Criminal Minds, S1E12 (quote 2)

This quote is from Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "Aurora Leigh":

   Shall I fail?
   The Greeks said grandly in their tragic phrase,
   'Let no one be called happy till his death.'...
   To which I add,-Let no one till his death
   Be called unhappy. Measure not the work
   Until the day's out and the labour done;
   Then bring your gauges. If the day's work's scant,
   Why, call it scant; affect no compromise;
   And, in that we have nobly striven at least,
   Deal with us nobly, women though we be,
   And honour us with truth, if not with praise.

Although, this quote seems simple enough, looking at the context of the whole passage, it seems to me that Elizabeth Browning was saying something along the lines of speaking truth to women in our lives. If we don't like something they have done in both their professional and/or personal lives, then we should give them an honest judgement of their work.

At the same time, we can expand it to include the general public. Like she says, we cannot judge someone's life to be a failure until his/her death. Death spells the "work done" for an individual. Life is full of ups & downs. So, one can't say about another's life to be a waste until that person has died. The "performance review" of life can only be done after the life ("work") has ended.

Are Universities complicit in sexual violence?

So, while government leadership of Canada, US, European nations, Canadian provinces, & US States, invade or want to invade South Asian, Central Asian, Middle Eastern, & African countries to liberate those women & get those women justice, women in their own countries are suffering sexual assaults & not getting justice from their own leaders.
 
International Women's Day is celebrated with so much fanfare in Western countries, which by the way, are also known as "civilized" & "developed" countries, but be it the rights of Native women in Canada or students in universities all over North America, or the rights of female officers in Canada's RCMP or North American military forces, they are being trampled with nary a peep from civilian leadership.
 
Their rights of justice & fair treatment are not an issue because these women are not considered equal in society. They suffer even more if they are a minority, & not a middle-class / upper-class Caucasian woman. Civilian, judicial, & even military leaderships of all these Western countries enthusiastically harp about equal rights for both genders, but few, if any, walk the walk.
 
But, hey, we had to invade Afghanistan to liberate those women & get them those rights which are not apparently available to women in North America. Or we can't have veil wearing Muslim women in Canada because Canada is a transparent & open society where everyone is equal & a veil & hijabs are misogynistic pieces in a backward religion, practiced in backward, uncivilized, barbaric countries? It seems to me that Afghani, Iraqi, & Muslim women are far more luckier than North American non-Muslim women because so many powerful leaders of the Western countries are looking out for them. (sarcasm intended)
 
So, how about we clean up our own act first before point fingers at other countries & religions & purport to lecture them on treatment of women before we haven't cleaned up our house. All those commitments & acts of liberation of women sound a bit hollow when your own house is full of rubbish.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz garnered worldwide attention last year when she started lugging her dorm mattress around campus to protest the university’s decision that the man she says raped her in her dorm room was “not responsible” for the assault. Known around the world as Mattress Girl, she’s become an icon in the discussion around sexual assault on campuses & how universities are failing to take complaints of abuse seriously.
 
Since then, several female students from Canada have followed her lead & opened up about their own experiences.
 
Now, a new U.S. documentary about sexual assault on campus, The Hunting Ground, features interviews with dozens of women who were attacked on US campuses & who say that the only thing worse than the assault itself is how the university mishandled their cases after they reported them.
 
The film’s director, Kirby Dick, who also directed 2012′s The Invisible War—a film about rape in the US military—... talks about his latest project, how universities are complicit in perpetuating sexual violence on campuses, & what needs to change.
 
Q: What do you hope the outcome of the Title IX investigation will be? And will it change the way university administrations treat sexual assaults on campus?
 
A: ... no one in higher education wants sexual assaults to happen on campus, but they are so incentivized to keep it covered up. Maybe this film will help switch the incentive so that people–alumni, parents, students–will start demanding that schools be more transparent, that they take responsibility. What I’d really like to see is college presidents coming forward, on the record, on television, saying that this is an important issue at our school. I would like to see college presidents acknowledge that they have failed in the past & say they will personally take responsibility for making sure that changes take place. I think they could also apologize to the hundreds, if not thousands, of survivors on campus who have been mistreated over the past few decades. When you see college presidents going on the news talking about it in this way, that will signal that change has happened.
 
Q: There has been intense national attention in the US on the issue of sexual assault. The White House recently released PSAs about it, universities are introducing ‘Yes Means Yes’ sexual assault protocols, & the federal department of education is cracking down. Do you think the time has come when we will see permanent changes, or are you worried this is just a fad?
 
A: I’m very worried. I’m hopeful, but also worried. A lot of people thought this issue was addressed in the ’70s. People are shocked that it’s still happening on campuses. And of course it wasn’t, & not only that, it was buried again. This is an issue that will take at least a decade to change. This is not something that will happen overnight. It’s going to take a national effort & hopefully the film plays a role, but there’s a lot of other people that need to take control. It should be society’s responsibility.
 
Q: The film is full of deeply personal stories from women—& a couple of men—who experienced horrible abuse. What have you taken away from this?
 
A: When you’re doing the interviews, you’re just struck by how courageous these women are, in most cases, & sometimes men. And also just how vulnerable they were when they were assaulted & came forward, & still are, because they are young women taking on a centuries-old institution. It’s a combination of being very saddening & very enraging. I think that’s what you see in the film. Then of course, you see the hopeful piece with the students coming forward & taking action. As a filmmaker, I really want to be able to present, in a powerful & profound way, the truth of what is happening so that we can, as a nation, finally address it.

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/the-hunting-ground/

Analysis of the piece, "Banning the Niqab harms an open society...."

Although, this opinion piece starts out great but after the first paragraph, it's all downhill from there due to it being full with erroneous information & confusing the simpleton living on the main street.

Let's break down some of the problems with this piece:
 
1. Confusing the reader was evident from the piece & as such commented on it by a reader (Matt Hughes) that if we come across a veiled woman on the street, then what do we think or who do we blame; is it the woman's own choice of that niqab or her male relatives who forced her to wear it?
 
Most people don't like grey areas & as such, Mr. Joe & Jane Sixpacks on the main street will either ignore that veiled woman outright or start harassing her or her male relatives. If the Muslim woman says that she is wearing it on her own accord then the response will be that "you are brainwashed by your misogynistic male relatives (brother / husband / father). They won't understand that thin line between what's wrong with niqab in a liberal democracy & being forced to wear it.
 
2. Niqab is "anti-liberal" & "anti-democratic". Let me ask this then, why are there laws against indecent exposure in a liberal democracy? Per the author's logic that in a liberal democracy, the government cannot force an individual to dress a certain way. As he eloquently rephrased Pierre Trudeau's line that the state has no business in the dressing rooms of the nation, why are there laws against nudists roaming the streets in downtown areas of Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, & Montreal?
 
A liberal democracy certainly has no rights in the dressing rooms of the nation, but it also certainly doesn't have any rights to single out a tiny minority & make a pariah out of it without ever understanding the reasons behind a certain practice.
 
3. Author never made any distinction between a niqab & a hijab. Several people, & as such evident from the comments to the piece, that both hijab & niqab, are considered one & the same. (Comment by "NewsReader" that "the niqab is clearly misogynist. So is the hijab.").
 
There's a huge difference between a hijab & niqab, but the Mr. Joe & Jane Sixpacks on the street don't have a clue of that, since they have not understood Islam to its full extent & they have also not often interacted with Muslims, with different Islamic cultural practices.
 
4. To begin with the obvious, niqab & hijab have everything to do with Islam. Perhaps, the author likes to open the Quran & go to Chapter 33, Verse 33 where it says, "and stay in your houses & do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore ...." Although, this is directed towards Muslim women of "7th-century Arabia" & specifically, the wives of Prophet Muhammad & mothers of all Muslims worldwide, this is applicable to all Muslim women today.
 
Just because a majority is not following a certain practice, it doesn't mean that the practice is outdated now. Using the same logic, Christians should stop the "outdated" practice of fasting & prayers during Lent, since the majority don't observe Lent nowadays. Or Jews should stop the "outdated" practice of observing Shabbat since the majority of Jews don't observe Shabbat nowadays. We can keep going discussing "outdated" practices in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, since majority of the people around the world are not following their religions as dictated in their religious books & scriptures but I think the reader got the point.
 
Now, as I stated above that although, this was a practice of "7th century Arabia," Muslim women of today must dress how the Arab Muslim wives of Prophet did in his time. Question arises then that it was a cultural practice & Quran never actually dictates how a Muslim woman should dress.
 
True, but then Quran never provide specifics for a lot of things in Islam. Hadiths (sayings, practices, lifestyle of Prophet Muhammad) provide the specifics, but then, obviously, the Prophet did whatever he did in "7th-century Arabia" was according to that Arabian culture & times. Let's take a few examples:

a. Prayers: Quran only orders Muslims to pray. It never provide any specifics into it. So, why don't Muslims pray like singing in a choir (Christianity) or as an interpretive dance (Hinduism)? Why do they recite Quranic verses in Arabic when most Muslims of the world don't even have Arabic as their mother tongue? Why do Muslims do all those poses of standing, sitting, or prostration?

b. Fasting: Quran only orders Muslims to fast. So why don't Muslims fast from dawn till noon only? Why don't they fast like some people do in other religions e.g. drink water & don't take solids? Why Muslims abstain from sexual relations while fasting?

c. Alms: Quran only orders Muslims to give alms. So why don't Muslims give 10% of their gross income, similar to Christians? Why don't Muslims calculate alms like we all fill out our complicated taxes?

d. Pilgrimage: I think the readers got the idea that Quran only says perform pilgrimage. How, when, what, of pilgrimage are all provided to us in Hadiths.

So, it seems like that all pillars of Islam are based on the teachings of Prophet Muhammad & were passed down to today's Muslims through these Hadiths. Since, he was living in "7th-century Arabia", we can easily say that all these pillars of Islam are relics of "7th-century Arabia" & should not be followed now. Can we get even one fatwa from any Islamic scholar in the world to denounce all these Islamic pillars?

5. Author cites Al-Azhar University & Turkey as the proof that niqabs have nothing to do with Islam & hence, they are banned. That creates 2 problems. One that readers then ask the question, & rightly so, that why can't Canada then bans the niqabs when they have nothing to do with Islam & Islamic countries & Islamic organizations have spoken out against niqabs (reader: jjfoxy in the comments). That plays right into the hands of Harper & its supporters & anyone else who is against niqabs.

Secondly, citing some examples who support author's view amounts to misrepresenting the facts or confirming his own biases. The author certainly didn't check out the Quran's interpretation & explanations from prominent scholars, like South Asian scholar, Mawdudi, or even Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb. If the author prefers to consult a living scholar of this modern age, then there is Canadian scholar, Dr. Farhat Hashmi, who by the way, does have a PhD in "Hadith Sciences" from University of Glasgow, Scotland, & wears a niqab. Anyway, so what the author did, is called "fatwa shopping," which is when we don't like a certain fatwa or decision from one scholar, we shop around until we find the one we wanted in the first place.

Citing Al-Azhar University & Turkey as an example against niqab is also taking those examples out of context. Al-Azhar University is not the great center of Sunni learning anymore. It was at one time in the past, but, we cannot forget that their rulings / fatwas are heavily influenced by Egyptian dictators. Why aren't any scholars from Al-Azhar University issuing any fatwas against Sunni & Shiite Muslims fighting each other & killing each other all over Middle East? (That I think is far more important matter than niqabs, since that involves human lives).
 
We all know that Hosni Mubarak was a dictator who was ruling Egypt with an iron fist back in 2009, & hence, he forced Al-Azhar University to issue a statement, which he wanted in the first place. We also know that Turkish army, which tightly controls the government, don't allow Erdogan to bring in any legislation which breaks their almost 100-year-old strict traditions to not bring in Islamic practices like hijabs.
 
Taking things out of context, by same measure, the author can say tomorrow that Islam supports dictatorships, because of Imams of Islam's 2 holiest sites, Mecca & Medinah. Both of these Imams give Friday sermons to thousands of Muslims, which have to be pre-approved by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of religious affairs. Those Imams can't say 1 thing against Saudi Arabian regime, which tramples human rights at its will.
 
Taking anything out of context is a very dangerous practice. It is practiced by right-wing & ignorant people in North America, who don't understand Quran & Hadiths & take verses like "kill infidels wherever you find them" out of Quran, completely out of context, as their support for the argument that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Hardliners & extremists in Islam do the exact same thing to encourage Muslims, & especially new converts & misguided Muslims who have never studied Quran & Hadiths themselves, to kill non-Muslims.
 
6. The argument that women are forced to wear niqab or hijab (the author never distinguishes it in the piece) is flawed, since a majority of Muslim women, young & old, are wearing hijab & niqabs, in the West, on their own accord.
 
We can agree that Islamic countries, like Iran & Saudi Arabia, may have forced their women citizens to cover themselves, but what about Muslim women who are converting (e.g. widow of Boston bomber) & Muslim women who were born & raised in a Muslim family. Why are these women taking on niqabs & hijabs? These Muslim women are born & raised in countries where they know their rights & they know that the government will support them fully in whatever decision they take. We can watch multiple videos & documentaries by prominent news agencies, like BBC, on Youtube where new women converts are more strict on taking on niqabs & hijabs than born Muslim women, because those women converts actually learn Arabic & try to understand Quran & Hadiths in their pure forms, whereas, the language of most born Muslims isn't even Arabic, & being complacent in their own religion, they think why do I even need to understand my own religion, when I already know what I need to know about my religion.
 
7. Author goes on to state that "what separates liberal societies from dictatorships is that the former are open, allow for face-to-face consultation, encourage dissent, & recognize individuals as equals."
 
a. I have a problem when people say liberal societies are open. Define "open"? Aren't there laws & regulations to inhibit or stop us citizens & residents from doing certain things in these societies? A robber wants to rob people in an open society or, as I gave example above, a nudist wants to walk down Yonge street nude, or a teen driver without a driver's license wants to race down the highway way above the posted limits? Similar to a market is not exactly "free", no society is exactly "open".
 
b. Liberal societies allow for "face-to-face consultations" but PM Harper of Canada or any of its cabinet members have not had any consultations with any of the Muslim women in Canada on this sensitive topic of niqab. Heck, not even Zunera Ishaq, on whom this whole topic is based, has had any "face-to-face consultation" with the Prime Minister. Does that make Canada a dictatorship then?
 
c. Liberal societies "encourage dissent" but PM Harper does not allow dissent by allowing no journalist on the Parliament Hill to ask questions to the Prime Minister. Canadian scientists keep complaining that they are muzzled on climate change issues by this government. Peaceful protests & marches, be the G20 protests years ago or the most recent protests by unions, students, & Natives, were forcibly ended through amendments to legislation. Does all this make Canada a dictatorship then?
 
d. Since, Canada is a "liberal democracy" & per author, individuals are recognized as equals in a liberal democracy, then the question arises that why it took almost 30 years for Canadian government officials to recognize that 1,200 Natives women being sexually assaulted & murdered is a problem? If 1 woman of European descent gets assaulted & murdered in a Canadian city, then the whole police force is out in force to look for the perpetrator, but it took almost 30 years & 1,200 indigenous women to be assaulted & die, for the Canadian government to realize that we may have a problem on our hands. Are these Natives women being considered "equal" as their counterparts of other races & socio-economic demographic? Does this mean that Canada is a dictatorship, then?
 
All these trump the author's logic, on which his whole argument is based, that Canada is a liberal democracy & an open society.
 
8. Liberal societies must allow one citizen to see another citizen’s face when in conversation or contact. Question should be asked why does Islam asks women to wear hijab or niqab? It seems clear that Islam & "liberal societies" are in conflict in its values.
 
Let's look at this from a different perspective & forget about religion for a minute here.
 
When we want to see the beauty of a woman, do we look at her feet, or her legs, or her arms or her tummy? When males, young & old, are attracted towards a woman, what part of her body do they look at to judge her beauty?
 
The answer is obviously, her face. It's similar to women judging men; by their faces. When we go on any one of the multiple dating & relationship websites on the internet, men & women, both judge a person's attractiveness through their faces. After all, all those beauty products & all those billion-$$$ beauty companies are selling products for women to make their faces pretty & attractive. Women spend a fortune on those beauty products. Many even go as far as to have painful & expensive botox & facial treatments because they need to look good on the dating scene.
 
Now, the argument will come that Muslim men are very lustful & can't keep it in their pants. If that's the case, then why is there a Project97 in Canada, started by Rogers Media, right now? The name of Project 97 came from the fact that 97% of the sexual assaults & harassment in Canada is never reported to law enforcement agencies. Why are there so many sexual assault allegations against the legendary comedian, Bill Cosby? What about rape allegations in university campuses & frat houses all over North America? How about CBC's Jian Ghomeshi & his sexual assault cases against him? Are all the men implicated in these cases Muslims? Of course not.
 
It's basic human biology. Usually, women are not attracted to men on looks. They need a little more than that, which we all call, "foreplay." Ask any sex expert about foreplay, & the answer will be that it doesn't start 2 minutes before sexual intercourse. It starts way before it; perhaps, those flowers, chocolates, & that expensive dinner. But men are ready to go on a moment's notice; as soon as they see an attractive woman in a "cute" dress. Of course, we all know that I am not talking about the nun's dress here.
 
So, Islam protected women from men reducing a woman to "just a piece of meat" & forcing them to talk to her on an intellectual level by telling Muslim women to wear hijab or a niqab. When a Muslim woman is wearing a hijab or a niqab, her colleague, be it a Muslim or a non-Muslim, anywhere in this world, is forced to interact with her mind, not with her body.

There is a reason when we Muslims firmly believe that Islam gave rights & protected Muslim women back in "7th-century Arabia." Now, if somebody or a government forces its female citizens to do something against their will, we can't blame Islam.

Islam also never forces anyone to follow its orders. If a person doesn't like what Islam says, he/she is most welcome to get out of Islam; similar to, when an employee doesn't like his/her employer's rules, be it the dress code or internet usage rights, he/she is most welcome to leave the company, or if a citizen doesn't like a law made by a government, he/she is most welcome to leave that country & renounce his/her citizenship.

Most, if not all, of Islamic rituals / practices practiced by Muslims around the world are written in Hadiths, & not in Quran, which, as explained / proven above, is all based on Prophet Muhammad's actions & sayings in "7th-century Arabia". 

Since, the world keeps changing, Islamic scholars who are highly knowledgable, in religious & secular affairs, are required to issue fatwas like no niqabs for Muslim women, after taking on several factors into consideration, similar to the Justices of the Supreme Court do before issuing a ruling on a sensitive topic. These religious & social matters should not be ruled upon or issued opinions by Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, who doesn't have complete knowledge of Islam. Heck, friends, family, & followers of the Prophet Muhammad, in "7th-century Arabia" never questioned the Prophet or Quran & accepted those rules without any opposition. That, at least, is mentioned in Quran in several places, is the indication of a true believer, that "he hears it & acts upon it." 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/banning-the-niqab-harms-an-open-society-so-does-wearing-it/article23469409/

South African cops raping women

Although, rapes anywhere in any shape or form is horrible; in South Africa, cops apparently are far more actively involved in perpetrating these crimes themselves. This didn't make the worldwide media, unlike the India ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Broken Blue Line' conducted by the Johannesburg-based Institute of Race Relations, investigated the extent in which police officers in the country plan & execute serious & violent crimes such as murder, rape, & armed robbery.

And it drew a disturbing conclusion: that police involvement in serious & violent crimes, including rape & murder, were a 'pattern of behaviour' & not isolated incidents.

The report, funded by Afriforum, analysed 100 randomly chosen media reports from April 2011 to January 2015 on alleged police involvement in serious crimes.

Of those, 32 were murders & attempted murders, 22 were armed robberies, & 26 were rapes, as well as other serious offences.

In one incident, a woman was raped several times while in custody & in another, a woman was raped in court.

A 2011 version of the report had similar results, including a serious problem with sexual violence by police officers in a country which has one of the highest recorded rates of rape in the world.

It warned that 'violent crime levels in South Africa won’t turn around while the "wolf guards the sheep".' 

A report in Pretoria News in July 2013 said that almost 1,500 serving police officers had criminal records - which is more than one in every 100 officers in the country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2932717/Shocking-report-reveals-large-numbers-South-Africas-policemen-arresting-young-women-just-rape-them.html

Killing Them Softly Quote

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

International Women's Day 2015: something to be proud of?

So, International Women's Day (IWD) was on March 8th & a lot of rallies were taken out & lots of beautiful speeches were given around the world. If you didn't know already, IWD has been celebrated for over a century now:

1. Thanks to fashion show runways (e.g. Victoria's Secret), objectification of women's bodies is now perfectly fine in our “modern” society:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2891936/Oh-degrading-year-women-writes-SARAH-VINE.html

2. Thanks to silence of the media, sexual assaults & murders of almost 1,200 indigenous Natives women, in the past 30 years, in Canada, don’t even register on the government’s radar to do something about it (it is still just “talk” & more “discussion”):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/international-women-s-day-indigenous-women-still-not-equal-in-canada-1.2985100

3. Thanks to silence of the UN on the rape & human trafficking of women, even by its own peacekeepers (soldiers hailed from developed countries; US, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Netherlands etc), has not only silently condoned the abhorrent practice but has helped flourish it in almost 11 countries around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistleblower

Is this what IWD has been celebrating for the past century? Is this what IWD has been working towards for the past century? Are these some of the many “accomplishments” to be proud of?

Changing Indian men attitudes towards women is useless

This movie, "India's Daughter," is making big waves in the news especially due to International Women's Day. You must've came across several articles & blogs on this particular movie, world's reactions to it, & of course, reactions in India about this movie. Heck, you may have even watched it on YouTube.

Although, a lot can be written about women's rights in India, & in general, South Asia, & books after books have been written on it covering several aspects. Although, a little bit of digging around on google also unearths troves of stats about rape incidents in developed, Western countries; from the old continent to the New world, but for now, let's focus on India & this article.

Before, we get into the whole discussion of why India is having this problem of rape & how new strict laws punishing rape & sexual assaults against women won't do anything substantial in India, we need to agree on some biological facts:

1. Men & Women are aroused sexually in very different ways (assuming, both genders are of similar ages); men, just by looking at a women (depending on how much skin is being shown), & women need foreplay (not only in bed, but also being mentally prepared). Women don't get sexually aroused just by looking at a guy (otherwise, only buff guys would be getting girls & all other men would stay single). Of course, women also are aroused by sight, but it doesn't happen usually, & there are women who may have different standards. We are talking of facts as what usually happens, per the gender biology.

2. Sex is a very strong feeling. Everyone, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, race etc believe in having sexual relations (some twist it to the point of becoming delinquent, e.g. paedophiles).

Now, you may see a correlation in all of the news coming out of India about rape. Curiously, they are all done by men of a certain economic class; they are all poor. Rich men also assault women sexually, but not as frequently, & their news may get censored from public media, since they will throw money at the problem.

Problem with this movie, director's assertion, & MP, Anu Aga that Indian men don't respect women & the attitudes towards women need to be changed, is too simplistic. There are far too many other factors with this issue of sexual assaults. How do you change attitudes towards women when marketing sells everything (even ads of men's grooming products include a pretty woman in it), which essentially highlights the point that "sex sells".

Now, my firm belief is that regardless of whatever laws are enacted & enforced in India, against sexual assaults against women, they won't help curb the rate of sexual assaults. We may think they have but just because media is censoring that info does not mean it ain't happening (just like Western media censors a lot of info which will show the reality in the Western society).

Why do I think the laws won't help curb sexual assaults?
Because, the root problem is not being resolved with these laws.
Root problem: India is stuck between "Hollywood" & "Bollywood", i.e. India is stuck between 2 vastly different cultures (West & East):

You can't resolve something in your personal life or even professional life when you are of 2 or more minds. You need to choose 1 solution or path & go with that, & deal with its consequences later on, whatever they may be. When you have 2 vastly different options, then you can't do both, because you won't achieve anything.

So, how is India stuck between 2 vastly different cultures; West & East. Let's do a comparative analysis:

1. Movies, media, pop culture etc: In the West, all kinds of media, be it traditional or digital / social, is full of sexual images. Movies are full of sexual images, all the way to full frontal nudity & explicit sexual acts. TV shows are not leaving themselves behind in this race, either. Social media, like Facebook pages, Twitter, blogs, & of course, apps like Tinder & websites, match making websites to relationship-infidelity websites (AshleyMadison.com) are widely & easily available. Fashion shows from Milan to Paris to London to Dubai to New York are full of sexualized dresses, & how can we forget Victoria's Secret fashion show (one of the Daily Mail articles, from Dec 2014, also point to the fact that how women are objectified & sexualized through these shows), but, I digress.

Now, in the East (South Asia, in general), these movies & shows are becoming common. Everyone has access to Hollywood movies & shows (perhaps, explicit sexuality is censored but there are multiple ways to get around that ... thanks to piracy on internet). Bollywood & Lollywood (Pakistani) movies & shows don't show explicit sexuality but there's enough of softcore "porn" / sexuality in them already.

Now, as biological fact # 1 stated above, millions of men, especially since, we know already that South Asian demographic is heavily skewed towards young (& especially in India, towards men), are watching these sexual images in media, & are very sexually aroused.

2. Now, when there are sexually around men (& some women, too, but far more men), they have 2 options:

a. release that sexual energy through internet
b. release that sexual energy through a girl / woman (girlfriend or not).

So what are the problems with point a: to view a porn website, one needs a computer & the whole infrastructure (internet, modem etc). Many poor men / boys don't have access to personal computer & internet etc. So they frequently visit computer shops, where for a few rupees, they can watch the videos, & can rent out a small room for some privacy.

This, in turn, creates 2 more problems:
i). men get a skewed sense of sexual relationships. As we all know, porn usually shows submissive women & dominant men. Most of the times, even if the culture is not already macho (South Asia, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe), young boys & men will get the idea that man is supposed to be dominant & dominate the woman, whether in a committed relationship or not.

ii). these porn websites, Facebook pages, Twitter & blogs are suppliers of a demand created by these men. These men want more & more of these videos & pics. Many videos & pics are shared through cellphones & many times, are made of actual rape attacks, happening in cities & villages.

b. Problem with point b are multiple:
i). many men also eventually get tired of merely watching movies (point a) & start yearning for some real action (so they also move down to point b). Now, all these sexually-aroused men are looking for girls to satisfy their sexual hunger.

ii). Now, in the West, when men want some sexual action & if they are not already in a committed relationship, they go to any bar or dance club or strip club or even pick a prostitute off the street, for a quick hookup.

In South Asia, prostitution in brothels still happens, but those girls don't exactly look nearly as good as the girls portrayed in porn films or even in media (movies & TV shows). Also, they can be HIV-infected & those places are not exactly very cheap. These places are also not available everywhere. Those brothels, wherever they are available, are still pretty full to the point, where girls are trafficked heavily from the Northern areas (for their fair complexion) to the brothels of Delhi & Mumbai. That's a whole different issue which I am not going to get into here.

Good-looking girls, from the top echelons of South Asian society, also sell their bodies, but they cost around a year's or 2 years' worth of salary (anywhere from Rs. 50,000 to 200,000). So, those girls are exclusive to rich men.

Now, as far as bars or strip clubs or even dance clubs are concerned, legions of poor men can't visit good ones (because of price). Cheaper bars are, well, full of men & devoid of any women. Women who frequent dance clubs are usually more educated & Westernized, so obviously, they visit some high class dance clubs or bars & not any club on the street. Obviously, men there are also wealthy & educated (from the same economic class who can hire expensive escorts, too, as explained above).

So, what does a poor man got to do to release his sexual energy? Unlike, in the West, he can't just go to any bar or dance club or get a street hooker. He could get into a relationship where his girlfriend / wife will provide him sexual relief ... assuming he is willing to get married or be in a steady relationship.

iii). In the West, relationships are not usually based on education & wealth of both men & women. In South Asia, they are very much entrenched in the society. A man is asked about his wealth, income, & education, before a girl (or her family) even thinks / considers / get permission to have a relationship with him. Now, a poor man in South Asia will most likely can't get a good education (Doctor, MBA, CA, or an Engineer), so he will most likely don't have a great amount of wealth or monthly income. What can he do? Good education is not cheap & a good job, without a degree from a top university, is not available. So, even if he wants to get married or have a girlfriend, he can't get married or find a girlfriend.

iv). In the West, girls can have multiple pre-marital relationships before settling down with a guy. They can even have kids from their previous relationships. They can be frequently visiting dance clubs & bars. Several relationships start from hookups from bars & dance clubs.

Not so in South Asia. Girls who are Westernized (dress, education, pre-marital relations) are not considered as "wife-material". Apart from the problem explained in ii) above, it is entrenched in society that girls who will be good wives & mothers to our progeny are not found in dance clubs & bars (the rapist, Mukesh Singh, reflects this in the movie that good girls are not out of their house that late at night). This thinking is not merely entrenched in young men, but deeply entrenched in society by the elders of the society.

These are some of the many reasons why I think stricter laws won't help curb sexual assaults in India. Actually, it's only going to get worse, thanks to the illegal, but active, abortions of female fetuses. This action is going to increase the gender imbalance in India, to the point, where there will be far more sexually hungry men vying for a few women.

So what are the real solutions to this problem:

1. There are no quick fixes. Everything is long-term. First choose the society South Asia wants to emulate.
a. Be like the West & remove all those entrenched shackles of caste, economic class divisions, dowries, taboos against girls having pre-marital relationships, abortions of female fetuses, marriages based on education & wealth etc.

OR

b. Be like the East & insulate yourself from Hollywood. Stop even softcore "porn" in Bollywood movies. Strictly control the media (traditional & social). Of course, this is a much-harder exercise & perhaps, an exercise in futility, because the government will be labelled as backwards & dictatorial & the general public will still be able to seek out sexual websites. 

So, merely changing attitudes of Indian men towards women not going to achieve anything. Heck, the West hasn't been able to achieve that in its own society. After all, porn is the best recession-proof business on the internet & it only give the skewed picture of a sexual relationship & gender roles in the society. If men in the West would've gotten refined up to now, then we wouldn't have movies like "The Whistleblower" showing UN soldiers from Canada, US, & Europe, actively engaged in sexually assaulting young Eastern European girls, without any fear of repercussions. They didn't get punished anyway.

My ultimate solution of stopping these sexual assaults is quite radical & religion-based, so obviously, most people around the world will not support it, & will keep trying some modern ways to fix the problem, even though, sexual assaults & women trafficking for sexual slavery are only on the rise, all over the world. Is this what "International Women's Day" celebrating?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/indias-daughter-director-appeals-to-narendra-modi-over-broadcast-ban

Cloud Atlas (Quote # 5)

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

2014: A degrading year for women

A good column from Dec 2014. This column is great for me to blog on the popular topic of "equal pay", as Patricia Arquette has again put the spotlight on it in her Oscars' award acceptance speech, but that one saved for another time (actually, this one also mentions this hot topic).
Very hard to choose excerpts from this column to put it here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has there ever been a more depressing year for feminism than 2014?

... it seemed the world’s most famous women - whose every move is avidly followed by millions of impressionable girls on social media - were busy throwing buckets of ice over themselves or posting ‘brave’ pictures without any make-up on.
Ostensibly, this was for charity, but it was really to show off how much better they look in a wet T-shirt or without cosmetics than the rest of us.
 
It was also the year when every B-list celebrity, from Kelly Osbourne to Kelly Brook, started taking risqué pictures of their cleavage or bottoms & posting them on Instagram & Twitter, with legions of fans inevitably following suit.
Meanwhile, a cartload of over-paid, under-fed & perma-tanned supermodels rolled into town, courtesy of lingerie store Victoria’s Secret, & proceeded to prance around semi-naked... .
 
Not since the slave markets of Ancient Rome have women been judged so blatantly by their appearance, analysed so openly as little more than a collection of body parts. And the worst part is this: the sisters are doing it to themselves.
 
For women - & women alone - are responsible for this rampant self-objectification. This time, we really cannot blame the patriarchy.
 
No one is forcing young women to have their breasts enhanced (one of the most popular plastic surgery procedures of 2014) or to leave the house trussed up like living, breathing blow-up dolls.
 
From the preoccupation with ‘thigh gaps’ (that faintly obscene obsession of super-skinny models) to a seeming inability to pose for a photo without pouting like a demented trout, all too many women seemed to engage in ever more vacuous vanities. Eyelashes were so over-the-top that girls were straining to see past the end of their noses & cleavages had more suspension than the Severn Bridge.
 
So there you have it. Decades of feminism & it seems the best use we can find for equal pay is to spend it on buying ourselves a body like Barbie’s & a wardrobe like Katie Price’s. Was it really for this that Emily Davison fell under the King’s horse?
 
And if all of this is confusing for a woman like me, who thought the whole point of equality was that I could at last be judged on my ability to converse fluently on foreign policy, not how I look in a bikini, imagine how unfathomable it must be for the poor male of the species.
 
If I could wish for anything in 2015, it’s for this insanity to stop. For women to stop making such fools of themselves, to rediscover some dignity. Above all to stop frittering away the freedoms so hard won by our predecessors & that, let’s not forget, are still denied to many.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2891936/Oh-degrading-year-women-writes-SARAH-VINE.html

 

Jewish newspaper removes women from Paris march

Imagine the outrage in media & the world, if this would've been done by an orthodox Islamic newspaper & expect a minor mention in BBC, this is not reported in North American or European media

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30798061