha

    re : Note 137.40 by LEDS::LEWICKE
    
    I don't know from where you got your information. I have not known
    of dowry given at betrothal.
    I'd appreciate if you'r a little careful with your wording and not
    make it sound like it is a common practice to go around throwing
    kerosene and matches at women. Neither bride-burning nor throwing
    untouchables down the well are common enough to be called customs
    or practices and they certainly aren't quaint.
    
    Manisha
    
    

    The notes string 137.26,.27... was referred to in the VAXWRK::INDIA
    notes-conference. CADSE::KHER has done a good job in responding
    in such calm terms.                          
                                                
    In my view the article by Lori Heiser is tainted. As a Roman
    Catholic, she has a hidden agenda of being against all abortions,
    not just female foetuses. A much more rational analysis has been
    carried out by Manushi, a Delhi based feminist group. 
                                                
    Similarly, dowry/bride burning cases ( not a practice as in custom
    and practice ) cause outrage amongst most Indians and they are not
    ignored by the press. In my personal view, it is a modern and urban
    middle class phenomenon not something that has gone on for centuries
    nor rooted in the Indian culture or psyche. 
                        
    Outrages against harijans do occur, but again they cause outrage
    amongst most Indians and should be regarded as cases, reflecting
    the nasty side of the struggle of the "untouchables" cause. Their rights
    via Indian Affirmative Action and land reform legislation are enshrined
    in law, though the problem of ensuring the complete implementation of these
    laws remains.       
            
    Paraphrasing Khuswant Singh reply to Salman Rushdie ( when The Satanic
    Verses was banned in India ) :
    
    "It may not be a pretty India, but its the only India we have. And
     India as it is, is the only one we can build on"
                
    -Shantanu                                                 

>    In my view the article by Lori Heiser is tainted. 
    
    Did you read it?
    
>    As a Roman
>    Catholic, she has a hidden agenda of being against all abortions,
>    not just female foetuses.
    
    I didn't see anything in the article to indicate this.
    
    The Doctah

    RE.44
    
    Re Q1 : No
              
    Re Comment 1 : I'm not suprised.
             
    -Shantanu

    Forgive me if I view your characterization of the article as "tainted"
    as narrow-minded, considering you didn't bother to read the article.
    
    The Doctah

I got to thinking more about this after a co-worker said this topic was being
discussed as INDIA (and, as an aside, let me say thankyouthankyouthankyou to
those of you who were willing to not only discuss it elsewhere, but put in your
2 cents here).

I wonder what the numbers of the women killed by spouses in USA look like
compared to India, look like compared to other countries. Of course, I'd like
to see numbers, numbers over time, percentage of population, percentage of
women, percentage of married women, etc, etc, etc, to draw my own conclusions.
And, of course, 'whys', and the same numbers for men killed by their spouses.

It would be a pretty depressing report, but I still believe I'd learn a lot
about it.	
	Mez

    Re .46 Thats o.k., I forgive you.

    O.K. , so you are not persuaded that the thrust of that article
    as quoted by you is a pro-life one, but masquerading as a feminist
    issue.                                
                                                              
    	The article however seems to have to persuaded you that (Indian)
    customs and traditions encompass bride-burning, sexual mutilation
    of females, female infanticide/foeticide. I quote your reply : 
                                                                   
.26>        practices continue today. As the father of three female children, I am
.26>    simultaneously disturbed and heartened that I happen to live in an area
.26>    of the world where the worst crimes are not a part of the traditions
.26>    and customs. I shudder to think of what life would be like in some of
.26>    these other areas for my girls.                            
                                                                   
    Have you been persuaded by some of the responses here that these
    acts are not sanctioned by law, custom or tradition in India ?
                                                                       
    -Shantanu                                                          

>    O.K. , so you are not persuaded that the thrust of that article
>    as quoted by you is a pro-life one, but masquerading as a feminist
>    issue.                                
    
    Had you read the article yourself, you'd have noticed that the only
    mention of abortion in the whole thing was about half a page worth.
    From an article that covered a number of pages, it could hardly be
    accurately depicted as the "thrust of the article." Why don't you read
    it?
    
>    	The article however seems to have to persuaded you that (Indian)
>    customs and traditions encompass bride-burning, sexual mutilation
>    of females, female infanticide/foeticide. I quote your reply : 
    
    Let me be the first to get the idea out of your head that the article
    is about India. It isn't. It's about various practices that occur
    around the globe that victimize women. It just so happens that several
    practices occur in India.
    
>    Have you been persuaded by some of the responses here that these
>    acts are not sanctioned by law, custom or tradition in India ?
    
    India is a diverse place. There are many subcultures there. It is no
    more accurate to say that what happens in Bombay is what happens in all
    of India than it is to say that what happens in Los Angeles is what
    happens in all of America. Obviously there is something to the
    assertions. how widespread the practices are, and how accpeted they are
    by the normal folk are difficult to judge. I'm sure there are certain
    areas where the pracices are practically unheard of, and other places
    where they are commonplace. By no means do I feel that all of India is
    culpable. I would be just as annoyed if someone intimated that all of
    America was guilty of the things that occur in extremely racist areas,
    etc.
    
    The Doctah

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Manisha and Shantanu, thank you both very much for your insights and I
    hope you'll continue to refute our misconceptions.  It's good to have
    information from people who know the culture intimately.
    
    						=maggie

    Returning to this topic after a while. In .43 I said that Lori Heiser,
    the author of the article referred to in .26 had a hidden agenda as a
    Roman Catholic. The Doctah sent me the article, I've read it, and I was
    wrong in suggesting that a hidden agenda existed.
    
    On the tangential issue of bride/dowry burning in India, over the 4
    weeks I was there recently, I made a special point of reading the local
    newspapers, in Central and Northern India, in Hindi or Marathi nearly 
    every day. I recorded 22 events related to this issue. In 10 cases, it was 
    women filing complaints of wife abuse for extra dowry and the reports 
    ended with the statement that the husband and/or brother/father/-in-law 
    had been arrested. 6 cases were of the death of the woman with the
    husband or in-laws being arrested. 3 were deaths where a suicide note
    had been left, indicated hassle relating to dowry. 2 were deaths that
    read as suspicious to me but not to the police. 1 was a letter to the
    Editors "We solve your problems" column, from a mother asking the
    newspaper to force the police to take action over the death of her
    daughter.
    
    The stats are anecdotal, I give them to illustrate my belief that these
    occurences are infrequent, that they are reported by the press, and
    that the law is acting on them. Other conclusions can of course be
    drawn.
    
    -Shantanu

 Thanks for addressing this, Shantanu. I was wondering if I'd ever hear anything
in relationship to the article I sent. Internal mail is long and slow, eh? :-)

 The Doctah

    Re .-1 - Don't want to get the I-mail guys into trouble so that wasn't
    the delay factor; rather it was Phase 0-Phase 4b of the vacation, which 
    is not only critical but also time-consuming:-) also, I wanted to show
    the article to some feminist groups in Bombay and Pune and gauge their
    reactions and gain their input.
    
    -Shantanu