Originally posted by: bhakti2
How is it that in one culture (U.S., for example), the victim is seen as the wronged party and is given support accordingly, where as in another (many others, I fear), she is shamed and is responsible for the loss of honour for her whole family?
I am asking the question seriously and not rhetorically. It must be an anthropological matter, hai na, that shame and honour is in some settings symbolised by the purity and control of the woman, but actually resides in the hands of the men. In this situation is it not so that one man (or an army of men, sometimes, as is happening in Mali, Somalia, etc.) will rape a woman not to destroy her per se, but to destroy the man whose honour she represents? In this case scenario, it is no wonder she has no value - she is just a symbol, a territory over which one or another man has control. I mean to say, the rape of a woman by one man emasculates the other to whom she is attached by rishta.
So why does this take place in one cultural setting but not the other? And was this difference always present or was the West once more like the East, or vice versa? Is it a matter of primate behaviour? That is what I thought when a neighbour explained to me the plot of the current track of Punar Vivaah, in which a woman's previous husband tries to force the abortion of her current husband's unborn child. It is a disgusting track, but also quite primate-like - I do remember reading about some simians who will take over a group of rivals, kill the males and the babies, and reimpregnate the females. Is this brutal sort of biology present also in our primitive brain areas?
Thank god, though, we do have free will and can think ethically. Now if only more people will choose to do so.
comment:
p_commentcount