i***@gmail.com
2008-02-27 11:08:12 UTC
Everybody thinks that they know what is justice, but what they
conceive of as justice is different from place to place. The just-
world hypothesis of different people in different places and times
conceive of completely different kinds of justice. And it is by flux
between people and places that any meaningful concept of what is
justice can be attained.
In Muslim and rural Indian cultures, it is seen as justice that man
bludgeon the woman into being his dog and kill her if she disobeys in
the slightest. In American feminist culture, it is seen as justice
that a woman treat men like garbage, get a coworker fired for sexual
harrassment if he tells her she's good-looking, deal with all women
who are nicer and prettier by abusing and sabotaging them and
destroying their careers and relationships, abuse and emasculate any
relationship partner, screw exes in court out of every cent they can
get, claim that anyone who objects to such conduct is a misogynist or
a bimbo, and aim to destroy as many men and beautiful women in one's
life as one can and then claim oneself strong or smart or spiritual
or a true servant of woman's cause. Both sets think that they are
right and that what they are doing is justice. With such extremes in
the world claiming themselves to be justice and righteousness, the
way to arrive at any realistic notion of the preceding is for the
real-world mechanism of people choosing each other based on how they
are willing to treat each other to balance out whatever is believed
in their respective homelands - and create a more informed
conceptions of justice and a more balanced just-world hypothesis in
every component part of the world.
It is ridiculous for Islamists in Middle East to claim to be speaking
for justice; in Middle East, Islamists are the injustice. The same is
true for the Dworkin-McKinnon types in the United States. The in-good-
faith feminists have a real point about behavior of men in Middle
East and many other parts of the world (and some in the West), and
Islamists about behavior of the not-in-good-faith ones among
American women. But they both have much less of a point at home. On
their home turfs, they apply a grossly imbalanced conception of
justice pursuant a grossly slanted just-world hypothesis to shape
the country's concept of justice into gravely distorted forms that
lead to grave mistreatment of people - women or men - who have done
the least to deserve it.
A positive match is created between men and women whose just- world
hypotheses are a positive-sum situation. A man from a feminist
culture, whose just-world hypothesis would be seen at home as slanted
toward patriarchy but in most of the rest of the world would be seen
as fairly matriarchial, and a woman from a patriarchial culture,
whose just-world hypothesis is seen in her own country as feminist
but would be seen in a feminist culture as patriarchial or equalist,
have just-world hypotheses that are better than complementary and
that therefore can create among them a joyful appreciation of one
another and a positive-sum relationship. Take a woman from the
patriarchial culture, and put her together with a man from the
feminist culture, and we see people who stand to treat one another
better than they've ever been treated by other gender at home. As
intercultural flux allows people to make matches based on what they
see in each other and how they are willing to treat each other, is
checked the wrong in each culture that caused the imbalance, and the
graver wrong that is the mistreatment of either women or men in
relationships in pursuit of that false concept of justice. And this
creates a real-world mechanism toward creating social justice between
men and women, as well as toward a goal that is just as important:
Creating relationships between men and women where both parties
appreciate one another and treat each other in a manner that merits
their vows of love.
The global social injustice will be solved at least in part by large-
scaleintercultural, interracial and international flux of people for
love and marriage. Bringing together the men from cultures where the
concept of justice is an extreme of feminism, with women from
cultures where the concept of justice is an extreme of patriarchy -
even people from cultures whose concepts of justice are not as
extremely off-target but still noticeably apart - will bring together
people who can appreciate one another, treat each other better than
they are treated at home, and be seen by each other as positive
influence and an improvement upon what they had to deal with. It will
also create a real-world check-and-balance upon the tendency of
societies - all societies - to go injust in one or another direction
at the expense of one or another group
There were many people for a long time who believed that economic
justice around the world would be achieved by Communism. In fact
global capitalism did a much better and faster job by allowing
billions of people in places like China and India to rise out of
poverty using their own efforts with global market for their goods.
And it is international flux for purpose of marriage that has real
possibility of doing the same for social justice - while also
creating many marriages along the way where people have genuine
appreciation for one another and treat each other in commensurate
way.
Global economy made it possible for international business to move
across borders to find people who want to work and know how to work,
and for people to move across the borders to find employers who
constructively use and rightfully reward their endeavor. This
resulted in over a billion of people rising out of poverty in less
than three decades and businesses having better and more affordable
products that benefited consumers and business itself. By similar
mechanism, the men and women being free to move across borders to
find people who would treat them better than they are treated at home
results in tremendous improvement in people's relationships, as well
as improvement in gender fairness.
But far more importantly, it creates a real-world incentive for people
in all societies to treat their partners - men or women - in
rightful manner, for knowing that there are other people around the
world who would treat them well if they do not. And this breaks the
stranglehold of local oppressors and thugs - both thugs of muscle and
thugs of morality - who want to keep one or another group in their
cultures in shackles so that they can be guiltlessly and without
consequence mistreated.
Protectionism - attempt by rich countries to create walls against
international products - has been described as bullying and
extortion. The consumer is being extorted, and the working people
around the world are being bullied, by the rich country attempting to
protect unearned priviledge of some of its workers at everybody
else's expense. The communities that want to deny their citizens the
right to make interracial, intercultural or international matches,
are likewise using extortion and bullying to protect unearned
privilege - such as the unearned privilege of Middle Eastern or rural
Indian men to treat women like cattle, to throw vitriol in their
faces, and to execute them in case they do not obey their every
idiotic command. Like tariffs and quotas of the protectionists are
used to maintain economic imbalance, so the violence, moral thuggery,
and oppressive laws, are used to sustain social injustice. And just
as in case of protectionism, where the greater the economic imbalance
the higher the obstacles that are required to sustian it, so the
greater the scale of violence, moral thuggery, and oppressive
legislation, the greater the social injustice and the graver the
system abuse.
There are many people who falsely claim that protectionism is more
moral than global economy. It is not; it is bullying and extortion
against one's citizens and against the world to protect unearned
privilege. The same is also true of efforts by any local entity at
any level to keep people from marrying people external to itself. If
a country or a community constructs walls against intercultural,
inter- ethnic or international marriage, then it is performing
bullying and extortion against its own citizens and against the rest
of the world, in order to keep its citizens chained to partners who
want the unearned privilege of treating them like trash.
The greater the scale of economic imbalance, the greater the need for
protective barriers. And the greater the scale of social imbalance,
the more artificial barriers are required to keep it in place. Thus,
the greatest amount of violence, threats, moral bludgeoning,
character assassination, psychological abuse and oppressive
legislation will be expected to be, and is, done by the communities
that are the most gravely injust and abusive - and to the least
extent by the communities that are the least abusive and least
injust.
It takes more barriers to keep people from leaving a raw deal than it
does to keep them from leaving a fair deal. From this follows that
the greater the obstacles placed by the culture to women or men
finding partners elsewhere, the greater the systemic injustice that
they embody. The more abuse, violence, legal oppression and moral
bludgeoning is directed against one or another group, the greater the
injustice that is perpetuated against them. The greater the actual
need for intercultural, interracial or international flux in order to
rectify the imbalance.
The people are bullied into lives they would never have chosen if
they were aware of the true range of options before them, and are
kept there by oppressive laws that want to make a commitment based on
inadequate knowledge and false advertising life-long. That state of
affairs is falsely regarded as being moral. It is not moral state of
affairs; it is a state of affairs based on systemic injustice. The
disadvantaged are kept to inhuman treatment and denied relationships
with people who would treat them better, and the people around the
world are kept from partaking of what they have to offer, all in
order to defend unearned privilege of the wrongly advantaged class to
abuse the oppressed.
Thus, the people who are against intercultural matches in cultures
such as the Muslim scream about tradition and morality. The real
reason they are against such matches is that they want to abuse women
as much as they want to abuse women, and for the women to have no
other options but to put up with living hell that is life as a woman
in Middle East. The people who attack such matches in feminist
cultures claim all kinds of silliness as well. The real reason is
that they want to treat men like trash, and for the men to have no
possibility but to take it. In both cases, the resistance to
international relationships is a result of systemic wrong that leads
to systemic imbalance. And it is this wrong that is checked and
balanced by the real-world mechanism of people being meaningfully
free to choose their partners in parts of the world that are not
formulated by the same systemic imbalances and the wrongful
mistreatment of one or another gender that these imbalances create.
The same of course is the case in relationships themselves. The
greater the scale of the intended and later accomplished injustice,
the greater the amount of physical violence, threats, psychological
abuse, character assassination, reputation destruction and legal and
social bullying that the perpetuator of the injustice needs to do in
order to artificially protect and maintain the wrong. This is the case
either when the imbalance is that of the perpetrator being with
partner who is too good for them but not being willing to treat the
partner at level accorded their merits, or of the desire of the
perpetrator to grossly mistreat the partner, or of the desire by the
perpetrator to take from the partner all that they have to offer and
give poison and violence in return. Like barriers to trade being
evidence of artifiically maintained economic imbalance, these actions
are evidence of artificially maintained imbalance in the relationship.
The more we see done of all or any such things, the more the intended
or the accomplished injustice, the more apparent is the injustice
perpetuated by the partner who does these things.
Which means that abuse in relationships is more likely to be done not
for the things that are wrong in the partner, but for things that are
right in them. And the greater the amount of any such violence, the
more we see the injustice that one commits or intends to commit.
In the same way as global economy provides a way for workers around
the world to rise out of poverty - and for entrepreneurs to have
access to people who are willing and able to work effectively - so do
international matches allow a way for women from cultures slanted
against women and men from cultures slanted against men to create
matches with people from whom they can expect better treatment that
in home societies, and whom they likewise will treat in ways better
than they are treated at home. The women from cultures where women
treat men right but are mistreated by men in their own homeland - and
men from cultures where men treat women right but women do not treat
men right - find in each other better treatment than they could hope
for in partners from their own communities. Not only are beautiful
matches created, but social imbalances are rectified, and people in
the communities are shown how truly loving, mutually appreciative and
mutually respectful relationships can be made real. In this are
created two positives, and rectified many negatives. The positive of
mutually appreciative, mutually positive matches and positive
influence that they exert on the disadvantaged group in society - and
the negative of the wrong that creates social imbalances and the
abusive ways that maintain the wrong.
Thus international relationships therefore work for freedom,
fairness, and good treatment by men and women of one another in
relationships. And that is a valuable and meaningful good toward
which it is worthy to aspire for men and women around the world.
conceive of as justice is different from place to place. The just-
world hypothesis of different people in different places and times
conceive of completely different kinds of justice. And it is by flux
between people and places that any meaningful concept of what is
justice can be attained.
In Muslim and rural Indian cultures, it is seen as justice that man
bludgeon the woman into being his dog and kill her if she disobeys in
the slightest. In American feminist culture, it is seen as justice
that a woman treat men like garbage, get a coworker fired for sexual
harrassment if he tells her she's good-looking, deal with all women
who are nicer and prettier by abusing and sabotaging them and
destroying their careers and relationships, abuse and emasculate any
relationship partner, screw exes in court out of every cent they can
get, claim that anyone who objects to such conduct is a misogynist or
a bimbo, and aim to destroy as many men and beautiful women in one's
life as one can and then claim oneself strong or smart or spiritual
or a true servant of woman's cause. Both sets think that they are
right and that what they are doing is justice. With such extremes in
the world claiming themselves to be justice and righteousness, the
way to arrive at any realistic notion of the preceding is for the
real-world mechanism of people choosing each other based on how they
are willing to treat each other to balance out whatever is believed
in their respective homelands - and create a more informed
conceptions of justice and a more balanced just-world hypothesis in
every component part of the world.
It is ridiculous for Islamists in Middle East to claim to be speaking
for justice; in Middle East, Islamists are the injustice. The same is
true for the Dworkin-McKinnon types in the United States. The in-good-
faith feminists have a real point about behavior of men in Middle
East and many other parts of the world (and some in the West), and
Islamists about behavior of the not-in-good-faith ones among
American women. But they both have much less of a point at home. On
their home turfs, they apply a grossly imbalanced conception of
justice pursuant a grossly slanted just-world hypothesis to shape
the country's concept of justice into gravely distorted forms that
lead to grave mistreatment of people - women or men - who have done
the least to deserve it.
A positive match is created between men and women whose just- world
hypotheses are a positive-sum situation. A man from a feminist
culture, whose just-world hypothesis would be seen at home as slanted
toward patriarchy but in most of the rest of the world would be seen
as fairly matriarchial, and a woman from a patriarchial culture,
whose just-world hypothesis is seen in her own country as feminist
but would be seen in a feminist culture as patriarchial or equalist,
have just-world hypotheses that are better than complementary and
that therefore can create among them a joyful appreciation of one
another and a positive-sum relationship. Take a woman from the
patriarchial culture, and put her together with a man from the
feminist culture, and we see people who stand to treat one another
better than they've ever been treated by other gender at home. As
intercultural flux allows people to make matches based on what they
see in each other and how they are willing to treat each other, is
checked the wrong in each culture that caused the imbalance, and the
graver wrong that is the mistreatment of either women or men in
relationships in pursuit of that false concept of justice. And this
creates a real-world mechanism toward creating social justice between
men and women, as well as toward a goal that is just as important:
Creating relationships between men and women where both parties
appreciate one another and treat each other in a manner that merits
their vows of love.
The global social injustice will be solved at least in part by large-
scaleintercultural, interracial and international flux of people for
love and marriage. Bringing together the men from cultures where the
concept of justice is an extreme of feminism, with women from
cultures where the concept of justice is an extreme of patriarchy -
even people from cultures whose concepts of justice are not as
extremely off-target but still noticeably apart - will bring together
people who can appreciate one another, treat each other better than
they are treated at home, and be seen by each other as positive
influence and an improvement upon what they had to deal with. It will
also create a real-world check-and-balance upon the tendency of
societies - all societies - to go injust in one or another direction
at the expense of one or another group
There were many people for a long time who believed that economic
justice around the world would be achieved by Communism. In fact
global capitalism did a much better and faster job by allowing
billions of people in places like China and India to rise out of
poverty using their own efforts with global market for their goods.
And it is international flux for purpose of marriage that has real
possibility of doing the same for social justice - while also
creating many marriages along the way where people have genuine
appreciation for one another and treat each other in commensurate
way.
Global economy made it possible for international business to move
across borders to find people who want to work and know how to work,
and for people to move across the borders to find employers who
constructively use and rightfully reward their endeavor. This
resulted in over a billion of people rising out of poverty in less
than three decades and businesses having better and more affordable
products that benefited consumers and business itself. By similar
mechanism, the men and women being free to move across borders to
find people who would treat them better than they are treated at home
results in tremendous improvement in people's relationships, as well
as improvement in gender fairness.
But far more importantly, it creates a real-world incentive for people
in all societies to treat their partners - men or women - in
rightful manner, for knowing that there are other people around the
world who would treat them well if they do not. And this breaks the
stranglehold of local oppressors and thugs - both thugs of muscle and
thugs of morality - who want to keep one or another group in their
cultures in shackles so that they can be guiltlessly and without
consequence mistreated.
Protectionism - attempt by rich countries to create walls against
international products - has been described as bullying and
extortion. The consumer is being extorted, and the working people
around the world are being bullied, by the rich country attempting to
protect unearned priviledge of some of its workers at everybody
else's expense. The communities that want to deny their citizens the
right to make interracial, intercultural or international matches,
are likewise using extortion and bullying to protect unearned
privilege - such as the unearned privilege of Middle Eastern or rural
Indian men to treat women like cattle, to throw vitriol in their
faces, and to execute them in case they do not obey their every
idiotic command. Like tariffs and quotas of the protectionists are
used to maintain economic imbalance, so the violence, moral thuggery,
and oppressive laws, are used to sustain social injustice. And just
as in case of protectionism, where the greater the economic imbalance
the higher the obstacles that are required to sustian it, so the
greater the scale of violence, moral thuggery, and oppressive
legislation, the greater the social injustice and the graver the
system abuse.
There are many people who falsely claim that protectionism is more
moral than global economy. It is not; it is bullying and extortion
against one's citizens and against the world to protect unearned
privilege. The same is also true of efforts by any local entity at
any level to keep people from marrying people external to itself. If
a country or a community constructs walls against intercultural,
inter- ethnic or international marriage, then it is performing
bullying and extortion against its own citizens and against the rest
of the world, in order to keep its citizens chained to partners who
want the unearned privilege of treating them like trash.
The greater the scale of economic imbalance, the greater the need for
protective barriers. And the greater the scale of social imbalance,
the more artificial barriers are required to keep it in place. Thus,
the greatest amount of violence, threats, moral bludgeoning,
character assassination, psychological abuse and oppressive
legislation will be expected to be, and is, done by the communities
that are the most gravely injust and abusive - and to the least
extent by the communities that are the least abusive and least
injust.
It takes more barriers to keep people from leaving a raw deal than it
does to keep them from leaving a fair deal. From this follows that
the greater the obstacles placed by the culture to women or men
finding partners elsewhere, the greater the systemic injustice that
they embody. The more abuse, violence, legal oppression and moral
bludgeoning is directed against one or another group, the greater the
injustice that is perpetuated against them. The greater the actual
need for intercultural, interracial or international flux in order to
rectify the imbalance.
The people are bullied into lives they would never have chosen if
they were aware of the true range of options before them, and are
kept there by oppressive laws that want to make a commitment based on
inadequate knowledge and false advertising life-long. That state of
affairs is falsely regarded as being moral. It is not moral state of
affairs; it is a state of affairs based on systemic injustice. The
disadvantaged are kept to inhuman treatment and denied relationships
with people who would treat them better, and the people around the
world are kept from partaking of what they have to offer, all in
order to defend unearned privilege of the wrongly advantaged class to
abuse the oppressed.
Thus, the people who are against intercultural matches in cultures
such as the Muslim scream about tradition and morality. The real
reason they are against such matches is that they want to abuse women
as much as they want to abuse women, and for the women to have no
other options but to put up with living hell that is life as a woman
in Middle East. The people who attack such matches in feminist
cultures claim all kinds of silliness as well. The real reason is
that they want to treat men like trash, and for the men to have no
possibility but to take it. In both cases, the resistance to
international relationships is a result of systemic wrong that leads
to systemic imbalance. And it is this wrong that is checked and
balanced by the real-world mechanism of people being meaningfully
free to choose their partners in parts of the world that are not
formulated by the same systemic imbalances and the wrongful
mistreatment of one or another gender that these imbalances create.
The same of course is the case in relationships themselves. The
greater the scale of the intended and later accomplished injustice,
the greater the amount of physical violence, threats, psychological
abuse, character assassination, reputation destruction and legal and
social bullying that the perpetuator of the injustice needs to do in
order to artificially protect and maintain the wrong. This is the case
either when the imbalance is that of the perpetrator being with
partner who is too good for them but not being willing to treat the
partner at level accorded their merits, or of the desire of the
perpetrator to grossly mistreat the partner, or of the desire by the
perpetrator to take from the partner all that they have to offer and
give poison and violence in return. Like barriers to trade being
evidence of artifiically maintained economic imbalance, these actions
are evidence of artificially maintained imbalance in the relationship.
The more we see done of all or any such things, the more the intended
or the accomplished injustice, the more apparent is the injustice
perpetuated by the partner who does these things.
Which means that abuse in relationships is more likely to be done not
for the things that are wrong in the partner, but for things that are
right in them. And the greater the amount of any such violence, the
more we see the injustice that one commits or intends to commit.
In the same way as global economy provides a way for workers around
the world to rise out of poverty - and for entrepreneurs to have
access to people who are willing and able to work effectively - so do
international matches allow a way for women from cultures slanted
against women and men from cultures slanted against men to create
matches with people from whom they can expect better treatment that
in home societies, and whom they likewise will treat in ways better
than they are treated at home. The women from cultures where women
treat men right but are mistreated by men in their own homeland - and
men from cultures where men treat women right but women do not treat
men right - find in each other better treatment than they could hope
for in partners from their own communities. Not only are beautiful
matches created, but social imbalances are rectified, and people in
the communities are shown how truly loving, mutually appreciative and
mutually respectful relationships can be made real. In this are
created two positives, and rectified many negatives. The positive of
mutually appreciative, mutually positive matches and positive
influence that they exert on the disadvantaged group in society - and
the negative of the wrong that creates social imbalances and the
abusive ways that maintain the wrong.
Thus international relationships therefore work for freedom,
fairness, and good treatment by men and women of one another in
relationships. And that is a valuable and meaningful good toward
which it is worthy to aspire for men and women around the world.