An acquaintance of mine told me of how the general public in Romania (where he’s from, ~18 years ago) would arm themselves with small bats for self-protection (since they weren’t allowed firearms, and the police there were useless). I pushed him to describe the bats (he seemed reluctant); they’re roughly the same length as a drummer’s drumstick, and about an inch in diameter. He made them out to be so commonplace that I suggested that the introduction of a Louisville Slugger there would grossly upset the balance of power. One example of the little bat’s use: His neighbor, at home, happened upon a burglar who was wearing the wife’s fur coat, trying to escape by scaling the garden wall, then the neighbor going at the burglar with the bat. Apparently, this sort of thing happens a lot there; the bat thing, not the fur coat thing. He also mentioned having to beat off gypsies, but I could see where that was going so I cut him off.
I don’t know, that’s why I asked. I suspect that some in America might ask why a woman would marry a man who beats her when he gets drunk. Or maybe it’s just a random fact.
Domestic violence is a reality for women worldwide, but many countries still consider it to be acceptable. Russia just passed a law decriminalizing it.
In India “one in ten child deaths under the age of one in India can be attributed to domestic violence against the mother during the marriage.”
And women are socialized to accept domestic violence as part of married life.
"Women are socialised early on to submit to unfair treatment and even violence.
“It’s ingrained with them from the beginning that they have to ‘adjust’ to whatever their lot is, because marriage is a must, marriage is for life, that your husband is akin to a god to you, and that without him you’re nothing,” says Flavia Agnes, a lawyer whose experience of domestic violence inspired her to fight for women’s rights."
"The programming is so effective that a higher proportion of women, compared with men, find wife-beating justifiable under some circumstances, according to the NHFS-III. Beatings are considered acceptable by more than 50 percent of both sexes.
Sure, that’s possible. It’s also possible that she didn’t know him very well because the marriage was arranged by the parents. Or even something else that hasn’t occurred to either of us.
I’m advocating for the minimum acceptable bar, one that has been implemented in numerous cultures and countries, some much less likely then theirs, and already in places in theirs already. It isn’t a high bar, it is the minimal bar, and the only one that will make any real lasting difference.
I’d argue that it isn’t reasonable to hand out sticks as a solution to domestic abuse. It puts the women at much greater risk, perpetuates a culture of violence, and is a male non-solution harm causing token gesture to a real problem facing the women of that region on a daily basis. This is a textbook example of the type of solutions that causes far more harm then good.
In fact this isn’t the first go at this type of solution in India, there is actually a long tradition of near identical politicians creating similar small scale public displays that aren’t real solutions. Wasn’t it canes last time? 700 sticks, with a “promise” (we’ve heard that every time) of 10,000 more. 10,700 sticks. even if sticks worked, smdh, it should be clear the motivation. Only to brides? I’d hope they’d have a few nice years before they need a husband bludgeoner…he really doesn’t seem interested in solving the actual problem does he?
The only success story taking this route i can recall was when that indian lady setup actual self defense classes and support groups for women so they could have power in numbers. The key was they acted in groups.
That is precisely why they are needed. This has been the case every time these sorts of real changes have been needed. Again a lot of history backing those ideas up, never were they implemented in a void during a perfect easy time.
All of those things would upset the social order. This perpetuates it. It’s pretty clear which one a guy who benefits from the current social order will choose.
Currently given the poverty of rural India that is not a credible solution. I’m not, I hope, being rude, but have you ever visited rural India? Not city poverty, which is bad enough but is seen by tourists, but actual rural poverty? Because you are writing as if it was a First World country.
Micro-credit banks and mobile phones are making a difference, but it’s going to be a slow process. By Indian village standards, the first white settlers in America were already rich.
See above. With the exception of micro-credit banking all of those things cost more money than the rural economy can sustain. He is challenging rather than perpetrating the existing order by telling the women that they are allowed to fight back. In fact, this is reaching the standards of the 19th century in Europe.
Missed a trick.
These are wooden clothes cleaning bats. The men would not take charge of them because they would lose status by touching them. The Minister understands Indian psychology.
I’m getting rather tired of this misrepresentation. “Decriminalising” does not mean that something is no longer an offence or is moved to civil litigation.
I think the actual law will probably be counterproductive but its intentions were not bad. The idea was that men committing minor acts of domestic violence would be committed to get treatment, but more serious assaults or repetition would continue to be a felony (the law doesn’t remove minor domestic violence from the criminal system, it reduces it below the felony threshold.)
The idea was that women might not report domestic violence because their husbands would then be sent to prison, which might make the situation worse. This is supposed to be an “intervention” approach.
As I say, I suspect it won’t work, but that is largely due to misreporting and what many men will believe to be the case. Right up till they are bound over and told that next time it will be a prison sentence.
Unfortunately although the full text of articles explaining the law is available in English as well as Russian, it tends not to get read.
This is not a misrepresentation. Domestic violence charges can now be resolved with a fine, as long as the offender is only reported once in a year.
I am fully aware of the reasoning behind the changes and disagree with them, not because I think that the laws on their own can solve anything, but because it is a tacit nod from authorities allowing some level of wife beating. Those are not good intentions for the welfare of women and children.
As long as it is socially acceptable it will continue, as in India.
Yes I have, have you? Not only that my housemate and two of my co-workers and a number of my friends have moved here from india in the last few years. I’m familiar with the history of this exact type of solution being parroted by indian politicians for press versus the real solutions that have been springing up from grass roots women’s moments with great success. This has been going on for a while, and is a known thing that happens in India, and this is just the latest blip. You are familiar with all of this and the history behind it I assume?
The standard solutions have already been implemented in parts of India with great success and in other countries with even less likely conditions as i mentioned above. Not only are they credible, they are effective, and they pull communities together and strengthen them. More importantly it is what works and the only way to implement lasting change and has been time tested.
There is no excessive onus. Support groups are free, they just need sanctioned meeting places. The police are already hired, they just need accountability and better laws, the shelters would require funding and support, but those cost much less then the alternative of not having them as has been demonstrated again and again. typically shelters are setup in larger hubs where they can be more easily supported. Education can be volunteer, and is crucial. The cost really isn’t very high, but the alternative has an unthinkable price.
It is frightening to me that you consider these basic human rights first world solutions or a luxury of wealth. The cost of not having them is heartbreaking. They work very well in these places and are the only credible solution and can be implemented cheaply and effectively.
You think giving brides sticks is credible? if not what is your alternate more credible solution? or are you just throwing shade on my advocating for the real time tested methods?
