We have been hearing about the Cornell (University) 7 - the frat boys who gangraped a Jane Doe on Oct 19, 2024.
There have been 2 points of view along gender lines. One group believing that it was awful that the fraternity boys took turn violating her for hours when she was intoxicated. Some guys even invited others to join in, as though she was an edible thing being distributed. This was pathetic animal behaviour.
The second group points out two things.
A) That if women cannot take responsibility for having consented while drunk, how can men be responsible for violating a woman when they, men, were drunk?
B) How is it that Jane Doe's testimony initially was that it was all consensual and she later (after being disinvited to a Halloween party by the fraternity) said that 90% of all that happened that night was non-consensual? What gives.. Read this.
Both views make sense. This post primarily addresses the second group. Why did Jane Doe's testimony change?
I was thinking about the Bhopal gas tragedy that occurred a few decades ago in the central Indian city of Bhopal. Poisonous gas fumes leaked from the factory of Union Carbide, an American company, and killed thousands of people residing near the Carbide factory.
India is a developing country. At that time about 40 years ago it was a poor country. Compensation for deaths at that time may have been of the order of about $1000 per person. Indians were used to a paltry sum as compensation unlike the amounts paid out in the USA.
When Indian government realized that the payout could be much larger than $1000 per person they left the initial baseline figure and caught on to a higher number that was, say, $1 million per dead person.
Now let's ask the question. Initially India was asking for a small amount per casualty because that was the norm in India. But when perhaps a sister pointed out that there is a different legal remedy which India could be entitled to, did India say "Nah, we don't want that million dollars per death" or did India say "Yes, that's what we want. It's legal too".
Now, a question to the second group. If you were representing India in the Bhopal gas tragedy case against Union Carbide. What would you claim finally even if you initially were quite comfortable with a different (much smaller) number?
Now tell me. What's wrong with Jane Doe's thoughts? If the legal system gives her a chance to say "No, I think it was not consensual because even if I may have said Yes initially, I said so in my drunken state and hence the YES doesn't count.
Continuing further, let's see if the same principle can apply in matrimonial / divorce cases in India.
in India where women claim to have faced domestic violence and demand alimony the same principle above could apply. If I, the wife, believe that I may have been subjected to violence and that I could be legally entitled to a large alimony, why would I settle for anything else?
Isn't the question "Was i subject to domestic violence?" similar to "Was I raped?". There is a lot of subjectivity in each question. And if the answer can be yes, then there can be a mighty payback at the end. Why wouldn't I try to claim it?
There are 2 beneficial outcomes.
1. You claim more benefits. Maybe you will get some bonus.
2. You have added one more case to the list of abuses against your gender, caste etc.
By doing this we have diluted the importance of the genuine cases. Even those might now seem made up.
Pointing out a plausible explanation that absolves / empowers / enriches you while destroying a perceived enemy seems like a great ploy and very rewarding emotionally. Read the stories given in additional reading below.
Additional reading:
- https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/09/stockholm-syndrome.html - rape isn't about consent. It's about how you feel after the event.
- Dowry harrassment case filed by wife after allegedly murdering her husband. If you had a legal option to file dowry harrassment legally, why wouldn't you?
- And this. A couple was in a consensual relationship for 3 years. Later the man didn't marry her. She filed a rape case against her partner. If legally you are allowed to file such a case, why wouldn't you?
- Trump is better.- Just like people were pointed to Joe Biden for all the problems in their life, perhaps Jane Doe was pointed to the 7 man target in the last couple of years.
