Imagine the tables turned


If it was the husband setting his aggresive wife on fire. Would he be awarded with the 'brave men' award? He would have dissappeared in a British dungeon with everyone's consent.

She was a victim but her act was out of line and so she deserves to spend a decade in jail. Anyone opposing to that appears to be a sexist.

reply

[deleted]

For me that was to much from the other side. I vote equality between genders. Most people, especially women have no idea what that means.

reply

Although the OP has a valid point, the proceeding statements are frighteningly misogynistic. I really hope you guys were trying (poorly) to be funny.

reply

Nope, wasn't trying to be funny. Can you be more specific and try to answer to the point i made?

reply

"Feminism is based on hate, and this movie completely promotes one sided feminist hate for a brain-dead audience who are incapable of thought."

This statement appears to be almost ignorant in nature. Assuming the intelligence of the audience is stretching the implication of what feminism is. I don't see how this movie promotes anything besides asking abused women to stand-up against their abusing husbands. Taking that and portraying that as feminism is something that you, as the audience (brain-dead or not) is doing. Not once in the movie was a statement made along the lines of "all men are cruel." If something as obvious as that was not made then it couldn't be feministic hate propoganda and it certainly couldn't be catering to an entirely brain-dead audience.

reply

"She was a victim but her act was out of line and so she deserves to spend a decade in jail. Anyone opposing to that appears to be a sexist."
You do concede she was a victim then you must also acknowledge that her decade of marriage was something close to rigourous imprisonment. On top of that she served 3 odd years in jail. Which I would compute as something more than the decade you're asking her to serve.
As far as your point of the tables being turned, I do understand that while trying to balance the sexes things have been tilted towards favoring females.

But I don't see how that should warrant Kiranjit to serve time in prison.

reply

Ten years of living in a terrible, hellish condition is bad but sure doesn't count as ten years in prison. I'm not saying that it is less awful, as a matter of fact i think it was worse. But it isn't official and therfor doesn't count in any self respecting law system. Besides i never heard of a jailterm being served BEFORE the actual crime has been committed. I would have said the same thing if a husband would have thrown gas and a burning match on his diabolical wife, especially if she was asleep and if the door was unlocked. Again, i wonder if you would make the same point if the tables were turned, i don't think you would.

"As far as your point of the tables being turned, I do understand that while trying to balance the sexes things have been tilted towards favoring females.

But I don't see how that should warrant Kiranjit to serve time in prison."

You seem to have misunderstood my point. You're reaction suggests that i believe that the 'decade in jail' should be the verdict because she should be the one woman who has to pay for all the injustice and sexism committed against men. Or at least you make it seem that i came with the 'decade in jail' opinion because of the whole gender sexism issue and that basically she should be punished extra heavily because she is a woman who murdered a men. In that case i would be guilty of the same thing i'm so angry about. The opposite is true and exactly the reason that i started this topic. I came with this opinion on her suitable punishment for nothing more or less than the fact that this human being has set another human being on fire making this poor soul go through immense and long pain before dying.

reply

If a husband sets his wife on fire, and his only provocation was that she was (let's say) cheating on him --- he deserves to go to jail, too.

But in this particular case, he has been ABUSING her for 10 years. She is in physical and mortal danger, not to mention being psychologically damaged beyond belief. Whilst it would be more reasonable to run away from him and seek help from the police ad various organisations, remember that she is a stranger in the country, without any social support structure, and is not even able to speak the language.

While there is never any excuse to kill another human being ... is it more acceptable for a husband to beat his wife? Look at the situation and the cause, not only at the symptoms!

To add to the thread above, most women would not have the physical strength to physically abuse her man - so, it's fair that the law skews towards women's rights.

reply

'If a husband sets his wife on fire, and his only provocation was that she was (let's say) cheating on him --- he deserves to go to jail, too.'

That's right. I myself couldn't have said it any better. Indeed, so? Why did you write that down? What was the purpose of that sentence? I agree with that statement and if you think that i don't than you haven't red the earlier things i put down well enough. It is amazing that inspite of the many times that i clearly stated that i find abuse of a woman just as bad you are still able to look over it .

'Remember that she is a stranger in the country, without any social support structure, and is not even able to speak the language'

If she was imprisoned in the house the murder would be more explanable. She wasn't and so i believe there were other options.

'While there is never any excuse to kill another human being ... is it more acceptable for a husband to beat his wife?'

With all do respect i do believe that abuse of a spouse is less severe than setting a spouse on fire. Again i wonder if you would have said the same if the tables were turned. And like i mentioned to someone else before i don't think you would.

'Look at the cause and not only at the symptoms'

Also this statement makes me believe that you haven't red the postings well. On several ocasions i allready acknowledged that her situation was terrible.

'Most women would not have the physical strength to physically abuse her man - so, it's fair that the law skews towards women's rights.',

Now that is the most pathetic rubbish i have red this week. Once a female is abusing a male she obviously HAS the physical strength to abuse him or else the abuse wouldn't have taken place. And so in the cases of abuse against a male by a female, no mather how rare or common, the whole stronger male/weaker female scenario of yours no longer applies. After all it is the crime itself which has proven that exceptions do occur. And it is the crime itself which is the foundation for any reasonably held court case. That is the reason that lady justice is blindfolded.
Punnishing/protecting people less or more because they happen to come from a certain category, in this case gender, is of the same injustice that so many good people in world history, male and female, tried so hard to defeat.

reply

It's not that women don't have physical strength. I've dealt my boyfriend a couple of hefty slugs when we've played slug bug while driving. However my boyfriend is stronger than I am, and faster, giving him an advantage in a physical fight. I am an average woman. Apart from leaving my boyfriend should he turn physical there is little I can do to protect myself. If my boyfriend chose to he could quickly overpower and rape me, or he could break any part of my body by hitting or kicking hard enough. I'm sorry, but the most I have done to my boyfriend is make his arm tingle. He could break mine.

Aside from being weaker than her chodht of a husband Kiran had another disadvantage. Indian tradition does not allow for divorce. Once you're married, you're married, despite abuse or death. I am convinced that if she had been allowed to by her culture she would've left Deepak. She was a good Indian housewife though, and therefore had to endure every dishonor he showered on her.

Sorry, but there is no excuse for physical abuse. If a male doesn't want his girl to hit him, then he should grab her hand, tell her to stop and then leave the house, or shove her outside to cool down. If a girl doesn't want to be hit she should leave...or light her significant on fire with the household equivalent to napalm... :p




To obey just for obedience's sake? That's something only people like you do.

reply

[deleted]

When i started this board i decided to take every single one responding seriously just because i am a purist and love to tackle oppsite's arguments point by point with that pure decency and sense of equility.

First of all you seem to relish the thought of hurting a man physically "dealt my boyfriend hefty slugs" "light her significant on fire with the household equivalent to napalm". Either you wrote it with the intention to get me really uptight or out of what Dutch people call 'underbelly feelings', meaning of which i don't need to explain. Compare your statements to all the things i said above and you see that the things you wrote, prove me more right than wrong. As a test i should use these exact same words on abuse of a woman by a man and you'll see how most people will react.

In the relation with your boyfriend your slugs might seem justified because obviously your boyfriend is physically and hopefully mentally more capable than you. But than your reaction totally misses an important point in this board. Which is that there are exceptions and that there are also relations, no matter how rare, where the woman has the physical advantage. However abuse from the female to the male in this case seems more accepted than the opposite. This is a kind of injustice that you people fail to acknowledge. Also i never mannaged to understand why one person's abuse needs to be belittled simply because one of the two involved is from a certain gender. Once the pain is done there is no more question of what a woman can or can't do or how weak or strong she is because the injuries prove the possibilities. I tried to find an answer to that question but getting that seems to be to difficult.

In your last phrase you were going the right way for me "I'm sorry but there is no excuse for physical abuse", but than you came with your apocalypse now comparison and that kind of threw you back. You could have made it better if after that you would have explained WHY there is this difference, i mean why the boy needs to grap her hand and tell her to leave and why the woman in the same case must do what the maine subject of provoked did.

reply

I must assume then that you also think that a man should be sentenced to prison for every act of violence against his spouse, i.e., every session of beating should account for separate count of assault, and every act of forcible sex, would be a separate count of rape.

But of course in the society we live in, where the number one cause of death in women 18-25 is being murdered by their husband or boyfriend, most men never serve a day in jail for beating the crap out of women.

While I certainly don't condone murder, I think women have to be worried about being killed by men more than men have to be worried about being killed by women.

reply

'I must assume then that you also think that a man should be sentenced to prison for every act of violence against his spouse, i.e., every session of beating should account for separate count of assault'

What's wrong with the people who answer to this thread? Are you all reading blind? Or perhaps you have not been reading the thread above Katepig??? Yes i agree with you. But the same goes vice versa. I assume that you agree with that as well. This thread is about condemning both forms of abuse the same not just one of them and so i try to discuss abuse from a female to a male because people don't want to bring it up. But every time i start it women especially, immediately try to change the subject and focuss on the other form of abuse (male to female abuse) alone. Than they try to pretend that physical violence from women towards men doesn't even exist. Women even seem insulted when i try to bring up examples of men being beaten if i do that without sickening ridicule. They pretend not to hear it and than immediately ask me for my opion on women abuse.

I think that this ignorance comes from the fact that for the last decades a lot of women have learned about their rights, i find that a good thing (before someone comes with that). History shows that every time a supressed group emancipates, a wave of discrimination from the liberated group towards the (former) opressing group occurs. The former opressors who have emancipated as well have learned something the former oppressed didn't: They have learned that oppression in general is wrong no matter who does it to who. To many individuals of the former oppressed group have only come to understand that unfairness from others towards them is out of line. Because they can't imagine themselves in the role of an opressor they develop a blind spot for their own ignorance and misbehaviour and make the same mistakes which have been committed against them.

'But of course in the society we live in, where the number one cause of death of women 18-25 is being murdered by their husband or boyfriend, most men never serve a day in jail for beating the crap out of women.' I condemn that Katepig. You would have known that if you would have taken the effort to read what i wrote before you decided to respond. But an even lower percentage of women who beat the crap out of men serve a day in jail for it so why did you bring that up in this discussion?

reply

When i started this board i decided to take every single one responding seriously just because i am a purist and love to tackle oppsite's arguments point by point with that pure decency and sense of equility.



Well, that's what you believe. The truth can be something else; and in this case, I fear it's almost something else.

As for the original post, I don't believe in the legal system. IMO, what that woman did was right if the situations of her being treated violently were true as depicted in the movie. She suffered for quite a long time and when it was unbearable, she just paid him back. Until her husband was alive, I don't feel she ever would have had the courage to reveal to the world the way she was treated by her husband.

I don't remember the names, but there're some movies wherein I've heard dialogues that convey such meaning:
"You've got no right to decide what's right and what's wrong and to punish someone. You're not GOD."

Usually, the person who is told this is someone who has killed some person who's doing something very wrong and/or painful/harmful to someone/others and is not a Judge in the court of law, he/she's just some ordinary person.

Now, suppose the person telling this is some lawyer in the court. He'll go ahead and say that it's for law to decide what punishment must be given and so on and on. Finally, the judge too will give that person some sort of punishment. It depends on what's the personal opinion of the judge or jury, how much corrupt the judge or jury is; and what amount of facts are presented before the court. No person has any right to punish other person until and unless he/she has witnessed most or all of what that person has gone through. In a court hearing, decisions are based on truth heard by the judge/jury and there're great chances that this truth has been adjusted.

Well, that's what I believe and I ain't sure whether I'm a purist!!!!!!!!!



LAWYER (to the criminal): But if everyone starts thinking like you and takes law in his own hand, even though for good, (now the lawyer turns to the people sitting in the court) this world will turn into a war......

CRIMINAL (immediately interrupts and retorts): And we must win this war.

reply

At least she had a reason for killing her husband, what about those real life senarios that happen in those strict countries where men get off scott free after killing their wife because they THOUGHT they were having an affair!!!

What do you have to say about that??? Is that not sexist and unfair???!

reply

Nadiya-Evanz, your response is the most ironic thing i have come across in a long while. I should also thank you for it because unknowingly you gave a perfect example of something i tried so hardly to explain. If you take the effort to read what i wrote in the text right above your response you even look ridiculous. I had just written how everytime when i try to point out that women can do injustice to men as well the women can only ignore it and immediately respond by mentioning examples of crimes commited against women by men. That they just can't handle or discuss this subject as if it were rocket science. And that right after that, literally the second after they ridiculed and than ditched this topic, the women even have the guts to change the subject, to turn the tables and start about abuse to women. AND in spite of this arrogance they expect the men to fully agree with them.

And yet just after i wrote that you do the same thing again. It kind of reminds me of an urban legend. A chief of police visited a public market and shopping area to hear out the merchants about the growing number of thieves. The minute after he defended himself and declared that they were exagerating he found out that his wallet had been pickpocketed.

I allready answered your question several times in the previous texts and yet you ask me for it again. But since you ask, here we go again: I'm against it and don't justify it. Even if a man or women kills his/her spouse because she or he has really been unfaithfull than still murder is completely unjustified. That opinion doesn't contradict to any of the previous things i wrote in this threat. As a matter of fact; the answer i just gave to your question is exactly in line with all the things i said before. And so i don't understand how you possibly got the idea that i would justify a men killing his wife. One thing this board does prove is that there would be less trouble on our lovely planet if people would actually listen to someone's side of the story instead of ignoring, than jumping into conclusions and than making all kinds of awfull accusations. I'm sure that in the next text some woman is going to ask me to repeat the same thing again so than i'll just copy and paste what i wrote here.

And here a piece of your own medicine: Men also get killed by their wives by the same circumstances. Wasn't that what happened to actor Phil Hartman? What do you have to say about that? Is that not sexist? So what's your point? Are you woman enough to answer to that? I don't think you are. Or do you suddenly find that it is allright if it happens the other way around? If that is so, and notice the if in this sentence, than how can you expect people, men specifically, to have a different opinion than you and condemn abuse or even murder of wives? Why should there be a difference? Sometimes a murder victim did something wrong and sometimes he/she didn't. Either way it is unacceptable to kill someone. No matter who does it to who. And those things happen everywhere in the world, not just in strict countries.

As for your line 'At least she had a reason to kill her husband", i wonder if you would have said the same thing if ...... oh well you allready know what i was about to say. Dying by third degree burning is a gruesome thing i don't wish to happen to anyone. If someone does that to someone on purpose and if that person gets awarded then there is not a pen to describe the horror i feel. I think you would understand this feeling if the victim was a woman.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with you on this one wkulche. I don't believe in killing someone as a means to solving a problem. If things are really terrible enough that she was willing to freaking kill her husband (by setting him on fire of all things) then they were bad enough for her to abandon the way she grew up and leave him. Or do something, anything else.

I don't condone spousal abuse (even dating abuse) in either direction be it physical or mental. I will agree that most women can't abuse men in the strict sense of the word (ie. physical abuse) but when I lived in New York there was an incident that happened near where I lived.

A woman wanted a divorce from her husband but he was one of those slavering puppies who overlooked her general bad attitude and such. So she started cheating on him. But the guy was too in love with her to leave him. So one day he comes home to see her having sex with two of his "friends" in his bedroom. His response was to shoot all three of them dead.

Justified? I don't think so. Understandable? To a degree. So is this situation. I understand what she did but there is NO excuse for killing someone unless your life, at that moment, depends on it. And I'm sorry, I know women in abusive relationships have all sorts of bad things go through their head (It's all my fault, I'm doing something wrong, He loves me too much so he hurts me, etc), but I don't see a horribly bad relationship as a reason to off somebody. Once someone has gotten physical with you to the point of hurting you it's time to throw in the towel.

I don't care where it happens, I don't care if it's the middle east something needs to be done about it. Both ways. But once it heads into the area of killing off your spouse then you've crossed a line and deserve punishment. Three years in jail for taking a human life is disgusting and not punishment.

reply

I have not watched this movie but I have relatives who have suffered abuse... while I agree, being a woman, that we are more oppressed than any man could be, I also agree with wkulche that setting him on fire was not the way to go....no matter how much I might actually enjoy doing it were I in her shoes (i hate violence toward women like I can't explain). It is however, very easy to be preachy from here without experiencing it for oneself. Unless you have actually been in the shoes of someone who has been abused, you cannot say what the person should or should not do, because to be honest, once a person snaps mentally, there is no more right or wrong, there is just reaction.....the best thing for all concerned, however cowardly one might feel it is, is to get as far away as possible from the situation before it gets to that point and fight the problems from there (with the help of organizations like the one in the story).....with the benefit of distance.

reply

"we are more oppressed than any man could be"

rubbish. maybe the most arrogant claim so far in this discussion. Generally more oppressed than most man yes. But from where do you get the nerve to assume that any man has a better situation no matter which one.

reply

I agree that if a man underwent the kind of abuse and torture that Kiranjit was put through, then, probably, and had the kind of extreme provocation that she had, then yes, for him to react in this violent way would also be as justifiable as it was in her case.

That is not to say that I condone taking the life of another person, but, till you find yourself in a similar situation (walk in another's shoes, so to speak), it is extremely difficult to judge as to what is right and wrong...as a third party, one simply cannot fathom what a person goes through when subject to sustained and continued physical and mental abuse, and not knowing how to tackle it, specially when your conditioning from childhood makes you subservient and weak.

Having said that, somewhere I also think that killing a person (in these circumstances) may actually be less cruel than torturing them and keeping them alive, effectively killing their soul and will, bit by bit.

reply

"Anyone opposing to that appears to be a sexist."

I'm not sure if you're sexist or not - a few sentences on IMDB doesn't give me enough viable information to judge that or not. You could just be low-toned or someone who belives in being extra tough on crime. I believe in rehabilitation personally for the majority who can be rehabilitated. As far as I can tell Kiranjit did do any futher crimes after being released so that is good in terms of that.

"If it was the husband setting his aggresive wife on fire. Would he be awarded with the 'brave men' award?

I think anyone who finds a way out of a domestic abuse situation deserves an award - male or female. I think maybe Kiranjit has become a bit of poster for something more than just her story but the statistics show a high pattern of male domestic violence toward females in South Asian cultures.

I'll grant though that in westernized cultures (US Caucasians & African Americans, Germans, UK Caucasians) were statistics have been done statistically the abuse is mostly mutual e.g. both the female and male are both abuse to each other with about an 20% Male on Female and a 16% Female on Male - which is fairly even. It is not the case in the South Asian cultures per statistics though which show that women in these groups are several magnitudes more likely to be abused than men in these cultures.

Yes if the male came from a culture where being beaten by his wife is really frown upon and he did something about it (even if like Kiranjit it was a stupid solution) he would deserve something in my book for speaking out.

I believe if one is abused then 2 to 5 years is more than enough jail time for what is manslaughter and not murder in my book - provided one was working on rehabilitation as part of their jail sentence. She did 3 if I recall?

"He would have dissappeared in a British dungeon with everyone's consent."

I'm not sure and we can't really be sure can we? Someone who was abused by their wife would with their solicitor (that is what you pommies call lawyers right?) find out by testing the law.

reply

Finally a response in which i can almost find myself. "Pommies" however is incorrect. I had to look that term up and saw that it ment British person. Why do you assume that i'm British? I take it as a compliment because i have been trying very hard to write down my opinions in proper English which is not my first language. I only began to learn English in high school and in the Philippines where i did volunteer work after high school. Someone else on imdb made the same mistake with me before by assuming that i'm German which is wrong as well, i'm European though.

reply

I haven't watched this movie but if she wanted to killed him there are faster and less painful ways (a gun, poison, cracking their skull and them dying right away). Burning a human being to death and having them die in agony with 3rd degree burns is cruel, the most disgusting thing I ever heard.

No sympathy for the woman since it was planned and premediated. Now perhaps a different story would have been if he was actually threatening her life and in that moment she burned him, thus defending her life in that instance then it's self defense. Otherwise that was nasty.

reply

I think the method used to kill her husband was from cultural influence. I beleive it is a common murder method in the indian subcontinent. At the same time, in that situation it really depends on what is available and how one is thinking.

According to Kiranjit ahlawalia's comments, she didn't actually intend on killing him. She said she wanted to burn his feet so he wouldn't come after her and she wanted him to have scars like the scars he had given her. In the movie they show her pouring the petrol only around the feet. He was actually treated for his burns and died 10 days later.

That being said, I still feel that burning someone in their sleep is not the answer. He may have been a horrible person but surely there were other options. She said that she tried to run away once and he found her and brought her back. Even then, I cannot bring myself to justify burning a person in their sleep. He should be accountable for his actions and so should she.

reply

If it was the husband setting his aggresive wife on fire. Would he be awarded with the 'brave men' award? He would have dissappeared in a British dungeon with everyone's consent.

Has a man come forward with a situation like hers, where he was beaten, raped and terrorized for a decade by a spouse his culture ordered him to obey and be totally dependent on, and was even thrown down the stairs while he was pregnant? (It's interesting that you consider this treatment to merely be "aggressive".)

There are men who are domestically and sexually abused. They can bring forward any defense they wish if they kill their spouse, or another. And then each case is decided on its own merits.


.

reply