An interview with Rita Banerji of 50 Million Women Missing.
5.What was the motivating factor behind the 50 Million Missing Campaign?
I’d say: outrage. I’m an Indian woman, and my country tells me “We’ve eliminated your kind by the millions, like flies! You are not human. You are nothing!” 20% of women have been exterminated from the population. And people need to know – this is unprecedented in human history. It is not normal for any society! No other human group has been subject to this kind of systemic and targeted extermination. China is the other country that has female gendercide. But what makes India worse than China, is first the apathy of the Indian government. The Chinese government takes this far more seriously. And secondly, in China it is largely sex-selection. In India the violence is perpetuated in all kinds of ways, for girls and women of all ages: starvation, physical battering, rape, honor-killings, dowry murder, witch lynchings. If this was happening to a human group in India because of their religion or their ethnicity, we would have the media and all civil rights sections in India up in arms – like for Kashmir or for the Gujarat massacre. We’d have global human rights groups demanding international action. But are women not human? Why does our genocide not evoke the same response?
I wish I knew.
The problem with violence against women is that a significant portion of women are complicit in the crimes listed. In contrast ethnic minorities do not to any appreciable degree (of course there are always a few collaborators) actively endorse their own suppression, nor do religious minorities.
Modern ‘progressive’ politics likes issues neatly laid out as conflict between one group versus another, often with the ultimate cause being rooted in something the evil white, Christian West has done.
The culture of violence against women in India cannot be blamed on any discrete group, nor can it be hung around the necks of colonialism, imperialism, or any other paternalistic excuse.
It is simply a case of a culture that broadly embraces anti-egalitarian, anti-humanist values in an age where the alternative of gender equality (and its obvious socioeconomic benefits) is widely known (and even given constant lip-service by by Indian politicians, the UN, NGOs, and on and on).
And I admit, because of its nature it is hard to articulate any solution.
This is WAY bigger than The Holocaust. How should we respond?
I have long supported that countries where women are abused as a matter of national policy should be excluded from the Olympics. I have supported the effort to ban Saudi Arabia from the Olympics. South Africa used to be banned.
The gender disparity in India isn’t just a problem now, it could be worse in the future. There will be tens (a hundred?) of millions of adult males with no females of the same age. What’s going to happen?
Events in other countries could be a sign of what’s to come. Men in South Korea have resorted to foreign brides (mostly Filipinas for their English, and Vietnamese too); assault is a big problem there among such mixed marriages. And look at China and what it’s done to Tibet, forcing ethnic Tibetan women to marry ethnic Chinese because there aren’t enough Chinese women around thanks to selective abortion. The Tibetan people, their culture and language are being eradicated by forced integration.
Gang violence, arranged
rapemarriage between adult males and young girls, mass rape and murder in the street, slavery, foreign prostitution, civil war and invasion of other countries are all real possibilities in India if the gender disparity is large enough.Katherine @1:
I’m disappointed by your fatalism. You don’t need a central core of readily-identifiable villains to combat a social problem. You can still tackle the problem itself. Earmark resources for investigating and prosecuting gender-related murders. Create economic and social advantages to families that respect and care for women. Create social awareness campaigns. Use marketing and advertising techniques to turn gendercide into a source of shame. I’m sure there are lots of other methods that other people can think of.
The West managed to eradicate slavery despite there being no simple, easily-identifiable villain class — and in fact succeeded without specifically targeting any group that had a high proportion of slave owners. We simply made slave-owning a criminal offence. Sure the costs were huge, especially in the US, and the West didn’t eradicate racism or indentured servitude, but great things can be achieved where there is the moral will.
@No. 2
I would like to see these nations, starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia, isolated and punished for their legal misogyny. Yet name a prominent feminist calling for such action?
Said ‘feminist’ is more likely to be against the nuclear-based sanctions against Iran than passionately in favor of forcing them to dismantle their gender apartheid system.
@No. 4
I can only conclude you have never been to nor read much about India with your amazingly naïve rebuttal. I mean “create economic and social advantages to families that respect and care for women”. Lol. We are talking about a country that cannot universally provide basic sanitation and you are babbling about “earmarking resources” for what would be a complex social experiment (which if you bother to think about it further would violate the concept of equality under the law). Your entire response is predicated on a uniform bureaucracy, penetration of the rule of law, and civil society that does not exist in many developing nations.
Firstly I never said we needed a “villain”, that is just your unsophisticated reading of my comment. Even so, the “villain class” in your example were slave owners. I mean, duh.
Katherine, what an unpleasant person you are, making excuses for inaction (oh, they can’t provide clean water in many parts of India, so how can they be expected to care about human rights?), and insisting that the political system in India be perfect before it’s worthwhile taking any positive action (as opposed to sanctions, which you’re all in favour of because they worked so fucking well in Iran for the past 30 years), and advocating isolation as a solution to traditionalist misogyny when that’s exactly what the traditionalists want. Wrap it all up in a thick layer of self-righteousness and anti-feminist sentiment and you have a stinking mess that you ought to be ashamed of, but I doubt you will be.
That’s a rather unfair – if not downright bizarre – characterisation of what Katherine actually wrote.
We are talking about a country that cannot universally provide basic sanitation and you are babbling about “earmarking resources” for what would be a complex social experiment (which if you bother to think about it further would violate the concept of equality under the law). Your entire response is predicated on a uniform bureaucracy, penetration of the rule of law, and civil society that does not exist in many developing nations.
I know where you’re coming from and I recognise that it does seem hopeless. However, at the time of independance, India was a net importer of food and always on the verge of famine. Yet such an intractable problem was addressed and through various gov’t and international programmes, India’s is now self sufficient in foodstuffs.
If that’s possible, then it’s also possible to do something about about the country’s gender disparity. Sure, it’s going to be long and arduous, but it’s doable.
Katherine – you really do need to dial the free-floating contempt way the hell down.
Katherine puts it all down to culture. Culture is indeed a force to be reckoned with, but it is also very mutable. Indeed, it is constantly changing. How often have I heard bigoted racists here in Britain invoking traditions which they merely suppose, and actual traditions of which they have neither knowledge nor understanding because the traditions are, in fact, no longer traditions? Culture boils down to: this is what I know, so that’s how it is, and lots of us think so. And that is why it is mutable. How much of Indian (or of any) “tradition” is merely a statement of what I might call “received convenience”? Only point out that it is advantageous to do something else (and, if you’re really cynical — or practical — show its relevance to some tradition, which is easily done — as we know from the behaviour of Christian authorities) and people will want to do it. If enough people want to do it, you can counter the vested opposition, such as religious authorities on the one hand and the MRAs on the other.
India has many village societies, run by men with male prerogatives. How if it were possible to force them to accept an equal number of women onto their councils? And is it really impossible? I doubt if it would require many resources to implement, though the government will have to ensure that uncooperative elders are actually and effectively prosecuted, and that would involve legal protection of women in the first place. Not without difficulties, true, but it doesn’t have to start at government level, despite the risks. Anyway, it’s my suggestion as a real possibility, and now Katherine can call me an ignorant fool.
I meant this to be the first paragraph of #10, but I wrote it in Wordpad and missed it when selecting my text:
I can’t really agree with Shatterface. One problem is that Katherine chooses to be arrogant and rude, which makes it difficult to read what she is saying with equanimity. I think that she does in fact make some excellent points, but her objections are essentially a statement of the status quo as she (apparently) knows it (and which Chris Lawson points out), and they do little to counter the force of Chris Lawson’s reasonable suggestions — which, after all, are only suggestions and can be changed or improved or expanded upon.
Re Post and Katherine:
I am aware that over thousands of years women have never organised revolutions or formed armies to fight for their rights — no Spartaca, and, despite men’s most imperative fantasies, no Hippolyta. Fighting for rights is what men do, and that’s why they win — that’s why they defeat women. The MRA’s are just the normal male reaction (women are complaining? well, we can complain, too — what about our problems, then?) It’s all very well to say, as Katherine does, that there are women who defend the status quo, but of course there will be, because it’s what they know and it’s their only opportunity, if they are strong enough. That simply has to change.
Women continue to exist only because they have to, until some religious freak or MRA comes up with the final cloning solution. Women are in danger of being destroyed altogether. A world without women is a world in which we men won’t have to deal with our sex-drives and our guilt and how or whether we should cover up our impossibly problematic women.
We can’t go on any longer saying that it’s all about culture. Individual human beings have rights and duties, and that is where the line of battle must be drawn.
On another tack:
I was thinking about a recent report in the New Scientist that a man had actually married a computer game character (in Japan, 2009). Of course, we also have porn and sex dolls, and will soon have robots, to enable us to enjoy our fantasies without finding ourselves inconveniently in the presence of someone with a critical mind and a sense of humour and a habit of expressing preferences and opinions unasked. Why is this possible? Surely it is only possible because the world does not include women as agents, only as something in the mind which has to be acted on, or something in the social milieu about which there must be opinions of a particular sort. Does this sound as if I am not talking about women at all? You are right. I am not.
Where did that come from? chrislawson, blatantly misread both my comments and threw out some very ugly accusations as a result. I mean Shatterface called that out too.
Are you against the Iran nuclear-based sanctions? Did I inadvertently hit a sore spot? Please just be honest because I really have to wonder how my acerbic attitude *suddenly* became a problem.
@Gordon
Sex dolls and robots would be great if actual women were left alone to live our lives in peace. I’m all for sex robots for men. Have a whole harem of robots, knock yourselves out.
@Katherine #14
Blatantly misread? Do you really mean that misreading is obtrusively and flagrantly offensive, as though one did it to annoy? Or do you simply mean that he misunderstood you?
Please consider
“your amazingly naïve rebuttal. I mean “create economic and social advantages to families that respect and care for women”. Lol.”
This is quite stupid, as Chris’s suggestion and your belief that it cannot be implemented are quite separate, and even if you believe that a suggestion springs from ignorance it gives you no right at all to try to humiliate the one who offers it. The fact that you have tried is something you need to think about.
Also
I never said we needed a “villain”, that is just your unsophisticated reading of my comment. Even so, the “villain class” in your example were slave owners. I mean, duh.
I mean, why be so rude? This is mere contempt. It’s entirely uncalled for.
@ theoreticalgrrrl
If only is only if. And I don’t think it is. I don’t think that men would be content with their sex dolls and robots if there were real women to conquer. Imagine women trying to be real people in a world in which men wanted women to be like their robots.
That’s the situation we have now. Having actual robots will make men wonder why there should be women at all. With cloning, and the apparently universal preference for male foetuses, there won’t be any women. The Roman Catholic Church shows the way: they wouldn’t have their moral dilemmas about pregnant women if there were no women, and as it is, women have to be treated as less than persons for the sake of the Church’s doctrine and its corrupted notion of human value.
As we know, woman has always been the prime originator of sin. The Church will have no problem.
Gordon, as Shatterface can attest, I will immediately apologize when I see that I am in the wrong. I do get unfairly aggressive with people at times. That is not the case here.
chrislawson’s initial description of my views were insulting and inaccurate, the follow-up hurled even more hostile accusations and hyperbole, far disproportionate to any rudeness on my part.
@ Katherine #18
This refers to #4. Whether Chris Lawson’s remarks were inaccurate is a point I am not arguing here. That they were insulting is simply not true, as you can read for yourself. Trigger: “I am disappointed by your fatalism”. Think about it.
Chris Lawson’s response at #6 comes after your very unpleasant comment at #5, which I have already criticised at #16. I’m sorry, Katherine, but you are in the wrong here, and I am disappointed that you go further and make a silly accusation to justify your arrogance. You don’t need to do this. Take twenty deep breaths and come back in 15 minutes. It’s not that your opinions are unwelcome, it’s just the way you express them (sometimes).
Katherine – Nonsense. Chris Lawson’s comment @ 4 was perfectly civil. Your reply was not.
As for “where did this come from?” It came from the fact that this is my blog, and I curate it.
All that bullshit about sanctions on Iran and hitting a sore spot and please be honest – that’s just more of the same kind of thing. Don’t do that. Dial down the hair-trigger fury.
Or, what Gordon said, and he said it much more nicely.
It is indeed solely the manner not the matter that I’m objecting to.
@Gordon,
But they would get all the sex they want, at anytime, with their sex robots. I’m sure the robots could be programmed to cook and clean as well. Isn’t that enough? Why would they need to ‘conquer’ real women if they’re getting all the things they want from their sex robots? Wouldn’t they just ignore us? Why do they want to wipe us off the face of the earth?
@theoreticalgrrrl
How can they ignore you when you are so beautiful, and alive, and warm, and cuddly, and … just real? You can give us any number of robots — say, three each a week — and we’ll still be roaring after the next real girl we see. The solution is not in providing surrogates but in changing attitudes. Much harder, of course, and that’s why the trend to look to technology is so appallingly obvious (with consequences so appallingly bad simply because of apathy). Much harder, but it’s what we have to work on. Seriously. Women have to get power, and they have to defeat men, in the way that Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about defeating religion. I’m not sure if women think like that. I wish they would!
Why do they want to wipe us off the face of the earth?
Well, I think they don’t, mostly. But, unfortunately, they think they would be happier if they did, so the trend is always that way. Think about women not being able to make up their minds, being able to entertain two contradictory thoughts at the same time — things that men do all the time but get annoyed when women do it because of sex and being in charge. Think about all those debates about special bicycles for women which don’t reveal the fact that women actually move. Think about those debates about whether women can manage with one eye rather than expose two actual real eyes to the male gaze. But it’s not just a problem in Iran. It seems that it is not possible to celebrate women without some gesture in the direction of male sexual gratification. If women could be just people…but that is what all the agony is about. Can women be just people? As long as men are in charge, this will be a serious question. That is why we have to have political and social equality and no fucking religion to talk about god’s plan for women or women’s special this or that or men’s special bullshit.
This is absurd. I called chris “naïve” and “unsophisticated,” criticism I backed up with specific critique of his argument. Those are such tame remarks that I wondered what was the real issue.
Sure enough I found that chrislawson is someone Ophelia invited to do a guest post a few months ago. In other words this poster is clearly liked and admired around here.
So despite your claim of “solely the manner not the matter” this is at least partly about personal relationships. If it were about “manner” you would have told us both to let it drop, especially after the undisguised nastiness of chrislawson’s second post.
The thing is if you has just told me that chrislawson is someone you like, I would apologize out of respect for you. Instead you threw out hyperbolic personal attacks of your own and derided a sincere questioning of your motives as “bullshit.”
In any case, apologize to Chris for my remarks. While I feel you were unfair in characterization of my comment, it was unnecessary for me to escalate it with personal jabs.
Now we will see if Ophelia can apologize to me for insults like “hair-trigger fury” and “free-floathing contempt” which are ironically far more personally abusive than anything said between chrislawson and myself.
Dammit, Katherine – no it was not about “personal relationships.” Don’t claim to read my mind and don’t accuse me of dishonesty.
This is the most disappointing response. I at least have already said that you have made some excellent points, and when Ophelia says that it is your manner, not the matter of your comments, that creates offence you really ought to give her credit for meaning what she says. Chris Lawson has made no nasty comments, as you can see for yourself, and you cannot put your insults out of context with your “critique” when the matter was delivered so rudely, and so intentionally rudely. And it is foolish to pretend that something is bad which everyone can see is nothing of the kind.
I wish you would stop this and take a break. It isn’t necessary, and while you are busily trying to defend your arrogance you are actively seeking to harm someone else by spiteful innuendo (“if you had just told me that chrislawson is someone you like…”). I do not consider that “hair-trigger fury” and “free-floating contempt” are inaccurate, because, as I have discussed above, I came to the same conclusion when reading your comments. They are simply statements of fact. You are no longer succeeding in presenting yourself as a rational and reasonable person, but it is still up to you to choose how you will behave.
I guess you missed the message that begins “Katherine, what an unpleasant person you are…” and then proceeds to further attack me by ridiculous mischaracterization of what I wrote.
Except of course Shatterface who explicitly criticized chrislawson for their response to me as well.
The fact you cannot even be honest about what chrislawson wrote or the fact that another poster directly criticized what they wrote shows how empty your condescending, sanctimonious remarks are.
The fact you do not even have the minimal level of integrity to acknowledge that I explicitly apologized to chrislawson just makes your entire need to condemn me a farce.
Ophelia, I gave you the chance to just apologize for your nasty remarks about me, as I did to chrislawson. Apparently barking imperatives at me is your way of having a discussion.
Then be up front about the fact that chrislawson is not just some random poster who wandered in here. He or she is someone you like and/or respect well enough to have let them speak on your personal blog as a guest. Pretending that carries no weight is simply ridiculous.
Katherine – as I said (and as ought to be obvious) – this is my blog, which I curate. I wasn’t “having a discussion” with you, I was telling you to do your discussing with less bad temper. That’s because this is my blog and I don’t want it to get cluttered up with too much bad temper, especially abrupt undermotivated unreasonable bad temper.
That’s at least the third time on this thread that you’ve accused me of dishonesty. If I didn’t value most of your comments for their information and point of view, I probably would have booted you out after the second.
For at least the third time: this has nothing to do with Chris Lawson; it has to do with the way you responded. Period.
Guest posts have nothing to do with anything. I do guest posts quite often. I might guest post one of your comments some day. Or not, if you keep being so unpleasant.