Intersting statistic by rediff labs. Point to note- most rapes are also happening in places where women education is low. Only to prove regressive mindset is single most important cause for rapes in the country.
Kerala claims to be 100% literacy. However in this map women literacy is around 85%. Does this mean that the claims of 100% literacy in Kerala is wrong? Rediff please clarify which one is correct.
Re: WHICH ONE IS CORRECT?
by Pat Thakur on Jun 20, 2014 06:15 PM
You pay rediff n that 85% will automatically become 50% or 0%, whatever way you want it.
Is there a data to compare the change from 1947 to 2013, male and female both data will give a complete picture. What is the benchmark for literacy? Graduation or being able to read and write?
Re: Are women in your constituency literate?
by Anand sodo on Jun 16, 2014 01:20 PM
Graduation?..... - In India any one who can read or write even a few alphabets - is LITERATE!
dist in Kerala has another distinction too. It is the first ever well populated dist in India to record a fall in population (between the 2001 and the 2011 censuses).
Perhaps higher literacy indeed leads to lower children per woman.
Re: Pathanamthitta
by Jacob Franklin on Jun 12, 2014 09:28 AM
Pathanamthitta also has the cleanest air quality in India as per WHO study on 123 Indian cities.
Re: Re: Pathanamthitta
by Abraham Philip on Jun 21, 2014 01:01 PM | Hide message
Also lot of other important things are there in this Dist. of KL e.g. Sabarimala Temple, Pampa river, Nilackal Church etc.
except mothers, none are worth. Sisters are worse.They use the mask of equality, freedom to act superior and take matters in own hand. Because if we decide they act like its something we are doing to curb them.They live in the world created by man, managed by laws created by man, borders protected by man... Yet they demand everything equal. Its almost obnoxious.
Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 08, 2014 10:27 PM
huh? did you reply to a wrong post or are you high?
you can keep an open mind or speak on assumptions.
I never said females should be treated a certain way. I said what they have become like due to self reliance. It's creating more individual personalities and ego clashes. Disrespect is cool for them now. You can't even protect them or act protective in accord to asking their whereabouts (considering the acts of crime of today against women) because they take offense to it like we are after their privacy or controlling them. Too many such things.
Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 08, 2014 11:28 PM
Let me tell you something to shock you - if one chromosome in your embryo was different, you could have been born a woman. Every single man was once born of a woman, with some pain and suffering on her part.
In my experience, women are intrinsically no better or worse than men.
All humans are equal, their lives are very real to them, and if there are barriers to equality like the ones you mentioned, those barriers should be torn down, not strengthened.
Countries are made up of people who have a stake in the system; entrenching barriers makes nations smaller.
Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 09, 2014 12:23 AM
dont react like i put an opinion against having equality or freedom for women. They too deserve it. But having provided with it, they have taken it for granted and the treatment in return is not fair. Im talking about educated ones with jobs self reliant.
Would you say there has been no negative side emerging from women?
Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 08:34 AM
That's a funny thing about freedom and equality.
equality is not "given" by group A to group B; group A does not get to decide whether the equality they have supposedly doled out is being used rightly or wrongly.
There is no such thing as "treatment in return"; because you have not done them some favour in treating them as humans.
Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 08:40 AM
And your question at the end; there has been no "negative side emerging from women". There are individuals who behave badly, but both genders are well represented in the good as well as the bad.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by kartik M on Jun 09, 2014 09:26 AM
Can you tell me... How many educated women (earning or non earning) have good terms with their in laws..????
Incidence of divorce among professionally educated/educated/ or non educated women ??
Recent study showed that increasing number of domestic violence victims in india are men??? (Google it)
even educated and earning women (most of them) could not take entire responsibility of their family...they tend to spend their money on shopping, jewellery, hotelling etc. Tell me how many men think so .....
Men have responsibility of their parents...their children .... their wife..... inlaws ... everybody.....
Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 09, 2014 10:48 AM
fuck_off mate. Did you read the part i said we cant be protective to them they act as if we are invading their privacy? Wht did you make of that. You have nothing useful to add and are doing timepass.
We are born unequal physically, biologically and psychologically. I meant equality as a human being. Please take ur arrogance elswhere to feel good about urself. I dont need english lessons from you.
Will they protect us on border? The world is equal in the boundaries created by man. Outside they will survive on own? Please dont bother, i am not interested in exchanging thoughts with femisists.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 04:24 PM
@abhinav jain
I seemed to have touched a nerve because you think expletives are the way to respond. And I thought I saw someone to exchange ideas with. Silly me, you obviously came to plaster your ideas on a public place and don't like people who disagree. How could I have not noticed that?
You saw my responses to some of the points you made. I may not respond to your other grievances, as I may have agreed. or sympathised, or didn't find your social mis-steps worth my time.
To answer your question in the last paragraph, there are countries where gender is not a barrier to combat roles in the military. So there goes your question about whether the borders can be protected by them. And in this world of technological warfare, the trigger can be pulled by a person a continent away; strength is important less and less.
And when you grow up, remember to put what you have spouted here on your matrimonial page. Anything else would be misleading advertising.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 09, 2014 05:26 PM
You are condescending. You kept quoting my sentences and explaining to me what I meant and did not mean. That's hardly exchange of ideas.
You mocked me saying if 1 chromosome changed I would be women. From start you were looking to defend and bat like I am not aware of what you said already. What points did you add except to let me know i could also be a woman... really man.
You care I marry or what? I can decide that for myself. And I sure wouldn't do it for the fuck_of it.
I don't need a partner who wouldn't like to do any household stuff, wants to live seperately, nor wants any sort of role to make up for the family because she would feel it to be "traditional".
In the name of equality they have left the roles of "homemaking". If everything has to be done by me at the risk of losing 50% and providing lifetime monthly EMI incase of a divorce, why should I bother with the formality of a marraige.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 09, 2014 05:43 PM
You can keep vouching_for_"equality"_being_freely_deserved and it's not equality if say that it's given. But that is the fact. It is being_fought_for them and it is being given. It_should_be_respected.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 09, 2014 05:43 PM
And the point of some women being in military, please tell me who has developed the technologies and weapons in the military and who would win a _fight_ between women_and_men on the borders considering all aspects physically, logically?
If they could do it, why couldn't_women dominate_men from the_beginning and why_isn't that the_world_order?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 09, 2014 07:04 PM
Oh and btw, I didnt miss your post with the words c___ts and as__h___s which got deleted by admin. So keep your condescending insinuation of me using expletives to yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 09:01 PM
@abhinav jain 5:26 Pm
"You are condescending. .........."
Messages on the internet don't carry tone, inflection or emotion, unlike normal speech. It is a stretch for you to diagnose my attitude to you based on the written word. I was not responding to you as a person, but to your arguments. So you don't have to make this about you.
If my arguments don't seem logical, you already had your chance to show me where I went wrong. To disapprove of some emotional subtext in my messages to you, or me being condescending, is to find an grievance where none was intended.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 09:17 PM
@abhinav jain 5:26 Pm
"You mocked me saying if 1 chromosome changed I would be women. From start you were looking to defend and bat like I am not aware of what you said already. What points did you add except to let me know i could also be a woman... really man."
Maybe I wasn't very clear; let me spell it out for you using different words. - If circumstances had been different, you might have been born as someone who you now want to give an inferior status. I wanted you to put yourself,for a second, in the place of someone who reads your provocative ideas and takes it more personally.
And coming to "mocked me" - I do not consider any person to be inferior, so your feeling that it was "mocking you" to make you imagine yourself as a human being with a different anatomy - that tells a lot about your thought process. Think about this for a moment.
That was you mocking yourself, none of it came from me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 09:19 PM
@abhinav jain 5:43 Pm
"You can keep vouching_for_"equality"_being_freely_deserved and it's not equality if say that it's given. But that is the fact. It is being_fought_for them and it is being given. It_should_be_respected."
What sort of freedom or equality would YOU have if it could be taken away anytime, by someone else. If that someone else were on a message board saying things like Mr Jain is not using his equality in good, or approved ways, wouldn't you have something to say ?
The other option is stop calling it "equality" - call it Revocable Permitted Activities. This would be a new idea, maybe patentable. Have a committee sit in judgement over half the population, perhaps.
But words mean something. Equality applies to us as well as them, so how do we get to choose, to limit other people's choices.
Saying that our kind does the fighting for someone else, so we should get to decide the "limits" for other people. Well, the armed forces and the police have men and women serving in combat, and in medical roles, healing our forces in difficult and risky surroundings. Don't they get any points in your universe ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 09:26 PM
@abhinav jain 5:43 Pm "And the point of some women being in military, please tell me who has developed the technologies and weapons in the military and who would win a _fight_ between women_and_men on the borders considering all aspects physically, logically
I am going to solemnly accuse you of moving the goalposts. You started with an assertion that women can't defend their country. When refuted, you ignored that and came up with your current demand for information. I am not your Wikipedia;
If fighting on the border is all that matters, then we should have to take votes away from the visually and hearing impaired. Our laws are not from the ancient world, restricting citizenship to capacity to serve in the legions. Move to the 21st century, some day.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 09:54 PM
@abhinav jain 7:04 Pm
Maybe you got me there. I am as guilty of using coarse language as the next man, when provoked. But I also know how to reconsider, pull out my own message for "(tick checkbox) Using Abusive language", and copy-paste a new message with the offending sentence removed. You would have got that, if you had looked at the time stamps of the message. Alas, the moderator has done his work, my clumsy attempt to make things right has no evidence, just as you have no evidence that there was any messages with missing syllables.
BTW, how do you know I wasn't refering to cOAts and aSH-hOOKs ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 09, 2014 10:00 PM
When you had said that, you kept quoting me like you were trying to correct me or know better what my words meant. You didn't need to explain, I know what 1 different chromosome implied.
If my thought of being mocked was self induced then your remark "Revocable Permitted Activities" from what I said is also self induced. I never said freedom or equality should be revocable or conditional because they are another kind, did I?
If I see how the pretext of freedom and equality is misused by females these days why shouldn't I question their disrespect while I do my duty I should bear the brunt of their attitude and selfishness because she has a free will and can do so? Why should I accept it gracefully?
They maybe part of armed forces after a lot of reconsiderations but do they fit the best traits for it? What is their % please if you are so insistent on it? How many medicines, vaccines, medical or operating equipments have been designed developed tested by females? Anyway, my point wasn't about their jobs to where you are stretching.
The point again comes to the same thing no matter how many examples you lay, they live and are part of the system we have created and maintain and the free will they deserve as a human being is received. Fine till there. Pardon me for not having a soft corner for the females of the present generation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 10:07 PM
@abhinav jain 5:26 Pm
"You are condescending. etc,etc"
Messages on the intrnet don't carry the speaker's tone, inflection or emotion, unlike normal speech. It is a stretch for you to diagnose my attitude to you based on the written word. Again, I was not responding to you as a person, but to your arguments. So you don't have to make this about you.
If my arguments don't seem logical, you already had your chance to show me where I went wrong. To disapprove of some emotional subtext in my messages to you, ( meaning being condescending), is to find an insult where none was intended.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 09, 2014 10:30 PM
@abhinav jain 10:00 PM
"The point again comes to the same thing no matter how many examples you lay, they live and are part of the system we have created and maintain and the free will they deserve as a human being is received. Fine till there."
As long as WE stands for all the people, I am with you there. There are no founder members and invitees in this club.
I am sorry if we cannot agree on this. But it is important to me. I will not ask for "respect" from someone in return for having given them "equality". The words don't belong in this sentence, unless their meanings change. That is as simple as I can put it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 09, 2014 11:46 PM
"I will not ask for "respect" from someone in return for having given them "equality"."
But you will accept disrespect? Impossible to not feel so, expect or want acknowledgement if you put yourself for someone.
I will not accept disrespect from someone in return for having providing & looking out for them, making sure they don't feel the pressure or burden of managing the house, being protective but later to see them turn selfish, outgrow and belittle the hand over their head as if non-existent.
"As long as WE stands for all the people, I am with you there. There are no founder members and invitees in this club."
Civilized society is a continuous process. Incase of a war, the onus of restoration and redevelopment will be majorly on the males. Remove the boundaries of civilized society and male order will be back as per natures course.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 10, 2014 06:22 AM
@abhinav jain 11:46 PM
"But you will accept disrespect? Impossible to not feel so, expect or want acknowledgement if you put yourself for someone."
I don't need to accept anything. I am not owed respect or deference from any segment of the population. Neither or us were on the constituent assembly, neither of us are the author of the universal principles of a modern civilized society, and neither of us have inherited any superior status in the male line.
"I will not accept disrespect from someone in return for having providing & looking out for them, making sure they don't feel the pressure or burden of managing the house, being protective but later to see them turn selfish, outgrow and belittle the hand over their head as if non-existent."
That's something you are going to have to face on an individual level. I can agree with most of what you have said, if it applies to someone you are closely involved with, Not on a large-scale, us versus them level.
"Civilized society is a continuous process. Incase of a war, the onus of restoration and redevelopment will be majorly on the males. Remove the boundaries of civilized society and male order will be back as per natures course."
I am not sure this is correct. In the past, equality came about because the large scale military mobilization removed males from the work-force; requiring women to take up essential jobs in industry, farming and military support roles. It is no co-incidence that
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: women in general
by David Jacob on Jun 10, 2014 06:49 AM
The last part of the message above came out wrong. trying again.
"Civilized society is a continuous process. Incase of a war, the onus of restoration and redevelopment will be majorly on the males. Remove the boundaries of civilized society and male order will be back as per natures course."
I am not sure this is correct. In the past, equality came about because the large scale military mobilization removed males from the work-force; requiring women to take up essential jobs in industry, farming and military support roles. It is no co-incidence that universal voting rights became a common thing shortly after the first world war, nearly a hundred years ago. And when this country was being formed, we understandably followed the standard for the time.
Again, wars cause huge demographic changes, as they remove men of working age from the population. There will be more families headed by the woman of the house, as the man may be missing or killed. Any recovery will involve the survivors more than those not present.
Remove civilised society ? That is something I would not wish on my worst enemy, even if he thought it would make him feel good. Ther is nothing "natural" about the world we live in. Equality for everyone makes the world better, it's part of the package of civilisation.
Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 20, 2014 05:04 PM
on paper same persons but outside different persons. mother is mother. nothing compares to her.
Re: Re: women in general
by abhinav jain on Jun 20, 2014 05:04 PM
and i dont know if i said or not, but females of this generation who are educated and self reliant.
