We are angry about India but

Quite so, but I don't think we should not condemn the situation in India because that in Britain is also bad. I don't think one in four British men have committed rape and I am sure that the huge majority are just as appalled by it as women. Change will only come in India and the other countries which devalue women when a majority of the men are willing to speak out against their treatment. We are often told that the oppression can be laid at the door of a few 'extremists', but they could not impose their will if the majority of men resisted it. The powerful rarely give up their power until forced.

Here, here.

Well said, greatnan.

And, yes, penstemmon, it is just as awful. I don't believe anyone has implied that it isn't. I do think that it is a good thing that this case in India has become an international news story though. It is only by educating (informing) people of what goes on that things change. Because the majority – decent people – then feel the need to do something to improve attitudes, which change in attitudes will then effect a change in behaviour, at least insofar as to reduce the number of appalling incidents.

It's true we are outraged about the situation for women in India, but we do forget the violence that is happening every day to Women in this country.

I don't forget, glass, and I expect a good number of other people don't forget either.

True bags

I certainly don't forget the violence which happens in any country, including Britain, but the thread to which this refers was about one specific case in India. I am equally appalled by what happens to women in Yemen, Saudi, South Africa................

But sometimes people have a tendency here to overlook things closer to home.

So if it's 1 in 4 men who are rapists in India, how many of those 100s, 1,000s of men protesting are/ were rapists.

I don't agree. I think people who care about this issue do not forget or overlook and many of them are involved in trying to help reduce the number of cases even further. For instance, there is a push to try and get more severe sentences against rapists.

More severe sentences might send out a message to would-be rapists, but as so few are ever convicted many victims will still believe it is not worth putting themselves through the humiliation of cross examination about their own lifestyle.
I can remember when any mention of sexual offences in the House of Commons would be greeted by hoots and guffaws on one side. Some progress has been made but boys need to be educated to respect women, however they are dressed or however drunk they may be.

Of course, the constitution of the judiciary - still mainly white, middle-aged or over, male and Oxbridge - may well have some bearing on the sentences handed out - and on some of the disgusting comments made by some judges. Fortunately, there are now more women and people from different backgrounds entering law.

petra there was some discussion about those statistics on the radio on Friday and their validity was doubted.

If we are honest, most of us only think about India when something bad hits the headlines.

Two wrongs don't make a right though. Both houses need sorting out. Here, we try. Hopefully India will start to try a bit harder now.

Report on the UN study that delivered these statistics.

america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/10/1-in-10-men-in-asiapacificcommitsrapesaysunstudy.html

I am listening to The Reunion on Radio 4, about the start of Spare Rib. When Harold Wilson introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, Margaret Thatcher said the House should be concentrating on more important things, like inflation.

Thanks for the link, When. I suspect that many men don't consider forcing sex on their wife is rape. We were all incensed by the story of the eight year old girl raped on her wedding night, but it can be very painful, humiliating and traumatic at any age. As the report says, teenage boys (and younger) need educating.

( www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039yz4x link for The Reunion episode...only it isn't available yet!)

I wish people would stop using 'Oxbridge' as an insult. Both Oxford and Cambridge are good universities and turn out vast numbers of well-educated, well-balanced people as well as a few arrogant bastards, as do other educational institutions everywhere.

Bags - I am sure you are well aware that I was using Oxbridge as a shorthand way of describing a certain type of education. We know they are excellent universities. Unfortunately, they still take a very large percentage of their students from a number of fee-paying schools who may not be quite as familiar with the lives of the people they eventually come to judge as people from less privileged backgrounds.

Yes, greatnan, I was aware of how you were using the term Oxbridge. And I was saying that really I'd rather you didn't use it like that. To my mind using like that, loaded with negative connotations is as bad as using a term like 'Paki' in a similarly negatively loaded way. That is all.

You mean, I think, arrogant bastards. Why not just use that instead?

My feeling is that is it the home background of the arrogant bastards that is at the root of the problem. A school or a university will not make a person an arrogant bastard if their home background works against that.

I don't think that all public-school pupils are arrogant bastards - just that there is a possibility that their lives have been far removed from the lives of those they are called upon to judge.

That is true. But I am an Oxbridge person without having been to a public school. So was my first husband, and the second, and a good number of my friends. All of them nice people whom you would be happy to spend time with. That's why I'd rather you didn't use the term in the way you did use it.

I am sorry I have offended your sensibilities, Bags - I was just remembering the statistics for the difference in the percentages at both universities for students from the private and state sectors.
I don't think it can be compared to the use of racist language, and it is a bit unfair to say that it can.