I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
In case you haven't noticed, neither slapping, nor emotional harrassment are signs of a healthy relationship. As a matter of fact, they should prompt you to terminate the relationship. The difference between the two is that you can easily ignore "sneaky remarks" while it's quite difficult to ignore a fist in you face (or whatever "subtle" violence you have in mind).
While there is no guarantee that a majority opinion is correct, it is a valid reason to reevaluate yours in case you find yourself on the side of the minority. When taking into consideration that an overwhelming majority disagrees with you and that amongst the people agreeing with you are (ultra-)Islamic clerics whose views on morality stem from the 7th century, chances are that you are wrong and the labels people put onto you are legitamte.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
On August 23 2012 20:31 branflakes14 wrote: When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
You take this view to its logical conclusion, and you end up with Andres Brevik and Adolf Hitler.
But even a mild interpretation of this causes problems.
First, culture is not related to a nation's strength. The concept of a unified kingdom where the temporal authority had supreme control over all local affairs wasn't around before 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia. Prior to that, people were bound up to first, the Church, and then their local Lord. And people of those ages were far more "culturally strong" than they are today.
Nations are built out of a political will, rather than a cultural one. A nation comes into existence to fulfill the social contract. A nation is not there to preserve or uphold a particular culture--it is there to preserve and increase the welfare of its citizenry.
Now, of course, if the citizenry themselves feel that their welfare is contingent upon preserving a culture, then the nation is dependent on preserving that culture. But before that? No. If the citizenry are happy with whatever culture they want to live with, then the nation, insofar as its criterion of strength is how well it serves its citizens, would be better off embracing multiculturalism.
Cultural purity is one of many possible ends, not the means, to national strength.
TLDR/example: If everyone in America wanted America to be exclusively "US culture" then the US is strong if it excludes foreign cultures. But if people in America are okay or even happy with lots of different cultures in the US, then the US is strong if it goes with multiculturalism.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
You might want to take another look at the definition of racism. Racism is discrimination based on race, or the belief that members of a race is superior to another. This does not come naturally, as children often don't have it. It's something that's learned later in life along with stereotypes.
While I usually love your postings I think you might be wrong on this one. The basis for pretty much any "-ism" is that xy is not part of the groups I consider myself part of and some general concept of things being inferior/superior to others.
Children, if left alone, are incredibly cruel to other children who aren't "part of their group". Mostly because they lack the depth of moral codes and experiences adults have. Like, throw a black, white and yellow child into the same area and I'm sure they'll get along just fine. Throw in 5 white kids, a black kid and give them the initial thought of "blacks aren't the same as white" and they'll bully the kid to hell and back.
The major difference is that at an early age kids don't consider most things harmful (pretty much below 10-12), they hardly have preconveived ideas about color of skin, behaviour (or weird drooling guys in vans who offer them candy). Once they're past that age the whole bullying usually starts to get pretty heavy as soon as someone can be identified as an "outsider".
Yep, Lord of the Flies--the in group ended up bullying Piggy to death simply because Piggy was the only one of the marooned survivors who wore glasses.
I thought this thread seemed oddly familiar as a topic...now i know why. Lord of the flies. Read it last year for summer reading. It's a weird book in that it's just the ultimate hypothetical that proves without any proof besides the hypothetical events that iids are beasts. I agree with it, though.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I don't think it's unfair at all. He keeps referring to women as sleeping behind people's back and how sly and conniving they are. As if all women are indirect and evil and manipulative. It's really quite disturbing and reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with anti-semites. Yes, I think it's completely fair to say that he has deep-seated trust issues with women. He's clearly speaking from anecdotal experience here, and using it to color all his views on women.
And seriously, just because he prefers to be slapped and hit rather than ignored, does not mean the rest of us do.
And I completely disagree with the statement that indirect violence and psychological violence dominates everything. Quite frankly I'm not sure how you describe "giving someone the cold shoulder" as "violence," but I don't think any violence is that pervasive at all. It certainly should not be that pervasive in any loving relationship (unless it's in a kinky way, of course).
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I don't think it's unfair at all. He keeps referring to women as sleeping behind people's back and how sly and conniving they are. As if all women are indirect and evil and manipulative. It's really quite disturbing and reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with anti-semites. Yes, I think it's completely fair to say that he has deep-seated trust issues with women. He's clearly speaking from anecdotal experience here, and using it to color all his views on women.
And seriously, just because he prefers to be slapped and hit rather than ignored, does not mean the rest of us do.
And I completely disagree with the statement that indirect violence and psychological violence dominates everything. Quite frankly I'm not sure how you describe "giving someone the cold shoulder" as "violence," but I don't think any violence is that pervasive at all. It certainly should not be that pervasive in any loving relationship (unless it's in a kinky way, of course).
I think people with all sorts of irrational prejudices eventually tend to ascribe cheating/fraudulent behaviors to the targets of their prejudice, but I don't think accusing groups of those behaviors is an indicator of said prejudice. (Basically it's not a biconditional statement.)
What I do think might be the case is that Siroko might have gotten hurt by a lady quite recently. No harm in venting bitterness all over an internet forum if that's the case. And if that's true, shouldn't we try to make him feel better than to bash on him?
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I don't think it's unfair at all. He keeps referring to women as sleeping behind people's back and how sly and conniving they are. As if all women are indirect and evil and manipulative. It's really quite disturbing and reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with anti-semites. Yes, I think it's completely fair to say that he has deep-seated trust issues with women. He's clearly speaking from anecdotal experience here, and using it to color all his views on women.
And seriously, just because he prefers to be slapped and hit rather than ignored, does not mean the rest of us do.
And I completely disagree with the statement that indirect violence and psychological violence dominates everything. Quite frankly I'm not sure how you describe "giving someone the cold shoulder" as "violence," but I don't think any violence is that pervasive at all. It certainly should not be that pervasive in any loving relationship (unless it's in a kinky way, of course).
I think people with all sorts of irrational prejudices eventually tend to ascribe cheating/fraudulent behaviors to the targets of their prejudice, but I don't think accusing groups of those behaviors is an indicator of said prejudice. (Basically it's not a biconditional statement.)
What I do think might be the case is that Siroko might have gotten hurt by a lady quite recently. No harm in venting bitterness all over an internet forum if that's the case. And if that's true, shouldn't we try to make him feel better than to bash on him?
Look, I don't want to reinforce that kind of thinking and send him into a happy death spiral. The fact is that he's talking himself into "justified" physical violence against other people, and that's an idea that can harm people around him, especially people that he cares about.
There's a difference between bitching and venting on the internet and justifying physical violence...
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I don't think it's unfair at all. He keeps referring to women as sleeping behind people's back and how sly and conniving they are. As if all women are indirect and evil and manipulative. It's really quite disturbing and reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with anti-semites. Yes, I think it's completely fair to say that he has deep-seated trust issues with women. He's clearly speaking from anecdotal experience here, and using it to color all his views on women.
And seriously, just because he prefers to be slapped and hit rather than ignored, does not mean the rest of us do.
And I completely disagree with the statement that indirect violence and psychological violence dominates everything. Quite frankly I'm not sure how you describe "giving someone the cold shoulder" as "violence," but I don't think any violence is that pervasive at all. It certainly should not be that pervasive in any loving relationship (unless it's in a kinky way, of course).
I think people with all sorts of irrational prejudices eventually tend to ascribe cheating/fraudulent behaviors to the targets of their prejudice, but I don't think accusing groups of those behaviors is an indicator of said prejudice. (Basically it's not a biconditional statement.)
What I do think might be the case is that Siroko might have gotten hurt by a lady quite recently. No harm in venting bitterness all over an internet forum if that's the case. And if that's true, shouldn't we try to make him feel better than to bash on him?
Look, I don't want to reinforce that kind of thinking and send him into a happy death spiral. The fact is that he's talking himself into "justified" physical violence against other people, and that's an idea that can harm people around him, especially people that he cares about.
There's a difference between bitching and venting on the internet and justifying physical violence...
On August 23 2012 20:31 branflakes14 wrote: When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
You take this view to its logical conclusion, and you end up with Andres Brevik and Adolf Hitler.
Logical conclusion would be let the weak horse die, because noone wants weak horse over strong one. The statement is idiotic in itself.
On August 23 2012 20:31 branflakes14 wrote: When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
You take this view to its logical conclusion, and you end up with Andres Brevik and Adolf Hitler.
Logical conclusion would be let the weak horse die, because noone wants weak horse over strong one. The statement is idiotic in itself.
i'm going to be making a shitty post but here goes... "shitty because im going to be lazy and not do my usual citations"
1. what the fuck is culture. what the fuck is a nations identity? if we are talking about western cultures, our culture has already been destroyed. it's been destroyed and replaced by consumer capitalism.
2. history of western culture. we had peasents / serfs and lords. then we had owners of production / capital and exploited labour. now we sort of have some sort of... weird shit where the working class/middle class are suffering but still like... 100% more well off then people working in coltan mines
3. western culture is bad. well not exactly. there is good and bad. then there are comparisons to other cultures. but i just want to point out, as already pointed out earlier... that western culture is not superior.
4. western culture was the weaker horse and it died awhile ago.
On August 23 2012 20:31 branflakes14 wrote: When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
You take this view to its logical conclusion, and you end up with Andres Brevik and Adolf Hitler.
Logical conclusion would be let the weak horse die, because noone wants weak horse over strong one. The statement is idiotic in itself.
i'm going to be making a shitty post but here goes... "shitty because im going to be lazy and not do my usual citations"
1. what the fuck is culture. what the fuck is a nations identity? if we are talking about western cultures, our culture has already been destroyed. it's been destroyed and replaced by consumer capitalism.
2. history of western culture. we had peasents / serfs and lords. then we had owners of production / capital and exploited labour. now we sort of have some sort of... weird shit where the working class/middle class are suffering but still like... 100% more well off then people working in coltan mines
3. western culture is bad. well not exactly. there is good and bad. then there are comparisons to other cultures. but i just want to point out, as already pointed out earlier... that western culture is not superior.
4. western culture was the weaker horse and it died awhile ago.
Not necessarily. I'd say Industrialization and Rationalism are what Western culture has become. The old Judeo-Christian or Roman ideals have long since disappeared.
But even through that scope, Western culture is in decline. The high point of the West was 1914. Then the same trends that propelled Western superiority and self-belief -- industrial strength, nationalism, treating human beings as independent rational agents with inherent dignity, and belief in an infallible, just God and just, though fallible, government -- those same trends ended up tearing the West apart in a pair of fratricidal wars, the second even worse than the first.
From a sociopolitical view of history, though, the silver lining for the West is that often, the same concepts that propel a civilization upwards, are also the double edged swords that end up cutting it down. For Egypt and China, it was the ability to unify its people under an autocracy, which allowed them to conquer their often-flooding rivers and build agricultural superpowers. But those same abilities ended up making Egypt and China stagnant in the face of dynamic powers with different methods of organization. For the West, it was rationality and individualism coupled with nationalism, which allowed for the creation of competing nation states that constantly tried to one-up another in the fields of economics, science, and warfare--which led to the great heights of the 19th century and the barbaric lows of the 20th.
Viewed through that lens, then, the decline of the West should not be taken as a tragedy, but simply how the human race renews itself. Each progression in the set of memes that organize us has vastly improved all our lives. We should embrace the next cycle of change.
EPT
