<

Paradox Paradise

Would you still call it nonsense, if sense exchanges its meaning with nonsense?

Monday, August 21, 2006

Not about the gender unisex is referred to

“Your children are not your children
They are sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself”

- Kahlil Gibran, in The Prophet

Civilisation is all about overriding instincts whenever it is thought to be undesirable. Every manmade law is about forbidding one instinct or other of his. And this particular man has defined castration, contraception, foeticide, and homicide with custom-made yardsticks. It’s all about desirability of this man, who voluntarily represents the society he lives in. She thinks it is for the good of her too, for she wouldn’t have been born without his consent. She feels very important too, for it wouldn’t have been a man’s world without her cooperation.

Now, a negligible issue is there. Women never were desirable, but were only an undesirable necessity. And the womankind was ever since struggling to become desirable to the mankind. With considerable success, I must admit.

Oldtimers had only one option of blessing away the female of their species with a wishful ‘Puthravati Bhava’. History of the mankind tells us wishing was not good enough. Then man invented sonograms. And the rest, ironically, is our future.

A man can experience only the sentimentality associated with a foetus, not the emotions that could be. Anyone who has been to high school knows that a sperm is worth only a trillionth of an ovum. Something really hard for a man to conceive with pride. And thus, very undesirable by default.

It was near this conclusion I was standing after reading about the dead unborns unearthed in a gynaecologist’s backyard in Panjab. And according to the news report, all the foetuses, about a fifty of them, were of one gender. Those who can’t guess which gender it is, must be Marsians. When I was much younger, I believed gynaecologist is the only doctor one can go to with a happy face, and come back with a happier face if the doubts were true. But back then, I didn’t know about undesirable pregnancies.

Now I know about undesirable pregnancies, and desirable pregnancies with an undesirable gender. Still, I don’t know why it is undesirable.

The government has made it a criminal offence to determine and unborn’s gender or to destroy it unless it’s proven dangerous for the mother’s life. The government has also implemented many schemes to help a female child. From perks for parents to extended free education. These must have been motivated by the belief that the undesirability is rooted in economic reasons. Is it desirable for the man to rethink about this conviction?

Anything illegal has never been inexpensive. And it is more difficult to find a criminal to execute foeticide than one for homicide, because they are found only in one of the most respectable social class. Determining the gender of the foetus costs money. Knowing the results needs more money, as it is illegal. And foeticide will cost more. Now, it is only basic mathematics one needs to know that female foeticide is practiced more by the ones who can afford, than the ones who cannot. I know a few people who will disapprove my argument by saying that the process is not really expensive or difficult as I made it sound like. They, of course, are the people who can afford it, and have access to broadminded doctors.

Is a female child actually a bigger economic burden to a parent compared with her male counterpart? If it is, is it only the expenses for her marriage? And if it is, do people really think of an unborn’s marriage and get worried? If not, what else? Is it the anxiety about the return of the investment? If it is, is that all an expectant parent can think of? If it is not, is it simply undesirable for no reasons? Or is it just the man’s instinct that drives him to extinction? I don’t want to know. I am old enough to die before the race vanishes.

Read the news article that my friend JM sent to me here.

Labels: , , ,

3 Comments:

At Wed Aug 23, 02:30:00 pm, Blogger jm said...

i don't get what your point is. are you trying to say that the society should get more enlightened? or are you presenting some of your ideas on the issue of female infanticide? or is it both? or is it a lot more than that? please clarify.

 
At Thu Aug 24, 11:44:00 am, Blogger Neo Budha said...

Daa Jubin George.. atlast I found you.. its mee Stephen John.. verum stephen john alla... Rev. Stephen J Vattappara :))) entha njettiyoo .. :))

 
At Thu Aug 24, 03:10:00 pm, Blogger Jubin George said...

stephen:
Rev. father, that was a real shocker! (praise the lord, thy ways are sure mysterious):D

But i was updated on you by jobin. Great seeing you here. Hope you'll come around once in a while.

jm:
I don't want the society to be enlightened. I'm not really worried over female foeticide or infanticide. My point is much simpler than that.

For one reason or other, women in society were always less desirable. Hunters and warriors had their reasons, but we may not. The undesirability is more of ritulistic nature, than real material reasons. And like any ritual, social or religious, it's upto the beleivers to decide. I'm not one.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home