Hacker News Reader

Comment by X86BSD | Hacker News Reader

For those who have never been to India, this is like yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowd of 1 million people where the nearest fire truck is outside the crowd.

If you are in dire need of 9/11 equivalent services there, your done. Period. No one will reach you in time.

If people there really cared about women, they would pass a version of the second amendment and allow women to protect themselves from brutal savage attacks with deadly force.

Acid attacks. Rape. Gang rape. All of the above.

This "panic button" will do absolutely nothing. No one will monitor it, no one will respond, you will die.

Give women the ability to protect themselves!

View on HN

There is no technical solution to a lack of empathy.

At a certain point a culture just has to look in the mirror and come to grips with its own failures.

Or educate men in society that these things are wrong.

Sorry, I'm only in first-year. I'll stop raping you sometime after exams. /s

If it's expected to work so well, why do banks have guards?

You don't need to say "or" here. We can both increase awareness among men AND help women protect themselves.

You really think the problem is that men don't know the raping is wrong?

Why do you think that kind of gang-rape behavior is [relatively] rare in the West, then? You don't think it has anything to do with the education/socialization of men?

Is it any more common in India? The country has 1.3 billion people - no matter what you do you'll get some horrific behavior.

If I had to guess, I would guess that a large part of the difference is whether or not the individuals believe they'll get away with it.

Regardless, what I commented on was the suggestion that men just needed to be educated that raping was wrong, which is much narrower then "anything to do with the education/socialization of men" Obviously, education/socialization sufficiently widely understood has something to do with it.

Why do you think that any crime has different rates in different countries? Should we order schools thats located in areas with high murder rates and teach children that "Murdering your friend is wrong. Write it down 10 times in this book".

Maybe you live in a area with higher murder rate than I (its likely, given that my country has one of the lowest rates in the world). Should you be sent to a re-education camp to be thought how to socially behave and not go around and murder people? Can you prove you are not, deep down, thinking about murder someone right now and are barely able to restrain yourself?

Maybe... it is the same country that is having trouble convincing its citizens to stop shitting in the streets and use the toilets they're provided.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33980904

Yes, actually. In an interview from jail[0], one of the men who participated in the 2012 gang rape and murder of Jyoti Singh blamed the victim for the attack[1]!

[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1144346...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape#Incident

Are you familiar with criminals who take responsibility for their actions? I've never heard of such a thing, so your implied conclusion seems idealistic

> [Nikhil]: Or educate men in society that these things are wrong.

> [Winston]: You really think the problem is that men don't know the raping is wrong?

> [ChongLi]: Yes, actually.

> [OldManJay]: Are you familiar with criminals who take responsibility for their actions? I've never heard of such a thing, so your implied conclusion seems idealistic

Nikhil and ChongLi are doing nothing but regurgitate the faulty feminist narrative that they have fondly taken on to be common sense.

Both American and Indian societies already teach its members that rape, murder, theft and other crimes are "wrong". This is called social conditioning, and is put into effect from childhood onwards. Social conditioning does not of course necessarily stop the criminals like Elliot Rodger (murder) and Mukesh Singh (rape) from conducting their crimes.

The narrative of "Teach men not to rape," that these people ignorantly spit out, is based on the faulty premise that the said men have not been taught not to rape (and kill, maim, and so forth).

> [ChongLi]: In an interview from jail[0], one of the men who participated in the 2012 gang rape and murder of Jyoti Singh blamed the victim for the attack[1]! [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1144346.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape#Incident

With a little intelligence and sensitivity, it is not difficult to prober further into the underlying motivation of these criminals, and without understanding the underlying motivations you cannot effect change. Here's a clue: Mukesh Singh (one of the perpetrator of the Delhi gang rape event) had this to say in that interview: "A decent girl won’t roam around at nine o’clock at night … Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night doing indecent things, wearing indecent clothes.".

Your comment presumes an equal education (that rape is equally "bad"), it presumes that both cultures are taught the same thing. They are not.

In fact, it is currently legal to rape your wife in India.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/asia/marital-rape-india/

Think about that for a moment. What kind of effect do you think that would have on their rape statistics? In the U.S, Marital Rape accounts for half of all reported rapes. In India, those rapes aren't even being reported because they're not illegal.

Your comment does not address the key points in mine.

There is no doubt that marital/ spousal rape needs to be criminalized. Criminalization, of course, is not going to entirely eliminate it - which brings me to the point I'm trying to make: when both social-conditioning and law-and-order have failed, what's the solution?

Feminists, including Nikhil and ChongLi, advocate further explicit conditioning (which ain't gonna have much effect on the criminals who already care less about their own social conditioning). Without understanding the criminals' underlying motives, people wanting to effect change will only go around in circles. Where is the proof that the feminist approach works?

Social conditioning has not failed.

Right now it's telling men in several societies that "it's the right thing to rape your woman" since it's your property, and that "a woman needs to be protected by her owner-man in order not to get raped by other men" so raping her is not the rapist's fault, it's her owner's fault for not protecting her.

This conditioning lets men with rape fantasies to explain everything else away and act them out with no perception of wrongdoing.

But how does that work with tolerance ? After all, several religions teach that that is in fact allowed, albeit with conditions.

I think you won't quite find that in India raping women is "morally allowed", but merely that if certain rules are followed (relating to caste and the marital state and age of the woman and the men involved) it is ok. The culture does not put a blanket ok on the practice. For the other religion the rules are slightly different (and blatantly racist: essentially if a woman behaves like she's a member of that religion, she's safe, otherwise, go ahead), but rape (non-consensual sex) is definitely allowed.

Since this is quite explicit in the holy books of both religions you will at the very least need to change the way these religions are taught if you want to really change the attitude. I think it's pretty clear that won't be considered being tolerant.

Your comment does not address the key points in mine.

There is no doubt that marital/ spousal rape needs to be criminalized. Criminalization, of course, is not going to entirely eliminate it[1] - which brings me to the point I'm trying to make: when both social-conditioning and law-and-order have failed[2], what's the solution?

Moreover this is not a gender issue, as the likes of you ignorantly make it out to be (in an fervent attempt to distract via identity politics), as the reverse is equally applicable -- such as, to use your phraseology, letting women with divorce-rape fantasies to explain everything else away and act them out with no perception of wrongdoing[3] -- where the aforementioned question continues to hold.

[1] The West has historically had the idea that by marriage a woman gives irrevocable consent for her husband to have sex with her any time he demands it ... and even though marital/ spousal rape has recently been criminalized (made a crime in all 50 states in the US by 1993, for example), it has not entirely eliminated it.

[2] The very fact that marital/ spousal rape continues to be prevalent even among countries where it has been criminalized suggests that both social-conditioning and law-and-order have failed, in regards to entirely eliminating it. Hence, my question: what's the solution?

[3] Some unscrupulous women in India are wont to extort money and harass their husband's entire extended family. http://www.498a.org

No, the problem is that people like you don't understand the difference between "Teach men not to rape" and what we do now, which is "Tell men not to rape" but "teach them that they can probably get away with it if they really want to". One is a set of words, forming a common narrative. The other is a set of actions and associated outcomes which contradict the narrative.

I do understand the difference. Whereas for some reason you are persistently reluctant to acknowledge that what we do now (and have always done, and will always do) is, in fact, teach (with carrot and stick) and not tell. This is called social conditioning, and is not specific to one gender. Thus, no amount of blaming and finger-pointing is going to fix the issue unless the underlying motivations of the criminals are understood (and resolved to that effect).

It really is that simple, and I fail to see why people make such a fuss about it.

It seems to me that its not as if he doesn't realize that raping is wrong, so much as once caught he's offered an excuse. That, I think, is a worldwide phenomenon.

What the hell?

> On 10 January, one of their lawyers, Manohar Lal Sharma, said in a media interview that the victims were responsible for the assault because they should not have been using public transportation and, as an unmarried couple, they should not have been on the streets at night. He went on to say: "Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady. Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect."[99] He also called the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman".[99]

That's not the criminal who can't come to grips with reality, that's the LAWYER. What an insane argument.

Shoutout to the work of the folks at Panic Button, who have done good work trying to make a very secure, free, open source app available.

https://panicbutton.io/

You're absolutely right, this is a ridiculous solution to a very grave issue.

Without wishing to in any way claim that this is a solution to sexual violence in India or any country, I don't think the idea is entirely mad.

I have often thought that phones could benefit from good old clicky buttons on them. There are many situations where it would be great to reach into your pocket/purse and cause an event of some kind without having to lug out the phone, enter PIN to unlock, bring up app, etc. etc.

- medic alert for seniors (notify caregivers)

- skip to next music track (e.g. when casting spotify to some other device)

- dial 911 when walking through a dodgy area

- count passengers embarking

- confirm visual check of some physical asset is OK (e.g. pest trap)

Thanks to the Jobs-ian design of modern devices, which emphasises style and coolness over usability in the real world (right mouse click anyone?), smartphones are not at all suited for these super rapid one click use cases, and adding nice clicky button(s) on the phone or a paired bluetooth device would be useful in many situations.

(Yes, perhaps we could buy an apple watch instead - but that's cracking a nut with a sledgehammer).

Most if not all phones have the ability to dial emergency numbers without unlocking them. How many false-positives will this physical "emergency button" result in?

I'd much rather see the market address these concerns without being coerced into doing so. If consumers want a big "emergency" button on their phone, by all means offer a product with one, but forcing said "feature" on every single person who purchases a phone should be frowned upon.

Agree, it's a very troubling situation.

Unless the general public in proximity to an attack is legally required to respond, seems unlikely to make a difference.

The sad thing is even if they are chances are they will not do anything to stop or prevent it.

I think people, everywhere, including the US are mostly afraid.

I have seen people in the US do nothing when something bad takes place. Most people I think live in fear. They don't want to get involved.

It's a very sad state of humanity but it's the climate we live in.

I have nothing but the most sincere concern for women in India. I find it so incredibly troubling the attitude that country has of women. The fact that government refuses to recognize a womens right to defend herself with deadly force when gang rapes are a common everyday occurrence is.... soul crushing.

A Panic button? Really? That is the best Modi and crowd can enable women with? This speaks volumes about how women are viewed there.

It is a myth that people don't help each other http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/08/the-murder-of-kitty-gen...

Agree, generally speaking, people do try to help, though I do believe there's room for improvement.

How ? with guns ?

Why the official announcement if it's all fluff ? Is the police corrupt that much ? too busy to care about this kind of issues ?

That entire government from the traffic cop to Modi is corrupt as hell. You can't get cops to do their jobs without a bribe. Need a passport? You're going to have cough up cash to get the paperwork you need. It's insane. And just so incredibly sad.

Plus because there are no traffic laws over there enforced its utter chaos on the roads. Jammed with cows, people, carts, cars, trucks etc. Everyone going their own way. Ignoring traffic lights, signs. Police or an ambulance could not reach even if they wanted to.

Contrast that to the US, where at least most of the country knows when you see emergency vehicle lights, you pull over to the far right lane or shoulder to clear room for them to get to the person that needs help.

It's night and day. Traffic laws need enforcing there hardcore. Although so do a lot of things. The country just needs the will power to do it.

> You can't get cops to do their jobs without a bribe. Need a passport? You're going to have cough up cash to get the paperwork you need

I and thousands of students can vouch that we did not have to bribe to get our passports.

India is doing really well in terms of law, for the population density it supports. I would bet enforcing those rules in the US or providing 911 help similar to the US for a country with that large a population is incredibly hard. Its not about will power, but the scale at which it has to be enforced at the same time, so that it works.

> Need a passport? You're going to have cough up cash to get the paperwork you need. It's insane. And just so incredibly sad.

This is absolutely no true. I don't know about your experience but this is not the case everywhere. I got my passport almost 10 years ago and did not have to cough up a single paisa. Generally, you may have to deal with inept fools behind the counter trying to assert that they're the boss. But don't have to pay them.

Let me get this straight. So, after your "second amendment", not only are the police just as corrupt as ever, they can now freely shoot you and pull off the standard US defense: "I thought he/she was gonna shoot first!"

Also expect a surge of crimes committed with stolen guns.

I fail to see how that's an improvement.

Ok I didn't know that, I expected naive low bandwidth forces, not unwilling to save peoples life threaten in that way.

ps: hmm apparently this is cliche..

Guns can and do harm their owners http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...

is that why all governments seem to want to have them?

Do they really need deadly force? What's wrong with pepper sprays and (real) panic alarms? I think those would likely be a lot more useful than a button on a phone, and wouldn't add more risks. I think your average scumbag rapist is going to fuck the hell off when he gets 130dB blasting in his ears, along with his friends.

Pepper spray? In a panic situation where the wind is blowing in her face, she sprays and... oh crap now she is choking and blind. Bullets don't have the problem.

No, bullets have worse problems. How many people are killed accidentally?

On top of that, consider attacker's use of a cell phone jammer. It would completely negate any type of call for help. Listen, the arguement if they really cared about women, then listing sensational words like gang rape and "acid attacks". Not a lot of rational, objective conversation can be had after you introduce those topics and emotions.

A panic button may not be effective, but I sincerely doubt that rapists will start using freaking cell phone jammers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com