Exactly, this kind of narrative is propaganda intended to make rape victims give up resistance.
In some regards India is several centuries decades behind most of the rest of the world. Especially with regards to women’s rights. Though if I recall correctly forcing a victim to marry her rapist is also a Christian/Jewish thing.
I know it goes against the circlejerk in some progressive communities, but most rich conservative media owners did not get to their position by lacking brainpower, their shortcomings tend to be more in the morals and/or empathy regions.
I just think generally this kind of “propaganda” is produced because it reflects a well-entrenched view people genuinely hold. It’s like asserting that minstrel shows were produced as propaganda to keep black people subjugated by making people think black people are inferior. I think it’s much simpler than that - the people who commissioned such things were racist, so they made shows which depicted black people poorly. That had the effect of perpetuating racism, but it’s a stretch to say the perpetuation of racism was the motivation, rather than the enactment of racism.
Same here, as I see it. The people who make such things are misogynists who believe in misogynist practices, so they make films which reflect those practices. I don’t see where there’s evidence for a conscious choice to do more than that.
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. As far as I know minstrel shows were mostly small groups making the money they got from their performance, but movies like the one in this post are funded by multi-million dollar media companies that have a large say in what kind of movies will be made.
I really had in mind minstrel shows on in the 20th century on TV. But if you prefer, I think it still applies to most situations which seem to be entrenching any view, whether that view is hateful or indeed positive. We don’t think of someone making a movie whose central message is about the virtue of kindness as being “propaganda” - it’s just people putting their own values into a story. So too if the central message is negative.
If you want to infer a more purposeful, self-conscious motivation, you need more to go on.
If a man finds a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he seizes her and sleeps with her, and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife, because he has violated her. He may never divorce her as long as he lives.
Ultra-conservative Indians man. They’re a certain type of fucked up.
I believe it’s in the Christian Bible too.
All religion is mental illness.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NIV
And people wonder why they like to pal around with American conservatives.
Exactly, this kind of narrative is propaganda intended to make rape victims give up resistance.
In some regards India is several
centuriesdecades behind most of the rest of the world. Especially with regards to women’s rights. Though if I recall correctly forcing a victim to marry her rapist is also a Christian/Jewish thing.Yeah, most parts of our country are really fked… I live in a decent little state called Kerala, but yeah, we’re one of the exceptions, not the norm.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NIV
And pay daddy
It’s literally done in America today and used to justify having the legal age of marriage be under 18 in some states.
I did not know that, but for some states it doesn’t really surprise me
Centuries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franca_Viola
You’re right. As a millennial I sometimes find it hard to realize that it was that bad here as well only quite a short time before I was born.
That affords people a level of planning I think is overly charitable.
I know it goes against the circlejerk in some progressive communities, but most rich conservative media owners did not get to their position by lacking brainpower, their shortcomings tend to be more in the morals and/or empathy regions.
I just think generally this kind of “propaganda” is produced because it reflects a well-entrenched view people genuinely hold. It’s like asserting that minstrel shows were produced as propaganda to keep black people subjugated by making people think black people are inferior. I think it’s much simpler than that - the people who commissioned such things were racist, so they made shows which depicted black people poorly. That had the effect of perpetuating racism, but it’s a stretch to say the perpetuation of racism was the motivation, rather than the enactment of racism.
Same here, as I see it. The people who make such things are misogynists who believe in misogynist practices, so they make films which reflect those practices. I don’t see where there’s evidence for a conscious choice to do more than that.
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. As far as I know minstrel shows were mostly small groups making the money they got from their performance, but movies like the one in this post are funded by multi-million dollar media companies that have a large say in what kind of movies will be made.
I really had in mind minstrel shows on in the 20th century on TV. But if you prefer, I think it still applies to most situations which seem to be entrenching any view, whether that view is hateful or indeed positive. We don’t think of someone making a movie whose central message is about the virtue of kindness as being “propaganda” - it’s just people putting their own values into a story. So too if the central message is negative.
If you want to infer a more purposeful, self-conscious motivation, you need more to go on.
Wat?
I looked it up for you.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Thanks! Last book of the Torah/Old Testament. Messed up standard to set, at the least.