India - a nice place to be a woman?

India, despite the 'economic miracle', is still considered to be one of the worst places on earth to be born a women according to a recent survey. Afghanistan was the worst, followed closely by the Congo, Pakistan and India.

Do you think that alongside the dire poverty a great percentage of the population finds itself in, the taboo of sex and sexual debate facilitates such widespread exploitation?

Original article.

Sorry, title should read 'woman', not 'women'.

Depends on in which class..

Mod Note
I have modified your title!

The BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13773274

I agree that pretty widespread female foeticide is a shameful reality in parts of India. But using 'the 4th most dangerous country in the world for women' is just sensationalism, and far from reality. Maybe 'the x most dangerous country in the world for female foeticide would be more accurate."

Human trafficking, I dunno if it is worse than in Europe/UK, especially if one takes into account horror stories from girls in countries like Lithuania who have been trafficked further west. Dunno stats though, so I may be wrong.

India has huge gender treatment issues, but 4th? They probably left out a whole swathe of Islamic/Muslim countries in the Middle East out of their survey, for a start. A politically correct survey, then.

I think so, the things are changing for good in cities, but in the villages the situation is abysmal, domestic violence is evident, and the female infanticide statistics are appalling, even the educated decide to do this. There was a news article how the police captured a doctor in a posh locality in delhi who was illegally doing the ultra sound.

Devil My Dear Watson, is in the details.

This is not a study, nor a work of graduate level scholarship. It is simply a poll on perception of dangers to women living in the country.

Like all polling, it is opinion driven. The skew matrix is 25%-75%. So if one has to have a meaningful critique, the newspaper/TV drivel should be ignored


"Go to the source Luke"

This is the full report from the poll.

The actual report and not the newspaper reporting should be basis for the discussion Keep in mind that Thomson Reuters, like Associated Press, is a news disseminating organization. Nearly all media entities subscribe to it, and what is put on the wire (or in this case webfeeds) is picked by news organizations and rewritten. In this case, this poll was conducted by the Advocacy arm of Thomson Reuters which is a non-profit entity leveraging the expertise and resources within Thomson Reuters.

Since when did "economic miracles" assure any kind of positive social change?

Devil is in the details, all right.

The report starts off

then goes on to give me some colourful charts.


Is there a methodology involved somewhere, or do I just take their sub heading (quoted below) at face value?

Because, so far, this reminds me of the 'delhi superbug beware' or the 'ecoli coming from Spain' stridence.

Skimpy and not too elaborate -

http://www.trust.org/documents/women...ltsSummary.pdf

All too common. However, the foeticide is already doing more than governments have seemed to be able to do for women in the countryside..

So India is more dangerous to women than South Africa?

So I thought too, but a recent report in a newspaper said that the incidence of sex determination tests (illegal, btw) are rising amongst people who earn more- most of whom are urban.

I am not so sure about the notion that things are improving - at the pace I thought they were, in cities- anymore. What may be happening is that increasing urbanisation is bringing in more practices from non-urban areas into cities. Older populations of cities may be improving wrt gender issues, but not fast enough, maybe, to counter this fresh offensive.

India, however bad it may be, had a female PM before UK did, and a female president before the US did, so can it really be all that bad.


India is one of the few countries where a woman can cry sexual harrassment and the get gets charged without any proof.

You must know that that is shallow almost to the point of misrepresentation.

The success of one woman? Did it mean much for women that Thatcher was PM in UK? Especially as it is widely thought that she is not a woman at all, but an alien monster.

India's sexual harassment laws? Not only widely misused, but how many women will not even enter the police station for fear of harassment or even rape?

johnlord
hi
"India, however bad it may be, had a female PM before UK did, and a female president before the US did, so can it really be all that bad"
just one thought:Indira gandhi because of the last name Gandhi
the president in india has different powers(like the queen of england) than the US
president.incidentally she was selected because she was acceptable to the then governments ally viz the communists and our ex prez Kalam had refused the post as his condition was that he should be elected unopposed
rgds