For Womyn's Sake!

Puzzletime, folks! Point out the things wrong in the quote highlighted below….

NOW Demands Access to Program Geared to Fathers - washingtonpost.com

It’s called the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, and the Bush administration doles out up to $50 million annually to fund its programs to build job skills and help fathers connect better with their children. But the National Organization for Women says the effort is illegal because it’s only about men.

Answer: Ms. Gandy, since we are all about equal access, why have an organization that is ostensibly serving only women, as in the National Organization for Women? Why not National Organization for Organisms? NOO?

I think any group that pretends to care about women needs to be jumping up and down with joy when there is an initiative to help men become better fathers. It only benefits the mothers in the lower-income groups who most of the time are burdened with the care of their children as single moms when fathers don’t take any responsibility. Of course, if NOW had it’s way all those babies would have ended up aborted anyways, so what is the need for fathers…my bad!

Would NOW also oppose this program till the day men are able to give birth? There is a reason why women of my generation would rather not be called “feminists”.

Aggressive Women

Here is a post at Althouse blog about her exchange with another lady on a bloggingheads.tv segment. The comments grabbed my interest a lot more than the post or the bloggingheads.tv segment. A lot of the comments were saying Ann should be “embarrassed” for raising her voice at the other lady and seemed to be attacking her.

My response? So what? As some other commenters pointed oujt very quickly, would this have been such a big deal if it were two men raising their voices? I bet if one man attacked the other one verbally, the attacked man would have been told to take it like a man and not complain. A really disgusting display of the double standards against women on display.

Men are allowed to be passionate and angry - apparently, it is their God-given right and makes them more likeable. A woman who dares to raise her voice? What an effing embarrassment to the entire universe!

Evolution or devolution?

Here is a gem brought to us by Dr. Helen - Dr. Helen: The “Harmless” Habit that Turns Men off to You - who points out that Cosmo actually has to warn women that pissing off their prospective male partners by railing against the male gender in general is….gasp…counter-productive! Wow! Who woulda thunk that! Pissing off people doesn’t get them to like you…like, really deep, huh! You go, Cosmo!

This reminds me of the climactic scene of “Jerry Maguire”, where a bunch of divorced women sit together discussing how much the men in their lives sucked…right before the real suckfest that was the alien Tom Cruise saying to the retarded Renee that she completed him or something….

Sexism at the drop of the hat

Here is a post at Althouse, where Ann talks about Amanda Marcotte’s charges of sexism against the people who caused her to lose a plum role in the John Edwards campaign - Althouse: Marcotte blames sexism for her troubles.

Here is what I find galling - Amanda charges sexism and Ann agrees with her, but a look a little deeply into Amanda’s post -

I was aware that I didn’t exactly fit the image people have of bloggers who join campaigns — the stereotype being 30-something nerdy young white men who wear khakis and obsess over crafting their Act Blue lists.

Oh, I get it now - it is OK for women to call men nerdy, comment on their clothes and obsessions - not sexist at all, but when people point out Amanda’s anti-catholic rants and the erasure from her blog of truly sexist posts (take for example, her belief that the Duke lacrosse people were guilty simply because they were charged of rape), then people are just being sexist?

I have been in a mostly male environment ever since I joined engineering college and then went on into a career of software technology. I love my geeky credentials. I like the people I have worked with. It is really sad that instead of self-reflecting and trying to understand true hate is disgusting whether coming from a man or woman, Amanda simply chose to cry, “sexist!”.

The problem with crying sexism is that it cuts off any debate - once someone accuses you of being evil, how do you turn around and have a civil argument with that person?

Also, very interesting is the constant use of “young” when Amanda describes herself and herr friend - what is that supposed to mean? Seriously, how does this woman have any credibility left as a feminist or a woman?

Justice and the Criminal Lawyer

Dilip brought it to my attention as a comment to a post below, that the Jessica Lal case accused is now being represented by Ram Jethmalani - one of the most famous criminal defenders in India - Jethmalani wants Jessica case transferred to another court - News.Indlaw.com. I think my first reaction honestly, would have been an eye-roll saying, “here he goes again!”, referring to Jethmalani. He is of course, quite famous for taking up high profile cases - defending those who were undefendable if you take the media’s word for it.

I actually think it is awesome that there is someone who wants to make sure there is not a trial by media, but an actual serving of justice where even a criminal gets his day in court represented by a competent lawyer. There is always the problem that only the rich can pay for representation like this, which also leads to the notion that Mr. Jetmalani takes bug bucks to set criminals free. Considering the sensationalistic nature and coverage of the current media, I appreciate lawyers like Mr.Jethmalani who will make sure there is no pile-on and a decent trial that wouldn’t convict someone of things they haven’t committed just because the media might have found a convenient scapegoat to make their story.

Don't "Sheikh" it, baby!

Seriously, even if you don’t shake it, it is your own goddamned fault if you happen to get raped! Don’t you know you are just an “uncovered pice of meat”? Don’t blame the “cat” for eating you. Not even if you are an Australian teenager who has been brutally raped by a few racist “cats”. Don’t you get it? You asked for it by being a woman, an Australian and by showing your flesh around!

I have absolutely no words for how angry this makes me! No more than for all the PC-police already out in full-force trying to explain the fucking shit away. Remember the double standard. Always do! Publishing of cartoons making fun of a religion? Horrendous and worthy of rioting and murders. Calling teenage gang-rape victims as brining this upon themselves? “Diversity”!

Do you think it will be worth it for me to try and hold my breath for the “feminists” who defended the hijab will be outraged at this misogyny? I don’t think so!

All or nothing?

Here is something that Ali Eteraz has blogged about that almost reinforces my previous opinion that NGOs are practically useless when it comes to reform in places that need the most. They are usually in the forefront protesting in places where reform has already taken place, but stay conspicuosly silent in others.

What Is Happening To Women’s Protection Bill (Pakistan) ? Eteraz

Most of us have heard of the rape laws in Pakistan, where a woman needs four male witnesses or is convicted of adultery and is victimized once more. There are currently efforts underway to reform those laws, but HRW and other NGOs are opposing the reforms because they are not reaching far enough. It is absolutely admirable that these liberal groups want the laws to change overnight to make everyone equal in the eyes of law, but something tells me that the Pakistani women are willing to take anything they can get right now and keep chipping away at the unfairness.

I can also understand why the reformers are not going to shove too many things down the public’s throats - for a conservative society like Pakistan to completely come out and change is not going to happen overnight. You don’t want to provoke the society so much that the backlash turns back the clock even more. Let’s support reforms in all forms and not oppose them just because they are not all we wanted. Check out Ali’s post for a lot more commentary on the subject and more links.

A woman's worth

Here is a post from Ann Althouse about a Syrian program dissing Condoleezza Rice on her…looks of all the things - Althouse: “Her external ugliness reflects her internal ugliness.”

This is one of those things that pain me a lot about women speaking against women. It is never the capabilities of the woman that are called into question - it is always low-blows like her looks, her color, her marital status - what have you. The insults always spring back to how the woman compares to others in serving the patriarchy rather than what she is to herself and by herself.

I am sure many of us have heard women being catty on other women all the time. I admit I have done albeit in a jovial manner. If I were to insult another woman, I would make sure I would point out the flaws in her thinking abilities and intellectual capacity rather simply calling her a “cow”. How ridiculous that independent, successful women should still fall back to the age-old stereotypes of a geisha-like perfectness in a woman when it comes time to insult her.

Feminism under the hijab

Here is a post at Feministe about the story of a “brave” little girl who loves wearing the hijab - Feministe - Consider the Hijab: Blogging Against Racism. Apparently she is a brave feminist since she chooses to wear it and the hijab is not “foisted” on her by anyone else. Here is some food for thought - what if you were brought up in a culture and by parents who believe you are a slut for exposing your head and the only way you can be a good, little girl is by wearing a hijab or a long skirt or a chador or whatever it is that makes you a non-entity covered up by shapeless wear…is that foisting?

Just because someone ingrains in your brain since childhood that you are supposed to do something just because you are a girl and you believe it, does that mean those ideas were not foisted on you by a patriarchy?

I love the spunk displayed by the girl in standing up for herself and applaud the fact that she seems to be a confident young woman. Does that mean from now on we take the wearing of a veil by a woman as a feminist trait since she is standing up to the “sexualized” society?

Again, before people start putting words in my mouth, I am not saying the girl is wrong in wearing her hijab or that there is anything wrong with her at all - all I am saying is that it is a little nuts to equate her perpetuance of something that has had a long history of subjugation and oppression towards women as a feminist statement.

Remember, a lot of women willingly sat on the pyres to be cremated along with their husbands during the Sati days - does that make them feminists since they are standing up to the god-less morons who believe burning women is wrong? A wrong is a wrong regardless of the society it is being done in and regardless of the person carrying it out. It is quite disheartening to see feminists fall in the familiar trap of multiculturalism and endorsing things they shouldn’t.

update: Here is Gaurav’s take on a similar issue that raises some interesting questions about free will or lack thereof.

Sense or nonsense?

Here is the touching story of a woman who when pregnant, went off with two drunk strangers to have no-string-attached sex and feels terrible that one of them tried to have sex with her without putting a condom on. Any person who has tried to respond in comments about how risky it is to go off with drunk strangers has been rebuffed with “victim-blamer!” inspite of almost all of them bending over backwards to make sure that they say they are NOT in fact blaming the victim, but are trying to tell her how she can better handle certain situations. Implied in most of the righteously offended’s outrageous comments is that since you are asking a woman who is most likely to be a victim to be a little more careful, you are being all mean and oppressive to the matriarchy. The way I see it, if someone wants to rape, you can ask him to pretty please not to do it, but [s]he is going to do it anyways. It is not going to stop anything - till we live in a utopia where all men and women refuse to have non-consensual sex, what is wrong with asking a woman to be a little more careful?

Compare and contrast this hideously self-indulgent thought process to actual situations people live in where they could be gang-raped for being of the wrong caste, paraded naked because of stupid rumors and sexually harrassed to suicide in many cases in the name of eve-teasing. These are women who face real problems where the victim has absolutely no blame and is being victimized for the simple fact of being who she is. I find it very hard to sympathize with someone who knowingly puts herself in a stupid (yes, I said it - it was a stupid thing to do) situation when there are other real victims to be empathized with. File this under one more reason why I feel sick of a lot of Western-style feminism.

Just to add a little bit more to the topic, I am not saying I never put myself at risk. I have been incredibly naive and stupid at a younger age and did some extremely silly things just so I can gain acceptance of someone or to even just keep someone with me. That doesn’t mean I look back and say it was all my fault - I don’t blame myself for the stupid things while at the same time have gained enough from those experiences that I am not going to repeat that stupidity again.

I will possibly explain more and provide more links when I am not as tired or jet-lagged.

Feminists for Men!

You heard that right! Feminists are now realizing how far they have swung the pendulum for gender rights and are trying to correct the actual imbalance between girls and boys. Research already shows that girls have begun beating boys in almost all things, even starting from infant classes - trends that worry me as the mother of a son. Here is a Guardian article about feminist icon, Doris Lessing taking the boys’ side on the issue. I think it is commendable of her to realize that true equality is not gained by oppressing either gender but in treating all equally and making sure children and adults of both genders get equal opportunities to learn, grow and thrive. Here is a relevant excerpt from the article -

“It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests. “Men seem to be so cowed that they can’t fight back, and it is time they did.”

It is going to take a feminist to question the other feminists and show up the plight of men in this society, because any man trying to do so is automatically regarded as a politically incorrect animal who is only interested in his patriarchy and the oppression of women. God forbid, anyone actually acknowledge that patriarchy is only a thing of the third-world countries and not the West.

(This link found via Trudy Schuett - her own take on the issue)

Multiculti fascism...

A long time ago, I wrote a post on muticulturalism (I will have to look to find the link) where I was making points very similar to the ones in this article by a Brit writer. I found these excerpts especially poignant and heart-breaking -

We have been acting as though there is one thing called “Muslim culture”, and elderly imams or enraged, misogynistic young men are its only voice. A few weeks ago, it was driven home to me how wrong this is. I wrote about how the best way to defeat jihadists was to empower Muslim women, and I was inundated with e-mails from Muslim women, many explaining how the logic of multiculturalism weakened their hand.

One, in particular, is worth quoting at length: “My younger sisters go to Denbigh High School [in Luton] which was famous in the headlines last year because a girl pupil went to the High Court for her right to wear the jilbab [a long body-length shroud]. Shabinah [the girl who took the case] saw it as a great victory for Muslim women … but what happened next shows this is not a victory for us.

“My sisters, and me when I was younger, could always tell our dad and uncles that we weren’t allowed to wear the jilbab. Once the rules were changed, that excuse was not possible any more so my sisters have now been terrified into wearing this cumbersome and dehumanising garment all day against their wishes. Now most girls in the school do the same. They don’t want to, but now they cannot resist community pressure … I am frightened somebody is going to fight for the right to wear a burqa next and then my sisters will not even be able to show their faces.”

How condescending must a group feel towards a culture to believe that they have to treat it just right, water it and grow it in petri dishes so they can look at the little displays and coo, :how adorable!” and pat themselves on the back for keeping the exotic species alive. How can they call themselves liberal or progressive when all they are doing is to strive to keep a culture backward, conservative and unchanged!

More on this a little later when I get some time - a truly heartbreaking story via the Asianweek…coming soon!

The Abortion Debate - some stats.

All stats in post are from About.com who I think is fairly non-partisan. All statistics I am putting in here are for the US only, since this is the only situation I know enough to comment about.

First, the numbers for abortions through the years as Niket asked…
1996 - 1,365,700 | 1985 - 1,588,600 | 1974 - 898,600
1995 - 1,363,700 | 1984 - 1,577,200 | 1973 - 774,600
1994 - 1,431,000 | 1983 - 1,575,000
1993 - 1,500,000 | 1982 - 1,573,900
1992 - 1,528,900 | 1981 - 1,577,300
1991 - 1,556,500 | 1980 - 1,553,900
1990 - 1,608,600 | 1979 - 1,497,700
1989 - 1,566,900 | 1978 - 1,409,600
1988 - 1,590,800 | 1977 - 1,316,700
1987 - 1,559,100 | 1976 - 1,179,300
1986 - 1,574,000 | 1975 - 1,034,200
[edited the figures above for readability]

In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
What is more interesting of course, was this set of numbers that caught my eye -
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Which means that only 6.1% of the above abortions were medically necessary. All the rest, choices! Atleast 36.3% got the abortion since they didn’t want children just yet or that it will disrupt their career or education, in other words, having children would cramp their lifestyle.

Seriously, how many of these could have really been avoided by responsible use of contraception? One fact on the site says 54% said they used ocntraception during the month before they got pregnant - that leaves 46% using abortion as birth control. In all fairness, is it really fair to create a life and then destroy it just because you can?

I think the pro-life people are as much to blame in this as the pro-choicers. In their relegious zeal, a lot of them don’t support use of ocntraceptives (a few condoms would have Andrea Yates some good) and are trying to stifle research and availability of such emergency contraceptives as the RU-486 pill. I’d rather some one not conceive or get rid of the unwanted conception before there is time for it to develop than wait till the baby is big enough to present a grisly photo-op for the pro-lifers.

Mother of the Week!

Here she is, Folks! We are nauseated to present the [evil bitch] mother of the week to Michelle Shelton for her awesome understanding of parenting do’s and don’ts. I mean, who hasn’t slipped a little crack in their babies’ food now and then to “calm” them down? Fess up, y’all!

Woman Charged With Giving Crack to Son, 4

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - A mother has been arrested on charges that she gave crack to her 4-year-old son to “calm him down.” Michelle R. Shelton, 32, of Kansas City, was arrested Thursday on a child endangerment charge. Police said the boy did not suffer any obvious injuries from taking the highly addictive drug. He remains in state custody.

While I am glad the boy didn’t suffer any “obvious” problems from her mother’s administrations, I have got to wonder at the logic of trying to give someone crack to calm them down - I am no expert on drugs, but I have never heard of the tranquilizing effects of crack, only that it might get you hyper…Hmmm…

Not that you would care...

but this was the reason I was in a pissy mood the whole of yesterday. This was the first thing I heard on the radio as soon as I got into the car to leave to work. My heart broke for the little girl!

MSNBC - Mother confesses to severingbaby’s arms

PLANO, Texas - With a calm and dispassionate voice and a hymn playing in the background, Dena Schlosser confessed to the unthinkable, telling a 911 operator she’d cut off the arms of her baby girl. The woman was sitting in her living room covered with blood when police arrived Monday. Her nearly 11-month-old daughter lay fatally injured in a crib in a bedroom of the family’s apartment in Plano. The child died shortly afterward at a nearby hospital.

Feminists, my ass!

Should I count till ten first? hundred? thousand?

Feminists Compare Bush’s 2000 Election Victory to ‘Savage Rape’ — 09/02/2004

New York (CNSNews.com) - A featured performer at a National Organization for Women rally accused President Bush of having “savagely raped ” women “over and over” by allegedly stealing the 2000 presidential election.

Poet Molly Birnbaum read aloud to a crowd of feminists gathered in New York’s Central Park on Wednesday night, as part of a NOW event dubbed “Code Red: Stop the Bush Agenda Rally.”

“Imagine a way to erase that night four years ago when you (President Bush) savagely raped every pandemic woman over and over with each vote you got, a thrust with each state you stole,” Birnbaum said from the podium. (If something is pandemic, it affects many people or a number of countries.)

People like this are the reason why I hate being called a feminist even though I consider myself a huge womens’ rights proponent. These women are ridiculous and do not deserve to be seen as representing the women of America. They desert women who are against their party of choice (see the ridicule they heaped on Paula Jones for saying Clinton raped her - rape doesn’t mean shit when your favorite party is accused of it). They have been stck on a single issue all their lives, the “right to eject something from my womb” whenever I feel like it.

These women cheapen genuine rape and rape victims all over the country with their comaprison of an opponent political party winning to rape of women. Get over it, idiots! That is not just a cheap shot, but a travesty and a slap in the face of women who have been raped and go through the trauma every single day of their lives. Don’t like Bush? Get him voted out in November - if not, he is out after another 4 years anyways. That is absolutely no reason to go batshit. Remember the story of crying “wolf” - too much rhetoric will cheapen you, your organization and the people you claim to represent until you become a cariacature of yourself as drawn by people who don’t like you. Don’t make yourselves more irrelevant than you are, for you are turning more and more into the drunk uncle we are embarrassed to admit we are related to with this kind of stupid crap.

p.s. - so ironic that I should see this news the same day I was originally going to post about how politics has turned into mudslinging these days and otherwise sane bloggers are going nuts with hate for the opposing party.

update: My comment replying to Dilip went on a little too long, so I am posting it here.

Dilip, I wish NOW were a fence-sitter. I really wish they would care for no politics other than those of women. I really think it is good to have someone with their resources actually help women. I don’t like the fact that they have either turned into “man haters” like those who wrote the “Vagina Monologues” or shills for the Democratic Party.

NOW was outraged when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harrassment, but had absolutely no sympathy for Paula Jones’ accusations towards Bill Clinton. Why the double standard? Why not just stand for women regardless of politics?

I consider myself a fence-sitter since I don’t hate either of the political parties with the kind of passion many other bloggers seem to have for the opposition. I will not feel raped if Kerry became President. I don’t think it is helpful at all or even possible to have a middle ground when one side starts off from the extreme. You and I disagree on issues a lot more than we agree - we can still talk because we know the other person is not a monster but another regular person.

Let’s say Bush wins in November - how can NOW go to him and work with him to help women if they have antagonized him this bad? Isn’t that stupid the organization? This is why I am against politicizing womens’ rights movements or any other such movements for that matter. Once you pick sides, there is a 50-50 chance you might lose and that is not acceptable for a movement supposedly concerned with the uplifting of it’s constituency.

Is feminism relevant anymore?

Don’t get me wrong - I owe a lot to the early feminists. I remain in debt to those who made it possible for me to get a good education - study engineering - get a good job and do it - all without fear of ridicule. I drive around and pretty much do as I please, again all that made possible due to feminist activists. If I ever got divorced, no one is going to look at me like I were an untouchable and I could get married again if per chance I were widowed without worries.

I get to pump breastmilk for my son at work (I know there is such a thing as Too Much Information) in privacy in a New mothers’ room and am protected from harrassment as a woman before, during and after my pregnancy by various anti-discrimination laws. I cook and clean at home as much as (or less than…ummm…ok, very less than) my husband and he helps me out with the baby without feeling as though this is beneath him. I have full rights over my body and can choose to not have kids or even get rid of them while in my womb (not that I support that unconditionally). I have more rights on a child I give birth to than the child’s father most of the time.

According to studies I am too lazy to google up, women are now beating mens’ enrollment in colleges. Women can play pretty much any sport men can. I understand the world isn’t perfect yet, but here in the US atleast, I feel like we have caught up as much as possible with the men folk. In light of all this, is there still a need for an organized feminist movement? I am not being facetious here, so feel free to take this seriously and argue both sides. Tell me what part of the picture I am missing here.

p.s. I consider battered womens’ shelters as social services and not feminist services, so let us not include them in.

Who gets the child?

Here is an interesting story sent my way by MadMan (thanks!) - BAY AREA / Mom awarded $1 million over embryo mix-up. The story was interesting in itself - the whole wrong embryo being implanted in the womb thing - without the ethical implications it raises. There you have this woman who has used another man’s sperm to get herself a baby - she is the mom. But the baby’s dad and his wife have also been trying to have kids and they want the baby too - as dad, that man has some say in the situation too and he now wants full custody of the baby, which obviously is impossible. How would you guys resolve the situation?

Very Hindi moviesque, isn’t it!

Hate, hate, hate!

I have nothing but hate towards the woman Amy Richards described in this NYT story found via Michele - A Small Victory - Expendable Children. For those who will not click the link, this woman was carrying triplets and chose to murder selectively reduce two of the children so that she could continue with her downtown lifestyle and not be a suburban soccer mom. I cannot believe a human being, let alone a pregnant woman can manage the amount of callousness required to do what she did for the reasons cited by her.

I can understand aborting children who are a result of rape/incest or are deformed or otherwise suffering from serious diseases - I can understand someone getting an abortion because the mother’s life was in danger or because the person simply couldn’t afford to bring up a child due to her financial or social situation, but to willingly abort two healthy babies just so she can carry on with her “hip” lifestyle…I hope the woman rots in hell!

Wow!

I am in awe! I don’t know if I would do that if I got into the kind of situation described below. Now, that is what being a real mother is, I think.

Mexican Woman Performs Own Caesarean to Save Baby

LONDON (Reuters) - A pregnant woman in Mexico gave birth to a healthy baby boy after performing a caesarean section on herself with a kitchen knife, doctors said on Tuesday.

(Link via Dean’s World)

Chew on this!

Woman charged with murder after allegedly ignoring warnings to have Caesarean

SALT LAKE CITY, March 11 - A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn. Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn’t want the scars that accompany the surgery.

I need a little more time to compose my thoughts on this - in the meantime, let me know what you think…

Update: K in the comments below has provided this link to a discussion on Fark.com about this news. The thread does bring up some interesting points. One thing that is disturbing is the absolute refusal of some people to call the baby a baby - they like referring to it as a “fetus” instead. I am sorry, but at 29 weeks I know my baby can hear me and recongnize my voice - he can survive outside of my womb in an ICU and he has pretty advanced brain activity that allows him to respond to different stimuli like light and touch. This is not a clump of cells as it is in the first trimester, but a living human being. I really don’t understand why some people find the need to dehumanize that child’s existence just so they can say “her body, her choice” about the baby’s life.

Oh, and then there are the idiots who think the woman should be left alone just because it would set a “dangerous precedent” - you know what? FUCK precedent! If someone is so ideologically bound to a cause that they cannot look at an individual case and atleast say what the woman did was atleast morally wrong, then they have issues. I think it is completely wrong for someone to think of every case in terms of how it effects their pet causes - it might be practical, but it is not human.

Another update: Here is another link with more information on the case from the Salt Lake Tribune.

Apparently the woman is married and has 5 other kids - Good Lord! That does put a pretty interesting spin on the whole thing - where the fuck was the husband during the whole brouhaha? (as an aside, I asked my husband what he would do if I acted like that woman with my baby - he said he’d kill me! He already likes the baby more than me, I tell you!)

OK, the SLT link says she is either divorced/estranged from her husband, so I guess my above point is pretty moot.

Still another update: Now she says she did not refuse a C-section…Huh?

Female Entrepreneurs!

Two Indians in world’s top 50 corporate women list : HindustanTimes.com

Vidya Chhabria, who successfully took over the reigns of the $2 billion Jumbo Group after her husband Manu Chhabria’s death last year, and Naina Lal Kidwai, probably the highest paid woman executive in the country, are the two Indians picked by Fortune magazine in its World’s top 50 corporate women list. The “International Power 50” is composed of women who have an operating role in business profit outside the US (including women based in the US who run overseas divisions, such as Coke’s Mary Minnick).

Take that, Mr. Women-cannot-do-business-Dhoot

Venugopal Dhoot had this to say later on: “I have always sought inspiration from Indian tradition - a way of life. This tradition started from the dawn of history, continued uninterrupted and will remain in the world forever. I salute and respect this and have followed this tradition since my childhood.

As per this tradition, women are entrusted with a bigger responsibility to look after the family first, raise children, imbibe them with tradition, culture, customs and heritage of India.

Due to this priority, women find less time to devote to and run a Rs 1000-crore company with ease. These are my views only and not a generalized idea.”

Go Girl!

Hah! Take that, people! I think this is a step in the right direction. I understand that this ruling might be misused by women who consider their in-laws burdens just because they exist, but it also frees a woman to live in peace with her husband instead of being forced to suffer her in-laws’ brutality just so she can stay married.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | India faces key marriage ruling

Ashis Ghose says he will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the judgement. He was speaking a day after two judges ruled that his wife should live with him, but separately from her in-laws.

Ok, I am back!

(warning - this post might offend those with prudish sensibilities)

Ok, this isn’t exactly apropos of nothing, but I cannot reveal my motivation behind this post, so let us just discuss the question - “Should there be sex-ed in Indian schools?” I am not being flippant here - I am being extremely serious about the way us Indians and Indian women in general, view sex. It is supposed to be this taboo subject and even when it is spoken about, it is considered as something that only men enjoy and women just grin and bear. I have met grown women who are scared at the very thought of sleeping with a man and don’t view it at all as a means for them to get some pleasure too.

I mean isn’t that the whole theory behind women withholding sex to get favors from their men or to get them to change their behavior - that somehow men miss it a lot more than women do? I agree that with women, sex is a lot more mental as it is a lot more visual and sensory with men, but I think it is a little hypocritical to pretend that people of both sexes don’t enjoy physical intimacy equally. Unfortunately, in most places in India, women are still taught to fear sex. To them, it is this “zombie-thing” that cause you to have kids and be relegated to a life of a “sinner”.

I have met women who are so afraid of sex, they make up excuses to not sleep with their husbands. But then, it is also not fair to blame this all on women - the men are in similar predicament too. They know they want to do something, but they have no idea how to go about doing it. Most haven’t heard of the word “foreplay”. They get in, get done and leave - to put it bluntly. When that happens, the womens’ fear that there is nothing in it for them gets reinforced and I suspect there are a lot of women in India stuck in marriages where they have sex just so the husband doesn’t leave them or to have kids.

I believe that sex isn’t fully pleasurable until both the participants are enjoying what they are doing and are into it, physically and mentally. To get young men and women into that state of mind, I believe they need to know what is involved and how to about feeling good and not guilty. What do you guys think?

Ma Baker and her girls

N.J. bank heist a family affair

After the mortgage company that held the $94,223 note filed a foreclosure notice, Kathleen Jones’ children took matters into their own hands, according to Kevin Jones. “They figured ‘If Daddy goes to work, he’s going to die. Let’s go get the money,”’ he said. “It was the children that thought this up, not her. She woke up and caught them stealing my car to do a robbery. She drove that car to make sure her kids were safe, that whatever happened to them would happen to her.”

That paragraph in particular caught my eye in this so-called story of a down-and-out woman trying to save her house by robbing a bank with her teen daughters. I am sure the reporter was dabbing at his/her eyes at the mom who drove her kids to make sure they were safe while they were robbing the bank - where was trying to freaking stop them, mom? Wouldn’t that have been the safest route for the kids? Jeez! You are supposed to feel sorry for this woman? I feel worse for her daughters to have been brought up by such a “responsible” woman.

In case there were any doubts, here is what the family did with the money they wanted to “save the house with” -

The family drove to Atlantic City, where the girls hung out on the Boardwalk as the parents gambled in a casino. On the ride home, Kevin Jones allegedly threw the toy pistol in a trash bin.

Welcome to the new era...

Welcome to the new era, which of course, is bearing disturbing similarities to the old. All I see all over the news channels, sports channels and media is people questioning the victim, because no one has ever seen Kobe do anything wrong and the victim tried out for “American Idol”, no less. What a slut, right?

Why is it that everybody is pouncing on the woman and calling her names and giving Kobe a free pass? Where is the outrage? I have got to admit, he put the right spin on it, claiming it was consensual - that’s how his DNA got on her. Very clever! I don’t want people to treat Kobe as guilty until proven innocent, but I wish they would extend the same sense of decency to the victim too.

Friend of Bryant’s Accuser Says He Saw Evidence of Alleged Assault

EAGLE, Colo. (AP) - The 19-year-old woman who accused Kobe Bryant of sexually assaulting her had “visible evidence” of the alleged attack a week later, one of her friends said Tuesday. Luke Bray declined to be more specific out of respect for his friend and her family.
“There is visible evidence of what happened,” he said.

Ugghhh!

File this under stuff that makes me want to throw up.

A school for ‘ideal’ wives

Deepti, 18, recently cleared her class 12 examination. And that, her parents decided, was enough education for a girl. Four months ago, they fixed up her marriage. Deepti is now training at the Manju Sanskar Kendra in Bhopal to be an ideal wife to a boy she has only seen once, and with whom she occasionally chats on the telephone with her parents’ permission. Six days a week, Deepti attends sermons at the Kendra, an institution set up to train women to surrender to the more powerful in the family — in this case, the husband and in-laws. Aildas Hemnani, the Kendra’s head, coaches his students in a spacious room that doubles up as a prayer hall for the Sindhis in Bairagarh, a Sindhi-dominated residential area on the outskirts of Bhopal.

What is this? Some kind of animal farm, where the women are “trained” like show dogs to strut well and behave in the ring so the masters can feel good and happy?

“I was distressed by the constant bickering among families all around me. At times, it led to divorce. I told Sant Hridayaram that families are breaking up because girls nowadays have too much ego. Parents don’t have time to train their daughters properly. Girls must shed their egos to build a happy family. Sant Hridayaram suggested I start a training course.”

If this is not brain-washing, I don’t know what it is. Why should the women be the ones controlling their “egos”? Why not the men? Maybe it would do them a little good if they didn’t walk around feeling chauvinistic all the time.

One of Hemnani’s textbooks, Grahasth Mein Vyavaharik Jeevan (Practical Married Life), claims: ‘Science has proved that when menstruating women touch leaves and plants they wilt and decay faster.’ However, when asked about the source of such a study, Hemnani becomes defensive, “I cannot give you proof. I have heard this and read it in the books that have been published by Geeta Press. What proof can one have of the truth the mahatmas have said?”

Just imagine impressionable young women listening to pap like this - it is different thing if the women being subjected to this had some kind of basic foundation in science and independence that allows them to reject such blather. Unfortunately, the women actually believe this nonsense.

Something just caught my eye - this story is the first one on the RediffUSA page, but is buried and nowhere visible on the RediffIndia version. Hmmm…

I am glad that the womens’ groups in India have woken up and are protesting against such instilling of a subjugant mentality in young, immature women, before they are carted off to be married to pre-selected grooms.

What I cannot stand about Hillary Clinton

I don't care about her politics or policies - they make no difference to me. What bothers me is her sticking with her husband, even after he has admitted over and over again publicly, how many times he has cheated onher, with how many different women. How can a woman take that and still claim to be a feminist or strong and independent? What sort of a role model is she setting herself up to be for the other women? I come from the land where men are Pati Parmeshwars (husband Gods) and women, Charandasis (literally, foot slaves). Still, if my husband cheated on me, he wouldn't live to tell teh world if he "had relations with" any other women.

I despise Hillary Clinton's weakness. I hate her trying to make it out into some kind os strong love, shared bond issue. It ain't that, honey! Any self-respecting woman might take a man back after maybe one or atmost two incidents of cheating, but not after something like this. To me, that says Hillary Clinton is either a coward afraid to try and strike it on her own, or an opportunist who will stick with her husband for political expediency.

Heinous!

Mom 'calm' in call to 911

TYLER - Sunday was to be First Assembly of God's special Mother's Day celebration, but the congregation instead gathered to mourn the inexplicable - a tragedy in which two children were bludgeoned to death with rocks, allegedly by their mother, a member of the church's choir.
Hundreds filled the pews, some calling out encouragement, many dabbing their eyes as pastor Gary Bell talked of the pain of losing two of his young nephews and a third nephew's effort to cling to life.

How horrid is a mother who murders her kids in cold-blood by physically splitting their heads open with rocks? But then, I also thought in the Andrea Yaes case, what kind of mother would physically hold her children down and drown them one-by-one. What is wrong with these people? I am still waiting for NOW and the other femi-morons to come out of the woodwork and claim this is all somehow not the woman's fault - it is her "nerves", her "husbans", her "environment", her "medication" - anything but her. No woman is responsible for the murders she commits according to these people - unless of course, it is a raped or sexually harrassed woman and the person charged is a Democrat.

I still cringe when I recall Anna Quindlen's defense of Andrea Yates, saying she so understands how post-partum depression and how she can understand the compulsion that drove the woman to murder her kids methodically. Yea right! Sickening! Absolutely sickening!

As an interesting sidenote, this was being discussed on a local radio talkshow while I was driving to work and a preacher had called in. He said he thinks the problem was the extraordinary emphasis that most preachers put on "sin" when preaching to the congreagation (both Andrea Yates and this lady were extremely devout religiously). This does make a likely explanation for Andrea Yates' doings, since she admitted to killing her kids because she believed they were "spoiled" somehow. I can imagine an already sick-in-the-mind person listening to these people talking about nothing but sin and somehow deluding herself into thinking that her kids are sinners and so, must be eliminated.

Deanna (the lady who stoned her kids to death) said that she killed her kids because God asked her to do so, which is also very similar to the Andrea Yates scenario. Does their fanatic devotion have anything to dow ith these murders - or did that simply give her the catalyst to bring out latent murderous tendencies? I know I am rambling here, but there are just so many thoughts swirling in my mind, it is hard to sound half-way coherent. Bear with me.

Drivel!

This has got to be one of the most sexist, idiotic drivel I have read in a while. Obviously, the writer has never heard of a certain lady called Indira Gandhi, or he wouldn't have written this kind of crap. One of the things that most irritates me about this article is his stereotyping of all women as some kind of fuzzy, peachy beings, who always speak softly and are oh-so nice to each other all the time. I think it is mainly a very Western point of view, or at least the view of a person who is wilfully ignoring or trying to gloss over the complexities of a woman's nature.

I read somewhere the saying, "the most dangerous place in the world is between a mother and her baby". In Indian culture, women have never shied away from battle and there is absolutely no proof that they were ever more reconciliatory than their male counterparts. Rani Rudrama Devi, Jhansi Lakshmi Bai and others come to mind. Even our mythology is full of women warriors - Kali, Durga, Satyabhama. We also use the term "Mother Nature", which denotes not just the gentle, loving, calm face of nature, but also the nature that floods, blows away and destroys human life.

There is both a life-giving energy and a destructive force in a woman. I find it very simplistic for people to ignore one thing or the other to further agendas or to make points. I don't like to call myself a feminist in the "NOW" sense of the word, but the traditional sense of the war-mongering man and a softly nurturing woman is as distateful me as is the effort by people of some religions to subvert womens' freedoms by deeming too fragile to take care of themselves.

Yahoo! News - What If Women Ran the World?

When I look at the news these days, I can't help but wonder: Wouldn't we be a lot better off if women were in charge, given all the violence and atrocities perpetrated by men and male-run governments in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Iraq ? Would U.S. troops be in Iraq today if, say, Hillary Clinton were President, and not George W. Bush?

Sure, woman leaders are sometimes as tough and warlike as any man. Britain's Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. But in my experience, women tend to pursue conciliation and cooperation long after men would have been at each other's throats. And, as the heroism of American women soldiers and pilots in Iraq has shown, when it's really necessary to fight, women hold their own.

Announcing "Real Women Online"

"Real Women Online" is a blog/portal/meeting place for ideas was born out of a little idea that Ashwini and I came up with a little while ago.

There are a lot of bloggers around, and a lot of them write really good stuff, but we feel that many women, especially Indian women, are not opening up and talking the way they would like to about non-personal issues, like Politics, Sports, etc. We feel that many of the ladies are either intimidated by others or don't want to expend too much energy into maintaining a full time blog.

This blog is designed to help out in situations like that. We want women (and men) to use our space to post their thoughts, opinions and advice on any issue that is of interest to them, as long as it is not the recipe for the day's breakfast, or details of their love life (not that there is anything wrong with that).

We want women to speak freely here, like there is no one listening. We know they have a lot to say between friends and we want this to be a place like that, where people speak freely, and there is a free exchange of ideas.

This is still in Alpha but we decided to launch this to get some public feedback. We know nothing is perfect and that there is always room for improvement - Please feel free to email us or leave a comment with any suggestions you might have.

Terri's Situation

Terri’s Situation: A Brief Overview Of Her Court Battle

Terri was 26 years old when she suffered a cardiac arrest attributed to the lack of potassium. Terri suffered brain damage from this trauma. Terri received her food and water by means of a food tube, commonly referred to as a “straw.” Terri’s other bodily functions are physically stable. Terri smiles, laughs and cries. Terri recognizes voices and responds. At times, she vocalizes sounds as if she is trying to speak. Terri is not a brain dead vegetable as characterized by her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo. Terri is not on a respirator or any artificial life support. She is a living human being and needs to be granted an opportunity to recover. Terri has not had any progressive rehabilitation or arousal therapy in 7 years.
In a trial initiated by Michael Schiavo, Circuit Judge George W. Greer issued a verdict delivered on February 11, 2000. Judge Greer granted authorization to discontinue Terri’s feeding tube. Judge Greer’s verdict will cause Terri to die in 10 to 14 days. Terri’s death will be by painful starvation.

This is a morally reprehensible and extremely inhumane situation. You wouldn’t put your dogs to death by starvation, and this man wants to kill his bed-ridden wife like that, and a court has actually agreed with him. This is outrageous! I hope it is not too late and something can be done for the poor lady. Please read more about her plight at http://www.terrisfight.org. Any suggestions from the readers as to what to do about this lady, anything that might make a difference are welcome. Remember it is not even mercy-killing, as this woman is clearly alive and functioning, free of any terminal illness and most of all, does not want to die.

Update: Why Terri’s husband wants her dead and she should not die -
4Terri has no will. Should Terri die, her husband will inherit Terri’s $750,000 medical fund.
4Terri’s husband lives in a house with Jodi Centonze. He openly admits that he is engaged to this women for over four years and plans to marry her when Terri is no longer alive.
4Since receiving the award money in 1992, her husband has ceased and prohibited any new or aggressive treatment for Terri. He has only maintained Terri at a nursing home. He has totally ignored or denied rehabilitation therapy that could possibly assist Terri’s recovery.
4Since 1992, Terri’s husband has consistently and deliberately withheld all medical information and data from Terri’s family. Over the past seven years he has ordered Terri’s caretakers not to reveal any medical or neurological information
4Schiavo will not permit any doctor to examine Terri other than the doctors he selects.
4As Terri’s legal guardian, her husband has used her medical fund money to offset the legal costs when his guardianship of Terri was initially challenged and to pay the current legal costs to have Terri’s life ended.
4Terri responds regularly to the presence of her parents and friends. Her husband’s doctors testified Terri’s cognizant responses to Terri’s parents and friends are simply a reflex action.

Some articles about Terri’s situation -
Brain-Damaged Woman Faces Threat of Court-Ordered Starvation
Day One of Terri Schiavo case
Doctors in Terri Schiavo case give conflicting testimony