Teenage gang rape victim commits suicide as second woman f

[AniThyng]

Oh, one thing I saw further up the thread- about the conservative Muslim tradition of women's clothing. Metahive saw it as another form of objectification of women... but it occured to me that it's hardly unusual anywhere for women to put on concealing or 'frumpy' clothes to avoid drawing sexual attention from men.

I didn't say that, AnyThing did. It's also not at all wondrous since, as I already said, the Just World Fallacy isn't limited to muslim nations.

The idea that someone should have to do that, against their will, is loathesome. But it's interesting to put that in the context of a society like Iran, where they have all-female police units under arms... wearing those same heavy, concealing clothes. Presumably someone in the Iranian government takes these women seriously enough to arm them and make them police officers (or for that matter a SWAT team), and yet we can totally say that their uniforms are the product of sexism.

I don't really have an agenda with this, so much as a desire to point out that the world can be very strange and complicated, and issues of gender relations are not simple.

Compartmentalization, explains most if not all of these kind of behaviours. Blacks also serve in the US armed forces, but still are subject to racist discrimination.

I do find it a bit amusing that Korea ranks just as poorly as Japan. What was that about you hate that which is most similar to you*?

If all, it's Korea that inspired Japan here. Korea drew its gender attitudes from chinese confucianism, which is pretty sexist to begin with and later exported them to Japan, along with Buddhism. That China ranks now higher in this regard is due to the more gender-egalitarian views of communism.
Also, are you completely ignorant of why Korea might have legitimate reasons to hate Japan? I give you a hint, look up Korea from 1910 to 1945.

I'm sorry my disclaimer was not enough for you, I thought that I made it clear that I was refering to racism that doesn't even have to involve the war. Like discrimination against Koreans in Japan.

Yes I am perfectly aware, being that I am also ethnic Chinese and from a country that was also invaded by Japan, thank you very much.

But you said it yourself, Japan and Korea aren't all that different in ways that matter about a discussion about sexist and social attitudes. And yes, I am aware that both Korea and Japan ultimately owe a lot to Chinese cultural influence, including traditional attitudes towards women. And yes, being overseas Chinese I am very familiar with how you can be racist towards your own ethnic group even! And being from a former British colony, I understand the ambiavalence we have towards the colonial power. Yes, the UK left behind a lot of good solid institutions, and as far as being a colonial power goes, was probably the best of the lot. For fuck's sake, English is my first language. It does not mean however that our fight to be independent was "stupid", nor do are we obligated to westernize completely, or listen to self-righteous westerners tell us how to run the country.

About conservative clothing and skimpy clothing and what have you, I think going back to "first principles", the issue here in both cases is discussing the issue from the perspective of how it relates to men always. E.g "it's men who force women to wear conservative clothing" or "it's men that force women to dress in skimpy clothing". Neither attitude is conductive to discussing what women themselves want. And it becomes doubly worse when it becomes "white men" discussing what nonwhite women ought to want.

[K. A. Pital]

Right but you are mistaken to think I favour just whatever the West was doing at a given time because I happen to have been born there, rather than the civilisation as it is now because it is a collection of good (or at least, least bad) ideas. If I were alive in the 14th century when the West did witch burnings &c. I would be trying to destroy Western civilisation.

That's because you are an idiot - destroying civilization would only strengthen many of these bad practices and eventually make them repeat at a later stage. You like to talk big, but you are not ready to put your money where your mouth is. And yes, you are a Western racist and supremacist, and more specifically a British racist and supremacist. That's not a unique position to hold, don't be shy about it.

Not all those references are to India.

The thread is about India and you specifically referenced immigration - I think you need to pay attention to the thread subject, but I guess that's too hard. You can only spread your supremacist bullshit, like a propaganda chatbot.

And Nazi Germany isn't part of the continuity of current Western culture; rather, it is explicitly a rejection of the Enlightenment, being destroyed by Britain, America, and the non-Western but equally repugnant USSR. As for CIA being the same as the Gestapo - LOL!

Nazi Germany is a product of the Western culture, just like the racist and genocidal British Empire, slavocrat America and Marxist USSR. The CIA was operating like a secret police would, it infected citizens of the United States and other nations with syphilis, encephaalitis etc. without their consent leading to subject deaths, it covertly drugged citizens of the USA and other nations with LSD, it assassinated own agents to clean up and hide evidence, like the Frank Olson-MKULTRA case, and so on. Obviously the CIA is like a bastard child of Unit 731 and the Gestapo. From Unit 731 it took the love of experimening on unknowing subjects, releasing plagues or otherwise infecting them with terrible diseases, and from the Gestapo it took torture, rendition and assassination methods. Though I'd say they already had it. Intelligence agencies of the West developed a vast array of methods of torture and rendition far earlier than even the late colonial period.

Also, there actually is a big difference between child labour in the 19th century and child labour now: then it was due to technological limitations that meant families couldn't support themselves on only one or two labourers. Today, it's an avoidable choice caused by the adoption of bad economic policies, like state socialism.

No, idiot, child labour in the XIX century was not caused by "technological limitations" and families supported themselves quite allright. It is the intensification of exploitation from ca. 1780 to 1850 which led to the mass child abuse. And obviously child abuse like forcing children into the mines was not caused by technology; it was caused by convenience. In other words, it was convenient to murder children since children could get coal through narrow pathways. Building larger pathways would have slowed down extraction. So speeding up extraction with little murdered children was perfectly okay in Victorian Britain. Which you, racist supremacist asshole, should admit and be proud of. Just say "I'm proud of Britain's glorious past, of children in the mines! They died so that I could have my electricity a few decades faster!" - that would be consistent. Your weak pathetic attempts to say you'd be "trying to destroy Western civilization" amount to nothing - there's not a single person here who really believes you're not a racist supremacist shithead, and I'm quite glad you quickly demonstrated your true colors.

[madd0ct0r]

Did you even read it? I said these are the two logical possibilities, not that even one single person believes either. I think 1. is in fact closest to what you've stated, but you've been too vague and incoherent to tell exactly.

Actually, in my post, I suggested a third possibility: that a large amount of the "worse" ideology can be put down to low HDI, rather than through anything intrinsically "wrong" with the people, and moving to a more prosperous nation will largely sort out any misogyny all by itself. I hope you will address that shortly.

I agreed with this, I think, already before. The problem is this isn't an instantaneous process; in fact it probably proceeds 'from one funeral to the next' - the children adopt the norms of the society they join, while middle aged and older people tend not to radically change their views.

In the meantime, electorate shifting the centre ground on that issue toward the less progressive stance can cause a long-term shift (obviously, not the full way) in societal norms on that issue.

Also, if immigrants form very large communities of only other immigrants, which does have a tendency to happen, this process can be slowed or even arrested.

For the record, I don't like this way you blatantly describe whole cultures as having "worse" ideology and norms than western culture. While it is perfectly possible to find a standard whereby they are objectively "worse", I feel that using such inflammatory language serves no real purpose than to otherise and dehumanise whole cultures. Furthermore, by describing a whole culture as "worse" as you do, you are implicitly disregarding any positive aspects that the culture might possess. I would appreciate if you instead said "more misogynistic" or "more patriarchal" or any other descriptor you might choose in order to specify which area you believe the culture happens to be deficient in. If you did that, you would sound less racist.

I am of course taking averages here, and even then cultures have facets such that they can be in general less preferable and yet not worse in every way. Nonetheless, I have no qualms saying a society that produces children climbing on garbage heaps searching for scrap metal to sell, or that executes people for being witches, or that embraces internal passports and a secret police, as being inferior to Western civilisation. Obviously this is a matter of opinion, but I don't care about the opinions of people who think those things are acceptable.

A tiny minor detail here: The UK used internal passports to prevent the travel of Northern Irish Suspects from 1974 onwards. And we're still doing it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... rol-orders
Let's not talk about the 'suspects' we've handed over to the Americans for incarceration in Gitmo, outside of the judical process, either.

You do seem to have committed some pretty basic errors in your reasoning.
"This country is more sexist on average, so anyone from the country is more sexist" is pretty flawed. You could probably get away with 'More likely' to be sexist' if you are comparing two full populations, but we're not even doing that.
You are looking at the immigrant population, people with the drive and the ambition to move to a new country, the education level required to satisfy immigration laws, the attitude that the UK is a better place to live and the economic success to back it up (also required by immigration law).
Would you say this group of people are more or less likely to be sexist then their parent country?

Do you have any justification for your belief that values only change each generation?

[Iron Bridge]

A tiny minor detail here: The UK used internal passports to prevent the travel of Northern Irish Suspects from 1974 onwards. And we're still doing it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... rol-ordersLet's not talk about the 'suspects' we've handed over to the Americans for incarceration in Gitmo, outside of the judical process, either.

The West isn't perfect, I agree. But if China is a 10 it still ranks only a solid 2-3 on the shitness scale.

You do seem to have committed some pretty basic errors in your reasoning.
"This country is more sexist on average, so anyone from the country is more sexist" is pretty flawed.

I didn't say that. I even explicitly stated I wasn't saying that on at least one occasion. And as a stylistic point, you shouldn't put doublequotes around words that you put into someone's mouth rather than that are actually quotes. The whole point is that it doesn't require everyone to have the same views - unless you're somehow filtering out people with those views, they only have to be stronger in the population on average

You could probably get away with 'More likely' to be sexist' if you are comparing two full populations, but we're not even doing that.
You are looking at the immigrant population, people with the drive and the ambition to move to a new country, the education level required to satisfy immigration laws, the attitude that the UK is a better place to live and the economic success to back it up (also required by immigration law).
Would you say this group of people are more or less likely to be sexist then their parent country?

Less than the parent country, may or may not be less than the host country. But this is a dodge - by imposing all those requirements you're already not having free immigration. In the past in the UK it was much easier for people to immigrate for economic reasons.

Do you have any justification for your belief that values only change each generation?

My impression from people I meet is that views become more or less fixed around the early 20s. Perhaps this is wrong in the case of immigrants who have rather different lives. Either way, it won't be an instantaneous process, and you presented no evidence that it would be.


btw - I reiterate my incredulity at the poverty of arguments put against this. I actually broadly favour open borders, provided there is a strong incentive to integrate. The biggest reason is that letting people into the West makes their lives dramatically better. Even bad jobs in the West pay an order of magnitude more than a typical job in India. That's a much stronger reason to support immigration than a bizarre assertion that immigrants are exactly like Westerners already. The poor economic ideas of most people in the third world is easily solvable by simply giving them an economics education in school - sadly something that seems to be denied to the native population as well.


Stas Bush - Blahblahblah you're a racist. Right, and that would be when I mentioned race, erm, never? That would be when I was criticised for being apparently too nice to the Japanese? Maybe I'm a, like, half British half Japanese guy who got beaten up by Indian girls in school? Come back when you have an actual argument.

[Junghalli]

It's also pretty amusing to realize that to a conservative muslim, they believe that their rules against scanty clothing to prevent such objectification based on dressing for the entertainment of men. That that in of itself is a form of objectification is i suppose a lost irony.

It's just another iteration of the Just World Fallacy. Good girls don't get raped so every rape that happens must have happened to a "deserving" victim, or so the logic goes. It's not even restricted to muslim countries, that attitude is quite prevalent in the West too. Wore too skimpy clothing? Went out late at night? Had no male protector? You asked for it, bitch!

It's a pretty common thing for oppressive societies to try to pass off subjugation as protection or benevolent paternalism or otherwise in the best interests of the subjugated.

After all, direct physical force is a pretty inefficient means of social control. It's much more efficient if you can convince the people you're trying to control that what you're trying to impose on them is really good for them, so they will conform on their own initiative and indoctrinate and police their own peers. Which kind of ties back to "let's let lots of those poor oppressed Third World women in, but oh no don't take the horrible misogynist Third World men they will shit up our liberal feminist countries with their misogyny" is pretty hilarious and kind of condescending to Third World women even without touching the "oh no we can't let those brown barbarians into our shining city on a hill" attitude implicit in it. As if women from cultures with lots of misogyny won't have a lot of the same terrible ideas and attitudes about gender as the men; as if women in sexist societies are totally passive victims with no agency who only pine for somebody to get rid of their horrible men so they can be liberated, instead of participants in their society for good and ill.

[K. A. Pital]

I didn't say that. I even explicitly stated I wasn't saying that on at least one occasion. And as a stylistic point, you shouldn't put doublequotes around words that you put into someone's mouth rather than that are actually quotes. The whole point is that it doesn't require everyone to have the same views - unless you're somehow filtering out people with those views, they only have to be stronger in the population on average

No, stupid racist. They don't have to be just "stronger on the average", they also have to be strong enough for their opinion to be able to seriously influence the overall society of the host nation. So this requires the minority (1) to be universally sexist - an obviously racist position (2) to be able to somehow influence the overall society into accepting lower norms despite being a minority. Neither 1 nor 2 are true in any realistic scenario. Moreover, it is remarkable that Europe of the 50-70s, which was more monoracial, was a lot more sexist than it is now, when nations have large immigrant minorities, and the two most immigration-closed societies in Korea and Japan are extremely sexist and rank on par with Middle Eastern territories like the UAE on the 100-th something place. So your point does not pass the litmus test of real evidence. Sorry.

But this is a dodge - by imposing all those requirements you're already not having free immigration. In the past in the UK it was much easier for people to immigrate for economic reasons.

This is not a dodge; immigration may be absolutely free in the host nation, however, only certain people may be able to find jobs in the non-local market (as they have to know the foreign language well enough), and only people with a certain mindset would be ready to risk severing ties with relatives and more or less well-established cultural links to their homeland. So it does require a certain type of person to emigrate even when no obstacles are erected by the state.

My impression from people I meet is that views become more or less fixed around the early 20s. Perhaps this is wrong in the case of immigrants who have rather different lives. Either way, it won't be an instantaneous process, and you presented no evidence that it would be.

Neither is there a demand for instantaneous adaptation, moron. You are not an immigrant yourself and thus you have no experience; you have provided no scientific evidence that immigrant populations universally suffer greater sexism than host populations. So how can you spout your crap which seems to be just old BNP tunes sung to a new melody, without a shred of real research? That's because you are a racist and a supremacist; it is hard to find another reason for such complete disregard of the scientific method.

The poor economic ideas of most people in the third world is easily solvable by simply giving them an economics education in school - sadly something that seems to be denied to the native population as well.

Judging by your comments, you have flunked economics worse than any immigrant.

Maybe I'm a, like, half British half Japanese guy who got beaten up by Indian girls in school? Come back when you have an actual argument.

The actual argument is that your are pushing forth a racist point without a shred of evidence presented. That's why you are a racist and an idiot, too. And I'm glad that you exposed yourself as a British and Japanese racist. British and Japanese racists are very dangerous. They once held great sway over their entire nations and used this to wage racial extermination, colonization and ethnic cleansing all over Asia, or, in Britain's case, a good part of the world itself. Thus such racists like you should be exposed whenever possible.

P.S. It is nice that you did not push your bullshit "children in the mines were there because of technological limitations" crap and stopped pretending the CIA was not, in fact, acting like a secret police and infecting unsuspecting citizens and foreign populations with deadly diseases, much like Unit 731 did in China. I guess you can comprehend when your case is lost.

[madd0ct0r]

Less than the parent country, may or may not be less than the host country. But this is a dodge - by imposing all those requirements you're already not having free immigration. In the past in the UK it was much easier for people to immigrate for economic reasons.

Do you have any justification for your belief that values only change each generation?

My impression from people I meet is that views become more or less fixed around the early 20s. Perhaps this is wrong in the case of immigrants who have rather different lives. Either way, it won't be an instantaneous process, and you presented no evidence that it would be.

Just a wee note - Iron Bridge, I think you're entitled to claim 'dog-piling' at some point and focus on only a few board members to answer. I've forgotten what the exact numbers are though.

I'm not convinced by your casual dismissal of 'But China's worse' - are we talking solely about Chinese immigration? Is China representative of all poor countries? You made some stupid claims about poor countries cultures
1) That having kids picking garbage is a cultural trait they'll bring with them to the UK
2) That 'internal passports' are unique to these poor countries , and they're symptomatic of the culture these immigrants will bring, not one they're trying to get away from.

Also, despite us talking about immigration in the here and now, you prefer to talk about "in the past in the UK" where "it was much easier for people to immigrate for economic reasons."
I guess you missed that little thing called the EU that has made it phenomenally easier in the laste few decades for people to immigrate to the UK for economic reasons. Or perhaps Europeans don't matter as much to you for cultural* reasons. Of course, if we're talking the past, then Europe (and the UK) don't really have a great position to lecture the East on sexism. My great-grandmother was awarded the Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter after all.

Or when you say, "in the past" - perhaps you are only 16 and referring to the Blair/Brown period before Cameron the Wanker? It was the same difficulty then for Europeans (ie zero), and slightly easier then now for other internationals. You still had to show fluent english, sufficient savings to support yourself in the case of a year's unemployment, a job in one of the specified 'difficult to fill' areas and sufficient housing.
Of course, if you've never looked into it, it's much easier to make vague pronouncements on a web forum and complain about the 'poverty' of the response.
Ironically, since you've already identified poverty as a cultural trait, perhaps you feel we would benefit from time in a re-education camp comrade?

*You know, because they're not brown and poor.( except the italians)

Some things you might want to look at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/uk-countrystudy.pdf
General conclusion - no definition of 'integration', no real definition of "Britishness' either both make integration hard to measure. Economically, indications are all over the place, with different groups having very different results, at least some of which is tied to the area they settle in. Inter-marriage is the reverse of usual western country results, with the poorest groups economically inter-marrying with whites far far more then the most successful groups. Do we then count inter-marriage as integration?

there's the mimex report that looks at ease of integration into the various countries: http://www.britishcouncil.org/press/int ... s-progress but dosen't actually tell you much about the success rates.

[Ziggy Stardust]

And as a stylistic point, you shouldn't put doublequotes around words that you put into someone's mouth rather than that are actually quotes.

Actually, it is extremely common practice to do so. And there really isn't any stylistic standard that says it's wrong, strictly speaking. (And I find your emphasis on doublequotes interesting ... would you have preferred that he use single quotes? No quotes? What exactly are you getting at?)

[madd0ct0r]

Actually, I'm not too fussed by that. I use "" when I'm summarizing someone's point and

tags

for an exact quote, but he's right, I didn't represent his elaborated position very accurately. He's talking statistical averages for cultural norms, not absolute values, and that's something I've done myself in the past.

[mr friendly guy]

update

Accused in India gang-rape bashed in jail, says lawyer

ONE of the five men to stand trial in a fast-track court on charges of gang-raping and murdering a student on a bus in New Delhi, has allegedly been tortured in jail.

One of the defence team, A.P. Singh told reporters that his client Vinay Sharma, a gym instructor, had been badly beaten up in jail by fellow prisoners and was in agony when he appeared before the district court on Thursday.

"Vinay Sharma was badly tortured in jail by other inmates who pounced on him. He was not in a position to stand up in court because he was in great pain," Mr Singh said.

"It is sad the jail authorities cannot provide security to them," he added.

A magistrate sitting at a district court in the Saket area of southern Delhi committed the five defendants to a more senior sessions court which is authorised to handle such case and which will begin its hearings next Monday.
"The magistrate has committed the case to the sessions court which is fast-track," Sadashiv Gupta, the lawyer for fruit-seller Pawan Kumar, told reporters outside the court.

The court would hold its first hearing on the case on January 21, Mr Gupta added.

Kumar and four other adults are all accused of murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping in connection with the attack on the 23-year-old medical student on December 16.

The case against a sixth defendant, who says he is 17, is being heard separately by a juvenile court.

The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, died 13 days later in a Singapore hospital from intestinal injuries sustained during the assault in which she was also violated with a rusting iron bar.

A male companion, with whom she had spent the evening at the cinema, was also badly injured in the attack which ended when the pair were thrown off the bus.

The gang-rape triggered mass protests across India and shone the spotlight on the shocking levels of sexual violence against women.

Prosecutors say they have DNA evidence, including blood stains, linking the six defendants to the killing as well as a host of witnesses.

The defendants' lawyers have said that their clients were beaten by police and forced into confessing.

The government, stunned by the mass protests over the case and criticism of India's notoriously sluggish justice system, has promised that the case will be dealt with swiftly.

If convicted, the adult defendants could be sentenced to death and many of the protesters who rallied in the aftermath of the attack demanded that all rapists be hanged.

The prosecution had requested the five adult defendants to be handcuffed while in custody on the grounds that they were dangerous, but defence lawyer Mr Gupta said the court had rejected such a move.

"The handcuffing of the suspects has been rejected as per our application opposing handcuffing," he said outside the court.

A wide ranging gagging order has been imposed on reporting of proceedings inside the courtroom.

It is not yet known whether those restrictions will remain in place throughout the trial.

If he were bashed in jail, then we should see some injuries. Of course if they just isolate them then they can't be bashed, nor fake a bashing to avoid court.

[madd0ct0r]

When other prisoners are going for you, you know the court of public opinion has really turned.

[mr friendly guy]

Update on one of the rape cases.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-11/i ... il/4565264

Indian rape accused kills himself in jail: reports
Updated 35 minutes ago



One of the men accused of raping and murdering a woman in Delhi last year has killed himself in prison, according to Indian media reports.

Ram Singh is alleged to have driven the bus in which the 23-year-old was beaten and assaulted, before she was dumped on the side of the road.

The case sparked a national outrage and people took to the streets to demand better protection for Indian women.

Singh and the four other accused men have been on suicide watch, but prison officials in Delhi say he managed to hang himself in the early hours of the morning.

"Yes, he is dead," an official said from the control room of Delhi's Tihar Jail.