Or educate men in society that these things are wrong.
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.
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?
[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1144346...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape#Incident
> [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.".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
It really is that simple, and I fail to see why people make such a fuss about it.
> 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.
If it's expected to work so well, why do banks have guards?