Irish woman raped in India

Anynama141 wrote: »

It appears that she was trying to pretend that I was comparing the crimes, or else her reading comprehension is so poor that that is what she took from the post.

I was returning the favour.

You do realise that "she" can read what you're saying, right? And that "she" has reported you already and will do so again if you continue to insult her?

Candie wrote: »

The deeper facts of our existence is that we only have agency over ourselves. So rapists can choose not to rape, trolls not to troll, and women not to listen when they are expected to police the violent actions of some men by treating all men with suspicion.

Agreed. For law abiding people, this is how it is.

Candie wrote: »

Equally we can choose to absolve ourselves of responsibility for our acts by deciding that's just the way it is, that other people must take action to prevent us acting on our baser instincts, and if they don't they are to blame for what we do, and that anyone who disagrees with this course is lacking insight, or naive. What a wonderful world it would be if we can act with the impunity that divesting ourselves of blame allows us.

Unfortunately, you are expecting rapists and criminals to make the right decisions when we already know that they are making very, very wrong ones. The fault is of course entirely theirs; that does not mean we should not take steps to protect ourselves. Don't let ideology get in the way of pragmatism and common sense.

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

People can attack my previous post as much as they like, it doesn't change the fact that Ireland is a sh*thole, notorious for sex crimes against women. Any woman who goes off alone in Ireland, especially with a man she doesn't know, is taking a huge risk. As I said earlier she deserved it.

Basic common sense should prevail, Ireland is just 1 country known to have very odd ideas about women and as such it is down to women to be particularly careful when being women in that kind of country. She's extremely fortunate not to have been gang raped and murdered.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Ireland has massive cultural issues around women and the agency of women - have a read about reproductive rights, rape etc. to get an idea. And there's a huge influx of rural people with backward attitudes into the big city. Have a read of one of the many threads on any Irish message board to get the flavour.

FYPs
COUGHignorantxenophobeCOUGH

Anynama141 wrote: »

Don't let ideology get in the way of pragmatism and common sense.

One man's pragmatism and common sense is another woman's unreasonable intrusion into how she should lead a compromised life.

Unfortunately, you are expecting rapists and criminals to make the right decisions when we already know that they are making very, very wrong ones.

I would prefer to expect criminals to make better decisions than I would expect would-be victims to anticipate those decisions.

Candie wrote: »

We can tackle rape in a number of ways. Primary among them are two approaches.

1. We can make rape so unacceptable, and so heavily punished, that in the cost/benefit analysis of the moment of impulse, the would-be rapist has so much to lose and is so likely to pay a heavy cost that they decide against the crime. We can also make it very clear what rape is e.g. if a woman is so unconscious that she can't say no that does not equal a yes, that being too frozen with fear to make a sound doesn't equal enthusiastic consent, and that any ambivalence at all should be a signal to stop.

The death penalty has been in place at various times and places to stop rape (and indeed murder and theft and other crimes). Did it stop them?

(having said that, the punishment should match the crime of course)

Candie wrote: »

2. We can make women so wary of men, so afraid of the tiny chance of falling victim to a rapist, that they live lives that are punctuated by precaution and fear. Just in case. We can advise them to never be alone with less than two adults, to cover themselves modestly, to never venture out alone after dark, and to never drink more than one drink. Then, if they do fall victim to a crime we can wag our fingers and tell them it would have been preventable if they had taken the right precautions. In other words, we can treat all men as potential rapists, and we can treat all women as victims in waiting.

This certainly doesn't sound ideal, and I don't like your idea of blaming the victim. But it surely makes sense to protect yourself from getting into dangerous situations - e.g. hammered drunk around drunken men etc. etc.

It's always the criminal's fault - but you should be aware that criminals exist and are inclined to act in criminal ways.

Candie wrote: »

Another way is this:

3. We could acknowledge, as in this new Indian case, that most rapists are known to the victim, that the vast majority of rapes take place within a scenario that is regarded as 'safe' - ie. with someone you know and trust - and put proper resources into educating people about the issues of consent, propriety, and punishment. And when a woman (or man) falls victim, we can assure them again and again that it is not their fault they were unlucky enough to have suffered the crime.

Yes, this sounds like a good idea too. Aside from the 'blame the victim' element that you want to introduce in option 2, I think they would work very well if combined.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Aside from the 'blame the victim' element that you want to introduce in option 2, I think they would work very well if combined.

I want to introduce? You are very, very much mistaken.

I think you misread both the tone and intent of that post.

ETA: On reading your post again, I suspect you have purposely misrepresented my post, which is at best bad-mannered and at worst, offensive.

Candie wrote: »

One man's pragmatism and common sense is another woman's unreasonable intrusion into how she should lead a compromised life.

Everybody lives a compromised life. A man minding his own business is more likely to be punched in a bar fight - is that fair? Is this ideal, super-fair world attainable?

I don't think so, unfortunately.

Candie wrote: »

I would prefer to expect criminals to make better decisions than I would expect would-be victims to anticipate those decisions.

That's great, but do you think that is a realistic aspiration?

Anynama141 wrote: »

That's great, but do you think that is a realistic aspiration?

Nothing is attainable if we decide it's pointless to even try.

Candie wrote: »

actual sense

Hear, hear.
Seriously though, what can *realistically* be done to prevent rape, further than that which is already in place?[/quote]Well since you asked Mangochavez, assuming you are actually serious, in addition to everything Candi just said, we can stop swallowing and perpetuating myths about rape like "you're more likely to get raped in a country like India" (bollocks) and victim blaming like the following:

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A horrible thing to happen to anyone but Jesus Christ when are foreign women going to learn to stay the Hell out of that sh*thole country. Did the she not hear about the rape epidemic in India? What the Hell was she thinking going off with him?

Before anyone suggests otherwise, I am not for one moment saying that she deserved it. I just don't get the stupidity of it.

mangochavez wrote: »

Many people when discussing such issues as the ones in this thread put far too much emphasis on terms like "blame", "victim", "perpetrator" etc. forgetting that these are abstractions useful only in facilitating the convention of legal punishment and do not actually possess concrete existence adherent to logic.

The notion of people being responsible for their own actions is hardly some abstract legal concept. We are discussing the idea of "blame" as it applies in this case because too much of it is falling on the victim and not enough on the perpetrator. We use the term "perpetrator" as a faster way of saying "the person who actually committed the alleged rape". I honestly don't know why you think the words "blame" "victim" and "perpetrator" are "useless abstractions."only to be used in the context of legal proceedings. Must be my illogical female brain....

mangochavez wrote: »

This results in innumerable logical fallacies on the side of the (mostly) females.

Since I understand long words, I can see that you are attempting to say that women (not females, thankyou) make errors in logic when discussing the issue of rape. I invite you to show us that, contrary to what you've said here, you actually have any capacity for logical thought before tossing around snide little sexist digs like that.

mangochavez wrote: »

Two people's choices can contribute a morally wrong action by one of the parties, without the other being responsible in the sense of being guilty of a wrongdoing.

We are discussing an alleged rape that took place while the victim was unconscious. So are you trying to suggest that a)no-one is to blame and b)there was no wrongdoing?

Still though, thanks for announcing your prejudice against women straight off, it saves us all a lot of time. (Prejudice. That's a legal term used in everyday speech because prejudice, as a concept, applies in the outside world and in court. I suppose you're going to suggest otherwise?)

imtdub wrote: »

Just cut-off the dole/welfare payments and you'll see the true face of poverty and crime in Europe.

Just let off a nuke in downtown New York and you'd see the true face of nuclear destruction.

But why would you?

India has massive cultural issues around women and the agency of women - have a read about purdah etc. to get an idea. And there's a huge influx of rural people with backward attitudes into the big city. Have a read of one of the many articles on 'Eve teasing' to get the flavour.

Einhard

Candie wrote: »

I would prefer to expect criminals to make better decisions than I would expect would-be victims to anticipate those decisions.

In an ideal world, the former would be wonderful.

In the world we live in, everyone makes the latter anticipations in their daily lives. It's why haven't visited Baghdad recently, or why I don't walk alone through certain areas of major cities. To state that doesn't in anyway apportion blame to anyone but the perpetrator of a crime. I'm curious as to how anybody could see it as such.

Candie wrote: »

Nothing is attainable if we decide it's pointless to even try.

Again, that's a lovely fluffy aspiration in a world of daisies and lollipops, but in the harsh real world of murderers and rapists, I don't think it's going to fly.

mitosis

A woman is raped in a country with 25% of the world population. Pick another 25% and I bet there was rape there also. Does not make India into a pariah. Or is it the fact she was Irish.

What about the rape case currently in the courts where a man is charged with the rape of his elderly aunt. Is Louth now a society of pariahs?

Einhard wrote: »

In an ideal world, the former would be wonderful.

In the world we live in, everyone makes the latter anticipations in their daily lives. It's why haven't visited Baghdad recently, or why I don't walk alone through certain areas of major cities. To state that doesn't in anyway apportion blame to anyone but the perpetrator of a crime. I'm curious as to how anybody could see it as such.

Well if you don't visit it, you are just perpetuating victim-blaming attitudes. They have no right to kill you. But you sir - you are the problem!

Or something like that.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Again, that's a lovely fluffy aspiration in a world of daisies and lollipops, but in the harsh real world of murderers and rapists, I don't think it's going to fly.

The world is bettered by aspirations to make it a better place. That's why we no longer have apartheid, or slavery in the US, or send six year olds up chimneys.

You can be as patronising as you like, but the world is never made a better place by deciding thats just the way it is, it's useless trying to change it, and that everyone out there should live in fear just in case, and adapt to the risks rather than attempt to remove them.

Candie wrote: »

The world is bettered by aspirations to make it a better place. That's why we no longer have apartheid, or slavery in the US, or send six year olds up chimneys.

These were state enterprises, organised and run at national level. Law abiding people sent children up chimneys, and law abiding people stopped when the law changed.

The law has always been against assaults on the person. Do you see how your parallel rather falls on its face here?

Candie wrote: »

You can be as patronising as you like, but the world is never made a better place by deciding thats just the way it is, it's useless trying to change it, and that everyone out there should live in fear just in case, and adapt to the risks rather than attempt to remove them.

Not at all - I believe we should change everything we can for the better; but pretending we can change stuff that we patently can't is just a dangerous delusion along the lines of the 'law of attraction' and other mystical gobbledigook.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Having grown up in the country some 30 years ago when rape and abuse were apparently rampant in catholic Ireland, I never had any fear as a child of disappearing into the woods for days and returning home safe a few days later. Would I let my child off like that now? Fcuk no! Do I have to balance that with fostering my child's independence? Absolutely.

YES but don't worry, we're only talking about women having independence here, so it doesn't matter. They should not be going anywhere alone, who the fcuk do they think they are, anyway?

Czarcasm wrote: »

So yes, while I understand what you mean by applying common sense, you can apply as much common sense as you like and drill it into a child about their personal safety and so on, BUT, it only takes that one time you let them out of the protective bubble. You can't keep them in there forever, and while you may influence how your child thinks, you cannot influence the thoughts of another person unknown to you.

More good sense here. But then, the "protective bubble" itself is a lie. It's the people inside the bubble you want to keep an eye on, more than the ones outside it.:(

Czarcasm wrote: »

"Sky high" isn't a very valid metric when you're talking about a country of a billion people and when you fail to take into account that it has one of the biggest steel industries in the world, it has some of the most culturally significant architecture in the world, some of the richest and most well educated people in the world, and indeed their freshly prepared Indian dishes have to be tasted to be believed, prepared with fresh water of course.

(ironic actually as here in Ireland where I work, I have to buy 30 litres of bottled water a month because we cannot drink the lime water out of the taps!).

But Czarcasm we want to pour scorn on those dirty Indian bastards, what with their non--Western ways and their being nasty foreigners. Sure they're not even daycent Catholics, the bloody heathens!!1!1!

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're only picking up on what you've seen reported in the media, but if you actually did your research, you'd find that India isn't quite the shìthole you make it out to be either!

We'll gladly complain about Americans and British people portraying the Irish badly in their news, thinking we're all backwards religious extremists who would rather let a woman die than let her have her already-dead foetus removed. But this is different, don't you see? This time WE get to feel superior! Don't ruin it for us ya big spoilsport. What are ya, some kind of lefty loony? If you think India's so great why don't you live there, eh?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Have you been to America lately? One of the most developed nations in the world. Is ANY country in the world safe for anyone? Not even particularly for women.

People shouldn't be leaving God's own country, serves then right if they get raped. They should be staying here in the rain with the rest of us. Where no-one ever gets raped.

Czarcasm wrote: »

No, but you will encounter in Limerick, men luring a young girl from a shopping centre only a few weeks back to rape her in the back of a van in broad daylight.

Ah here now! The good people of Limerick are outraged that you are trying to portray it as dangerous! Sure them lads were only feelin their oats. Boys will be boys you know. And that young wan was gaggin for it, I heard she was wearin a skirt, so there.

Aseth

There are few countries in this world where a sensible woman would not go if it wasn't absolutely necessary. One of them is India.
I feel for her, what happened is terrible, but why on earth would any woman would want to go to a country that has such a bad rep?!

Femme_Fatale

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Jesus Christ when are foreign women going to learn to stay the Hell out of that sh*thole country. Did the she not hear about the rape epidemic in India? What the Hell was she thinking going off with him?

Maybe she was rational and non hysterical and wasn't suspicious of every man ever in a sub-continent of over 1.2 billion, comprising many many different types of societies and cultures?

That said, in your defence, for people to say Ireland overall has the same issue with rape, violence against women, misogyny, as India has, is... hilarious.
It is not racist to state that some societies in India have disdain for women built into their cultures - anyone who says that isn't true is living in fantasy-land. A lot of middle-class westerners like to think of India as being all about yoga and elephants and mysticism and beautiful clothing and henna tattoos. Some of the ones I know were in for one hell of a land when they went out there to live temporarily.
There is horrific, unimaginable poverty in India; the caste system still prevails in parts and it is like apartheid.

However, it is not sensible or thoughtful to decide every last bit of it is like the above. That is not the case - the India of beautiful buildings and elephants and zen exists too. And for people to suggest women should just not go there at all, and that no Indian man can be trusted not to rape (I take it the Indian men who live and work here are safe?)... is the height of hysteria, and a pretty depressing attitude.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Never mind focusing on India. We might be better served, applying the same approach to the clowns running our own country.

Would you believe... it's possible to focus on both? Plus, problems in India are way worse than here.

imtdub wrote: »

Talking about poverty and crime I bet you theirs more in Europe than India, it's just that India doesn't have welfare system where people can sit on their arse all day and still can have a luxury life.

Lol

I'd just like to point out that giving 'thanks' to aspirational posts has no effect on the real world: the world is how it is, not how we want it to be. I want it to be the same way Candie and Starling and others want it to be, I totally agree on that.

Where we disagree is how close we can get to it with the best will in the world, and to what extent we need to accept there are some things that are beyond our power to control (such as the criminal intent of others).

Anynama141 wrote: »

These were state enterprises, organised and run at national level. Law abiding people sent children up chimneys, and law abiding people stopped when the law changed.

The law has always been against assaults on the person. Do you see how your parallel rather falls on its face here?

Not at all - I believe we should change everything we can for the better; but pretending we can change stuff that we patently can't is just a dangerous delusion along the lines of the 'law of attraction' and other mystical gobbledigook.

The point, which you have apparently missed, is if we change the cultural attitudes to rape (in particular to victims) we can change the crime.

Slavery was indeed legal until attitudes changed, as was rape within marriage (still rape though, even if it was legal), and rape will be commonplace unless attitudes change. Attitudes such as the potential victims having the onus placed on them to change their behaviour, instead of the potential criminal.

Stating we 'patently can't' change the status quo regarding sex crimes is defeatist and dangerously close to accepting rape as a risk of everyday life, like a traffic accident or trip down the stairs. It is preventable, and to suggest that rapists, by their nature, are incapable of inhibiting their criminal behaviour is very close to mitigation.

Finally, there is no need for such insulting characterisation as 'mystical gobbledigook'. I've no intention of engaging further with you.

imtdub

Einhard wrote: »

Obviously poverty is linked to crime. However, there are many other factors too. India is a far more patriarchal society than Ireland. Women are often seen as second class citizens. Hence, a man can force his wife into sex in India and face no criminal sanction. India is a much more unequal society than Ireland. Hence, crimes against those from lower castes, or from lower status groups are not treated as seriously as they should. India is also a much more corrupt society than Ireland. Hence, reports that the police often bribe victims or their families to drop their cases.

Your analysis of the situation in India is entirely simplistic, and very naive. There is far more to it than mere poverty. That should be obvious to anyone who has a basic understanding of crime, let alone the as it pertains in India.

Besides that, you've conceded my point entirely- India is more dangerous for females than Ireland. It's not unreasonable then, to suggest that people might want to take that simple fact into account when making their travel plans.

I've no problem with people taking the recent crime/rape spate of India when travelling, I would even suggest that to people, I was only disputing about India being called a sinkhole... Indian's still follow the old Traditional rules when it comes to families, It could be the only country in the world where the 5-10 families still live together jointly in family home.

Indian women are not treated as second class citizens, It's only that they still follow the old adage of "Man being the bread winner and women being the house-maker".

Anyway there's a million things which are done differently in India, You've to live in India to experience it....

This is actually a good read to start with...

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/generationemigration/2013/04/08/living-in-india-where-nothing-is-certain/

Aseth wrote: »

There are few countries in this world where a sensible woman would not go if it wasn't absolutely necessary. One of them is India.
I feel for her, what happened is terrible, but why on earth would any woman would want to go to a country that has such a bad rep?!

Maybe because she was already aware that most Irish women who are raped, are raped at home in Ireland, by Irish men?
Or maybe because she was aware that India is a pretty cool country to visit?
Or maybe because she was there for work, because she's actively trying to help make the world a better place?
Yeah no you're right, she sounds crazy, where would she get such mental ideas?

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'd just like to point out that giving 'thanks' to aspirational posts has no effect on the real world: the world is how it is, not how we want it to be. I want it to be the same way Candie and Starling and others want it to be, I totally agree on that.

Where we disagree is how close we can get to it with the best will in the world, and to what extent we need to accept there are some things that are beyond our power to control (such as the criminal intent of others).

Anynama can you stop mentioning me in your posts in such a passive-aggressive manner? If you don't like the "thanks" system this isn't the place to whinge about it. The reason why people are thanking others' posts is because they agree with them, but the thread would be a pain to read if it was all full of "+1" and "Yes" and "I agree!".
It's not because people are ganging up on you. It's because people think you're full of sh1t.

Candie wrote: »

The point, which you have apparently missed, is if we change the cultural attitudes to rape (in particular to victims) we can change the crime.

Candie, can you outline any examples of cultures today where crime IS acceptable? Can you outline some where it is NOT acceptable and NO rapes occur?

If not, then I think you have missed my point.

Candie wrote: »

Slavery was indeed legal until attitudes changed, as was rape within marriage (still rape though, even if it was legal), and rape will be commonplace unless attitudes change. Attitudes such as the potential victims having the onus placed on them to change their behaviour, instead of the potential criminal.

Can you outline societies where murder is acceptable? Can you outline societies where NO murders occur?

Candie wrote: »

Stating we 'patently can't' change the status quo regarding sex crimes is defeatist and dangerously close to accepting rape as a risk of everyday life, like a traffic accident or trip down the stairs. It is preventable, and to suggest that rapists, by their nature, are incapable of inhibiting their criminal behaviour is very close to mitigation.

Ah, the straw man comes out again. There is no element whatsoever of mitigation in any of my posts and to suggest there is a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation. I will be reporting this post.

starling wrote: »

Anynama can you stop mentioning me in your posts in such a passive-aggressive manner? If you don't like the "thanks" system this isn't the place to whinge about it. The reason why people are thanking others' posts is because they agree with them, but the thread would be a pain to read if it was all full of "+1" and "Yes" and "I agree!".
It's not because people are ganging up on you. It's because people think you're full of sh1t.

Post reported.

positron

I came here fully expecting a circle jerk of India-bashing, but was pleasantly surprised that majority of the voices were that of reason keeping a few crazy ones!

In fairness, this isn't in the scale of the rape stories that come out of India, and without knowing the full details, based on what I have read so far, this sounds like something could have happened anywhere, apologies if I have been desensitized with the news that is around us on a daily basis.

Fingers crossed she gets over this real soon and continues with the good work she was doing in Darjeeling.