jump to navigation

Water: Widows of India May 11, 2006

Posted by June in Blog, Other, Religion, Women's Issues.
11 comments

I just watched a movie called Water. It’s a Hindi film with English subtitles by 20th Century Fox about the plight of widows in India. We had to go to an independent film theatre in the ritzy part of town to see it because they aren’t showing it at the Bollywood theater. This film has been banned in India.

You live in a country like the US; and you just never get to see how women are treated in other societies. You don’t realize how truly blessed you are to live in a country that has had the influence of Christianity on the culture and laws. I’ve been to India. It’s nothing like living there; but it was no happy little trip, especially since I spent most of the time sick in the bathroom or….um…throwing up in a corner of one of their monuments because we weren’t near a bathroom… *cough cough* Oops.

The movie was set in 1939 when Ghandi was around; but the end of the film confirmed that widows are still living in deplorable conditions in the 21st century because the Holy Texts of Manu declare it to be so.

According to the movie, widows have three choices:
1. Burn with their husbands when he is cremated.
2. Live the rest of her life unmarried and deprived.
3. If the family allows for it, marry her husband’s younger brother.

The movie begins with the death of a 9-year-old girl’s elderly husband (Ugh. *shudder*). The girl is then sent to an ashram for widows after her hair is shaved and she is dressed in widow’s clothes. Most, if not all, of these women were married off at extremely young ages. These women are not supported by anyone. They are not even given a place to live. They have to rent this barren shack that they live in. They get the money by begging and, in the case of, at least, one girl, by sending her off as a prostitute to some sick old men. These women are shunned and looked down on by everyone.
The story follows the little girl named Chuyia and the young woman who is has to be a prostitute to earn money named Alysha…(Don’t hold me to that spelling. I forgot how to spell it.). They meet a nice young man who falls in love with the young woman.

Things aren’t as bad as that in Chinese countries; but they aren’t extremely great either. Girls are still viewed as burdens that “take rice from the bowl.” And we all know how women are treated in Muslim countries, especially the ones that are strict adherents. Did you know that in the entire Koran that only one woman is actually named? The rest are referred to as so-and-so’s wife or the mother of so-and-so. Did you know that, if a girl is raped, she is viewed as a disgrace on the family and is often killed?

In fact, the only countries in the world that give women respect are the countries that have been greatly influenced by Christianity, the West. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Psalms 68:4-6
4 Sing to God, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the clouds– his name is the Lord– and rejoice before him. 5 A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling. 6 God sets the lonely in families, he leads forth the prisoners with singing; but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.

Malachi 3:5
5 “So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

James 1:27
27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Advertisements

Women Turn the Tables April 3, 2006

Posted by June in News, Politics, Women's Issues.
add a comment

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to work on my next article much recently. As soon as I get it done, I will post it. Until then, I just ran across this hilarious article that I just had to post here.

It's not hilarious that people are murdering their daughters; but it is hilarious at the revenge that is wrought on them because of their disdain for girls.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=11732895

Lack of women turns tables on suitable boys

Mon Apr 3, 2006 11:00 AM ET

MUMBAI (Reuters) – Long, twirling moustaches and bejewelled daggers are no longer enough for a man seeking to marry in India's desert state of Rajasthan, long considered a land of fearless warriors.But if he is lucky enough to have a sister, he can relax, a newspaper report said Sunday.

A declining sex ratio in the state is prompting a girl's parents to spurn offers of marriage from men unless the potential groom's family also has a marriageable daughter for their son, the Sunday Express said.

"Around 30 percent of the marriages in the past year in Shekhawati region of Rajasthan were fixed on this swap system," local lawmaker Rajendra Chauhan said.

The sex ratio in many of Rajasthan's districts has dropped to 922 girls for every 1,000 boys, according to the last census. In one or two villages, it has plummeted to less than 500, the paper reported.

The joint engagement pact, called "aata-saata," or the "double-couple plan," has emerged as young women find themselves much in demand in a state where the traditional preference, as in much of India, has been for sons.

Heavily skewed sex ratios have emerged in several parts of India as couples use ultra-sound technology to achieve their desire for a baby son despite such tests being illegal.

A joint study carried out by researchers in India and Canada recently suggested that half-a-million unborn girls may be aborted in India every year.

But now the absence of girls is changing village dynamics, the newspaper said.

"There are no girls. If there is one in a house, the father is like a king. He can demand anything," said Prahland Singh, the head of Bhorki village in Rajasthan.

He said that around 30 families had carried out marriages under the swap system in the village of 3,000 people in the last two years.

The report said that dowry, where traditionally a bride's father had to bestow riches on a groom to secure a marriage, has completely disappeared from many parts of the state.

Rather the groom's families are now offering to bear the cost of finding a suitable bride for their sons.

June

The Sisterhood, Defrocked January 16, 2006

Posted by June in Communism, Liberalism, Politics, Socialism, Women's Issues.
add a comment

The Sisterhood, Defrocked
Kate O'Beirne provides a reality check for anyone who thinks "feminist" means "pro-woman."

BY MELANIE KIRKPATRICK
Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Kate O'Beirne is ill-served by the lurid cover of her new book, which features unflattering caricatures of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillary Clinton, Jane Fonda and Sarah Jessica Parker (a k a Carrie Bradshaw of "Sex and the City"). The Ann Coulter-ish title–"Women Who Make the World Worse"–is almost as off-putting. Uh-oh, is this going to be another one of those right-wing rants?

Happily, it is anything but. Mrs. O'Beirne's book is a serious examination of 30-plus years of feminist folly and the conservative counter-approach. And while the National Review columnist and TV commentator is not shy about saying what she thinks, the only rants that appear in her pages here are those she quotes from some well-known feminist icons.

In fact, one of the most striking features of "Women Who Make the World Worse" is its "I can't believe she said that" quality. Mrs. O'Beirne informs her chapters on the family, day care, education, politics, the military and sports with a review of the radical feminist dogma on her subject. Anyone still operating under the delusion that "feminist" is synonymous with "pro-woman" should find this a useful reality check.

Where to begin? There's Robin Morgan, one of the founders of Ms. magazine, saying in 1970 that marriage is "a slavery-like practice" and arguing that "we can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Or move forward a couple of decades to the 1990s, when University of Texas professor Gretchen Ritter, who favored then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's plan to "liberate" women by putting children in federally funded day care, expresses the view that stay-at-home mothers are shirking their duty "to contribute as professionals and community activists."Also from the Clinton era is Duke University law professor Marilyn Morris, who in her role as an adviser to the secretary of the Army urges the elimination of the "masculinist attitudes" of the military, such as "dominance, assertiveness, aggressiveness, independence, self-sufficiency, and willingness to take risks." Another Clinton adviser complains that the Little League encourages "aggressive violent behavior."

A line that should go down in political history comes courtesy of the late Democratic Rep. Bella Abzug, who in 1984 confidently predicted the victory of the Walter Mondale-Geraldine Ferraro ticket as "women . . . join across all racial, social, and regional lines in stark opposition to President Reagan and his policies." Women went for Reagan by a margin of 56% to 44%.

One of the contributions of Mrs. O'Beirne's book is that she marshals data that effectively shatter the demeaning liberal myth that women vote on "women's issues." She notes, for instance, that when the Gallup organization polled voters monthly during the 2004 presidential election year about the subjects they cared most deeply about, "not even 1% mentioned issues like pay equity, child care, or discrimination and violence against women." Men and women polled equally in their concern about race relations, health care, military strength and so forth.

Also in the realm of politics, Mrs. O'Beirne recounts the hypocrisy of feminist leaders during the Clinton years, comparing them to battered spouses willing to endure any humiliation so long as they don't lose their man. "As long as Bill Clinton supported abortion rights, affirmative action, and federal child care," she writes, "it didn't matter that he was a sexual predator."

Then there's the feminist myth that women are denied equal pay for equal work. No one doubts that this was the case several decades ago–and isolated cases persist–but today women's pay overall is on a par with men's. Discrepancies are generally explained by the personal-employment choices that many women make, such as flexible hours, part-time work or other family-friendly options. She lists 39 occupations–aerospace engineer, speech pathologist, financial analyst–where women earn at least 5% more than men.

Mrs. O'Beirne's assessment of the effect of the feminist agenda on women in the military is especially relevant. There are 213,000 women on active duty, including more than 24,000 single mothers and 29,000 married women with children. The first female casualty in Iraq was Army Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a 24-year-old single mother of a 4-year-old son and a 3-year-old daughter.

The Pentagon's "risk rule," which used to prohibit assigning women to units that were at risk of attack or capture, was repealed in 1994. Mrs. O'Beirne believes that women in the military–especially mothers–belong well behind the front lines. I'm not sure I agree, but I know her analysis has made me think harder about what's at stake not just for the military or women but for our society.

One of the values of this volume is that it reviews the antifeminist research on the family, education, abortion and more. Mrs. O'Beirne is generous in citing the work of scholars such as Mary Ann Glendon, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Elaine Donnelly, Karlyn Bowman and others. Radical feminists may have the loudest megaphones, but they aren't the only voices. "Women Who Make the World Worse" is a brief history of how wrong the gender warriors have been about virtually every aspect of American life. But it offers hope for the future in highlighting the scholarship of many women who have made the world better. Ms. Kirkpatrick is associate editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. You can buy "Women Who Make the World Worse" from the OpinionJournal bookstore.