![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
asthfghl posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFirst, some context:
Convention on Gender Violence Draws Backlash in Bulgaria
Bulgaria's Minister of Interior: Istanbul Convention Won't Push for Introducing a Third Gender
So much ignorance, intellectual laziness, manipulation and spin behind this story... I've literally argued for hours with folks who haven't even read the actual text of the actual fucking convention, and who don't know how international conventions really work, be they human rights ones or otherwise.
This specific one is about women's rights, women's equality, and provides prescriptions for tackling the problem of domestic violence against women, a problem that's been swept under the rug for way too long, including in presumably "civilized" countries like mine, which have actually already adopted laws for protecting women, and for women equality (why, then, joining this convention like the rest of the world is considered such a big problem, might be bewildering to some of you).
A common sentiment around these latitudes: "We Bulgarians pride ourselves in our beautiful women... And others around the world, in their beautiful men". We're so awesomely macho, ain't we? Aw hell yea!
Well, the problem some xenophobic self-dubbed "social conservatives" (they like to call themselves "patriots" of course) seem to be having here derives from some definitions included in the document, which they're somehow reading with way more subtlety than the authors intended: like "gender", "social gender", etc. They believe these provide potential loopholes for recognizing "a third gender" and all other sorts of devilry at some point in the future. And we don't want that, do we? We want to preserve the "traditional values", whatever that's supposed to mean (mores and customs from the early Middle Ages, perhaps?)
Well, the cynicist in me would say this whole kerfuffle is actually a neat way for our nationalists to tighten their own ranks up by finding an outside enemy (namely, the rotten Western values of those "tolerasts" from "Gayrope" who are conspiring to impose their "agenda" upon our God-fearing, sacred, exceptionally awesome Nation). The tactic is as old as the world: find an outside enemy, point a finger at it, and unite in your hatred for it. In this particular case they have the extra bonus of appearing as if they're opposing an unpopular move by the government - although they're part of the fucking ruling coalition! And they don't seem likely to give up their rulers' privileges any time soon - but that won't stop them from pretending to be pro-traditional-value and anti-globalist-conspiracy white-knights, right?
See, the problem with our resident xenophobic pseudo-patriots is, now that the refugee wave has subsided and the Islamic State is no more, their fight against their traditional ethnic and religious enemies is losing steam fast - which means loss of influence and votes. Conveniently, there's this new foe, "queers". The Istanbul Convention is being presented as if it's an act of shoving a law down our throats that would somehow legitimize homosexualism, the "third gender" (?!?), etc - despite the fact that no such thing is even remotely hinted at in the document (let alone the question what's so bad if that happened). As the Preamble itself stipulates, the convention is intended to prevent and fight violence against women, and domestic violence. But yeah. You can't argue with someone who considers science and reason their enemy now, can you?
The whole manipulation strategy rests upon a well-known mechanism that helps propagate fake news: you make whatever assertion suits you, and you rely that few people would bother to fact-check it. Be it out of intellectual laziness or fear to have their prejudices challenged. The result being that this convention is now translated not as a prescription for adjusting the education systems around the world in a way that would educate kids about the problem of stereotyping the woman's role in the family and all the prejudices and abuse that come with that - but would force "non-traditional sexual orientations" upon them instead. Amazing! Well, guess what? All of that is a lie. There's no such thing in the convention. But even if there were, so what? If you've been raised as a reasonable person who tolerates everyone, regardless of their political creed, social status or sexual preference, that doesn't automatically make YOU a homosexual, does it? What it certainly does, is dramatically decrease the risk of you beating your wife. Or so one would hope.
Sadly, wrapping this convention up in a toxic halo of fake news has essentially undermined any chance of it provoking a real debate about the values in our modern society affecting gender relations. And the urgent need for such a document (despite the fact that, like I said, we already HAVE such laws in our country), is evident from the fact that seemingly cultured, educated, reasonable people are boiling gender down to physical traits like having a dick or not, completely disregarding its social dimension. This, in the 21st century. I'm not even talking about the vast ignorant majority of our own brand of moronic hillbilly, for whom the biggest compliment they're capable of doing to their wife is to affectionately slap her on the butt. A professor here went into a shitstorm recently for claiming those constitute about 80% of our people. People got offended. Maybe because they realized he was right, and they recognized themselves in the description. Well, I'd say he was being way too generous, in my overall observation that number might actually be closer to 95%. As a very prominent champion of reason would say, "saaaad".
Convention on Gender Violence Draws Backlash in Bulgaria
Bulgaria's Minister of Interior: Istanbul Convention Won't Push for Introducing a Third Gender
So much ignorance, intellectual laziness, manipulation and spin behind this story... I've literally argued for hours with folks who haven't even read the actual text of the actual fucking convention, and who don't know how international conventions really work, be they human rights ones or otherwise.
This specific one is about women's rights, women's equality, and provides prescriptions for tackling the problem of domestic violence against women, a problem that's been swept under the rug for way too long, including in presumably "civilized" countries like mine, which have actually already adopted laws for protecting women, and for women equality (why, then, joining this convention like the rest of the world is considered such a big problem, might be bewildering to some of you).
A common sentiment around these latitudes: "We Bulgarians pride ourselves in our beautiful women... And others around the world, in their beautiful men". We're so awesomely macho, ain't we? Aw hell yea!
Well, the problem some xenophobic self-dubbed "social conservatives" (they like to call themselves "patriots" of course) seem to be having here derives from some definitions included in the document, which they're somehow reading with way more subtlety than the authors intended: like "gender", "social gender", etc. They believe these provide potential loopholes for recognizing "a third gender" and all other sorts of devilry at some point in the future. And we don't want that, do we? We want to preserve the "traditional values", whatever that's supposed to mean (mores and customs from the early Middle Ages, perhaps?)
Well, the cynicist in me would say this whole kerfuffle is actually a neat way for our nationalists to tighten their own ranks up by finding an outside enemy (namely, the rotten Western values of those "tolerasts" from "Gayrope" who are conspiring to impose their "agenda" upon our God-fearing, sacred, exceptionally awesome Nation). The tactic is as old as the world: find an outside enemy, point a finger at it, and unite in your hatred for it. In this particular case they have the extra bonus of appearing as if they're opposing an unpopular move by the government - although they're part of the fucking ruling coalition! And they don't seem likely to give up their rulers' privileges any time soon - but that won't stop them from pretending to be pro-traditional-value and anti-globalist-conspiracy white-knights, right?
See, the problem with our resident xenophobic pseudo-patriots is, now that the refugee wave has subsided and the Islamic State is no more, their fight against their traditional ethnic and religious enemies is losing steam fast - which means loss of influence and votes. Conveniently, there's this new foe, "queers". The Istanbul Convention is being presented as if it's an act of shoving a law down our throats that would somehow legitimize homosexualism, the "third gender" (?!?), etc - despite the fact that no such thing is even remotely hinted at in the document (let alone the question what's so bad if that happened). As the Preamble itself stipulates, the convention is intended to prevent and fight violence against women, and domestic violence. But yeah. You can't argue with someone who considers science and reason their enemy now, can you?
The whole manipulation strategy rests upon a well-known mechanism that helps propagate fake news: you make whatever assertion suits you, and you rely that few people would bother to fact-check it. Be it out of intellectual laziness or fear to have their prejudices challenged. The result being that this convention is now translated not as a prescription for adjusting the education systems around the world in a way that would educate kids about the problem of stereotyping the woman's role in the family and all the prejudices and abuse that come with that - but would force "non-traditional sexual orientations" upon them instead. Amazing! Well, guess what? All of that is a lie. There's no such thing in the convention. But even if there were, so what? If you've been raised as a reasonable person who tolerates everyone, regardless of their political creed, social status or sexual preference, that doesn't automatically make YOU a homosexual, does it? What it certainly does, is dramatically decrease the risk of you beating your wife. Or so one would hope.
Sadly, wrapping this convention up in a toxic halo of fake news has essentially undermined any chance of it provoking a real debate about the values in our modern society affecting gender relations. And the urgent need for such a document (despite the fact that, like I said, we already HAVE such laws in our country), is evident from the fact that seemingly cultured, educated, reasonable people are boiling gender down to physical traits like having a dick or not, completely disregarding its social dimension. This, in the 21st century. I'm not even talking about the vast ignorant majority of our own brand of moronic hillbilly, for whom the biggest compliment they're capable of doing to their wife is to affectionately slap her on the butt. A professor here went into a shitstorm recently for claiming those constitute about 80% of our people. People got offended. Maybe because they realized he was right, and they recognized themselves in the description. Well, I'd say he was being way too generous, in my overall observation that number might actually be closer to 95%. As a very prominent champion of reason would say, "saaaad".
(no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 05:03 (UTC)The successors of the Bulgarian Communist Party, rather like a few similar east European parties, are notoriously conservative when it comes to social issues.
(no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 19:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 05:04 (UTC)So, there's a concern that may Bulgarian women may be attracted to foreign men?
(no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 06:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 07:12 (UTC)What I'm saying is, don't be too hard on your people.
(no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 08:09 (UTC)If this is the worst your nation has to offer, it’s good to stand on the side of the angels and attempt to change the worldview that confines, prohibits, or censures LGBTQ folk.
However most of this appears media-stoked. Like the recent case in Australia, the media are inciting events. Civil unrest as a new form of clickbait, no doubt in the Australian case; oppression and unequal treatment in this one. If it keeps the advertisers happy... though I don’t see how oppression could ever be advertiser-friendly. Perhaps someone has a mechanism, or at least a theory?
(no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 09:34 (UTC)Depends if you're e belligerent nationalist or not.
(no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 09:35 (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 11/1/18 10:30 (UTC)You know, the stuff I’ve been wittering on about for decades.