HOME | DD

XbelieberXX In reply to TJBladeX [2015-11-06 22:47:34 +0000 UTC]

lmao 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

len355 In reply to Sara5542 [2015-10-12 20:26:39 +0000 UTC]

COPYCAT LOL XD JK dude :3

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sara5542 In reply to len355 [2015-10-13 12:21:02 +0000 UTC]

wait wah?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

len355 In reply to Sara5542 [2015-10-13 20:38:20 +0000 UTC]

u copyed my comment duh :3, but u didn't know

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sara5542 In reply to len355 [2015-10-13 20:44:12 +0000 UTC]

I didnt know XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SprinkleDance In reply to sakpalamey [2015-10-08 21:41:21 +0000 UTC]

THE FUCK? Why would they kill females right when they're born?! Those people are fucked up!

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

sakpalamey In reply to SprinkleDance [2015-10-09 19:40:45 +0000 UTC]

You have not seen anything.
Sometimes reporters show us in the news female embryos/fetuses dumped outside clinics and dogs feeding on them on the telly.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheSnowe In reply to SprinkleDance [2015-10-09 08:37:13 +0000 UTC]

Well, if you can imagine a low middle class/poor family who wants a son that can collect a dowry (If I'm remembering how it works correctly) they wouldn't want a daughter. And India has a two child policy, so a daughter, who would be limited in terms of strength, job options, social limitations, and a lot of other things on top of a dowry fee, she would definitely be considered a burden.

It's very fucked up and wrong in so many ways, but it does make some sense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

sakpalamey In reply to TheSnowe [2015-10-09 19:31:01 +0000 UTC]

You have done your homework, I must give you that. Dowry is one of the many reasons. A lifetime's saving worth of money is paid to the groom for marrying the lady.
No, we do not have a two child policy. On contrary, earlier generations used to produce eight to nine children in each family. Hence the problem of overpopulation.
It is still considered that only a son has the right to further the family lineage; women are given away in marriage. Education and employment is not a priority for women in rural areas.
Female feoticides are rampant. That is why ultrasound sonography to determine sex of the child is a criminal offence here.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheSnowe In reply to sakpalamey [2015-10-10 03:52:45 +0000 UTC]

Hmm, you'd think that feoticide would be less cruel than killing them after they're born though, at least in my opinion.
But still awful either way

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zxczxczbfg In reply to TheSnowe [2015-10-10 16:22:21 +0000 UTC]

I'm pretty sure Sak is exaggerating. A population of humans (ANY population) with few to no females will be totally unsustainable from a biological standpoint.

Fetuses are killed deliberately everywhere, all the time, for a myriad of reasons; that doesn't make it "common" or "accepted" in any way.

Care to identify your country, Sakpalamey?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

sakpalamey In reply to zxczxczbfg [2015-10-10 20:59:44 +0000 UTC]

I will make myself clear. I am pointing out how women are looked upon as being subordinate to men.
You are caught in the false dichotomy of all or nothing. We have more than sustainable population; overpopulated in fact. But the sex ratio is 940 females per 1000 males. The skewed sex ratio is the reason why the government has to step in and implement education, employment and monetary schemes for uplifting women.
It is India by the way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheSnowe In reply to zxczxczbfg [2015-10-10 17:01:31 +0000 UTC]

Ever heard of China and its one child policy? Killing baby girls is common there, too. If you're only allowed one kid, boys are a lot more valuable than girls.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SprinkleDance In reply to TheSnowe [2015-10-09 10:31:28 +0000 UTC]

Eh, suppose you're correct. Some countries/continents do that, so its a "suppose to get over it."

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

cooldude154 In reply to sakpalamey [2015-10-08 21:22:56 +0000 UTC]

Why the living fuck would they think that

👍: 0 ⏩: 0