An esteemed Reader reacted rather objecting to one of my write-ups where I said, Sequence of Events which lead to female foeticide, proves that a woman is woman’s biggest Enemy.

Although, I don’t like responding to readers via an article; but since the issue is of Female foeticide in India, let this be an exception.

The esteemed reader said and I quote,

“I am surprised by this analysis. This way- why only female foeticide- you could blame women for almost anything - crime, corruption, accidents, climate change, a politician refusing to give DNA sample etc. etc.- anything. The fact is otherwise. Men have been at the helms of affairs for a long time on earth- and they must accept that they have failed somewhere. It is men who convince women that they are of less importance- and therefore must make "sacrifices".”

I will not say the reader is completely wrong in his observation. In fact much of what he has said is correct. But here the question is not about who's correct.

The question is whether one should blame a man for female foeticide?

I think the primary decision is still made by a woman; if not the mother, then some other woman having higher status in the family, such as a mother-in-law or mother.

Defending what I said in the said in the write-up:

It will be WRONG TO say that Women have to face atrocities as they wear short or tight fitted clothes in public.

I will be even more wrong to say that women are responsible for all the crimes committed against women, as atrocities do happen to even those women, who are covered from head to toe.

Hence when it comes to crimes against women, the onus lies on the Governments and the executive. They are ones who should take the blame. As they are responsible to offer protection to

But female foeticide can’t be categorized as a crime in general.

The fact that the beginning of female foeticide takes place in the confines of a home makes the female foeticide a moral issue, than a legal issue.

As I said in the write-up, since the father-in-law or brother-in-law or any other male relation of a woman, can’t talk about female issues that easily as a woman (mother-in-law) can.

Hence in most of the cases it has been observed that whenever female foeticide happens, it's either the woman herself, her mother-in-law, her husband indoctrinated by her mother; or the woman's mother who brought her up in such an environment which has a low opinion of the women in general.

And, like it or not, but when we talk of female foeticide, it's the dislike of women for a woman, which is responsible.

If woman supports a fellow woman, things can turn for better every time, but thousands of years of genetic programming stops a woman do that.

In short, if a woman, mother-in-law, woman's mother or any other woman chooses or helps not to abort the foetus – every unborn Girl comes to the world.

It’s how the two genders are created and evolved, which answers why a gender behaves the way that’s characteristic to it:

In his book, Human Sexes, Desmond Morris, a renowned psychologist, talks of how the two human genders evolved during thousands of years.

According to him, when humans lived in jungles and hunted wild animals for food, Men, who were physically stronger, took the hunting work. The women slowly took to more non-physical work, which involved taking care of young ones.

Over time the genetic programming differentiated the two genders in such a way that they perform the tasks left to them, in the best way possible.

The programming which is going on even today, broadly speaking, ensured two unique characteristics in humans, one for male humans and the other for Female humans. The characteristic unique to each gender was:

1) Individuality for Women
2) Group Loyalty for Men

Why a Woman evolved to retain Individuality:

As retaining individuality, or thinking for self, ensures a continuous supply of food and resources for the children. To attain this objective, the programming ensured that a woman must love the strongest male (now a days a man with best resources), please him and become submissive to him. As said, this is to get the best resources from the male for her offspring (s).

The evolution is so discreet in ensuring this objective, that it gave a woman a child-like demeanor (this explains why a Girlfriend or wife acts like a child when she has to attain an objective/resource) and a high pitch child like voice. This tweak happened, as the man is simultaneously programmed to always respond favorably to the wails of a child or a child voice (after all he is responsible to feed the child).

Another way, a woman ensures individuality or uniqueness is by making herself look distinct from the crowd. Use of make-up, fashionable clothes and ornaments is for the same. This explains why women focus too much on the uniqueness of their cloths.

Another tool, which woman use to preserve the individuality is to never agree with a fellow woman OR have a low opinion of the gender in general. This helps the woman keep the best male to her influence or to herself (can be a boyfriend, husband, brother, father, anyone she can use to preserve her individuality).

This also explains why you seldom see women successful in group professions like Army, or politics. A woman is inclined to support a man but not a woman. This explains why even after representing half of the population; only 11 percent of seats in the Indian Parliament are filled by women.

Why a Man evolved to retain Group Loyalty:

In cave days man learned that if he has to bring enough food for his female and children, he has to hunt bigger animals. Hunting bigger animals meant Group effort.

To make a man keep providing of the children, the evolution ensured that he responds favorably to child-like voice (woman also has child-like voice) every time, even when he has to risk his own life or battle odds.

The man and the woman may have come a long way from their cave days; but as said, the evolutionary programming is still on and perfecting the unique characteristics.

How this Links to Female foeticide:

As said, a man is not capable of thinking on things from individual perspective. He is programmed for group dynamics (that’s why most men wear nearly look alike shirt and pants).

That’s if he is convinced that an action is agreeable to a group of people, he goes ahead with it. If he sees opposing voice from his immediate group or a dominating female (domination comes with individuality and the man is programmed to respond favorably to a female voice), he instantly backs off.

In contrast, a Woman is guided by her individuality. As individuality ensures the best for her children and to attain this objective ' Not getting too attached with a fellow woman' helps -- a mother advises her son to abort her unborn daughter. As in modern living, she associates a daughter born to her son, as a life full of difficulties (and a life of difficulties is least wanted by a mother).

When a woman agrees to abort her own child, she does so to please the dominant male (in most cases her husband).

There’re least chances that, unless indoctrinated by his wife or his mother during upbringing, a man will pressure his daughter-in-law or his son, to abort the unborn daughter. This is because; a man is programmed to provide for the offspring. Hence, going by his instincts he will look forward to providing resources for the child and not focus on difficulties en route. Just like his Cave man days.

Female foeticide is a difficult Topic. But it’s shameful as well.

Irrespective of the evolutionary dynamics, killing our daughters is not a good, especially when humans claim themselves superior than an animal.

Hence I again emphasize: The Sequence of Events which lead to female foeticide proves that a woman is another woman’s biggest Enemy.

If a woman decides to give birth to her daughter in womb, and if a fellow woman (Mother-in-law, Sister-in-law, woman's mother) supports her, then there’s no power in the world big enough to kill a woman in the Womb.

To conclude, the evolution has ensured that when in conflict, a woman is born. The evolutionary advantage makes sense as a woman has ability to create life. If this advantage is curbed by humans, then future itself will be bleak.

Today we’re talking about start-ups, India’s demographic advantage (more people in youth age bracket than any other country) etc. There’s nothing wrong in celebrating that. But as intelligent human beings with higher evolutionary status, we must also think about how we reached at a point of demographic advantage. We reached this point of demographic advantage because three or four decade ago, we celebrated baby irrespective of its gender.

If submissiveness, too-desperate-to-please, or ensuring best life for offspring makes any woman kill another woman in a womb, then it can’t be good for us as humans, family, society, State, Nation.

----