The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary • Hacker News Board

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#231

Post by plumenator » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 9:49 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #144

auctiontheory wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still many taboos around menstruation in India. Women can't visit temples or public places, they're not allowed to cook or touch the water supply - essentially they are considered untouchable. Every religion has elaborate rules to oppress woman. FYI, the Hebrew Bible has all the same stuff. (So I read in The Year of Living Biblically .) It's a question of "how literally does society obey those rules?" Will…

On a school trip 15ish years ago which related to the subject of religion ago we got to a mosque and were then asked if anyone was menstruating. If yes, don't come in. Credit to a male friend of mine, he yelled out that the male next to him was. Its a pity all the males didn't react this way. http://islamqa.info/en/128576

A real gentleman would implicate himself.

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#232

Post by facepalm » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 10:02 AM UTC

mjklin wrote: post #90

primitivesuave wrote: post #6

> He believes that big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas he prefers the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," he says. What a profound and inspiring worldview.

Reminds me of this quote: "I would like to call your attention to a super piece of technology, the sailing ship. The sailing ship going through the sea is unlike a bulldozer. The sea closes behind the ship. The ship does no damage to the sea. The sailing ship employs the wind which is swirling ceaselessly around the earth without depleting any of the energy of the universe..." - Buckminster Fuller, from his piece in…

However, a lot of woods were transformed into deserts because all the trees were chopped down for building sailing ships.

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#233

Post by bananas » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 10:08 AM UTC

crassus wrote: post #228

Myrmornis wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a bit of a problem with the way you're talking about "virginity". Scientifically, it's not a concept at all. In fact "vagina has been penetrated at least once by an object, whether penis or not, and hymen possibly broken" is a more scientifically valid definition of female loss of virginity than yours. So basically, you're wrong, the problem isn't people thinking that using a tampon is loss of virginity; the p…

People that marry as virgins have a much lower chance of divorce[1]. If you think that stable families are a good thing for your society to have, then you have to reject "sex positive" modern culture and value virginity. Coincidentally, the family structure of the west has rotted since the sexual revolution of the 1960s[2]. Maybe if all those damaged children of divorce had a say in the matter we'd return to traditio…

I think your point is quite possibly the greatest example of religious thinking I've seen for a while.

Perhaps the family structure is just as rotten as it always was but now we don't lobotomise our depressed wives, pile them up with valium and beat our kids to shut up about it.

It's no longer acceptable to put up with shit and abuse and unhappiness is the greatest thing that has happened to the western world.

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#234

Post by chad_oliver » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 10:16 AM UTC

heartbreak wrote: post #141

nsxwolf wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of an obsession with menstruation in any major variant of Christianity.

I could only think of one verse off the top of my head, but here are several. The Leviticus 15:19-30 reads a lot like what was described in the article. http://www.openbible.info/topics/menstruation

To be fair, that's Jewish civil law. The vast majority of Christians would agree that this doesn't apply to Christians today.

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#235

Post by chad_oliver » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 10:27 AM UTC

zacinbusiness wrote: post #180

nsxwolf wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of an obsession with menstruation in any major variant of Christianity.

Not to offend anyone but Christianity is basically just a crazy death cult. I've been fighting the ignorance of this religion my entire life.

That sounds like a very nuanced view of a complicated and diverse belief system with many different interpretations practiced by different people.

No; actually, it sounds like the sort of ignorance and stereotyping that people generally accuse religion of generating.

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#236

Post by dTal » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:03 AM UTC

crassus wrote: post #228

Myrmornis wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a bit of a problem with the way you're talking about "virginity". Scientifically, it's not a concept at all. In fact "vagina has been penetrated at least once by an object, whether penis or not, and hymen possibly broken" is a more scientifically valid definition of female loss of virginity than yours. So basically, you're wrong, the problem isn't people thinking that using a tampon is loss of virginity; the p…

People that marry as virgins have a much lower chance of divorce[1]. If you think that stable families are a good thing for your society to have, then you have to reject "sex positive" modern culture and value virginity. Coincidentally, the family structure of the west has rotted since the sexual revolution of the 1960s[2]. Maybe if all those damaged children of divorce had a say in the matter we'd return to traditio…

I think happy families are a good thing for society to have. Divorce is not ipso facto bad. Unscientifically, so far in my life I have seen far more children damaged by a toxic family life than by divorce. It's hardly surprising that if you've been with the same person your entire life, you're going to be very afraid of change even if your home environment is terrible.

Of course, it's preferable to choose the right person to marry and settle down with in the first place, so that divorce isn't even on the table. This takes careful introspection and maturity. How does forcing people to get married before they even find out if they are sexually compatible help? How does tying an important life decision to irrational biological instincts help people choose sensibly, so they can have a happy life?

>Maybe if all those damaged children of divorce had a say in the matter we'd return to traditional morality and shaming of sex outside of marriage

Traditional morality? How traditional? Which era do you think had superior morals? 50 years ago, when racism and sexism were common? A hundred years ago, when women couldn't vote? 150 years ago, when brother fought brother over the right to keep slaves?

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#237

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:11 AM UTC

cma wrote: post #216

thaumasiotes wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but the difference between butterflies and mosquitoes isn't really in damage to the food (virtually zero in both cases)... it's in the fact that butterflies perform a service (pollination) for the flowers. Mosquitoes quite literally live and die by the lightness of their touch; compare the survival rates of human-feeding mosquitoes (not 100%, but not far off) and human-feeding horseflies (0%).

http://www.mosquitoreviews.com/mosquitoes-niche-pollinate.ht...

Granted, but I think I'm safe in saying the comparison was mosquito-to-human vs butterfly-to-flower, not mosquito-to-flower vs butterfly-to-flower.

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#238

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:17 AM UTC

cubancigar11 wrote: post #230

thaumasiotes wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile everyone says Japan's only hope to keep their labor pool growing against their greying population is to start getting women involved. I was under the impression that as women join the workforce their fertility plummets. This seems incredibly counterproductive if the problem is a "greying population"?

I heard it was education that correlated negatively with fertility. Although education and careerism go hand in hand, I think the difference is still huge.

Education definitely does severely inhibit fertility. I think both have independent effects, but I have no numbers to hand so I could be off.

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#239

Post by crassus » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:18 AM UTC

bananas wrote: post #233

crassus wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that marry as virgins have a much lower chance of divorce[1]. If you think that stable families are a good thing for your society to have, then you have to reject "sex positive" modern culture and value virginity. Coincidentally, the family structure of the west has rotted since the sexual revolution of the 1960s[2]. Maybe if all those damaged children of divorce had a say in the matter we'd return to traditio…

I think your point is quite possibly the greatest example of religious thinking I've seen for a while. Perhaps the family structure is just as rotten as it always was but now we don't lobotomise our depressed wives, pile them up with valium and beat our kids to shut up about it. It's no longer acceptable to put up with shit and abuse and unhappiness is the greatest thing that has happened to the western world.

Where did I bring religion into it? It's valuable to have community norms that prevent people from throwing away their family as soon as times get rough or life fails to be "fulfilling" or entertaining. At least, ours is the first society that's ever thought differently, so we'll get to see how this whole experiment plays out.

Single parent families are a big part of the increasing economic stratification between rich and poor, and I expect our amorality will bear even worse fruits as time goes on.

Re: The Indian sanitary pad revolutionary

#240

Post by bananas » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:23 AM UTC

crassus wrote: post #239

bananas wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your point is quite possibly the greatest example of religious thinking I've seen for a while. Perhaps the family structure is just as rotten as it always was but now we don't lobotomise our depressed wives, pile them up with valium and beat our kids to shut up about it. It's no longer acceptable to put up with shit and abuse and unhappiness is the greatest thing that has happened to the western world.

Where did I bring religion into it? It's valuable to have community norms that prevent people from throwing away their family as soon as times get rough or life fails to be "fulfilling" or entertaining. At least, ours is the first society that's ever thought differently, so we'll get to see how this whole experiment plays out. Single parent families are a big part of the increasing economic stratification between ric…

Religious thinking is not about religion. It is a logical concept where the conclusion appears out of thin air devoid of any connection with the evidence. Similar to magical thinking but probably less fun.

Whilst you might be right that our amorality will bear worse fruits, the status quo prior to this wasn't any better ergo morality and the stable family isn't necessarily better, just different.

The difference is purely that people don't suffer in silence now. This in itself is a wonderful freedom that we all deserve.