UN Where ‘No One Wanted Girls,’ a Dad in India Takes On the Patriarchy

Link (Archive)

Where ‘No One Wanted Girls,’ a Dad in India Takes On the Patriarchy​

When the nurse stepped out of the delivery room, her face turned somber as she approached with a baby in her arms wrapped in a blanket. Her voice dropped to a hush, almost like she was ashamed, as she announced to the family: “It is a daughter.”

Nothing about the nurse’s negative demeanor surprised Sunil Jaglan, the newborn’s father. Growing up in the northern Indian state of Haryana, he was accustomed to parents’ strong preference for having sons over daughters.
But something within him snapped, he said, when he offered the nurse money as a thank you gesture, and she refused because she had not handed over a boy.

“Are you also ashamed of yourself?” Mr. Jaglan recently remembered asking the nurse when his daughter was born 11 years ago.

That episode transformed him into an unlikely champion of women’s rights in a deeply patriarchal society. He turned the nurse’s four words, uttered almost as a curse — “It is a daughter” — into a slogan for a campaign that health officials say is responsible for saving the lives of hundreds of girls in Haryana.

Historically, Haryana had one of the most imbalanced sex ratios in the country. In 2012, the state had 832 females per 1,000 males. And Mr. Jaglan’s own village of Bibipur, with about 1,000 households, had one of the most skewed sex ratios in favor of males in the entire state.
“No one wanted girls,” said Mr. Jaglan, 41. “But everyone wanted a woman to do everything in their homes, from working in the farms to household chores.”

In India, the world’s most populous nation, and one which has experienced tremendous economic progress, gender inequality remains deeply entrenched. In many households, especially in rural areas, girls are considered a social and financial burden whose parents still pay thousands of dollars in dowry gifts to a husband’s family after arranging a marriage.

Despite an official ban on prenatal sex testing, advertisements for the service were pasted on market walls and highways across Haryana, and aborting fetuses because they were female was common. Although there are some restrictions, legal abortion is widely available in India through the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Shortly before his own daughter’s birth, Mr. Jaglan had won an election as the village headman, and he was now determined to use his new role to begin a controversial campaign against the prenatal sex testing that he was sure was responsible for the alarming gender gap in his village, his state and many places across India.

Although it was not within his authority to do so — and some considered it an egregious invasion of privacy — Mr. Jaglan made it mandatory for village families to report a household pregnancy within four weeks, a decision that angered many in Bibipur and beyond.

Through a network of women informers, he and his team of volunteers would follow pregnant women like detectives when it was suspected they were being taken for prenatal sex tests. If that was indeed the case, they would work to have the woman’s husband or her in-laws arrested, with the police operating on the assumption that the pregnant woman herself had little or no say in the decision.

The fear of prison worked.
In four years, the sex ratio in the village improved from 37 girls/63 boys per hundred newborns to 51 girls/49 boys, according to government health records.

This model of reporting pregnancies was soon copied in other parts of Haryana — though without Mr. Jaglan’s contentious mandatory requirement.

The latest results of India’s national health survey show that the state has improved the sex-ratio balance to 926 women per 1,000 men in 2020-21, from 876 in 2015-16.

“He has been extremely effective in delivering the message,” said Pratibha Chawla, a professor at Delhi University, who specializes in gender studies and has conducted research in Haryana. “People listen to him because he is one among them; he knows how to connect with them because he understands how a deeply patriarchal society works.”

Emboldened by this success, Mr. Jaglan has become a crusader to change entrenched attitudes about rural women, with his growing national prominence stemming in part from his ability to spin up attention-grabbing phrases in the Hindi language that he then uses social media to spread.

In 2015, he launched #SelfieWithDaughter, urging people to take photographs with their daughters and share them on social media. His effort got a major boost after Indian cricketers and movie stars started participating.

In one campaign, he encouraged men to make a pledge against saying sexist slurs at home, and in another, he convinced villagers to install nameplates on their homes for their daughters, a tradition formerly reserved for boys.

And as with his first effort, he has not shied away from controversial initiatives, with one calling on girls and women to maintain menstrual charts, visible to all in the household, to let the men know when they should be spared from hard labor on farm fields. While some have welcomed this, others worry it violates privacy and reinforces stereotypes about what menstruating women can or can’t do.

The charts are also an attempt to destigmatize menstruation, Mr. Jaglan said, to make the men in a household “comfortable with the idea that periods are a normal routine for women.”

More than a dozen of his 100 or so social media campaigns have been adopted as policy by the Haryana government, including that the hoisting of flags in all villages on two of India’s most important holidays — Republic Day and Independence Day — should be an honor reserved for girls who have scored top ranks in school exams.

Born and raised in Bibipur, Mr. Jaglan — who conceded that as a younger man he was “too patriarchal” in his own attitudes — earned a college degree in computer science and then taught math, before quitting in 2012 to consult for educational institutions seeking grants. His village headman term ended in 2015.

On a recent afternoon, Mr. Jaglan was walking through the lanes of Bibipur when several women recognized him. One by one, they lifted their hands and placed them on his head as a sign of blessing.

“He made us realize what a woman is capable of doing,” said Shanti Jagda, 62, about Mr. Jaglan. “And more important, he taught us to say no.”

In 2012, he organized a Khap Panchayat in Bibipur. A powerful body of male elders, the Khap is often considered anti-women in its approach toward resolving marriage and family disputes. When he invited a woman to speak on the stage, he created a public fury.

That speaker, Santosh Devi, talked about female infanticide and dowry deaths (when a woman is murdered or kills herself over a dowry dispute) and said she wanted women to join the decision-making process in village development.

“After giving birth to six children, he gave me the courage to stand up and speak in front of 4,000 people for my rights,” said Ms. Devi, now 90.

Mr. Jaglan’s dedication to promoting women’s rights began drawing national attention after this. Prime Minister Narendra Modi mentioned him four separate times in his monthly radio addresses that he sometimes uses to discuss ordinary individuals shaping Indian society.

But Mr. Jaglan says there’s still so much to do, and he pointed to an informal survey he has been conducting over the last three years: He asks prominent Indians — business executives, government officials, professors and police officers — about their family compositions.
Out of around 200 people, he said 95 percent told him they have a “perfect family”: a boy and a girl.

“How is that possible?” Mr. Jaglan said. He said the answer perhaps lies in the more educated and rich knowing how to circumvent Indian laws, or being able to afford to travel abroad, to continue using prenatal sex determination.
Mr. Jaglan said it’s his own two daughters, Nandini, 11, and Yachika, 9, who motivate him to do whatever he can to stamp out female feticide.

“I will not rest until the last culprit is held to account,” he said. “Every day, my two daughters inspire me to keep fighting.”

And he can hear around him a sound tied to his first successful campaign: In his village and many others across Haryana, the birth of girls is now celebrated with the banging of pots and pans by family members, a ritual earlier reserved for the birth of a boy.
 
In many households, especially in rural areas, girls are considered a social and financial burden whose parents still pay thousands of dollars in dowry gifts to a husband’s family after arranging a marriage.
Historically, Haryana had one of the most imbalanced sex ratios in the country. In 2012, the state had 832 females per 1,000 males.
I don't understand how the logistics of this can work. Even if you think sons are great and daughters are shit, you're probably going to want your son to have sons of his own and he'll kinda need a woman for that.

If every man is looking for a woman and there's nearly a 5:4 ratio in some places, how can dowries continue being a thing? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, men ought to be paying to get women, not the other way around.
 
I don't understand how the logistics of this can work. Even if you think sons are great and daughters are shit, you're probably going to want your son to have sons of his own and he'll kinda need a woman for that.
They're shitskins: they haven't thought that far ahead, and if they have, they don't really care.
If every man is looking for a woman and there's nearly a 5:4 ratio in some places, how can dowries continue being a thing? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, men ought to be paying to get women, not the other way around.
It's tradition.
No one can really decide whether it was just money a woman brought with her for her own protection or given to the husband to help with the burden of safeguarding her, mostly from herself.
 
Thank God I wasn't born in India, China, or Arabia. What a bunch of ass backward people. The sons grow up to be awkward incel sex pest rapists, and the women are scrutinized to the nth degree.

I used to work with some Indian dudes, and they were all in arranged marriages. Those guys were fucking miserable. No wonder they worked 12 hour shifts and drank heavily.
 
I don't understand how the logistics of this can work. Even if you think sons are great and daughters are shit, you're probably going to want your son to have sons of his own and he'll kinda need a woman for that.

If every man is looking for a woman and there's nearly a 5:4 ratio in some places, how can dowries continue being a thing? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, men ought to be paying to get women, not the other way around.

To play devils advocate, a larger amount of Men and a lesser amount of Women would make sense in grand scheme of things in a conservative society. Because the more Men there are. Then the larger number of Men proportionally are near the top of the Pyramid. Therefore affording more Women better outcomes.

It's not like society as a whole generally gives a fuck if a Man dies alone on the street or in a war anyway. We've done that for thousands of years and not given a crap.
 
It's tradition.
No one can really decide whether it was just money a woman brought with her for her own protection or given to the husband to help with the burden of safeguarding her, mostly from herself.
But it's a tradition where the family that's supposed to pay the money has all the leverage. Who the hell pays money to get rid of something that multiple families are likely to be vying for just because it's traditional?

I refuse to believe even pajeets are that retarded.
 
A place with a real patriarchy, with women openly being raped and murdered in the streets, yet somehow everyone in the west continues to pussyfoot around the issue and defend it as their "culture."
Meanwhile western women here watch the Barbie movie and decide they're ao oppressed that they need to destroy society.
 
I don't understand how the logistics of this can work. Even if you think sons are great and daughters are shit, you're probably going to want your son to have sons of his own and he'll kinda need a woman for that.

If every man is looking for a woman and there's nearly a 5:4 ratio in some places, how can dowries continue being a thing? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, men ought to be paying to get women, not the other way around.
It’s another tragedy of the commons type thing. Your individual family will be better off if you have a boy, and he marries a girl - that girl moves to your household, you get to treat her like a slave and she pays for the privilege and looks after you in old age. Individual level is a win. The alternative is you raise a daughter, and pay to lose her, and your household gets smaller and fewer looking after you. The pressure will intensify as people have fewer kids
The fa t that it’s a net negative, and a big one, on society doesn’t get a look in because people are too short term focused and they get less benefit from society than they do from the individual boost.
Everyone in the west moans about patriarchy and ignores places like India where women are still literally sold to other families, bride burning is still a thing, and women are treated worse than animals, and can be decreed to be revenge raped by courts of their male relatives do a crime.
 
To play devils advocate, a larger amount of Men and a lesser amount of Women would make sense in grand scheme of things in a conservative society. Because the more Men there are. Then the larger number of Men proportionally are near the top of the Pyramid. Therefore affording more Women better outcomes.

It's not like society as a whole generally gives a fuck if a Man dies alone on the street or in a war anyway. We've done that for thousands of years and not given a crap.
Sexless men are dry kindling and the exact opposite of what maintains a stable society. A large ammount of men with less women lends itself to enormous short and long term stability issues, I also fail to see how it affords more women better outcomes when india is the rape capital of the world.

The only way more men less women works is if you're in constant war because otherwise you're going to have a bunch of restless violent people in your hands and good luck conserving shit with that demographic itching to get their frustration out any way they can.
 
The fa t that it’s a net negative, and a big one, on society doesn’t get a look in because people are too short term focused and they get less benefit from society than they do from the individual boost.
Sure, that part makes perfect sense. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

But now imagine you've got this short term-focused society where there's now an enormous sex ratio imbalance and all those men (or their families or whatever) are trying to find wives from a very limited pool of women. How does the value of eligible women not suddenly go through the fucking roof, regardless of tradition and the low status of women in Indian society?

Assume pajeets are as dumb and short-sighted and misogynistic as you want - it seems like economics 101 principles are still going to force their hand here.
 
Historically, Haryana had one of the most imbalanced sex ratios in the country. In 2012, the state had 832 females per 1,000 males. And Mr. Jaglan’s own village of Bibipur, with about 1,000 households, had one of the most skewed sex ratios in favor of males in the entire state.
“No one wanted girls,” said Mr. Jaglan, 41. “But everyone wanted a woman to do everything in their homes, from working in the farms to household chores.”

This is the big problem with preference for sons. But a lot of cultures can not get it through their heads that if you want more females you have to actually embrace having daughters.

I know it's all backwards thinking. And any interference from Western countries comes off as racist. So it takes changes from the inside to make any difference.

There was that tribe in South America that they based Nathan Explosion's heritage on. I can't remember the name. But we studied them in anthropology. They have a tendency to kill infant daughters and try again for more sons. This leads to a lack of females in any given village. Females do most of the horticulture work and they take care of the household, children and elders. Plus only they can make more babies. The village is non-functional beyond warmongering without women.

So what is the solution to obtain more women? Attack the neighboring village and steal their women. Many young men die in each of these wars. This has gone on and on for centuries back and forth between settlements. There's a part in the video where a woman is crying that she will never see her daughter again. It's very depressing.

When an anthropologist tries to tell them that if they stop killing female infants they will have all the women they need, the tribesman doesn't understand. He just says if we need more women we can just steal them from another village. He cannot parse this simple logic because of centuries of backwards culture.

Sometimes you cannot cure backwards thinking.
Although it was not within his authority to do so — and some considered it an egregious invasion of privacy — Mr. Jaglan made it mandatory for village families to report a household pregnancy within four weeks, a decision that angered many in Bibipur and beyond.

Through a network of women informers, he and his team of volunteers would follow pregnant women like detectives when it was suspected they were being taken for prenatal sex tests. If that was indeed the case, they would work to have the woman’s husband or her in-laws arrested, with the police operating on the assumption that the pregnant woman herself had little or no say in the decision.

The fear of prison worked.
In four years, the sex ratio in the village improved from 37 girls/63 boys per hundred newborns to 51 girls/49 boys, according to government health records.

Sometimes if you are forceful you can change things. As long as you aren't so backwards that you raid other villages every time you need a wife.
 
This kind of shit (male children only) works only in small scale.. Once you start trying it on large scale.. the clock starts ticking. Ask the Chinese.. They are sitting on a demographic bomb bigger than anything else.. partially fueled by this very type of nonsense.

Personally I can't understand it at all. What do they expect/want, all their sons to be gay?

As for the article.. sigh
 
How does the value of eligible women not suddenly go through the fucking roof, regardless of tradition and the low status of women in Indian society?
Stupidity, and inertia. ‘We’ve always done it this way.’
It takes twenty years to have a baby and rear it to the point it can marry. Why not just steal one and cut out that effort? There’s bride kidnapping going on in china too. They are fucked with their demographics.
They just cannot get it through their heads that women are valuable. No women, no babies. Women in the third world do huge amounts of manual labour on top of all the housework. They’re treated liked pack animals and farm animals. So they birth the babies, rear the babies, do all the domestic stuff and an awful lot of the manual work too. And they still treat them like crap.
There’s actually quite a bit of work done in mammals about sex ratios and pressures forcing them one way or another and there’s a very strong overall pressure to the middle, but individual pressures one way or the other still exist.
Human stupidity seems to trump biological instinct, as most of this site documents.
 
Why do Pajeets and Chongs prefer sons over daughters when women can do anything men can do but better and in heels? Simple:

In that part of the world, sons, married or bachelor, have been obliged by custom and law to care for their parents in old age. So the more sons you have, the better off you are in your dotage.

By contrast, the daughter, and her labor, belong to her husband's family.
 
Thank God I wasn't born in India, China, or Arabia. What a bunch of ass backward people. The sons grow up to be awkward incel sex pest rapists, and the women are scrutinized to the nth degree.

I used to work with some Indian dudes, and they were all in arranged marriages. Those guys were fucking miserable. No wonder they worked 12 hour shifts and drank heavily.
It can work well if you're a mediocre looking guy and you're setup with a 8/10 or better hottie. It's rare but it DOES happen.
When an anthropologist tries to tell them that if they stop killing female infants they will have all the women they need, the tribesman doesn't understand. He just says if we need more women we can just steal them from another village. He cannot parse this simple logic because of centuries of backwards culture.
Cultural relativism says that this culture is equally valid to the West and should be allowed to continue.

It's hilarious to see Western liberals and feminists fellare this shit while telling us how EVIL and bigoted the West is.
 
Back