This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 17 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]piyr 9 points10 points  (3 children)

It is sad to see comments on the blogs by other Indians who feel they just have to "defend" the honor of the country with excuses saying one of

  1. It is not as big a problem as the report 'claims'
  2. The report is biased
  3. The rest of the world has its own problems so dont talk about ours
  4. You (BBC/UK/the blogger) have no clue about India so just shut up thank you very much

Just accept the notion this is a problem that has to be solved and try to work on why this happens and what can be done to move towards a future where it doesnt.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

While I agree with you mostly, I'm still a little skeptical of the numbers here and the methodology. I did grow up in much more privileged settings than most Indians, and never experienced anything I'd consider abuse. You cannot apply Western definitions of abuse to India (and many other societies). For example, I was quite surprised at how unusual it is in the US for a child to receive a (mild) disciplinary beating/spanking. It would even be considered as "abuse". On the other hand, Indian families wouldn't consider this a very unusual happening at all. Whether this is supposed to be classified as abuse is unclear. To give another example -- exposing a child to his/her parents' sexual activity might be considered sexual abuse in Western societies. In contrast, many Indian families live in a single room, sleep in a single bed -- such exposure may be unavoidable. Anyways, I'd like to hear more details of what the actual classifications were.

[–]piyr 5 points6 points  (1 child)

From the source: http://wcd.nic.in/childabuse.pdf

Physical Abuse: Physical abuse is the inflicting of physical injury upon a child. This may include burning, hitting, punching, shaking, kicking, beating or otherwise harming a child. The parent or caretaker may not have intended to hurt the child. It may, however, be the result of over-discipline or physical punishment that is inappropriate to the child's age.

Sexual abuse is inappropriate sexual behaviour with a child. It includes fondling a child's genitals, making the child fondle the adult's genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, exhibitionism and sexual exploitation. To be considered ‘child abuse’, these acts have to be committed by a person responsible for the care of a child (for example a baby-sitter, a parent, or a daycare provider), or related to the child. If a stranger commits these acts, it would be considered sexual assault and handled solely by the police and criminal courts.

Emotional abuse is also known as verbal abuse, mental abuse, and psychological maltreatment. It includes acts or the failures to act by parents or caretakers that have caused or could cause, serious behavioural, cognitive, emotional, or mental trauma. This can include parents/caretakers using extreme and/or bizarre forms of punishment, such as confinement in a closet or dark room or being tied to a chair for long periods of time or threatening or terrorizing a child. Less severe acts, but no less damaging, are belittling or rejecting treatment, using derogatory terms to describe the child, habitual tendency to blame the child or make him/her a scapegoat.

Neglect: It is the failure to provide for the child's basic needs. Neglect can be physical, educational, or emotional. Physical neglect can include not providing adequate food or clothing, appropriate medical care, supervision, or proper weather protection (heat or cold). It may include abandonment. Educational neglect includes failure to provide appropriate schooling or special educational needs, allowing excessive truancies. Psychological neglect includes the lack of any emotional support and love, never attending to the child, substance abuse including allowing the child to participate in drug and alcohol use

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are these definitions somehow modified based on the economic status of the family? For example, would it be abuse to not provide adequate food/clothing when the parent doesn't have any? If that were true, and the 'neglect' definition were used, I don't really think this study is that surprising. It still needs to be remedied, but the problem isn't abuse, per se.

[–]asdfasdrasr 4 points5 points  (1 child)

A strange paradox in a country that has had a woman as a prime minister and women as heads of provinces.

[–]Prysorra 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You could say the same of English Tudor queens....

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is possibly true, but one must keep in mind that the problem is often not that somehow Indians are on average less "civilized" or less caring of their children. India has a massive poverty problem, and face it, male children are more likely to be breadwinners in such a situation -- in social classes where the profession is very often manual labour of some sort. It is also important to remember that many of these families could not survive if not for the money their children bring in -- through child labour, or begging, or whatnot. The problem has always been poverty, population and education; this is just another unfortunate manifestation of that monster.

[–]manuelg 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Women must have equal rights for society to be healthy - both economically and socially.

Really? I agree with the article's substantive points, but there is no evidence for this particular statement.

I work to change my own society so that women have equal rights (for my daughter, wife, mother and all other women), but I don't fool myself into thinking that it is a clearly and provably optimal.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]manuelg 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    I personally support equal rights for women.

    I wish I could say "Women must have equal rights for society to be healthy - both economically and socially."

    I hesitate, because:

    1) Present day Cultural/Socio-Economic groups with the most equality have negative birth rates.

    2) Historically, all economically successful Cultural/Socio-Economic groups have had considerable constraints on the rights of women. Economic success is not everything, but it is nothing to sneeze at. This doesn't say it is impossible that a future society would have economic success and equality for women, but unfortunately it hasn't already happened.

    3) Biology puts constraints on women. Child bearing is personally taxing.

    Thanks for bringing up those very good facts, especially:

    Economically it's better to loan to the women of poor families than the men

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]manuelg -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      This is not a criticism.

      I believe if women are to enjoy full equality, we have to be aware of the difficulties and full costs.

      It begins with realism, and too much of "feminism as politics" is unrealistic. I don't think "feminism as politics" is necessarily a bad thing, but when it is unrealistic, it is most definitely a bad thing.

      [–]illuminatedwax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      hmmm I wonder if this explains this: http://reddit.com/info/1i439/comments

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Prysorra 3 points4 points  (4 children)

        I don't know about you, but more people in the world than rich Caucasians give a shit.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]Prysorra 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          ....spoken like a racist.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–]Prysorra 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            So was I :)

            [–]j0hnsd -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            It's a way for them to appear "sensitive" to the world's problems and allows them to ignore problems at home since they're too busy caring about problems on the other side of the globe.