Or simply wringing their necks
Now for the most literal form of misogyny:
I have been following Siro’s story for 30 years, ever since I went to interview her and four other rural midwives in India’s Bihar state in 1996.
They had been identified by a non-governmental organisation as being behind the murder of baby girls in the district of Katihar where, under pressure from the newborns’ parents, they were killing them by feeding them chemicals or simply wringing their necks.
Hakiya Devi, the eldest of the midwives I interviewed, told me at the time she had killed 12 or 13 babies. Another midwife, Dharmi Devi, admitted to killing more – at least 15-20.
It is impossible to ascertain the exact number of babies they may have killed, given the way the data was gathered.
But they featured in a report published in 1995 by an NGO, based on interviews with them and 30 other midwives. If the report’s estimates are accurate, more than 1,000 baby girls were being murdered every year in one district, by just 35 midwives. According to the report, Bihar at the time had more than half a million midwives. And infanticide was not limited to Bihar.
Girls. Murdered because they’re girls.
Reports of infanticide are now relatively rare, but sex-selective abortion remains common, despite being illegal since 1994.
If one listens to the traditional folk songs sung during childbirth, known as Sohar, in parts of north India, joy is reserved for the birth of a male child. Even in 2024, it is an effort to get local singers to change the lyrics so that the song celebrates the birth of a girl.
While we were filming our documentary, two baby girls were discovered abandoned in Katihar – one in bushes, another at the roadside, just a few hours old. One later died. The other was put up for adoption.
They don’t get the chance to identify as not girls.
Most people have heard about the problems of the male-to-female ratio in China (where there are ~104 males per 100 females), but according to the recent statistics I have read, it’s even worse in India, with ~106 males per 100 females.
One might hope that, looked at pragmatically and rationally, the shortage of women might (just might) have had the beneficial effect of making girl babies more desirable, and improving the regard and respect afforded to girls and women. But instead, the focus is often on the poor men who can’t find a mate. And the women who just want to be equal participants in society still face horrific risks, such as this recent brutal attack https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-doctors-end-one-strike-over-colleagues-rape-murder-2024-08-18/
It never seems to work that way though, does it? While people in a patriarchal society might agree that they need girls and women, because otherwise who will make the next generation of baby boys, nobody in that society actually wants to step up and bring their own daughters into the world. They just want someone to do it so that their precious sons can have women to marry.
You could imagine the Vances of America indulging in similar practices if abortion wasn’t such a taboo on the Right.
Speaking of, how do you deal with the conflict between a general principle of “abortion should be pretty much unrestricted” and “baby girls should not be selectively aborted”? This is not a judgement/hypocrisy question, just actual sincere curiosity.
As someone who thinks euthanizing infants in the delivery room is acceptable under a quite broad set of circumstances and generally thinks selective abortion of infants with many undesirable disorders I can’t really find fault with it, but as I’ve said before I’m a monster. What do y’all think about it?
BKiSA, as someone who has had a number of children with disorders in my family, I think it is often kinder not to have the child if they are going to face what a lot of the kids face, so I can’t say I completely disagree, though I’m not sure I would agree with euthanizing in the delivery room, since most of those disorders can be spotted on prenatal exams these days.
I have long had mixed feelings about sex selective abortion. I am against it on general principles, but I also think about what kind of life those girls would have in a home, a country, a world where they aren’t wanted. People always ask me “how would you feel if your parents had aborted you?” Stupid question; I wouldn’t feel it at all, because I wouldn’t have been born. Even stupider to ask that to someone who spent a large portion of life wishing I hadn’t been born, and made several suicide attempts. That may be why I look on this topic with the idea that the girls would have a shitty life raised in a family where they weren’t wanted.
What ‘pressure’, I wonder, is brought to bear on these midwives by those parents who didn’t want to do their own dirty work? One supposes the midwives become inured to their ‘work’, and get paid for it. Why were these midwives happy to tell some NGO how many children they had killed, and why did they allow themselves to be named? The ‘authorities’ just turned a blind eye, I suppose; and probably still do. If such midwives are now being charged, are the parents who ‘pressured’ them being charged, too?