4 ms·

No, we understand it. It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it. Also, I am from the East though I grew up in th

No, we understand it. It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it. Also, I am from the East though I grew up in the West, and the attempt to deflect criticism just on the basis of "it's a different society" is disgusting, a hindrance to progress, and frankly quite racist. There is an ongoing campaign in India against the practice of dowry, I guess you also want to argue "Westerners don't understand that India just traditionally has dowry"??

cubancigar11 12y ago
I was with you until you started talking about dowry, proving once and for all (literally, for everyone who reads your comment) that you have no clue about India. There is hardly any problem related to dowry. Come, have a look. 'Dowry' exists in media which consists of third grade students turned women-right activists. For mathematically minded people, I will just quote recent supreme court judgment about the reality of dowry and dowry harassment lawsuit (498(a) IPC): "The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal." I suppose 85% acquittal rate is just collateral damage, except that dowry was exactly how women used to get their parental property rights in India! But that is too Indian for Indians educated in western schools. So instead of codifying dowry as mandatory to protect women's rights from being infringed by her family, feminists would rather use misandry and enable women to vent their frustration on her husband. So we got ridiculous laws like dowry harassment lawsuit (1983) and dowry prohibition lawsuit, and then they realized that husbands demanding dowry is actually a rarity and reality is not at all as media would like to have use believe. So finally they passed equal property rights for women in 2005. Bit by bit, you know. There is a reason why villages in India give an impression of being lawless.
- general_failure 12y ago
  Step outside your well. The issues you talk about are very much there in every arranged marriage (which is almost 100% of all marriages in India), they just exist differently.
  - cubancigar11 12y ago
    I am not sure what issues you are talking about. I was talking about how external type of education (western in this case), in general, and specially when conducted over generations, completely changes our moral compass and understanding, by using specific example of dowry.
- infinity0 12y ago
  Do you have any clue about India? You just pasted a long paragraph from one source and gave no explanation of how it backs up your point. What even is your point? You seem to think that dowry harassment lawsuits are all there is to dowry.
  - cubancigar11 12y ago
    I don't get it. If you think supreme court judgement is 'one source' then you cannot be argued with. And complaining about 'long paragraph'... hmm... I think you are just angry and without argument. Regarding second paragraph, the citation is not handy right now, but this is what Indian feminists actually write. You know, the ones actually involved in drafting government policies. There was a similar article by NCW I read around 3 months ago. You can also talk to the head of http://samajsevasamithy.org/ http://samajsevasamithy.org/ regarding it (I volunteer there).
    - infinity0 12y ago
      No, you cannot make an empty argument and then say I have no argument. Quoting the supreme court randomly, does not argue anything. You fail to explain why the supreme court's quote is relevant to anything you said, or anything I said for that matter. You will need to back up your assertions about "Indian feminists" with actual real data; otherwise it is just an inappropriate generalisation.
rayiner 12y ago
There's two different arguments here. 'leephilips said: "India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy." You said: "It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it." A perfectly well-functioning democratic society can reach conclusions that are worthy of criticism. People have a habit of blaming the process for grievances they have with the substantive outcomes of the process. E.g. people on Hacker News rant about how democracy in the U.S. must not be functioning because the drug war still rages on. The drug war is, in my opinion, a policy worthy of criticism. Yet, it's undeniable that it enjoys popular support. It was only this year that marijuana legalization managed to carry a (slim) majority of registered voters. As recently as 10-15 years ago, there was a 2:1 consensus against even legalization of marijuana--forget about ending the drug war entirely. It's easy to blame the process for results you don't like. It's harder to admit that the process is fine, you just don't like what people do with their right to self-determination.
- leephillips 12y ago
  I realize I didn't provide much to take hold of, but this is what I meant by the line that you quoted: By "democracy" I have in mind what Americans and Western Europeans mean by democracy, which is decidedly not a simple tyranny of the majority enacted through voting. Democracy in any meaningful sense has some means of self regulation that preserves certain rights and perpetuates self-determination for future generations. I'm not blaming the process. The U.S. still has a serviceable democracy despite the drug war and all the other examples of bad public policy that are desired by the people. Our democracy has even survived the violation of parts of the constitution that makes it possible. My point was that no democracy can exist in any meaningful sense in a society that has criminalized the discussion of ideas and the expression of opinions. Once that line has been crossed it is not a matter of undesirable public policy, but of democracy eating itself. Surely you agree that there can be no democracy if you're not allowed to talk about how people should vote. India has become a place where you can be jailed for exposing the physical cause of a weeping statue because you've hurt the feelings of the Catholics who want to believe that it's a miracle. I don't believe democracy can exist under such conditions, but I hope things change soon for this great nation.

cubancigar11 12y ago

I was with you until you started talking about dowry, proving once and for all (literally, for everyone who reads your comment) that you have no clue about India. There is hardly any problem related to dowry. Come, have a look. 'Dowry' exists in media which consists of third grade students turned women-right activists. For mathematically minded people, I will just quote recent supreme court judgment about the reality of dowry and dowry harassment lawsuit (498(a) IPC): "The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal." I suppose 85% acquittal rate is just collateral damage, except that dowry was exactly how women used to get their parental property rights in India! But that is too Indian for Indians educated in western schools. So instead of codifying dowry as mandatory to protect women's rights from being infringed by her family, feminists would rather use misandry and enable women to vent their frustration on her husband. So we got ridiculous laws like dowry harassment lawsuit (1983) and dowry prohibition lawsuit, and then they realized that husbands demanding dowry is actually a rarity and reality is not at all as media would like to have use believe. So finally they passed equal property rights for women in 2005. Bit by bit, you know. There is a reason why villages in India give an impression of being lawless.

general_failure 12y ago
Step outside your well. The issues you talk about are very much there in every arranged marriage (which is almost 100% of all marriages in India), they just exist differently.
- cubancigar11 12y ago
  I am not sure what issues you are talking about. I was talking about how external type of education (western in this case), in general, and specially when conducted over generations, completely changes our moral compass and understanding, by using specific example of dowry.
infinity0 12y ago
Do you have any clue about India? You just pasted a long paragraph from one source and gave no explanation of how it backs up your point. What even is your point? You seem to think that dowry harassment lawsuits are all there is to dowry.
- cubancigar11 12y ago
  I don't get it. If you think supreme court judgement is 'one source' then you cannot be argued with. And complaining about 'long paragraph'... hmm... I think you are just angry and without argument. Regarding second paragraph, the citation is not handy right now, but this is what Indian feminists actually write. You know, the ones actually involved in drafting government policies. There was a similar article by NCW I read around 3 months ago. You can also talk to the head of http://samajsevasamithy.org/ http://samajsevasamithy.org/ regarding it (I volunteer there).
  - infinity0 12y ago
    No, you cannot make an empty argument and then say I have no argument. Quoting the supreme court randomly, does not argue anything. You fail to explain why the supreme court's quote is relevant to anything you said, or anything I said for that matter. You will need to back up your assertions about "Indian feminists" with actual real data; otherwise it is just an inappropriate generalisation.

rayiner 12y ago

There's two different arguments here. 'leephilips said: "India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy." You said: "It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it." A perfectly well-functioning democratic society can reach conclusions that are worthy of criticism. People have a habit of blaming the process for grievances they have with the substantive outcomes of the process. E.g. people on Hacker News rant about how democracy in the U.S. must not be functioning because the drug war still rages on. The drug war is, in my opinion, a policy worthy of criticism. Yet, it's undeniable that it enjoys popular support. It was only this year that marijuana legalization managed to carry a (slim) majority of registered voters. As recently as 10-15 years ago, there was a 2:1 consensus against even legalization of marijuana--forget about ending the drug war entirely. It's easy to blame the process for results you don't like. It's harder to admit that the process is fine, you just don't like what people do with their right to self-determination.

leephillips 12y ago
I realize I didn't provide much to take hold of, but this is what I meant by the line that you quoted: By "democracy" I have in mind what Americans and Western Europeans mean by democracy, which is decidedly not a simple tyranny of the majority enacted through voting. Democracy in any meaningful sense has some means of self regulation that preserves certain rights and perpetuates self-determination for future generations. I'm not blaming the process. The U.S. still has a serviceable democracy despite the drug war and all the other examples of bad public policy that are desired by the people. Our democracy has even survived the violation of parts of the constitution that makes it possible. My point was that no democracy can exist in any meaningful sense in a society that has criminalized the discussion of ideas and the expression of opinions. Once that line has been crossed it is not a matter of undesirable public policy, but of democracy eating itself. Surely you agree that there can be no democracy if you're not allowed to talk about how people should vote. India has become a place where you can be jailed for exposing the physical cause of a weeping statue because you've hurt the feelings of the Catholics who want to believe that it's a miracle. I don't believe democracy can exist under such conditions, but I hope things change soon for this great nation.