Delhi gang-rapists sentenced to death

[blkrb0t]

They realized they weren't as helpless and incapable as men, implying that they didn't discover their full potential until the last century.

Some did; they were just oppressed into oblivion.

Pre-British rule Indian society brainwashed women and kept them ignorant of their true potential for a long time. Pre-British rule Indian society did not consciously crush their spirit; because if it did then history would've recorded large movements that intended to liberate women.

They were kept ignorant of the fact that they would be burned in case their husband dies? Even animals shy away from fire, and you think a human will willingly step into it? The practice of Sati is one of the crucial evidences pointing towards how women were treated in that era, and you cannot brush it aside by saying it happens "just once in a lifetime." It's not the life the just one woman, but every other women as a collective.

Moreover, you are falling into Argument from Silence logical fallacy. Just because history hasn't recorded many such movements doesn't mean there weren't any. Kings and emperors ruled the world back then, and anyone going against the norm would just be crushed. The Bhakti movement and Sikhism as I said before are just some of the examples which have survived. Going through wiki, I also came across a few female saint-poets who were fighting for the cause of social justice and equality back then: Mirabai, Akka Mahadevi, and Lalleshwari. Most of these movements were part of reforming Hinduism, and not just fighting for the cause of gender equality; perhaps one of the main reasons why they're still widely known.

In the modern world, women consciously lead their lives in a patriarchal society knowing fully well that they can never explore their capabilities; a heavier burden to shoulder compared to women from the past(pre-British rule era) who subconsciously conformed to society and did only what was required of them.

Ignorance is never a bliss, especially when you are part of the community that is being oppressed. The fact that the society expected and even forced the women to be ignorant shows how horrid the situation was. This is what dictators do to keep their subjects calm. That doesn't mean the subjects are leaving a blissful life. Women had less rights than men pre-independence era, not to mention various other atrocities that they were subjected to. That alone is evidence enough that they weren't better off than post-independence.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

Some did; they were just oppressed into oblivion.


They were kept ignorant of the fact that they would be burned in case their husband dies? Even animals shy away from fire, and you think a human will willingly step into it? The practice of Sati is one of the crucial evidences pointing towards how women were treated in that era, and you cannot brush it aside by saying it happens "just once in a lifetime." It's not the life the just one woman, but every other women as a collective.

Moreover, you are falling into Argument from Silence logical fallacy. Just because history hasn't recorded many such movements doesn't mean there weren't any. Kings and emperors ruled the world back then, and anyone going against the norm would just be crushed. The Bhakti movement and Sikhism as I said before are just some of the examples which have survived. Going through wiki, I also came across a few female saint-poets who were fighting for the cause of social justice and equality back then: Mirabai, Akka Mahadevi, and Lalleshwari. Most of these movements were part of reforming Hinduism, and not just fighting for the cause of gender equality; perhaps one of the main reasons why they're still widely known.


Ignorance is never a bliss, especially when you are part of the community that is being oppressed. The fact that the society expected and even forced the women to be ignorant shows how horrid the situation was. This is what dictators do to keep their subjects calm. That doesn't mean the subjects are leaving a blissful life. Women had less rights than men pre-independence era, not to mention various other atrocities that they were subjected to. That alone is evidence enough that they weren't better off than post-independence.

Fighting for a cause that will empower a gender isn't entirely the same as fighting against oppression of a gender. If the women were being severely oppressed, then history would've recorded female saint-poets like Mirabai, etc. as revolutionaries in the struggle against female oppression or something that sounds similar. My opinion may sound unsympathetic to a feminist or a gallant knight, but it is based on facts that are within my reach and is emotionally uncompromised by the plight of today's women in our country.

The text in bold clearly affirms what i've been saying all along and hints that women were most likely kept in ignorance using at worst non-violent techniques like misdirection and limiting exposure apart from mass social conditioning that is part-and-parcel/inevitable in any society. I've said this before and i'll say it again, you do not have to beat someone into submission or ignorance.

You must understand, that all of the women back in that period lived a similar simpler lifestyle unlike the diverse modern lifestyles of today's women irrespective of the caste system. There was no room for confusion. Modern day media hype did not exist back then. Of course, you can always argue that the dominant male of the household always swept matters pertaining to gender violence/inequality under the carpet. But to what extent are you willing to do so? To the point where it sounds like one big conspiracy theory that us men plotted against women? Think about it.

I will openly admit that we men have always held women back since we are the stronger, prideful and egotistical sex. But i would carefully consider all the facts when someone suggests a conspiracy spanning thousands-and-thousands of years plotted specifically to keep a particular gender from realizing their true potential.

 

[blr_p]

Pre-British rule Indian society brainwashed women and kept them ignorant of their true potential for a long time. Pre-British rule Indian society did not consciously crush their spirit; because if it did then history would've recorded large movements that intended to liberate women.

In the modern world, women consciously lead their lives in a patriarchal society knowing fully well that they can never explore their capabilities; a heavier burden to shoulder compared to women from the past(pre-British rule era) who subconsciously conformed to society and did only what was required of them.

Pre-independence if women wanted to do more there were much more obstacles in place than present.

They will still face opposition today but its not as heavy as it used to be and there are more ways to counter that opposition.

To argue women were better off pre-independence is to suggest women's position in society has actually regressed since.

Are you really saying that ? if so then in what ways.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

Pre-independence if women wanted to do more ther
e were much more obstacles in place than present.

They will still face opposition today but its not as heavy as it used to be and there are more ways to counter that opposition.

To argue women were better off pre-independence is to suggest women's position in society has actually regressed since.

Are you really saying that ? if so then in what ways.

To suggest that a women's position in society has regressed is to also indirectly suggest that a women's equality/liberation/reforms was widely-discussed/popular amongst both genders pre-British rule. The fact that most of the efforts started pre-British rule were to reform Indian society/Hinduism as a whole and not entirely devoted to a women's cause indicates that the topics such as women's liberation/equality were not important/popular. So there is no sense in blindly supporting that the position of the average Indian women in society has regressed since pre-independence or pre-British rule.

The decision to revise a women's position in our society came under intense scrutiny and scepticism from the male population only when society as a whole realized that women are just as capable as us men. And i'm going to quote what you yourself have mentioned in one of your posts @blr_p -

Last century, not millenia. Its only since WW1 that the lot of women began to improve. Why ? because when the men were out fighting and they were left holding back the fort and realised they were not as helpless as before. There were no men, they had to do things on their own. Note that this starts off in the UK and is followed soon after in the US. A lot of men died afgter WW1, what do the politicos do ? give women the right to vote. It does not really take hold for a few years longer in the rest of the world.

Everything you typed in bold suggests that women weren't consciously bullied into ignorance or violently subjugated in order to prevent them from realizing their potential. What you're indirectly suggesting is that society subconsciously and non-violently taught women to accept their small place in society. I don't think you yourself realized that you were reaffirming what i've been arguing all along. Even stranger is that @blkrb0t and yourself are both disagreeing with me when @blkrb0t should've immediately disagreed with you when you indirectly reaffirmed my opinion.

As for @blkrb0t, your argument can hold itself against mine only if you're right in admitting that you felt that all women, pre-British rule, were violently condemned and oppressed into oblivion at a fully conscious level. And to admit this, would mean to also indirectly admit that pre-British rule - no father ever genuinely cared for any of his daughters; there wasn't a single husband who genuinely cared/looked out for his wife; no brother ever genuinely loved his sister thereby revealing rakshabandhan to be a convenient scam purported by Indian men to simply appease women. Please read through your last post in this thread again.

 

[blr_p]

To suggest that a women's position in society has regressed is to also indirectly suggest that a women's equality/liberation/reforms was widely-discussed/popular amongst both genders pre-British rule. The fact that most of the efforts started pre-British rule were to reform Indian society/Hinduism as a whole and not entirely devoted to a women's cause indicates that the topics such as women's liberation/equality were not important/popular. So there is no sense in blindly supporting that the position of the average Indian women in society has regressed since pre-independence or pre-British rule.

The decision to revise a women's position in our society came under intense scrutiny and scepticism from the male population only when society as a whole realized that women are just as capable as us men.

You asserted women were better off pre-independence. So where do they stand post-independence ?

Better off pre-independence (in what way) means less well off post independence (in another way) , right

Reform movements pre-independence tried to address issues in society of which women's position was just one component. Sati & child marriage have a direct bearing on women and get cited the most.

Everything you typed in bold suggests that women weren't consciously bullied into ignorance or violently subjugated in order to prevent them from realizing their potential. What you're indirectly suggesting is that society subconsciously and non-violently taught women to accept their small place in society. I don't think you yourself realized that you were reaffirming what i've been arguing all along.

pre-independence, women did not have a say in matters, their word was not equivalent to that of a man. They had to do what was expected of society of the time. With the right to vote, their position in society rises as they have a say now.

What this does is improve the lot of all women. Now if they are going to be opposed its rather the exception than the norm or in some parts of the country, still the norm. But elsewhere, overall their lot is better off than it was. I don't know how you could argue otherwise.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

You asserted women were better off pre-independence. So where do they stand post-independence ?

Better off pre-independence (in what way) means less well off post independence (in another way) , right

Reform movements pre-independence tried to address issues in society of which women's position was just one component. Sati & child marriage have a direct bearing on women and get cited the most.


pre-independence, women did not have a say in matters, their word was not equivalent to that of a man. They had to do what was expected of society of the time. With the right to vote, their position in society rises as they have a say now.

What this does is improve the lot of all women. Now if they are going to be opposed its rather the exception than the norm or in some parts of the country, still the norm. But elsewhere, overall their lot is better off than it was. I don't know how you could argue otherwise.

For the love of god, i can't figure out if you're arguing for the sake of arguing or if you're deliberately playing dumb. I am talking neither about their position in today's world nor about how far they've come.

Realistically speaking, ask yourself which is a more painful existence?
a) To live in ignorance of your full potential
(or)
b) To realize that your entire potential is just out of reach like a carrot dangling off a stick in front of you

Post-independence Indian women have lived confusing lives further compounded by the false-hope that we egotistical, power-hungry men will one day treat them equally.

Their position in society has improved but its been a tough, up-hill battle for them to get there. Isn't it a simple matter for a man to treat a woman equally? I think its simple. Yet we don't.

 

[blr_p]

Realistically speaking, ask yourself which is a more painful existence?
a) To live in ignorance of your full potential
(or)
b) To realize that your entire potential is just out of reach like a carrot dangling off a stick in front of you

ok, so the crux of your argument is conditions were bad then its just that people, specifically women did not know better.

Arguing from a position of ignorance is weak. What really matters is how women fare comparatively speaking in our country vs other developing countries as well as developed ones. And how that position has improved or changed over time. Women are better off to some extent or overall compared to other presently restrictive societies, as well as our past.

How better off is a function of freedom. Simplest way to put it. More freedom, more choice etc.

If there's a carrot dangling in front of you, the question is what can you do to reach it. There will be obstacles of varying degrees. But that does not necessarily imply never getting there as was the case in the past. Some carrots might just be too high. Think glass ceilings etc, which gets talked about a lot abroad.

Post-independence Indian women have lived confusing lives further compounded by the false-hope that we egotistical, power-hungry men will one day treat them equally.

Their position in society has improved but its been a tough, up-hill battle for them to get there. Isn't it a simple matter for a man to treat a woman equally? I think its simple. Yet we don't.

One of the drivers for sati is it allowed ancestral assets to remain within the groom's family if the husband died. It removed any chance of those assets transferring away if say the widow were to remarry. To ensure this the widow had to die and had society's blessing. Course what this did to the well being of the kids is up for debate, as they have to suffer the loss of both parents instead of one.

Look at inheritances past & present. Boys were and still are favoured over girls as this way the family name continues whereas daughters had to come with a dowry or they'd never be married off. Naturally implying girls were potential liabilities instead of assets. These constraints are imposed upon by society. They only go away or diminish when society decides to reform itself. Divorces is another, in some places abroad a woman has a right to 50% of whatever assets were available during marriage regardless.

Its a very slow & contentious process when you get down to the nitty gritty, ruppees paisa, what is the cost to treat a woman as equal. Not simple. One way its done is through legislation and the idea behind it is positive discrimination. In the quest to achieve equality we end up overshooting. A rights based approach is problematic because it implies entitlement.

Think back to a few years ago and the govt said they wanted to impose a women' s quota in panchayat committees, they started at 25% and pushed for 50%. 50% of women in village committees must be women. This it was argued was the only way one could overcome the traditional restrictions of society. Same in govt. There was resistance.

Some time ago when it came to paying income taxes at the lowest bracket, a woman was allowed to make a little more than a man before she became liable to pay any tax. That limit has since changed and its the same now.

So when laws get passed that push women to the forefront there will be a natural reaction.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

@blr_p Please realize that my opinion is a matter of perspective. One could say things were bad back then from today's perspective, but it was not terrible back then because neither did women consciously realize that they were entitled to equal rights as men nor did society consciously subjugate them into oppression. I don't know if you fully understand what i'm saying.

 

[blr_p]

I guess i don't. Did not manage to understand 'not terrible back then'. Because it implies more terrible now. If so then how much progress have women really made since. That is what it amounts to.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

From what I read, it was the juvenile who inflicted the maximum harm to the poor victim. And he goes scot- free in less than 2 years from now..! That is even more disturbing..

Can you quote the source please? How reliable is the source?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/0...rape-reportedly-ripped-her-intestines-out-in/
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-...d-waits-to-know-his-fate/Article1-984606.aspx
And many more news reports..

Should've posted this on the 3rd - Nirbhaya case juvenile wasn’t ‘most brutal’?

Scary what kind of BS leading media houses are capable of under the pretext of reporting the truth.

 

[Arun07]

Didn't the juvenile get away scot free?

 

[sid_donnydarko]

Didn't the juvenile get away scot free?

Scot free?!? How so? Behind bars or not, rest assured he will be hung, drawn and quartered by someone. He will suffer for committing a heinous crime and even more because of a technicality.

 

[ithehappy]

Didn't the juvenile get away scot free?

Yeah, after seeing the number of idiots just here is that any surprising?

 

[sid_donnydarko]

Yeah, after seeing the number of idiots just here is that any surprising?

Here's another idiot - Activists: Indian Media Sensationalized Delhi Gang-Rape Case

 

[TheIndian]

It should be a public hanging.

with regards to rape and its prevention or any other crime, we as the citizens have ourselves to blame. How many of us have looked away and ignored the scene when there was trouble brewing? How many of us have not reported a crime perpetuated on us? We let things "go", it emboldens the perpetrator to do it again. In the rape case in Mumbai abandoned textile mill, another girl came forward that she had been raped in the same spot in the past. Things may have been different if she had reported it.

A few years back, a mentally retarded girl was raped in a moving local train, with 7-8 MALE onlookers as witness, who's only defense was, " what could we do, he had a knife" A guy raping a girl with his pants down, and this is all they had to say? SHAME ON US as a society for empowering evil. -

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Origins are blurry / disputed

 

[TheIndian]

Long time to go before they are hanged. They will plea to higher court and case will go there and then will sit on the desk of the sitting duck of President of this god forsaken country and these people will enjoy their stay in Jails at tax payer's expense.
Just have a secret hanging immediately like they did with Kasab and all. Get over with this sh!t.

Kasab went through the entire judicial process, including appeal to the President which was turned down.

From what I have seen of the present President, he is unlikely to grant a pardon.

 

[ithehappy]

It should be a public hanging.

I don't agree. There should be a new law introduced for this crime, like burning those assholes alive, then at half way cool them and then burn them again and repeat the process. And whole thing should be recorded in 4K res and posted to YouTube.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Origins are blurry / disputed

Do nothing? Nope some people are trying hard to defend them, can't you see? So we are doing something, how can you say we are doing nothing?
'I'm surrounded by idiots'.

 

[paarkhi]

I like china's Judicial System in this case (2000+ Capital Punishment) and the justice is swift, not like as Indian Judicial system where the case goes on for years and years (ex. Dhananjoy Chatterjee). "JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

 

[paarkhi]

China will no longer serve CP for rapes; rapes of children. Don't know if you realize this but its a sign of progress.

Oh, is it (Any links)? I don't think that it's a sign of progress, it's only because of sheer international pressure. I don't know why people condemn Capital Punishment in rape + aggravated murder cases (like delhi). GOD FORBID but I say that they should try to live the pain of the victim and her family once and then decide. Sitting outside and talking big is very simple.

 

[paarkhi]

It is in a way indicative of progression. Although far from firm proof, according to this article the Chinese are taking progressive steps to make their underdeveloped system impartial and transparent.

What do you think you're doing right now? What else can anyone of us do? Supporting the DP will probably make you feel better but cannot guarantee happiness for the victims family.

Atleast I'm not condemning the DP, it may not bring the happiness but atleast it can bring the peace to the victim's family of having a Justice. Thanks for the link but it doesn't talk about the capital punishment for the rape case (which is the topic discussed here) anyhow it mainly talks about the possibility that an innocent person would be wrongly put to death and different standards in which it is allotted. Anyhow I still feel that these kind of people should be hanged (Only after thorough investigation, which in the case of Delhi is clearly proved). This discussion can go on and on and there may be no end to it, I've my views and you surely have yours, so better to be with our own view.