Politics | 12/02/2008 4:30 pm

Male Infanticide on Rise as Papua New Guinea's Women Attempt to End War

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

War makes people do crazy things.

Don’t believe us? Well, look no further than Papau New Guinea, where women have taken to killing their newborn baby boys to stem a tribal war that’s raged for more than two decades.

According to one of the women, Rona Luke, she and her peers believe that offing their little men will deplete both sides’ ranks and thus end the bloodshed: "All the womenfolk agreed to have all babies born killed because they have had enough of men engaging in tribal conflicts and bringing misery to them."

So, basically, is this a more gruesome, real-life version of Lysistrata, the play in which women withhold sex to end the Trojan War? That play, however, was a comedy. This situation most certainly is not.

Read more about: Infanticide, News, Papua New Guinea, War

23 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

“So, basically, is this a more gruesome, real-life version of Lysistrata, the play in which women withhold sex to end the Trojan War? That play, however, was a comedy. This situation most certainly is not.” True so true. A most sad commentary on their ideologies. I fully believe it would be less gut wreching and traumatic for all parties involved,to teach your son’s a better way to deal with conflict than to say…..Off them.

By HA BIBI on 12/02/2008 4:58 pm

e-mail alert

Well that’s…different… In an interestingly shocking, appalling, leave-you-speechless sort of way.

By Kryssi K on 12/02/2008 6:30 pm

e-mail alert

Another example of how living in a state of constant war causes mass insanity.

By DeBúrca obj on 12/02/2008 7:34 pm

e-mail alert

Nicely said DeBúrca. But very Darwinian, don’t you think?

By rocky rocky on 12/02/2008 8:49 pm

e-mail alert

How is it Darwinian?

By DeBúrca obj on 12/02/2008 10:33 pm

e-mail alert

Hmmm… survival of the fittest… in this case, the women? I guess they have passed judgment and declared the male “unfit”.

By Michelle Petit-Sumrall on 12/02/2008 10:41 pm

e-mail alert

I suppose but the Darwinian thing seems like a stretch.

By DeBúrca obj on 12/03/2008 10:22 am

e-mail alert

It seemed like an obvious leap. Guess it wasn’t. Now I find myself able to explain only in metacognitive terms. Well, you asked, so here goes: IMO you made the absolute most appropriate comment in response to this news. Then the question that always haunts me: Why? Why would they do that particular terrible thing? In my mind I stepped back quite far and thought of Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest—it’s a plausible explanation for a great many things that animals do. Then I thought: If it is “Darwinian,” might there be a pattern in human history (e.g., one example = Lysistrata) that reveals a biological strategy for survival—an “instinct” to eliminate inexorable aggressiveness from the gene pool?

By rocky rocky on 12/02/2008 11:13 pm

e-mail alert

You could be right. Maybe it is a combination of mass insanity brought on by a culture exposed to years of war and then biologically, the brain resorts to this type of behavior specifically to stop the spiral.

By DeBúrca obj on 12/03/2008 10:26 am

e-mail alert

This is what the world is coming to? Hard to believe this is the 21st Century.

By Brooklyn Gal on 12/02/2008 8:25 pm

e-mail alert

I don’t believe this as a fact.

By Dab-a- do on 12/02/2008 8:47 pm

e-mail alert

Google it.

By Michelle Petit-Sumrall on 12/02/2008 10:42 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Michelle, I did google it and felt the body of the articles can’t really support the headlines. No documentation of number of deaths and two women’s word who do have an agenda and rightly so. Also, some support of the claims by the Salvation Army. I think the documentation of the lack of resources and lack of ability to care for themselves and their existing children is more of a reason for the act, as it has been used through the decades but kept quiet and not discussed. Of course when the act happens it is more often a male infant since statistically more males are born than females. Due to infant mortality the sexes even out as boys seem to not survive as easily as the female during the infant stage of development. However,I think and hope the various supportive agencies in that country can help with birth control methods which they seem in dire need of. The women just sticking together, refusing sex seems to be an easier option. Some maybe forced in to sex, but if the women take the lead they can become a strong force and stop this insanity.

By Dab-a- do on 12/03/2008 11:43 am

e-mail alert

These women are losing their sons either way. In war, they raise them for many years only to see thelm slaughtered. While I don’t approve of infanticide, I can see how their desperation would make it seem as if they must shock their society with their decision to stop the suffering at birth. How else can they get the attention of their leaders and the men who insist on warfare as a way of life?

By Loretta Kemsley on 12/02/2008 8:51 pm

e-mail alert

How sad to get to a point as a society that you believe that the only way to stop the warring factions is to deprive them of the warriors. Perhaps they might want to swap the Chinese for the girls. Women are not perfect as we all know but war is a by product of men and their pride, testosterone, etc. I have long said if you want peace in the middle east men must be taught their place which would be to sit down, follow 3 steps behind their women and keep their big traps shut.

By g c on 12/02/2008 9:14 pm