i***@gmail.com
2008-02-26 18:31:46 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 act like a harpy, treat people 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
hypotheses 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 fairness. 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.
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 act like a harpy, treat people 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
hypotheses 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 fairness. 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.
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.