India's Missing Girls

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Brianna

I want to know where is the MOONSHINE?

ftfy

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by monster

Percentages do not change whether you give figures in the 10s, 100s or 1000s. 1,000s is the norm for reporting population figures, I think.

I realise that the percentage stayed the same but admit I had no idea thousands were usually used. Of course they are more realistic in terms of the real number we are dealing with. (Again it's the same percentage, but I feel it more when it's 280 or 2,800 or 28,000 than I do when it's 2.8).

[monster]

right. but it isn't more. In reality the figures affect a population sized in the millions. So that's dead girls by the 280,000....

activists fear eight million female foetuses may have been aborted in the past decade.

[footfootfoot]

This whole thing makes no sense on so many levels. Supply and demand would dictate that fewer women would make them more valuable, unless they are all benders in India, isn't it? Batty men?

WTF?

[monster]

I think that's what scares me so much -it's very 1984ish. it's obviously logically and morally wrong, but......

[BigV]

girls cost a lot of money, at dowry time.

boys "earn" a lot of money about the same time.

$$$$$$

[footfootfoot]

Right, until the market reverses and it becomes a sellers market. To quote a favorite dwellar of mine "This dick isn't going to suck itself"

When the guys realize that, the shoe will be on the other foot, or else they'll all be batty men

[BigV]

this weekend I saw a needlepoint display with that phrase on it, and and image of a penis, ready for business. t'was funny.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Right, until the market reverses and it becomes a sellers market. To quote a favorite dwellar of mine "This dick isn't going to suck itself"

When the guys realize that, the shoe will be on the other foot, or else they'll all be batty men

Well you'd think that, but...

Originally Posted by Sundae

The really sad thing for me came in the final article.
Where women are scarce they are indeed prized. But only in the way that cattle are.
Their families sell them into lives completely unsuitable for their upbringing and their new husbands show such little respect that they will even change their name if they can't pronounce it (okay - that was one case, but it doesn't surprise me).

Perhaps the sexual revolution will have to wait at least one more generation.
Perhaps these mothers will value their daughters more.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The daughters will not be valued until the mothers themselves are valued first. That is, it's not about keeping the girl babies alive, it's about ensuring that adult women can be powerful and successful and independent, thus removing the burden of being a woman.

Where women are not valued, scarcity does not equal value. Misogynist and patriarchal societies do not change quickly.