"The 19-year-old student had been at a party. By 2.37am, she left the party. Maria then cycled home, as usual " is that a time for a girl to be out anyway that doesn't make what he did correct probably he need to be punished according to the laws .
and can't blame every immigrant can you ? for a pathetic behavior of one guy .
She was 19 year old medical student- they probably have/had a better law and order situation than our parts. Otherwise " for a girl" is kind of... archaic idea isn't it?
e.g.: A pediatrician/nurse can get called even in middle of the night by obstetricians and gynecologist in case someone's delivery is due. The call/service centers run to cater to western countries often have odd timings. And girls working at airports for airlines etc also may have the same problem easily. It's getting more and more common as women join the paid workforce and a host of them involve night duties. And if they are working you cannot really deny them late party timing on the grounds of being a " girl". Does it matter where are you returning from in such a case?
She was 19 and returning from a party- they probably have/had a better law and order situation than our parts. Otherwise " for a girl" is kind of... archaic idea isn't it?
Well anyone should have an idea of there enviroment and act with precaution, running alone in the middle of the night in a shady area is never smart idea for anyone especially a girl it's just a matter of not putting yourself in vulnerable situations she should of went out with friends or went to a safer public area
Well anyone should have an idea of there enviroment and act with precaution, running alone in the middle of the night in a shady area is never smart idea for anyone especially a girl it's just a matter of not putting yourself in vulnerable situations she should of went out with friends or went to a safer public area
Did you miss "they probably have/had a better law and order situation than our parts"?
It would be really silly to assume only you have enough senses to decide what a vulnerable situation is and what isn't. If somebody has been following a routine for a long time, they usually do so because it's usually safe and they have been comfortable with the environment around. + You are suggesting that working women need an escort. So what about those who cannot afford one? They shouldn't work?
The archaic idea that 'it isn't time for a girl to be outside' is what makes trouble makers jump to idea of this girl is 'out and taking a risk knowingly by herself and thus putting herself out" and "giving us an opportunity". And often used for justifications after making violations in such a case. It's not something that's to be raised unless you are discussing safety precautions only. Otherwise why someone was at some place at a given time is not your concern- it could be anything but it doesn't give anyone a right to violate anybody.
Well anyone should have an idea of there enviroment and act with precaution, running alone in the middle of the night in a shady area is never smart idea for anyone especially a girl it's just a matter of not putting yourself in vulnerable situations she should of went out with friends or went to a safer public area
Or maybe she just did not expect that the people she helped and fed during the day would rape and slaughter her during the night.
What's with the excuses here...2.30 am is late? It's perfectly normal that people go out and come back around 5 am..
Did you miss "they probably have/had a better law and order situation than our parts"?
It would be really silly to assume only you would have enough senses to decide what a vulnerable situation is and what isn't. If somebody has been following a routine for a long time, they usually do so because it's usually safe and they have been comfortable with the environment around. + You are suggesting that working women need an escort. So what about those who cannot afford one? They shouldn't work?
The archaic idea that 'it isn't time for a girl to be outside' is what makes trouble makers jump to idea of this girl is 'out and taking a risk knowingly by herself and thus putting herself out" and "giving us an opportunity". And often used for justifications after making violations in such a case. It's not something that's to be raised unless you are discussing safety precautions only. Otherwise why someone was at some place at a given time is not your concern- it could be anything but it doesn't give anyone a right to violate anybody.
I think I was pretty clear in the point I was making I never said a women has a right to be violated, but I said both men and woman shouldn't be putting themselves in vulnerable situations but for some reason some woman want to label a guy misogynistic for stating this, this isn't a perfect world to act like it is puts the individual at risk
Or maybe she just did not expect that the people she helped and fed during the day would rape and slaughter her during the night.
What's with the excuses here...2.30 am is late? It's perfectly normal that people go out and come back around 5 am..
If this was a perfect world yes then things like this would never happen but since it isn't we should be mindful of our enviroment I don't know anything about where this women lives but for anyone should be mindful of their surroundings, responsiblity just doesn't fall on individuals to keep themselves safe but the govt as well by areas having cameras and police patrolling to keep the streets safer. I'm confused how anyone could disagree with this.
I think I was pretty clear in the point I was making I never said a women has a right to be violated, but I said both men and woman shouldn't be putting themselves in vulnerable situations but for some reason some woman want to label a guy misogynistic for stating this, this isn't a perfect world to act like it is puts the individual at risk
You didn't say it for both nor anyone called you misogynistic. So I would say you are getting defensive and triggered for no reason.
The problem is that you are missing a simple point- as far as that girl was concern she probably didn't think she was risking herself. The term "risk" suggest a bad law and order situation. If law and order situation is not that bad then risk factor reduces too. If it's getting worse recently and it was 'wrong decision' for her to be out there at that hour now, then you have to accept that certain changes in the area made it worse.
If this was a perfect world yes then things like this would never happen but since it isn't we should be mindful of our enviroment I don't know anything about where this women lives but for anyone should be mindful of their surroundings, responsiblity just doesn't fall on individuals to keep themselves safe but the govt as well by areas having cameras and police patrolling to keep the streets safer. I'm confused how anyone could disagree with this.
To be mindful of environment, you have to accept to accept the changing environment too. And denials of it getting worse because of certain new factors doesn't make one more aware of increased risks but more neglectful about it. If an area turned shady only recently then you have to acknowledge it to make people take more precautions. If you only do the second part and deny first, you will only annoy people by insulting their intelligence.
Earlier you blamed media and government for making certain areas look bad deliberately, and now you declare it to be fault of the timing of the girl. smh
Question still remains - so what about working women who return late and cannot afford an escort? If companies have to provide escorts for them, will they still hire them?
The infamous Delhi rape victim was with a friend. She still end up dead. There is no end to precautions at any given time and area.
"The 19-year-old student had been at a party. By 2.37am, she left the party. Maria then cycled home, as usual " is that a time for a girl to be out anyway that doesn't make what he did correct probably he need to be punished according to the laws .
and can't blame every immigrant can you ? for a pathetic behavior of one guy .
You didn't say it for both nor anyone called you misogynistic. So I would say you are getting defensive and triggered for no reason.
The problem is that you are missing a simple point- as far as that girl was concern she probably didn't think she was risking herself. The term "risk" suggest a bad law and order situation. If law and order situation is not that bad then risk factor reduces too. If it's getting worse recently and it was wrong for her to be out there at that hour now , then you have to accept that certain changes in the area made it worse.
To be mindful of environment, you have to accept to accept the changing environment too. And denials of it getting worse because of certain new factors doesn't make one more aware of increased risks but more neglectful about it .
Earlier you blamed media and government for making certain areas look bad deliberately, and now you declare it to be fault of the timing of the girl. smh
I never said you called me a misogynist I was referring to when I see this point brought there's certain woman that refer to it as victim blaming, they say things like the criminal shouldn't of done the crime (obviously) and in some way by telling people to keep themselves safe we are supporting the criminal.
We both don't know the facts of the matter and this could be one of those situations where an individual was cautious, but was still victimized. I was just stating in a general sense what we as individuals can do to make sure situations like this doesn't happen. A person should also expect govt policies that ensure the safety of the citizens.
To your last statement I was making the point how media purposefully skews coverage to create a narrative instead of this being a story of a lone criminal a group of people will feel the consequences of his actions. Also I never said it was this woman's fault and by you interpreting it that way is highlights my earlier point.
If this was a perfect world yes then things like this would never happen but since it isn't we should be mindful of our enviroment I don't know anything about where this women lives but for anyone should be mindful of their surroundings, responsiblity just doesn't fall on individuals to keep themselves safe but the govt as well by areas having cameras and police patrolling to keep the streets safer. I'm confused how anyone could disagree with this.
U are right. It is the responsibility of the govt as well. But in these parts the "fear" of being called a racist has become a disease here.
Even if people are just pointing out facts. They would rather not that the refugees be fixated on too much, cause it is discrimenation and politcally incorrect. This is really the harsh truth..Having police patrolling areas where refugees are would just send the wrong message to the people that is indeed not really safe.. That would be the same as admitting fault that this whole crisis was indeed controlled badly. They rather walk around with blinders, sadly the problems won't leave that way.
You didn't say it for both nor anyone called you misogynistic. So I would say you are getting defensive and triggered for no reason.
The problem is that you are missing a simple point- as far as that girl was concern she probably didn't think she was risking herself. The term "risk" suggest a bad law and order situation. If law and order situation is not that bad then risk factor reduces too. If it's getting worse recently and it was 'wrong decision' for her to be out there at that hour now, then you have to accept that certain changes in the area made it worse.
To be mindful of environment, you have to accept to accept the changing environment too. And denials of it getting worse because of certain new factors doesn't make one more aware of increased risks but more neglectful about it. If an area turned shady only recently then you have to acknowledge it to make people take more precautions. If you only do the second part and deny first, you will only annoy people by insulting their intelligence.
Earlier you blamed media and government for making certain areas look bad deliberately, and now you declare it to be fault of the timing of the girl. smh
Question still remains - so what about working women who return late and cannot afford an escort? If companies have to provide escorts for them, will they still hire them?
The infamous Delhi rape victim was with a friend. She still end up dead. There is no end to precautions at any given time and area.
Before I go to answering you could you answer if I'm saying something wrong, based on your responses your misunderstanding the very points I'm making and imposing things I never said.
I never blamed the media of making areas look worse than they are my issue was with the coverage.
And I never said woman should have escorts at all times, but just be cautious and take necessary precautions if necessary. Is there something wrong with that statement?
Again I feel like I'm being as clear as possible I'm confused where the misunderstanding is coming from.
Before I go to answering you could you answer if I'm saying something wrong, based on your responses your misunderstanding the very points I'm making and imposing things I never said.
I never blamed the media of making areas look worse than they are my issue was with the coverage.
And I never said woman should have escorts at all times, but just be cautious and take necessary precautions if necessary. Is there something wrong with that statement?
Again I feel like I'm being as clear as possible I'm confused where the misunderstanding is coming from.
Not that the local native would never do it. people think like these people were running away from war and Islamic fundamentalism and they were given a new life how can they end up like this. And that is retarded. They boarded boat to the faraway land for free shit and beautiful womyn and rape infidels. And denying such people dont exist and opening border is even more retarded.
I never said you called me a misogynist I was referring to when I see this point brought there's certain woman that refer to it as victim blaming, they say things like the criminal shouldn't of done the crime (obviously) and in some way by telling people to keep themselves safe we are supporting the criminal.
They have very good reasons for that. The very first being the inherent suggestion that the person was fully aware of the what would happen and yet followed that route knowing that.
The list of precautions for women never ends. There is always a next level and people are suggesting without realizing the added implications.
Rule 1- Be aware of shady area and environment all the time- that automatically means be aware of changes and of the areas that turn shady only recently -- be first to know and avoid them beforehand. That would also mean be apprehensive of new people moving in the area. But while people insist women be aware of it they also take offense when it's suggested that it's getting less safe with new people coming in.
And no it doesn't matter who these people are - more the population, the number of crime automatically increases too even if total crime rate per thousand remains the same. It's likely to be more disproportionately higher if the new population is made of uprooted people with different cultural values and poor socioeconomic conditions etc. If they are fewer in numbers they get absorbed and settled faster. Ot it may take a really long time before you can bridge the gap.
So the government who voluntarily took in refugees should have prepared themselves and their people - but obviously they didn't think it through. They opened border and made it free for all without checks. These countries will face visible changes in their surroundings and societies in coming time. There is no hiding from that truth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Rule 2- Don't be out at night or at least not alone at night- meaning your opportunities to find work and better pay also decreases. Men of course insist that women get less pay and promotions and job opportunities because they work less and not do certain chores and at the same time they tell them to follow such safety rules that reduces their participation in work force and chances of promotion or better grade. Then they also resent when they are made to pay up support due to these very reasons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Still so far it seems reasonable doesn't it? But when these factors are neutralized comes a third one-
Rule3- Dress modestly. Now it has no limit either. How modest is modest? Even if you are covered from head to toe there some suggest an outer covering to hide the physique 100% disregarding how uncomfortable/restrictive it maybe for the woman. People also forget that when all of them dressed up moderately some decades or a century ago there was still the idea of women not dressing appropriately- Dress in sober colours and wearing bright cloths is "flashy" and attention seeking.
And nope it doesn't end here either:
Rule 4: Don't talk. Don't talk loudly or argue with men- since it makes them feel stressed and become violent. Don't talk with them normally that may involve smiling because that sends wrong signals too. Better talk only when you must, in a low voice and very politely. Wait! The fact that you are talking to a guy at all may still send a wrong signal to other men seeing you are talking to a guy. So Don't talk to any guy in public at all. And nope no kidding.
I have heard more than one stories while growing up ( and narrated very proudly) like how one of the relatives daughter maintained very high standard of appropriate behaviour- when she joined college, one of his first cousins also attended the same college and said a hello when he saw her there. She slapped him soundly and told him not to talk her in college again. And when he complained at home his family told him he was in the wrong and that it could cause her problems if she was seen talking by other male students if she was seen talking to guys at all. People actually endorsed her and guys in the family were told not to approach her. Now these stories are from my mom's generation ( and there were many other variations of the same) so one would think these ideas are outdated now. Nope. These stories are told to repeatedly to girls of growing age to instill the code of conduct telling them how behaving like that help these women keep their 'reputation' safe previously.
No wonder when men from such regions go outside and see women moving and talking around freely, get all their brains fried up. Not that they have not been still perusing women before. But they have compartmentalized women who are "good" and women who are available. Completely disregarding her consent factor because by now they have established that women are not supposed to talk and accept the advances openly to keep the facade of " good person" forced upon them by the society and at the same time they perceive them sending hidden signals to all and sundry- even if they sent it to only one person or not at all and only they thought she was.
I find these rules asinine at this point but the list doesn't end here either. Talk to more people from more conservative communities and you will hear some more. But I think I made my point clear. The list of safety rules is just too damn long and most of you lecturing women on it don't even seem to realize why women react the way they do listening it.
In short- don't assume such women being idiots who endangered themselves knowing there was a criminal lurking out there at that given time and location. They can be anywhere.
sagebee said:
We both don't know the facts of the matter and this could be one of those situations where an individual was cautious, but was still victimized. I was just stating in a general sense what we as individuals can do to make sure situations like this doesn't happen. A person should also expect govt policies that ensure the safety of the citizens.
No what you did was butting in a conversation I was having with another person. I had posted what I had because of how he formed his particular post. And you have been distracting without giving a thought to the context in my initial post to that person.
sagebee said:
To your last statement I was making the point how media purposefully skews coverage to create a narrative instead of this being a story of a lone criminal a group of people will feel the consequences of his actions. Also I never said it was this woman's fault and by you interpreting it that way is highlights my earlier point.
You made a parallel while looking though a narrow window and seem to suggest media always works to disadvantage of such groups at large. You didn't have any point there to begin with.
Before I go to answering you could you answer if I'm saying something wrong, based on your responses your misunderstanding the very points I'm making and imposing things I never said.
I never blamed the media of making areas look worse than they are my issue was with the coverage.
Media does clickable news. But it's a myth that all the media in all the modern democratic countries works against minority groups and makes them look bad deliberately all the time. On top of it major minority groups which can harness international support from other countries often have strong and rich political and media houses and media lobbies of their own. They also tend to vote more cohesively organized way and thus many politicians see them as a mass vote bank. So factually they end up having the upper hand over many narratives in the media.
Denials and conspiracy stories may help in shifting the blame but in long term they don't benefit either side. Because when people refuse to acknowledge trouble within their community, shelter such troublemakers and find excuses for them the problematic people of the group act as cancer cells for the rest of the body too. The good people even if in majority of the community, end up feeling the effect. Often from within as well as from outside.
I never said you called me a misogynist I was referring to when I see this point brought there's certain woman that refer to it as victim blaming, they say things like the criminal shouldn't of done the crime (obviously) and in some way by telling people to keep themselves safe we are supporting the criminal. We both don't know the facts of the matter and this could be one of those situations where an individual was cautious, but was still victimized.
Maybe because that's exactly you are already doing it even if unconsciously. You are shifting focus from the crime to the idea that the young woman was wrong for being out there at that hour by not taking proper precaution. You give her benefit of doubt but you already shifted the topic to her and female responsibility towards their own safety instead of worsening law and order situation. And repeating it over and over implying that these women would have avoided the incident if they weren't there at that time.
I was just stating in a general sense what we as individuals can do to make sure situations like this doesn't happen. A person should also expect govt policies that ensure the safety of the citizens.
- Well I have news for you- there would be no victims of either gender in the world of any crime if they were not at a wrong place at a wrong time. But we don't live in a perfect world so people miscalculate the risk factors or have to still go on with their life just to be able to keep living. I agree on that it's still government's job to provide better law and order situation or own up their failure. That was my point to begin with.
To your last statement I was making the point how media purposefully skews coverage to create a narrative instead of this being a story of a lone criminal a group of people will feel the consequences of his actions. Also I never said it was this woman's fault and by you interpreting it that way is highlights my earlier point.
Already replied to this part- info wars and narratives aren't one sided. Pretty often, in a bid to keep the majority docile and in control a lot of negative news against their interest is played down.
And for the nth time save your preaching about safety rules since bringing it up means you think women need to be told about it by you. News flash- they already know it. But one simply cannot go on with their daily life looking over their shoulder 24/7 and crimes happen despite that.
I never said woman should have escorts at all times, but just be cautious and take necessary precautions if necessary. Is there something wrong with that statement?
Again I feel like I'm being as clear as possible I'm confused where the misunderstanding is coming from.
You are failing to even notice where your suggestions are going- you said she should have been with friends. What's your suggestion for the women who have to travel to and for on routine basis?
We have companies here which actually provide cabs to women and these cabs are monitored strictly to ensure safety of women returning home at odd hours. And still couldn't avoid all such cases. Stop assuming that victim needs a lecture about not following safety rules.
It's ironic that after every such incident people pop up lecturing women for not taking enough precautions and yet when an airlines doesn't let a lone child travel sitting beside a single male they complain that they are treating all men as a suspected criminal.
U are right. It is the responsibility of the govt as well. But in these parts the "fear" of being called a racist has become a disease here.
Even if people are just pointing out facts. They would rather not that the refugees be fixated on too much, cause it is discrimenation and politcally incorrect. This is really the harsh truth..Having police patrolling areas where refugees are would just send the wrong message to the people that is indeed not really safe.. That would be the same as admitting fault that this whole crisis was indeed controlled badly. They rather walk around with blinders, sadly the problems won't leave that way.
The bid to be politically correct and not making people more aware of danger to avoid negative sentiments for incoming population doesn't help in making people being more alert but lulls their senses.
More population is very likely to increase number of crimes even if total crime rate remains the same. Sudden influx of new people makes it more noticeable regardless of people's background. Instead of looking at it with racist/bigoted goggles they should increase policing in the area for the safety of the immigrants too. People living in camps are often not safe from each other too. Criminals often do not discriminate and people living in camps are often more afraid to report similar incidents.
She was 19 year old medical student- they probably have/had a better law and order situation than our parts. Otherwise " for a girl" is kind of... archaic idea isn't it?
e.g.: A pediatrician/nurse can get called even in middle of the night by obstetricians and gynecologist in case someone's delivery is due. The call/service centers run to cater to western countries often have odd timings. And girls working at airports for airlines etc also may have the same problem easily. It's getting more and more common as women join the paid workforce and a host of them involve night duties. And if they are working you cannot really deny them late party timing on the grounds of being a " girl". Does it matter where are you returning from in such a case?
It will be a lie if i tell you, i didn't thought about it and women in western countries have more liberties than in our parts it might be the reason you gave or having more freedom but this guy is a Afghan immigrant probably he did had the same mind set that some males have in our parts and might've stalked her for opportunities ( as in many rape cases ) if this is her usual routine and it might looked like a idea of old times but it's done on purpose of bringing up that one must be cautious about their safety .
and as the saying goes in wild when predators are around the prey must be cautious about it's safety i think it goes same with men with wilder minds that doesn't have a control over them ( probably not every man have a control over their desires and morals to get what they want in right ways not in wrong ways ) and like that women must be cautious about their safety even though situation called for them to go out late like that .
btw what i used above is just a metaphor no intention of victimizing women .
