Institutionalized Subordination, Exploitation and Brutalization of Indian Women

[Guest guest]

If you are a male of Indian descent or evenly remotely associated with

Indianculture, you must or will likely be a "bride burner." Conversely, if you

area woman of Indian descent, you are subject to "institutional

subordination,exploitation and brutalization" in the hands of Indian men. This

theory wasput forward by sports columnist Jon Saraceno in the USA Today article

below:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/saraceno/2003-05-13-saraceno_x.htm

"Singh displays ignorant attitude toward Sorenstam"Jon Saracenojons (AT) usatoday (DOT) com

Posted 5/13/2003 9:53 pmUpdated 5/14/2003 10:37 am

In the above article, Jon starts out by expressing his indignant remarks

andopinions on some alleged comments by golfer Vijay Singh that he

disagreeswith. He ascribes Vijay's "ignorance" to his culture, society and

ancestry:

What we also have is a clash of cultures and social dogmas. Sorenstam

is from Sweden, a liberal, open society. She's probably wondering what the

fuss is about. I doubt she possesses the same traditional male-female

notions of Singh, born in Fiji to Indian parents.

In essence, Jon's inference is that Vijay inherits dogmatic notions

aboutmale-female relationships from the larger Indian culture to which he

belongs.Jon insinuates that Vijay made these objectionable comments because he

hailsfrom the sexist and narrow-minded Indian society in contrast to

Sorenstam'sliberal and open Swedish society. There is more. Jon then makes an

evensweeping theory of Indians in general, which he proclaims to be true for

allpeople of Indian descent, now and forever, because of their common ancestry:

I don't know how much Singh was influenced by his ancestry, if at all,

but this much I do know: The institutionalized subordination, exploitation

and brutalization of women remains ingrained in that society.

As proof of his theory, Jon Saraceno then offers the following statistic:

"Bride burning" still occurs. From 1999-2001, a total of 6,347 Indian

women were murdered by fire, according to Indian government statistics.

QED.

(For all this, the premise on which Jon bases much of his antagonism towardVijay

is itself controversial as Vijay disputes the manner in which his actualcomments

were reported by Associated Press columnist Doug Ferguson. Theactual questions

and answers of Doug's interview have not been released.)

>From this theory, we can infer that all males of Indian descent must be

brideburners, wife beaters, exploiters, molesters, mutilators, ... Anyone with

aninternet connection can visit relevant Indian goverment websites to check

onthe number of instances of each offense. Whether this is merely guilt

byassociation to the Indian culture or whether it is a genetic defect of

Indiansis not yet obvious. Jon will presumably explain this in his next

article.

Whether this theory will qualify for the next Nobel (of course, a prizeawarded

by the open and liberal Swedish society) is not yet known. In fact,it is not

even known if Jon's theory is new, consistent and complete as somepeople think

that this is essentially an illustration of racism in disguise.

How Jon is able to extrapolate from assaulting and disagreeing with

Vijay'scomments to essentially tarnish a society of 1 billion plus people is

puzzling.For someone who makes a living spewing hate and negativity in the

guise ofwriting sports articles to accuse a culture of 5000+ years is

inexcusable.Clearly, Jon confuses being able to form grammatically correct

sentences withbeing able to write cogent, reasoned arguments eligible for

public consumption.

Most journalists are loathe to make social commentary about a culture aliento

them, that too in a sports column, but then Jon is no ordinary journalist.He

belongs to the growing brand of young journalists, short on wisdom

andexperience, but gifted with infantile logic that affords them an ability

tomake unjustifiable assertions on short notice without blushing in

embarassment.

As gross generalizations go, this is probably among the worst. What were

theeditors of Mr. Jon Saraceno doing? How did this paragraph get

overlooked?Surely this cannot be reflective of lax editorial standards at USA

Today.May be USA Today wants to stir up some controversy to increase

circulation.Jon's article is not reason or commentary. It is insanity,

prejudice and hate.

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.