Teenage gang rape victim commits suicide as second woman f

[Broomstick]

One of the flaws of the linked essay is that it minimizes the extent to which honor, clan, etc. exist in the west - but then, the author was trying to make a point in a limited amount of space. You can't qualify every statement or else your point will be lost.

Sure, there is considerable overlap between thar and non-thar cultures. Sure, societal attitudes can swing back to past norms (or even past them to extremes). Don't let the details obscure the overall point.

Seeing things from the perspective of the other gender is something learned, not something innate, and each generation has to be educated anew in what constitutes normal and proper behavior.

[Zixinus]

But since this is India there's undoubtedly different religious reasons at work.

Which is what I'm curious about! Since India is not a chiefly Christian religion (to my knowledge), quoting the Bible is irrelevant and you admit it.

Can somebody point to a passage in the Vedas or whatever that points out exactly where it is allowed to regard an unmarried and non-virgin woman less than a cow or perhaps even less than the said animal's excrement, while allowing the people that have done this "devaluing" should remain completely unpunished?

[General Zod]

Which is what I'm curious about! Since India is not a chiefly Christian religion (to my knowledge), quoting the Bible is irrelevant and you admit it.

Do you not understand the concept of an "example"?

Can somebody point to a passage in the Vedas or whatever that points out exactly where it is allowed to regard an unmarried and non-virgin woman less than a cow or perhaps even less than the said animal's excrement, while allowing the people that have done this "devaluing" should remain completely unpunished?

Doesn't Hinduism emphasize that women should be subservient to men? I mean all it takes is the cultural idea that women should obey their husbands in everything to lead to unhealthy attitudes towards women.

[Zixinus]

Do you not understand the concept of an "example"?

I admit that I was and probably still being a bit obnoxious, but you just assert that Indian culture is interchangeable enough that a quote from the Bible is enough to explain. Yet India's Chief religion is Hinduism, which is based on the Vedas which pre-date the Bible. How can I know that your example is relevant at all?

[General Zod]

Do you not understand the concept of an "example"?

I admit that I was and probably still being a bit obnoxious, but you just assert that Indian culture is interchangeable enough that a quote from the Bible is enough to explain. Yet India's Chief religion is Hinduism, which is based on the Vedas which pre-date the Bible. How can I know that your example is relevant at all?

Except that's not what I asserted at all. I would have assumed most people on here were smart enough to realize that I was addressing amiglobal's "people" in the general sense. Are you being purposefully obtuse? Or are you just going full-bore Don Quixote here?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Just remembering an article from over a decade ago, about India's blue laws. Allegedly there is an exemption to the anti-porn laws for rape depiction in an action movie, so there is a bollywood sub industry of Rape films....

kinda like the Japanese you can show breasts but not nipples, or any pubic or armpit hair, so all the actresses wear pasties and are shaven.

[Malivotti]

Plus it was the woman who died in Singapore whose treatment provoked the current outrage in India.

Given how you go on to quote how often a rape occurs in India showing how common it is, I think the fact that the victim who died was thrown out of a moving bus once they were done with her (after beating and raping her for over an hour) is what truly shocked India. It wasn't that a pretty girl was raped, it wasn't that a pretty girl was beaten and then raped, it was that she was beaten, raped and then discarded like trash from a moving bus that completely shocked the nation.

Add to the shock is that woman after being beaten and raped by the six men was then vaginally raped with a tire iron, when the tire iron was removed from the victim it was removed with such force that her intestines were pulled out, on arrival to the hospital she only had about 5% of her intestines left inside her. Despite that she regained consciousness and communicated with her mother by writing.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... 76798.aspx

At this point the doctors treating her where optimistic of her chances. Then the Indian government stepped in to 'help'. Despite grave concerns about the need to move her the decision was made by politics.

However, doctors speaking to The Hindu said they were unsure that moving the patient to Singapore would help in the management of her condition. “There is no question of a transplant at this stage,” said Dr. Kaushal Kant Mishra, a senior orthopaedic surgeon at Primus Hospital. “The infection has to be controlled first, and the patient stabilised. I do not understand what the hurry was to take the patient out. Safdarjung Hospital, like other major hospitals in India, have excellent medical facilities and doctors to take care of the critically-ill.”

Another senior doctor at AIIMS said: “When the Prime Minister can be treated and operated [here] what is the specific medical need to move a patient to Singapore?. What the government is saying does not seem to add up.”

Dr. M.C. Misra, head of the JPN Apex Trauma Centre at AIIMS and one of the physicians consulted on the victim’s move to Singapore, said the decision was taken since the patient “needed only the support of the ventilator for the transfer.” The decision, he said, “was ok-ed keeping in mind the best interest of the patient and as directed by the Government.”

During the flight to Singapore the victim suffered a major medical event, no heartbeat for 3-5 (sources differ) minutes the docs on the flight were able to save her by surgically implanting an arterial line but on arrival in Singapore her heart was operating at 25% efficiency down from 50%. Doctors in Singapore believe the heart attack also caused neurological damage.

Again the choice to move her made no medical sense. The decision to get her out of the county was made by politicians in cabinet meeting on the 26th. Hours before the cabinet meeting one of the Ministers stated that the victim was in no condition to be moved.

There is alot of reasons to be shocked and outraged, not just about the attack but what happened afterwards. IMO the actions of the Indian government should be investigated as well.

Personally for what she and her friend suffered, for the kind of hell her family was put through by the actions of those animals on the bus, kill the fuckers, don't bother making it humane, I'd consider death by impalement on short spear to just and fair, and have it public. It's not revenge, it's not for justice as there is nothing 'Just' in this, it's a warning to any other animal out there that if you cross a line from human being to animal you will suffer for your choice.

[Iron Bridge]

Perhaps western countries can make it much easier for women to migrate to better countries? I wouldn't know how, but getting women into an environment where they can be treated like human beings would reduce the suffering the pigs can inflict on them.

The problem is if you let the men come too they start making the West (or at least, islands within it) more like dysfunctional honour/clan-based societies.

[Metahive]

Perhaps western countries can make it much easier for women to migrate to better countries? I wouldn't know how, but getting women into an environment where they can be treated like human beings would reduce the suffering the pigs can inflict on them.

The problem is if you let the men come too they start making the West (or at least, islands within it) more like dysfunctional honour/clan-based societies.

Racism and sexism in just one sentence. Congratulations, you win the Gilded David Duke Cookie of Shame! Nail it to your forehead with great pride.

[Grumman]

Perhaps western countries can make it much easier for women to migrate to better countries? I wouldn't know how, but getting women into an environment where they can be treated like human beings would reduce the suffering the pigs can inflict on them.

The problem is if you let the men come too they start making the West (or at least, islands within it) more like dysfunctional honour/clan-based societies.

Racism and sexism in just one sentence. Congratulations, you win the Gilded David Duke Cookie of Shame! Nail it to your forehead with great pride.

Not race, culture. He's still tarring them with too broad a brush, but it is only right to discriminate against would-be immigrants whose thoughts and actions are incompatible with a decent society.

[Iron Bridge]

Perhaps western countries can make it much easier for women to migrate to better countries? I wouldn't know how, but getting women into an environment where they can be treated like human beings would reduce the suffering the pigs can inflict on them.

The problem is if you let the men come too they start making the West (or at least, islands within it) more like dysfunctional honour/clan-based societies.

Racism and sexism in just one sentence. Congratulations, you win the Gilded David Duke Cookie of Shame! Nail it to your forehead with great pride.

There are the following logically consistent possibilities:

1. Men in the Islamic world/India are not more misogynistic than men in the West. This seems not to be the opinion of most womens' rights groups.

2. Men in the Islamic world/India are more misogynistic than men in the West, but when they move to the West they stop being more misogynistic than men in the West. Do they? Why?

3. Men in the Islamic world/India are more misogynistic than men in the West, and remain more misoygnistic when they move to the West. They therefore make the West more misogynistic, though possibly isolated in immigrant communities rather than averaged over the whole population.

None of these are based on assumptions about peoples' physical characteristics.

[AniThyng]

I think part of your problem is you disregard totally the agency of women even in traditional societies. Something along the lines of thinking women wear the hijab only because men force them to and not out of thier own will. I trust you can see how this is incredibly condescending.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

None of these are based on assumptions about peoples' physical characteristics.

Never mind. You've found a way to act funny about dem forrin immigrunts while simultaneously avoiding the whole distasteful skin color thing. This should be important to you, and you should be proud of this intellectual achievement. Would you like a beer to celebrate this, or perhaps something warmer but still yellow?

[Iron Bridge]

Never mind. You've found a way to act funny about dem forrin immigrunts while simultaneously avoiding the whole distasteful skin color thing. This should be important to you, and you should be proud of this intellectual achievement. Would you like a beer to celebrate this, or perhaps something warmer but still yellow?

Perhaps because skin colour is not an important issue here? To give an example you can relate more to, I am not American, so if I criticise the US religious right I am criticising a foreign culture. Is this evidence that I am an irrational xenophobe, or that I don't like misogynistic theocrats?

I think part of your problem is you disregard totally the agency of women even in traditional societies. Something along the lines of thinking women wear the hijab only because men force them to and not out of thier own will. I trust you can see how this is incredibly condescending.

It is difficult to discern agency when it is backed with implicit threats of social ostracism or violence. It's like saying maybe cult members are all happy to be in the cult and wanted to give away all their money. Maybe, but that doesn't mean there's no cause for concern. Now consider how it would be if the police and army were also members of the cult.

[Metahive]

Not race, culture. He's still tarring them with too broad a brush, but it is only right to discriminate against would-be immigrants whose thoughts and actions are incompatible with a decent society.

"Culture" is a well-known racist dog-whistle and since Iron Bridge is still insinuating that people from certain countries can't help but be primitively backwards it's not a even a cleverly hidden one. Nope, not letting him off the hook.

ETA:
BTW, "it is only right to discriminate against would-be immigrants whose thoughts and actions are incompatible with a decent society"? So, thought-crime oughta' be a thing now? You gotta' be kidding me!
Also, why only apply this to immigrants? I think there are many "aboriginals" who likewise sin against "decent" society in thought and action. Maybe we should deport them too, huh?

[Iron Bridge]

Not race, culture. He's still tarring them with too broad a brush, but it is only right to discriminate against would-be immigrants whose thoughts and actions are incompatible with a decent society.

"Culture" is a well-known racist dog-whistle and since Iron Bridge is still insinuating that people from certain countries can't help but be primitively backwards it's not a even a cleverly hidden one. Nope, not letting him off the hook.

Even though you seem to be opposed to it, you have internalised racism yourself. It can only be for this reason that you treat criticism of foreign ideologies differently to criticism of functionally identical US ideologies.

[Metahive]

Not race, culture. He's still tarring them with too broad a brush, but it is only right to discriminate against would-be immigrants whose thoughts and actions are incompatible with a decent society.

"Culture" is a well-known racist dog-whistle and since Iron Bridge is still insinuating that people from certain countries can't help but be primitively backwards it's not a even a cleverly hidden one. Nope, not letting him off the hook.

Even though you seem to be opposed to it, you have internalised racism yourself. It can only be for this reason that you treat criticism of foreign ideologies differently to criticism of functionally identical US ideologies.

I don't even get what you attempt to say here. It sounds like typical racist apologia as replicated by a recent stroke victim.

[Iron Bridge]

I don't even get what you attempt to say here. It sounds like typical racist apologia attempted by a recent stroke victim.

You seem to view foreigners as helpless noble savages who can do no wrong, rather than as fallible human beings who are the product of unique histories. Some non-western countries are not more misogynistic than the west, such as Japan and Singapore. Others are intensely misogynistic, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. You seem to believe that merely considering any non-western country to be more misogynistic than the west, regardless whether it is true or not, to be intrinsically racist.

Moreover, you haven't actually substantively addressed any of this, preferring to just call me a racist a few more times. I think you're either a troll or an idiot.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Even though you seem to be opposed to it, you have internalised racism yourself. It can only be for this reason that you treat criticism of foreign ideologies differently to criticism of functionally identical US ideologies.

"You're racist for accusing me of racism" is also another common racist dog-whistle. God, I could make a bingo card out of this shit. I'm not saying you are a racist, but I can understand why your statement could be interpreted that way and frankly your xenophobic tarring of an entire culture is not much better. Your clarifying statement was somewhat better, however, but you seem to be assuming that point 3 is correct without offering evidence. You're also laying out a black and white fallacy, when obviously there is middle ground between 2 and 3, that some men from the Islamic world and India are likely to adapt to Western culture, while others won't. You're also ignoring that the misogyny is cultural, and thus can propagated by both men and women. Just because someone is a woman, does not mean that they can't hold or spread misogynist ideals, particularly if they were raised in a society that taught them these things are the norm.

"X culture is more misogynist than typical western culture" is not racist, particularly if it's true, but "we shouldn't let people from X country come here, because they'll spread their misogynist culture to us" is borderline racist depending on the context and somewhat xenophobic.

You'll be hard pressed to find a misogynist who isn't religious.

I wish this were true. Misogyny is rife even in the atheist community, and women and feminists in the atheist community who speak out against it are harassed and sent threats of rape and violence on a routine basis. I've seen far more of it than I ever thought I would and it's very depressing. In some ways, the atheists who ignore and downplay the misogynists, or make excuses for them, are even worse.

[Metahive]

You seem to view foreigners as helpless noble savages who can do no wrong, rather than as fallible human beings who are the product of unique histories.

O right, as evidenced by me saying...wait a minute, I think you are making shit up.

BTW, I now demand that you support what you said above with evidence or retract ASAP.

Some non-western countries are not more misogynistic than the west, such as Japan and Singapore.

Shows what you know. Far Eastern countries positively reek of misogyny. I know, I'm from there.

Others are intensely misogynistic, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. You seem to believe that merely considering any non-western country to be more misogynistic than the west, regardless whether it is true or not, to be intrinsically racist.

You seem to be an ignorant hoser who likes to make shit up about people and countries he doesn't know. Evidence, this very post.

Moreover, you haven't actually substantively addressed any of this, preferring to just call me a racist a few more times. I think you're either a troll or an idiot.

Why should I address irrelevant BS? That has fuck-all to do with your racist, sexist insinuation that males from certain nations are all backwards savages that shouldn't be allowed to come here into our progressive utopia lest they pollute us with their heathen ways. Why don't you try defending that instead of rambling on about what you think certain countries are like?

O right, because it's indefensible, racist, sexist horsemanure.

[Iron Bridge]

Even though you seem to be opposed to it, you have internalised racism yourself. It can only be for this reason that you treat criticism of foreign ideologies differently to criticism of functionally identical US ideologies.

"You're racist for accusing me of racism" is also another common racist dog-whistle.

1. You claim not to be racist.

2. Racists often claim not to be racist.

C. You are a racist.

I do not believe metahive is actually a racist, but I do think that his defence of nutty religious theocrats abroad is motivated more by a desire to "give the benefit of the doubt" to foreigners which he would not give to whites. Would the religious right in the US be totally ok provided they were mostly hispanic or asian instead of mostly white? The governments of most of the Islamic world, including the democracies, are directly comparable to the US religious right.

You're also laying out a black and white fallacy, when obviously there is middle ground between 2 and 3, that some men from the Islamic world and India are likely to adapt to Western culture, while others won't.

Agreed - although, probably it's more like a fade-out over time. On the other hand, if very large scale immigration from these places occurs (relative to the population of a given country), that view may come to dominate and rather cause the rest of society to adapt to that new norm. Somewhere in the middle, we might expect a permanent divide to develop within the society, akin to differences in social norms between Maine and Texas, which would not necessarily fade out over time.

You're also ignoring that the misogyny is cultural, and thus can propagated by both men and women. Just because someone is a woman, does not mean that they can't hold or spread misogynist ideals, particularly if they were raised in a society that taught them these things are the norm.

That is true, however women have a solid disincentive to be misogynist so it will almost certainly disappear in a society of only women.

"X culture is more misogynist than typical western culture" is not racist, particularly if it's true, but "we shouldn't let people from X country come here, because they'll spread their misogynist culture to us" is borderline racist depending on the context and somewhat xenophobic.

Although I didn't make the second statement - it opens a huge can of worms like, should we let in communists? or republicans? or any immigrants who don't share the existing ideological views of the population? and what's so special about those anyway? - it isn't racist. It is based on ideological differences, not physical differences.

In fact a purely ideology-based citizenship system would be far less racist than actually existing citizenship systems, which propagate citizenship almost entirely by blood lineage.

[Metahive]

I do not believe metahive is actually a racist, but I do think that his defence of nutty religious theocrats abroad is motivated more by a desire to "give the benefit of the doubt" to foreigners which he would not give to whites.

So you repeat this lie. Either put up evidence for this or STFU.

[Grumman]

ETA:
BTW, "it is only right to discriminate against would-be immigrants whose thoughts and actions are incompatible with a decent society"? So, thought-crime oughta' be a thing now? You gotta' be kidding me!

You know, you wouldn't have to work yourself up into a frenzy of indignation if you knew what the fuck you were talking about. Immigration is at the discretion of the receiving country. Refusing a foreigner entry for being a neo-nazi is not the same thing as making it a crime to be a neo-nazi.

Also, why only apply this to immigrants? I think there are many "aboriginals" who likewise sin against "decent" society in thought and action. Maybe we should deport them too, huh?

Why do you have such a problem with the idea that it is harder to get and keep a visa to visit a foreign country than it is to not be exiled from your country of permanent residence?

[Iron Bridge]

I do not believe metahive is actually a racist, but I do think that his defence of nutty religious theocrats abroad is motivated more by a desire to "give the benefit of the doubt" to foreigners which he would not give to whites.

So you repeat this lie. Either put up evidence for this or STFU.

You accused me of being not only a racist, but somehow also sexist[?!] for saying that immigration of misogynists would make society most misogynist. Unless you think people suddenly forget all their opinions when they move country, the only way this is explicable is if you think the belief that any foreign culture is more misogynist than the west is intrinsically racist. This claim is obviously ridiculous.

Moreover, since I'm sure you recognise that there are some misogynists living in the west, it's a double standard: you don't deny the existence of misogyny or that some groups of westerners can be more misogynist than other groups of westerners, only that foreigners can be more misogynist than westerners.

[hongi]

It is difficult to discern agency when it is backed with implicit threats of social ostracism or violence.

Ever thought that's because you're an outsider?

Outsiders and people who don't want to see agents, unsurprisingly only see slaves instead of people.

It's like saying maybe cult members are all happy to be in the cult and wanted to give away all their money. Maybe, but that doesn't mean there's no cause for concern. Now consider how it would be if the police and army were also members of the cult.

I hear this a lot and it makes me angry. The idea that brown women are brainwashed or cowered into behaving the way they do and liking the things they like is an insidious and damging one. It strips brown women of their very humanity because it tells them that they're powerless, that the only power exists in the hands of other people. It's a self-defeating paradigm, because if you think that for example, Afghan women don't have any agency in their lives, then you're going to ignore what they choose to do, their acts of resistance and what they want. Instead, their acts of resistance are something 'foreign', maybe imported from the West, something that's claimed by both Islamists and Westerners. Islamists say that the West has imported the idea of women standing up for themselves and Westerners will claim that Western ideas have freed women. You can see this especially in discourses about women wearing hijabs in the West. Muslims are either thought of as being abused into wearing it or brainwashed. It's a total lack of disregard for what women say and it's just as damaging as brown men telling them what to do.

I think part of your problem is you disregard totally the agency of women even in traditional societies. Something along the lines of thinking women wear the hijab only because men force them to and not out of thier own will. I trust you can see how this is incredibly condescending.

That's exactly what I was talking about the previous page with Spivak's paper. Even western feminists do it and by doing so, they deprive brown women of their voice.