Wow... just wow.
7/2/17 21:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/putin-approves-change-to-law-decriminalising-domestic-violence
I'm finding it difficult to know where to begin...
After the Donald's unswerving support for Uncle Vlad and his crew, I wonder if just maybe he can introduce a similar "family values" orientated law into America? Nope, that's not the place to start.
Does the Russian Church's support for this bill indicate that it is in favour of physical correction when a wife misbehaves: for example, by not having the Man's food on the table when he gets home? No not there either.
This seems better:
Are these the actions of a fucking misogynistic bunch of total arseholes, and is this what Russia has come to? And should we, in the West, be doing everything we possibly can to stop this sort of shit from happening anywhere near any of us?
Can we legislate ourselves back into barbarism? Yes we can.
Should we stand by idly while it happens? That's the killer question.
I'm finding it difficult to know where to begin...
This seems better:
Are these the actions of a fucking misogynistic bunch of total arseholes, and is this what Russia has come to? And should we, in the West, be doing everything we possibly can to stop this sort of shit from happening anywhere near any of us?
Can we legislate ourselves back into barbarism? Yes we can.
Should we stand by idly while it happens? That's the killer question.
(no subject)
Date: 7/2/17 21:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/2/17 23:14 (UTC)He would have left it to his father, as is right and proper.
(no subject)
Date: 7/2/17 21:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/2/17 23:09 (UTC)I do like the use of "Family Values" as a basis for this legislation. As we all know, "Family Values" means Kinde, Küche, Kirche. It is fair-seeming codified language. No-one can disagree that "Family Values" are a good thing; they are, after all, innocuous sounding, and we all think families are good for bringing up kids, and essential to the structure of society. The fact that the language has been subverted in terms of meaning seems to escape folk.
It's about time the voting populace worked out what words mean when folk like that use them. But you can lead a horse to water, etc...
So what fixes are available? In the long-term, only education. In the short term, nothing short of confrontation every time this sort of stuff, or disguised racism, or homophobia, is raised.
(no subject)
Date: 7/2/17 21:44 (UTC)I've traveled extensively across Russia, and I can spend hours telling you all sorts of stories to support this assertion.
(no subject)
Date: 7/2/17 23:13 (UTC)A nation that elects as POTUS a groping predator despite him being uncovered and revealed as such can't be too far off it.
Where Uncle Vlad leads, will the Donald be sure to follow?
(no subject)
Date: 7/2/17 21:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/2/17 23:46 (UTC)In mediæval times a husband in England could beat his wife with a stick no thicker than the width of his thumb. This law has pushed Russia back to such mediævalism, and handed husbands a state sanctioned cane. For the sake of the family, of course.
(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 07:26 (UTC)Short of bombing them (and descending into nuclear exchange), there's not much that can be done.
Besides, it's already happening in the West. The West is going in roughly the same direction like Russia, albeit not in leaps as big as theirs.
We don't have the moral high ground. Not any more.
(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 07:37 (UTC)Maybe not as nations, but as collections of individuals?
(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 07:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 08:39 (UTC)If you can look your children in the eye and say you just let this sort of stuff happen because you didn't feel you had moral justification to protest about it, or to try to prevent it happening where you live, then you're right about not having the moral justification. Recursion in action.
As for me whether I have moral justification or not...
(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 08:56 (UTC)From here, there's just one step to "Doing Something". And then I'll be able to welcome you to the club, bru.
(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 08:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 09:02 (UTC)You know, close to nothing. Oh, and occasionally ranting on LJ and spending time explaining my own understanding of the principle of putting your money where your mouth is.
(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 09:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 09:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 09:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 09:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 09:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/17 09:36 (UTC)But when it comes to argument in private and in public, I still have some small abilities to put my case across. Which is not to say that I don't offend folk because of who and what I am. :)
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/17 19:16 (UTC)This in no way implies that ever disciplinary act carried out by a man is virtuous. Both men and women are corruptible insofar as to abuse one another. Women can abuse men emotionally, and men can abuse women physically. Neither of these behaviors are morally sound.
What this legislation does is remove the state from intervening in such conflicts. And it's a good thing because the state isn't there to be your nanny. People should learn how to resolve their conflicts like adults. And part of that dynamic is women learning that attempting to dominate men in negative ways has unfavorable consequences. And men need to learn to connect with women emotionally for there to be warmth in the household rather than a burning house.
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/17 19:44 (UTC)They earn more money than you, so they must be worth more.
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/17 19:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/2/17 20:10 (UTC)Or not.
Dominance is often just bullying by another name, using whatever comes to hand. If might equals right, which is implicit in the idea of "dominance hierarchies" then bingo.
In my book might doesn't equal right. To use a tautology, right equals right.
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/17 20:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/2/17 20:46 (UTC)So, it doesn't matter how right my moral arguments against Soros might be. If his influence exceeds mine, then he wins until I find a way to out perform him.
And, you can demean this reality all you like. But, so what? That doesn't change the nature of reality.
In other words, I can agree with you that might does not equal right. But, so what? When push comes to shove, how right are you when you're dead?
So, from an evolutionary standpoint, you can see why nature opted for might. Or rather, that's what emerged.
(no subject)
Date: 10/2/17 19:57 (UTC)It is called government. And good governments act to enforce the rule of law, and have taken to themselves executive power in order to do so, restrained by custom, a constitution, or a set of treaties and laws to which they are signatories.
And good governments, in upholding law, accept basic principles of justice, and equality before that law. And they all pay at least lip-service to the notions of doing good for their populations.
And to be perfectly candid, I do find your disingenuousness somewhat egregious. In another comm you have actually posted in comments what looks like a particular take on a specific creed. Admittedly it uses a bit more than fourteen words, but the sense is pretty much the same.
I understand you have a point of view. And unlike some others on here you are at least open and honest about it, which renders you more honourable than some. But still...
(no subject)
Date: 10/2/17 20:54 (UTC)What you fear is tyranny, and that's completely understandable. Hence why the grievances of a woman ought to be addressed. However, when a woman abuses this with false tears/cries in order to manipulate men, then she dishonors the household and the rule of law. Hence, the call for discipline which serves to reinstate order in the household.
If you cannot trust your man to be honorable, then why are you married to him?
(no subject)
Date: 10/2/17 21:32 (UTC)Some laws of nature will always supersede the laws of man. We cannot as yet control the tides. But the operative word here is "yet". We cannot, as yet, turn off the influence of gravity.
The laws of nature to which you allude do not include social Darwinism. Biology is, as "yet" not completely understood. But what we do know seems to refute "white nationalism" pretty completely.
We're all African, and even the most "pure" bred of us has all sorts of different racial antecedents. Get your own DNA mapped before you start pushing this sort of stuff.
Her Majesty, the Queen, is descended from the prophet Mohammed, Genghis Khan, and numerous Plantagenets, Guelph's, and Ghibellines. Not to mention Atilla the Hun.
And apart from the Japanese monarchy, and a few folk called Ptolemeii, who reside in Rome, she has the longest provable ancestry of almost anyone in the world. My own antecedents are provable to the conquest. And they contain Irish, Indian, Portuguese, Norman-French and so-called English.
You need to recalibrate. You seem as if you have something to you that is worthwhile. Use it for good.
(no subject)
Date: 10/2/17 22:44 (UTC)So, setting up laws that emasculate men, isn't a solution to complex social problems. Get a better idea. This one sucks.
Anyhow... how did we go from talking about traditional roles of men to white nationalism? I suppose you got bored of the other discussion and wanted to pick my brain on races?
If Darwinism is a valid theory, then it certainly is a valid abstraction about the ebb and flow of nature. So, we would indeed be subject to these principles. And natural selection would explain why certain adaptations emerged among the various races.
Look, I can't stop you from omitting the various nuances among the racial groups. But, you're doing it because of an ideology, not because you're adhering to objectivity. If you want to create this fantasy where we're all the same, I won't stop your LARPing. However, if you want to impose this fantasy on me and those who want nothing to do with it, then we're going to have problems. And, on the political stage, that is where we are with things.
The rise of anti-white sentiment is being pushed unapologetically in media, and it is giving rise to a push back. These unethical ideas are turning into a self fulfilling prophecy.
I guess someone forgot to tell people that omitting white people from multiculturalism by breeding them out isn't as diverse of an ideology as they think. Rather, it stinks of genocide. So, do you really want to keep poking that lion? I strongly suggest reconsidering what you're arguing in favor of here. You're not as righteous in your thinking as you believe.
(no subject)
Date: 12/2/17 12:38 (UTC)I have difficulty in understanding exactly what you mean by 'Natural Law". You usage seems amorphous. If it is not about the laws of Physics, as we currently understand them, then is it about human gendered roles assigned by "nature" or biology or hormones?
Is it based on Angus Bateman's biological experiments on fruit flies in the '40's? The ones where he edited out the data which contradicted his thesis? Recent reanalysis of the totality of his own data from those experiments suggests that promiscuity by both sexes produces more offspring (i.e. greater likelihood of survival of the inherited gene - maximised through numbers of offspring) rather than just promiscuity on the male's part.
Where are you deriving this idea of the "law of nature"? And what data and experiments is such a concept based on?
You see, we humans are not defined by our biology. We don't have to die of starvation when our teeth drop out. We don't have to allow a strong individual overpower the collective - numbers matter in "laws of nature" after all. When a hornet strays into a bees' nest it will be overcome by the numbers of bees prepared to sacrifice themselves for the nest. If might makes right, collective might is almost always greater: and as social animals, we can impose our collective values on wayward individuals - and that is also a law of nature, as well as being a basis for politics of any democratic kind.
As we appear to have moved from the discursive to the specific I would like some clarity as to what you mean by 'laws of nature".
(no subject)
Date: 12/2/17 15:26 (UTC)So, yes, physics is a study of the laws of nature. But, the scope of that school is limited, right? e.g. It doesn't deal with human agency/discourse.
So, what are the laws of nature with respect to human discourse, i.e. governance. And that essentially is the study of morality because we are asking the philosophical question: How do we best cooperate with one another? And, to commit oneself to the rule of law is to commit oneself to the study of natural order as it pertains to human action.
I don't understand the comment, "We humans are not defined by our biology." How can we possibly be outside our biology? I assume I'm reading that differently than you intended. But, yes, we have the capacity for violence. There is no escaping this nature. But, we also have the capacity for cooperation. So, there is a duality here. And, by and large, we have the free will to exercise either one as we so choose. This is why one can reasonably assert the claim might does not make right -- which is a moral argument. And, in the philosophy of law, this is where we get into the de jure VS de facto dichotomy. i.e. matter of right VS matter of fact.
Hopefully that clarified some things for you.
As far as natural law and gender roles go... what is your question here?
(no subject)
Date: 12/2/17 20:29 (UTC)So you are merely asserting it is your belief that there is an order to nature, and furthermore that the order is as you say it is, with appropriate references to Aristotle and the origins of scientific method.
So if I say your axioms are superseded by subsequent evidence, conclusions from that evidence, and new syntheses from both evidence and conclusions, we have no debate unless you are prepared to accept that we know more now than Aristotle did? And that not all of us regard women as being generally inferior to men and occupying a position of social status somewhere between slaves and men, as Aristotle did.
It is all Bishop Berkeley and kicking trees with you guys. Kinde, Küche, Kirche really is integral to your weltanschauung, isn't it?
(no subject)
Date: 12/2/17 22:18 (UTC)Look... If one is going to form abstractions about reality, then that individual does so on the basis that s/he is assuming there is an order that can be isolated and articulated. All the knowledge we have about how the world works serves to substantiate this assumption. And, because we are not and never can become omniscient, there will be a margin of error to our suppositions, theories, etc.
So, if I present a claim, I believe there is truth value to that claim, unless I say otherwise. For example, if I was to play devil's advocate.
I don't know what claims of Aristotle you're referencing. But, it was his methodology that eventually brought us science. That is what I was referencing and nothing more. If that's still unclear, I'm referencing the rules of logic that we have from him.
It seems like you're quoting Aristotle's position on women -- which I'm unaware of. But, I certainly don't hold women are inferior because they're different than men. And, of course women don't hold the same social status as men. A man can never bear a child. So, it would be asinine to pretend we're equal. Why that ought to construe an inferior VS superior dichotomy is beyond me. We're different, and it is not wise to compare each other as though we are the same. The nature of a man is not the nature of a woman. And each ought to be judged according to their respective nature.
(no subject)
Date: 13/2/17 15:57 (UTC)That has never been the question. The question is, that before the law, are they equal?
My OP is about enshrining specific inequality before the law, which this legislation does. If a man beats a woman, according to this law, it is acceptable. And you are defending that.
(no subject)
Date: 13/2/17 16:06 (UTC)"The question is, that before the law, are they equal?"
Equal in what regard? That a man should be treated like a woman or that a woman should be treated like a man? That doesn't happen. And it will never happen. If that is your idea of equality of law, it is a false one.
(no subject)
Date: 13/2/17 20:07 (UTC)How far does that force extend? Assault is assault, if you will excuse the tautology. Can he bruise her? Break her arms? Murder her? Is there a line which you consider appropriate?
Given that you consider a man is entitled to maintainhis idea of discipline in the household, what redress does she get should he make a mistake in his beating of her? Is she entitled to stick cutlery between his ribs if he beats her badly and for "no reason"?
(I actually feel quite sickened having written any of that even for the sake of argument. But never mind.)
All assaults of human beings are assaults (again, that tautology) and should be dealt with in the same fashion whether people are married or in a relationship or otherwise. And that's not hyperbole, nor feminism; just fairness. There is no "reason" why a man's opinion is any better than a woman's, is there?
(no subject)
Date: 13/2/17 21:17 (UTC)So, to put this in another way: Even among guys there's that threshold where if crossed, the guy deserves a punch in the face. Guys learn this among each other very early on, and so they learn to be more considerate of how they behave with one another. No one is talking assault here.
The point is that women can cross that threshold, too. So, cross that threshold and you get slapped. I'd say that's pretty damn equal. Although, if you're a chick, you're at least not getting punched. That would be much more painful. So face it, chicks are getting off easy in comparison to men.
Also, a man committed to a higher sense of order does not have "his idea," unless you specifically mean his interpretation. Basically, I keep emphasizing an objective morality that is being adhered to, and you in turn keep trying to reframe it as though the man is behaving whimsically. So basically, you misunderstand that word discipline.
Discipline references a code of ethic. The man is assuming responsibility on behalf of the woman to maintain this order in the household. This in no way gives cause to abuse women. And, as I pointed out in one of my first comments, a woman's grievances must be addressed for order to be maintained in the house as well. So, it's not this one way street you're presenting it as.
As far as...
"There is no "reason" why a man's opinion is any better than a woman's, is there?"
Yes, there is. Women are more prone to conformity than men are. By and large, it is the duty of men to bring security to the lands, thus their people. Thus it is men's duty to strive for a higher order and to bring that order to the people. That is how culture and community is preserved so that children have a safe place to grow up.
It is men that are the spear head, the pillar, and the shield of a society.
(no subject)
Date: 13/2/17 21:58 (UTC)Surely an opinion is only as good as it happens to be, it matters not who holds the opinion or the argument; the validity of the opinion or argument is what counts not the person(s) doing the opining. There cannot be a differentiation between the position or "validity" of the person holding the opinion or the argument and the merit or otherwise of the opinion. Such things stand on their own outside the gender, race, or sexuality of the person making the opinion. You appear to be positing that a man's opinion necessarily has more weight to it than a woman's simply because of gender, which is to my mind bizarre. Truth, for example, is not dependent upon the personal characteristics of the person telling it, and never has been.
It is like me positing that folk of common birth have less validity to their opinion than folk of noble birth simply because of their status. This is plainly bonkers, though at one time a generally accepted belief. I would contend that birth has nothing to do with the rightness or otherwise of an opinion, and that the rightness or otherwise of an opinion is inherent in the opinion, not in the person or personal characteristics of those delivering it.
Enshrining the reverse in law is something that no fair-thinking person can accept.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/17 00:56 (UTC)So, if you want to evaluate the merits of a particular statement, we can do that. If you want to make comparisons of women and men, we can do that, too. But, let's not conflate the two, yeah?
See, today's PC culture has made it socially acceptable to virtue signal concepts like, "A woman can do everything that a man can do," but the the reality is that they don't. So, I responded to your question from a pragmatic standpoint rather than this idealistic perspective that assumes males and females have the same potential in society -- and, not because there is a glass ceiling or any of that nonsense, but rather because there are different fundamental drivers at play affecting the decisions and interests of the 2 genders.
So, this notion that we're equal is ideology, not reality. And the law should reflect reality not ideology.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/17 09:59 (UTC)No, but it appears Russia will pass a law to that effect, and that you will defend it.
I'm just trying to work out what women can't do that men can, apart from father children; and with genetic advances this appears to be a rather time-limited attributional gender divide.
Win a Nobel prize for sciences? IIRC the first person to win two Nobels in different scientific disciplines was a woman. A Fields Medal? Not that either. Then what?
Women from my class and background don't take kindly to being told what they can and can't do within normal legal and social bounds, nor do they regard themselves as necessarily subservient to men in any way, and have, since Gloriana's reign, struggled to let their worth and merits stand on their own accord. And no man tamed Elizabeth, not even the King of Spain and all his minions.
This Russian law doesn't sit well with the British, but it seems a certain sort of American favours a generalised Russian take on things. I suppose that's your business. You've bought what uncle Vlad's selling, and not just the oil and gas.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/17 16:14 (UTC)That's an interesting sleight of hand you just did here instead of acknowledging the error in your logic. No, they're not taking a generalization and turning it into a law. We don't need you rebooting the conversation because you ran into a wall.
"Women from my class and background don't take kindly to being told what they can and can't do within normal legal and social bounds, nor do they regard themselves as necessarily subservient to men in any way, and have, since Gloriana's reign, struggled to let their worth and merits stand on their own accord. And no man tamed Elizabeth, not even the King of Spain and all his minions."
Cool story. And, this sleight of hand crap may trick dumb people, but your attempts to try to turn women into men by degrading what women are isn't helping anyone.
This ideology is poison for women, and they're better off not buying into this false ideology that portrays motherhood as an oppressed victim or a slave or anything of the sort. Men put their lives on the line to protect this order because they hold women and children in high regard. So much for your subservience nonsense.
Your attempts to turn matrimony into a master/slave mentality is disgusting.
If you can't grasp that upholding order ultimately falls on the heads of men, then this law will go over your head as it has so thus far regardless of how many times I've repeated the essence of the law to you.
Men and women are not the same. Pretending otherwise is just delusional nonsense.
The duties of men will not be the duties of women. This is not a degradation of anyone. Rather, this respects variety in nature.
Yes, women can adopt masculine energy thereby assuming the roles of men, albeit in a limited capacity because it is not their nature. The point is that (generally speaking) they do not need to. Queen Elizabeth is an outlier that formed due to the circumstances she was born into.
The point is that when women choose to adopt masculine energy, they cannot simultaneously exercise their feminine energy. And women trying to compete with men forces women to behave more and more masculine.
To me, this is the true oppression of women because this ideology doesn't respect feminine energy. Instead, it convinces women that they're not good enough being feminine.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/17 17:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/2/17 21:18 (UTC)Don't question my integrity and expect me to take kindly to it. If you play fair, I'll play fair. And if you want to play identity politics, fine. But I won't play on your terms.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/17 21:25 (UTC)Read the rules before proceeding any further. I'll point you particularly to Rule #14.
I was hoping you to de-escalate, but since you're choosing to double down instead, I'm now issuing an official warning. Your very next comment even remotely skirting that rule is going to immediately result in your suspension.
With this, I'm shutting down the thread, as it's evidently not going into a constructive direction.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/17 18:27 (UTC)And just how am I degrading women? I exult in Gloriana, and her contemporary and subsequent strong women. Bess of Hardwick springs to mind, as does Bess's daughter, Mary, Countess of Shrewsbury. Never mind historical antecedents stretching from Boudicca, though the likes of Eleanor of Aquitaine, to more recent examples including Margaret Thatcher.
What precisely is human "female" energy? And how is it differentiated from human "male" energy? Is it merely dependent upon Kinde? Or is it not dependent upon childbirth, and is some sort of mystical woo of the kind so beloved of Guido von List, Savitri Devi, and Miguel Serrano et al? How do we measure it? And how do we separate and distinguish human energy into male and female forms? Again it seems opaque to me. I'd appreciate an explanation which doesn't invoke amorphous pseudo-science.
The duties of humans, regardless of gender, seem interchangeable; especially when it comes to the rearing of children. If one parent is removed from the equation, the other takes up the slack. Women have been academics, administrators, assassins, doctors, duelists, explorers, novelists, and scientists for the last two hundred years, and even longer when it comes to noblewomen; and sometimes they have been many of those things all at once - Gertrude Bell springs to mind, though she wasn't a doctor or scientist.
Methinks you have a set position, and one that approaches being indefensible in the modern world. But I am prepared to be wrong in this judgement.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/17 19:32 (UTC)My daughter, just as much as my son, will be fit to be partner to anyone she cares to choose; and not locked in to some absurd antediluvian notion of a woman's place.
I suppose it's a class-based judgement. If you have staff you don't expect your wife to be some sort of combination of drudge, wet-nurse, and valet. I no longer have staff, of course, being more impecunious than I'd care for; but the mindset doesn't change.