in India, 30 bags of aborted fetus bones found in pit.

grmblfjx wrote:

Saleha wrote:

As The Unoriginal hinted at, the main problem in India
would probably be the dowry custom. Families have to pay exorbitant
sums to get their daughters married off, which can put an enormous
strain on family finances. If this custom could be done away with, the
situation would probably not be nearly as dire.

I read something in the Economist (and I would link to this, but that was back in March and the article is now only available to people with subscriptions) that in some parts of India the dowry was either lowered or done away with due to the lack of women. The sheer force of the "market" might make a difference there. It doesn't really look like it in China, yet.

It stands to hope. Of course, old customs die hard - technically, requiring a dowry as a condition for marriage has been outlawed in India for a while, but considering that you have the related custom of bride burning in case an insufficient dowry has been paid (often masked as a "kitchen accident" ["Yes, officer, she did fall head-first into that open vat of kerosene, and then there was that errant spark..."]), it's easy to see why people still pony up the dough.

grmblfjx wrote:

I read something in the Economist (and I would link to this, but that was back in March and the article is now only available to people with subscriptions) that in some parts of India the dowry was either lowered or done away with due to the lack of women. The sheer force of the "market" might make a difference there. It doesn't really look like it in China, yet.

I always found it strange that someone would have to pay to marry off their daughter. It seems like such a lopsided arrangement of benefits (groom's family gets free shit AND another person to do stuff for them/make babies with their son; bride's family gets... nothing, really). Why not make the groom's family pay to have their son marry the girl? Or just have both families exchange gifts and break about even? *wonders why such customs came about in the first place*

Princess wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

gaijinguy wrote:

If we absolutely must add gasoline:

Oh fuck off.

Tungsten Monk wrote:

Something's gone horribly wrong with the way people think here.

...I'm sorry, "gone" horribly wrong? Every society on Earth values men more than women. Yes, even here in the "enlightened" West. This is just the more extreme version. Over here we prefer to just ignore battered women, deny them restraining orders, and then wring our hands when their abusive partners finally fucking kill them. Where I live, a woman's right to bodily autonomy is suspended the instant she gets pregnant, and she becomes little more than livestock. Rape is illegal here, but if you do rape someone, there's only about a 2% chance you'll actually be brought to court. And even then everyone will call her a lying bitch.

I weep for the remaining women and the women in surrounding countries due to the chances of them getting kidnapped and/or raped.

It'd be one thing if all the guys with no women were just sitting around being miserable, then I'd see where everyone is coming from with the 'well let them learn the hard way attitude'. But no. They go out and make people suffer.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Over here we prefer to just ignore battered women, deny them restraining orders, and then wring our hands when their abusive partners finally fucking kill them.

I was of the impression that restraining orders do more harm than good. Then again, I know nothing about them for sure, and I watch too much TV.

gaijinguy wrote:

If we absolutely must add gasoline:

Remember, this is thirty bags full of potential women. No actual women were harmed.

I'm really finding it harder and harder to respect you with each post. Please tell me how this makes it better and/or different.

Jesus. wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

If we absolutely must add gasoline:

Remember, this is thirty bags full of potential women. No actual women were harmed.

I'm really finding it harder and harder to respect you with each post. Please tell me how this makes it better and/or different.

Oh, get trolled.

Oh, joy an abortion thread! On WGW!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kari Izumi wrote:

Oh, joy an abortion thread! On WGW!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's more likely than you think.

vade wrote:

It'd be one thing if all the guys with no women were just sitting around being miserable, then I'd see where everyone is coming from with the 'well let them learn the hard way attitude'. But no. They go out and make people suffer.

If a commodity is starting to become scarce, then people will play dirty to get it and will rarely start thinking about the reasons behind the shortage until it's too late and there's just enough left to be argued over. Men in these cultures see women as a commodity, and they're not going to suddenly start caring about women while they can still do what they've been doing for centuries (and who cares what has to happen to her for this to happen? She's only a woman, after all, you can always get another one) with only a little extra trouble to them. If they saw women as human beings instead of chattel or a burden, there wouldn't be all the abortions and infanticide that led to this situation in the first place. They're not different problems, they're different expressions of the same contempt in which women are held.

Malganis wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

I read something in the Economist (and I would link to this, but that was back in March and the article is now only available to people with subscriptions) that in some parts of India the dowry was either lowered or done away with due to the lack of women. The sheer force of the "market" might make a difference there. It doesn't really look like it in China, yet.

I always found it strange that someone would have to pay to marry off their daughter. It seems like such a lopsided arrangement of benefits (groom's family gets free shit AND another person to do stuff for them/make babies with their son; bride's family gets... nothing, really). Why not make the groom's family pay to have their son marry the girl? Or just have both families exchange gifts and break about even? *wonders why such customs came about in the first place*

From what I recall from my anthropology class is that the dowry is paid since the groom's family in patri-local cultures take on another person to provide for. They get this "free shit" because from now they are responsible for the bride; yes she will contribute to the family through labor, but it's another mouth to feed and in ye olden days when there was no mass agriculture it could put a strain on the family. That's also why bride's family gets nothing, because hey they've got one less mouth to feed, it's the groom's responsibility now. Though I do recall that in some cultures the bride's family would receive some sort of compensation, but nothing on the scale of the dowry.

I hope I made sense. I wish I still had my notes from that class.

The way the female population is going, you can forget about needing a dowry to marry your daughter - people are going to be paying parents of women so that their sons can actually get married and continue the bloodline soon.

Harley if you had been paying attention to the thread, you'd know that in China as a result of the shortage of women, women are BEING KIDNAPPED by evil fucks who feel entitled to a domestic slave and cumreceptacle. That's what'll happen in India.

Jesus. wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Over here we prefer to just ignore battered women, deny them restraining orders, and then wring our hands when their abusive partners finally fucking kill them.

I was of the impression that restraining orders do more harm than good. Then again, I know nothing about them for sure, and I watch too much TV.

Well, in America (I can't speak for other countries--I have no idea how their legal processes work) if a woman gets a restraining order against someone, and then that someone attacks them, it's more likely that someone will be convicted because the victim was trying to take steps to protect themselves. It's ridiculous, and upon doing some reading restraining orders fall under civil law, not criminal law. If the person breaks the restraining order, they *might* be jailed, depending upon what action broke the restraining order. I can't see how a restraining order in a case of domestic abuse would do more harm than good. If someone goes batshit crazy because their abused partner got a restraining order, then they would have gone batshit crazy for some other reason.

Maximilia wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Over here we prefer to just ignore battered women, deny them restraining orders, and then wring our hands when their abusive partners finally fucking kill them.

I was of the impression that restraining orders do more harm than good. Then again, I know nothing about them for sure, and I watch too much TV.

Well, in America (I can't speak for other countries--I have no idea how their legal processes work) if a woman gets a restraining order against someone, and then that someone attacks them, it's more likely that someone will be convicted because the victim was trying to take steps to protect themselves. It's ridiculous, and upon doing some reading restraining orders fall under civil law, not criminal law. If the person breaks the restraining order, they *might* be jailed, depending upon what action broke the restraining order. I can't see how a restraining order in a case of domestic abuse would do more harm than good. If someone goes batshit crazy because their abused partner got a restraining order, then they would have gone batshit crazy for some other reason.

Well, there's also that you have to go to court with the person you're getting a restraining order against in some states in order to get one in the first place, which can absolutely be more harmful than not doing anything at all.

Ok, bam, maybe it's because it's early here and I haven't much sleep, but how would the abuser being in the court room do more harm than good?

Maximilia wrote:

Ok, bam, maybe it's because it's early here and I haven't much sleep, but how would the abuser being in the court room do more harm than good?

She's saying TO EVEN GET A RESTRAINING ORDER the abused has to go find their abuser and get them to come to court.

Kari Izumi wrote:

Oh, joy an abortion thread! On WGW!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

... And... no real wank here.

I'm going to have to agree with Inkweaver that this is just getting kinda fucking annoying. I'm getting really tired of seeing this Michael Jackson gif in every other thread of the news section, particularly in situations like this when wank barely even began. Hell, there wasn't even much a sign that wank was about to begin.

I mean, I've made posts using that gif and other related posts, but I'd like to think I put them up at moments where wank was more imminent.

Unlike here where it was just kind of like...

Someone: "Fetuses and women."
Someone else: "I disagree."
Some other person: "LOLOLOL WANK IS BEGINING LOL WANK! LOL POPCORN!"

Miss Prince wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

Ok, bam, maybe it's because it's early here and I haven't much sleep, but how would the abuser being in the court room do more harm than good?

She's saying TO EVEN GET A RESTRAINING ORDER the abused has to go find their abuser and get them to come to court.

It does vary from state to state, but in all the examples I could find, a third party serves them with a summons, not the one getting the restraining order.

Maximilia wrote:

Miss Prince wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

Ok, bam, maybe it's because it's early here and I haven't much sleep, but how would the abuser being in the court room do more harm than good?

She's saying TO EVEN GET A RESTRAINING ORDER the abused has to go find their abuser and get them to come to court.

It does vary from state to state, but in all the examples I could find, a third party serves them with a summons, not the one getting the restraining order.

They still have to face their abuser in court, though which is my point. This can be especially problematic if, after the hearing, a restraining order isn't granted to the victim. This happens a lot and can have very, very dire consequences.

I understand that. My point is that if the abuser is going to well, abuse them, the restraining order is just an excuse for them to do so. It could very well be "You burned the potatoes" or "You were looking at another man (or woman)" instead of "You tried to get a restraining order against me". Oftentimes, the abuser doesn't NEED an excuse and far too often when it comes to filing charges, if the victim hasn't taken steps to attempt to protect themselves--re: getting a restraining order, moving out, seeking professional help with battered women shelters or what-have-you--the charges might not stick. It's a stupid system, and it's stacked against abusees, but people should take what steps they can to 1.) protect themselves and family members and 2.) make sure the charges stick.

TL;DR--Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Malganis wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

I read something in the Economist (and I would link to this, but that was back in March and the article is now only available to people with subscriptions) that in some parts of India the dowry was either lowered or done away with due to the lack of women. The sheer force of the "market" might make a difference there. It doesn't really look like it in China, yet.

I always found it strange that someone would have to pay to marry off their daughter. It seems like such a lopsided arrangement of benefits (groom's family gets free shit AND another person to do stuff for them/make babies with their son; bride's family gets... nothing, really). Why not make the groom's family pay to have their son marry the girl? Or just have both families exchange gifts and break about even? *wonders why such customs came about in the first place*

Yeah, I always wondered about that. You're not exactly paying somebody for taking care of a baby girl - you're giving them your grown daughter, who can take care of herself and for the most part is pretty useful what with keeping house, and being a convenient baby machine.

Another part of the problem is that women get less education in Insia so they have a harder time getting jobs, so OBVIOUSLY they can contribute less to the household financially.

But hey, men aren't gonna quit kidnapping and raping women the way they have done since we evolved from goddamn APES just because a few men are having trouble finding willing brides.

Uh, Spotts, what's the precedent on people being allowed to face their accusers in court?

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Malganis wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

I read something in the Economist (and I would link to this, but that was back in March and the article is now only available to people with subscriptions) that in some parts of India the dowry was either lowered or done away with due to the lack of women. The sheer force of the "market" might make a difference there. It doesn't really look like it in China, yet.

I always found it strange that someone would have to pay to marry off their daughter. It seems like such a lopsided arrangement of benefits (groom's family gets free shit AND another person to do stuff for them/make babies with their son; bride's family gets... nothing, really). Why not make the groom's family pay to have their son marry the girl? Or just have both families exchange gifts and break about even? *wonders why such customs came about in the first place*

Yeah, I always wondered about that. You're not exactly paying somebody for taking care of a baby girl - you're giving them your grown daughter, who can take care of herself and for the most part is pretty useful what with keeping house, and being a convenient baby machine.

Another part of the problem is that women get less education in Insia so they have a harder time getting jobs, so OBVIOUSLY they can contribute less to the household financially.

But hey, men aren't gonna quit kidnapping and raping women the way they have done since we evolved from goddamn APES just because a few men are having trouble finding willing brides.

Did you miss the part where these women become financially dependent on their spouses.

That means that their spouse has to pay for their food, water, and the roof over their head. Hence, the dowry is meant as a way to make the added financial burden of a wife more bearable.

Malganis wrote:

I always found it strange that someone would have to pay to marry off their daughter. It seems like such a lopsided arrangement of benefits (groom's family gets free shit AND another person to do stuff for them/make babies with their son; bride's family gets... nothing, really). Why not make the groom's family pay to have their son marry the girl? Or just have both families exchange gifts and break about even? *wonders why such customs came about in the first place*

Well, in some cultures you *do* have to pay for the bride (remember this one?) - this may have evolved as an incentive not to kill your daughter and grow her into a healthy woman, or to treat your spouse well, or both. In not-so-old days when sons didn't go to live on their own after marriage, a household could effectively have more women than were necessary, so the dowry was a form of compensation for that. It all depends whether it was culturally acceptable for the women to do work outside the house - my great-grandmother, for example, may not have ploughed the fields or felled trees but she looked after the pig, cows and chickens and grew and tended the vegetable garden.

Malganis wrote:

I'm not necessarily saying this is men versus
women (I've heard local midwives do a lot of the infanticide in these
cases, so women are definitely capable of supporting and promoting an
anti-woman way of life), but it is misogynistic to the core.

I don't think it's so much "Oh it's a girl eww gross kill it kill it with fire" as "Oh it's a girl - poor little thing, in the present day and attitude you are soo screwed". Doesn't make a lick of difference for the killed baby, but it does if you're trying to find a solution for the problem.