Teenage gang rape victim commits suicide as second woman f

[Iron Bridge]

You're not opposing sexism, shithead. You're expressing xenophobic paranoia towards people immigrating with a certain cultural background, based on nothing but racist and sexist assumptions.

East-Asia is also deeply misogynist, but they got your blessing as being "west-like", funny. So, it's really only those filthy 3/5ths of a person brown-skinned males that we should be alerted about, eh?

Japan specifically, does not outlaw women driving, prescribe certain forms of dress, ban from education, etc. I read somewhere it was ranked 11th best country to live in the OECD for women, which while not the best puts it in fairly good company. Will see if I can find the source.

Or maybe I am just racist in favour of Japanese people for some reason(???)

Here in Germany the far-right uses the same arguments to oppose immigration. They call it "Überfremdung" (foreign infiltration), the fear that those immigrants will negatively influence society as a whole if allowed in. I already know your kind, you're not going to pull the rug over anyone's eyes.

Regardless who says it, the question is whether it is true. As I see it you have two stances you can take to not agree with the German Far Right:

1. Claim that no major population of foreigners has worse norms, ideology, etc. than westerners.

2. Argue that, even despite the likely worsening of norms and ideology, we should still allow immigration from these places.

I think 1. is implausible and contradicts the evidence.

I have not actually said whether I support 2. or the implicit 3. of the German far right, that immigration should be stopped. I think most people would eventually support stopping immigration in some or other reductio - for instance, what if there were a country of 300m Nazis who wanted to emigrate to Germany and restore the Third Reich? - but the real world is less extreme, and harm has to be weighed against the benefit of removing people from countries with worse institutions to places where they can have a better life.

There are also intermediate policy possibilities, like IQ/ideology/religion requirements for entrance. Increasingly western countries are adopting qualification/income requirements for those not meeting the blood lineage/marriage requirements, which is a very similar thing, just based in whether immigrants can cause 'economic harm' rather than 'ideological harm'.

[Metahive]

Japan specifically, does not outlaw women driving, prescribe certain forms of dress, ban from education, etc. I read somewhere it was ranked 11th best country to live in the OECD for women, which while not the best puts it in fairly good company. Will see if I can find the source.

Or maybe I am just racist in favour of Japanese people for some reason(???)

You dumb shit, do you really think institutional misogyny is the only type of misogyny there is? The US also doesn't bar minorities from doing certain things by law, yet the country is still incredibly racist, simply by entrenching such restrictions via social mores instead of legal means. It isn't really all that different with sexism. Ever since Rebecca Watson said "Guys. don't do that", the West has shown that misogyny is alive and well along with a pretty nasty rape culture, just read that damn Steubenville thread on this very board.

Japan's women face less restrictions than 50 years ago, but since this change came about purely due demographic factors (low birthrate+higher life-expectation which means women are absolutely needed to join the active workforce), women are still mostly viewed as being born to be submissive housewives. Why do you think so many of those scantily-clad female anime heroines like Sailor Moon (o yeah, another thing, objectification of women, a popular japanese pastime) have it as their ultimate dream to be a good little housewife to a less competent male despite being many times more powerful than them?

Regardless who says it, the question is whether it is true. As I see it you have two stances you can take to not agree with the German Far Right:

1. Claim that no major population of foreigners has worse norms, ideology, etc. than westerners. [...] I think 1. is implausible and contradicts the evidence.

Quote one single person who makes that claim. Do that, NOW! I have it up here with your chickenshit strawmen.

2. Argue that, even despite the likely worsening of norms and ideology, we should still allow immigration from these places.

What "likely" worsening of norms and ideology? How about you support this crap with actual evidence? How about that you weasly asshole? All that other blather is completely irrelevant. This isn't about what a reasonable immigration policy is, this is about you making sweeping racist and sexist statements about whole groups of people.

I will ignore anything not pertaining to the two bullet points above. You will now put your money where your mouth, brickbrain. No more smokescreens, no more Red Herrings.

[Lusankya]

Japan specifically, does not outlaw women driving, prescribe certain forms of dress, ban from education, etc. I read somewhere it was ranked 11th best country to live in the OECD for women, which while not the best puts it in fairly good company. Will see if I can find the source.

Or maybe I am just racist in favour of Japanese people for some reason(???)

According to the 2012 World Economid Forum Gender Gap report, Japan comes in at 101 out of 135 countries measured in terms of women's economic outcomes, which is a pretty strong indication of widespread misogyny in Japan. For comparison, China is ranked 69, Bangladesh is ranked 86 and Sri Lanka is ranked 39. South Korea, which is also in East Asia is ranked 108, behind India at 105 and the UAE at 107. That puts Japan and Korea hovering in the top end of the bottom quartile of countries in terms of the gender gap. I would not call it pretty good company.

Now, granted, the PRC, which makes up the bulk of the population of East Asia is much better, hanging around the halfway mark despite being ranked at 132 in terms of health and survival due to the lopsided gender ratio at birth, but given that you jumped straight to Japan of all places as an example of a non-misogynist country and that the PRC is run by Communists, I doubt you were thinking of them. (Taiwan is not represented in the report, but anecdotally speaking, the Chinese regard them as having less gender equality than the Mainland, but more than Japan and Korea.)

The report compares relative outcomes for men and women based on categories such as economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment. As these are relative rankings, I would believe that Japan comes in at 11th best in the OECD in terms of absolute quality of life, but seeing as we're talking about the relative attitudes of society regarding men and women, it would be best for us to look at rankings that don't prejudice the results in favour of more developed countries (such as the ones I have provided).

Not all sexism is "forcing women to not drive and making them wear headscarves". There is also strong adherence to gender roles; creating a women's track in the workplace, where women don't get the same career advancement opportunities as men; a corporate culture that rewards those who engage in male-dominated activities (such as hostess bars or strip clubs, which are actively antagonistic to women); and a reluctance on the part of men to engage in housework, which gives working women extra stress in their lives compared to their male colleagues. These are all things that Japan has in spades, and are arguably more difficult attitudes for western women to deal with amongst foreigners than things like hijab and so on, as they reinforce the existing sexist attitudes that already exist in the west. Some Arab guy who thinks that women should always keep their hair covered is going to be listened to a lot less than some Japanese guy who thinks that women should always be the ones to serve coffee in the workplace.

It should also be noted that the report's results show that using access to education as a major measure of gender equality is problematic. While most of the countries with a low gender gap in economic opportunities do have a high level of educational attainment for women, many countries, such as Japan, Qatar, Mexico and Iran have a high level of education for women, but barriers to entry in the workforce and political empowerment. Furthermore, several countries, such as Benin and The Gambia have relatively low levels of educational attainment for woman as compared to men, but still do quite well in terms of overall gender equality. Far better measures of gender equality include the country's global competitiveness, GDP per capita and overall HDI. This suggests that misogynistic attitudes may be at least in part a result of poverty, and will not necessarily continue once a person from that culture immigrates to a wealthier nation.

So to answer your question, yes, you may very well be just racist in favour of Japan for some reason.

[AniThyng]

[quote="metahive]Japan's women face less restrictions than 50 years ago, but since this change came about purely due demographic factors (low birthrate+higher life-expectation which means women are absolutely needed to join the active workforce), women are still mostly viewed as being born to be submissive housewives. Why do you think so many of those scantily-clad female anime heroines like Sailor Moon (o yeah, another thing, objectification of women, a popular japanese pastime) have it as their ultimate dream to be a good little housewife to a less competent male despite being many times more powerful than them?[/quote]

Sailor Moon would thus be an excellent example of how sexist themes need not originate from or indeed be targeted at men in the first place. (I assume you realize the author is a woman and it's originally targeted at young girls.)

It's also pretty amusing to realize that to a conservative muslim, they believe that their rules against scanty clothing to prevent such objectification based on dressing for the entertainment of men. That that in of itself is a form of objectification is i suppose a lost irony.

[Metahive]

Sailor Moon would thus be an excellent example of how sexist themes need not originate from or indeed be targeted at men in the first place. (I assume you realize the author is a woman and it's originally targeted at young girls.)

I know about that. I watched the series and own some of the volumes of the manga. Incidentally, Sailor Moon is way more badass in the manga, offing villains by herself left and right without much hesitation. In the anime she's stupid, clumsy and incredibly naive. The anime is the more well-known and successful version of the story, do the math.

It's also pretty amusing to realize that to a conservative muslim, they believe that their rules against scanty clothing to prevent such objectification based on dressing for the entertainment of men. That that in of itself is a form of objectification is i suppose a lost irony.

It's just another iteration of the Just World Fallacy. Good girls don't get raped so every rape that happens must have happened to a "deserving" victim, or so the logic goes. It's not even restricted to muslim countries, that attitude is quite prevalent in the West too. Wore too skimpy clothing? Went out late at night? Had no male protector? You asked for it, bitch!

[Serafina]

So to answer your question, yes, you may very well be just racist in favour of Japan for some reason.

He also doesn't get sexism. You already described that sexism can be very severe without being written into law.
Worse yet, he may not actually object to such sexism. Forcing women to wear headscarfes and banning them from driving is just alien to him (see a theme here?), while cultural sexism is something he was exposed and thus accustomed to. After all, we do have plenty of it in the west too.

[Iron Bridge]

Japan specifically, does not outlaw women driving, prescribe certain forms of dress, ban from education, etc. I read somewhere it was ranked 11th best country to live in the OECD for women, which while not the best puts it in fairly good company. Will see if I can find the source.

Or maybe I am just racist in favour of Japanese people for some reason(???)

You dumb shit, do you really think institutional misogyny is the only type of misogyny there is? The US also doesn't bar minorities from doing certain things by law, yet the country is still incredibly racist, simply by entrenching such restrictions via social mores instead of legal means. It isn't really all that different with sexism. Ever since Rebecca Watson said "Guys. don't do that", the West has shown that misogyny is alive and well along with a pretty nasty rape culture, just read that damn Steubenville thread on this very board.

The difference is that US's [apparently?] socially widespread but legally suppressed anti-black racism exists in a world where there are no longer explicit apartheid countries left. For misogyny, there are equivalent countries where there are massive formal legal restrictions.

It is like comparing US today, where a black man can be is the President to US in 1840 where the vast majority of black men can be beaten on a whim.

Regardless who says it, the question is whether it is true. As I see it you have two stances you can take to not agree with the German Far Right:

1. Claim that no major population of foreigners has worse norms, ideology, etc. than westerners. [...] I think 1. is implausible and contradicts the evidence.

Quote one single person who makes that claim. Do that, NOW! I have it up here with your chickenshit strawmen.

Did you even read it? I said these are the two logical possibilities, not that even one single person believes either. I think 1. is in fact closest to what you've stated, but you've been too vague and incoherent to tell exactly.

2. Argue that, even despite the likely worsening of norms and ideology, we should still allow immigration from these places.

What "likely" worsening of norms and ideology? How about you support this crap with actual evidence? How about that you weasly asshole? All that other blather is completely irrelevant. This isn't about what a reasonable immigration policy is, this is about you making sweeping racist and sexist statements about whole groups of people.

I will ignore anything not pertaining to the two bullet points above. You will now put your money where your mouth, brickbrain. No more smokescreens, no more Red Herrings.

If incomers have worse norms and ideology that is the natural result. Perhaps they don't have worse norms and ideology? Fine, then pick 1. - but you imply at least that you don't make that argument. It is either 1. or 2.

Also, you completely ignored the bulk of my post, presumably so you could fit in more childish insults. And more, angry demands that I quietly explain to you everything you still don't understand! I have given you ten times more calm explanation than you are worth; if you don't understand it still then you can re-read it until you do. I owe you nothing sir.

[Metahive]

The difference is that US's [apparently?] socially widespread but legally suppressed anti-black racism exists in a world where there are no longer explicit apartheid countries left. For misogyny, there are equivalent countries where there are massive formal legal restrictions.

It is like comparing US today, where a black man can be is the President to US in 1840 where the vast majority of black men can be beaten on a whim.

Wow, more ignorant, irrelevant drivel from Lead Brain, who would have thought? BTW, Japan legally discriminates against citizens of korean descent. I know since I have relatives living there, so nuuuuuuh-uh.

Say, is there actually anything you're knowledgeable about besides being an asshole? You spout ignorant crap on pretty much every thread you taint with your presence. At this point one might as well conclude you're some dumb troll.

Did you even read it? I said these are the two logical possibilities, not that even one single person believes either. I think 1. is in fact closest to what you've stated, but you've been too vague and incoherent to tell exactly.

Weasly shit is being weasly. Is there a weasel contest you're preparing for, you excrement laden product of rotten cheese and moldy hamburger? So you have no evidence, yet you refuse to retract. Noted, shithead.

If incomers have worse norms and ideology that is the natural result. Perhaps they don't have worse norms and ideology? Fine, then pick 1. - but you imply at least that you don't make that argument. It is either 1. or 2.

No evidence, again, just more weasly manure. Did you major in that at university?

Also, you completely ignored the bulk of my post, presumably so you could fit in more childish insults. And more, angry demands that I quietly explain to you everything you still don't understand! I have given you ten times more calm explanation than you are worth; if you don't understand it still then you can re-read it until you do. I owe you nothing sir.

O, dear sir, on this board you're supposed to support your arguments with evidence. So far you only offered assumptions borne from your own prejudices and general ignorance of the world. That only services as evidence for your diseased brain, but not for the shit you've been clamoring here.

Better pony up that evidence before a mod notices this.

[Iron Bridge]

The difference is that US's [apparently?] socially widespread but legally suppressed anti-black racism exists in a world where there are no longer explicit apartheid countries left. For misogyny, there are equivalent countries where there are massive formal legal restrictions.

It is like comparing US today, where a black man can be is the President to US in 1840 where the vast majority of black men can be beaten on a whim.

Wow, more ignorant, irrelevant drivel from Lead Brain, who would have thought? BTW, Japan legally discriminates against citizens of korean descent. I know since I have relatives living there, so nuuuuuuh-uh.

Are Koreans mono-sexual now? Do they reproduce by binary fission?

Say, is there actually anything you're knowledgeable about besides being an asshole? You spout ignorant crap on pretty much every thread you taint with your presence. At this point one might as well conclude you're some dumb troll.

Did you even read it? I said these are the two logical possibilities, not that even one single person believes either. I think 1. is in fact closest to what you've stated, but you've been too vague and incoherent to tell exactly.

Weasly shit is being weasly. Is there a weasel contest you're preparing for, you excrement laden product of rotten cheese and moldy hamburger? So you have no evidence, yet you refuse to retract. Noted, shithead.

If incomers have worse norms and ideology that is the natural result. Perhaps they don't have worse norms and ideology? Fine, then pick 1. - but you imply at least that you don't make that argument. It is either 1. or 2.

No evidence, again, just more weasly manure. Did you major in that at university?

Also, you completely ignored the bulk of my post, presumably so you could fit in more childish insults. And more, angry demands that I quietly explain to you everything you still don't understand! I have given you ten times more calm explanation than you are worth; if you don't understand it still then you can re-read it until you do. I owe you nothing sir.

O, dear sir, on this board you're supposed to support your arguments with evidence. So far you only offered assumptions borne from your own prejudices and general ignorance of the world. That only services as evidence for your diseased brain, but not for the shit you've been clamoring here.

Better pony up that evidence before a mod notices this.

1. Concisely list what you want evidence for; two sentences or less.

2. Specify what you would accept as sufficient evidence.

[Lusankya]

Did you even read it? I said these are the two logical possibilities, not that even one single person believes either. I think 1. is in fact closest to what you've stated, but you've been too vague and incoherent to tell exactly.

Actually, in my post, I suggested a third possibility: that a large amount of the "worse" ideology can be put down to low HDI, rather than through anything intrinsically "wrong" with the people, and moving to a more prosperous nation will largely sort out any misogyny all by itself. I hope you will address that shortly.

For the record, I don't like this way you blatantly describe whole cultures as having "worse" ideology and norms than western culture. While it is perfectly possible to find a standard whereby they are objectively "worse", I feel that using such inflammatory language serves no real purpose than to otherise and dehumanise whole cultures. Furthermore, by describing a whole culture as "worse" as you do, you are implicitly disregarding any positive aspects that the culture might possess. I would appreciate if you instead said "more misogynistic" or "more patriarchal" or any other descriptor you might choose in order to specify which area you believe the culture happens to be deficient in. If you did that, you would sound less racist.

[K. A. Pital]

According to the 2012 World Economid Forum Gender Gap report, Japan comes in at 101 out of 135 countries measured in terms of women's economic outcomes, which is a pretty strong indication of widespread misogyny in Japan. For comparison, China is ranked 69, Bangladesh is ranked 86 and Sri Lanka is ranked 39. South Korea, which is also in East Asia is ranked 108, behind India at 105 and the UAE at 107. That puts Japan and Korea hovering in the top end of the bottom quartile of countries in terms of the gender gap. I would not call it pretty good company.

101? So Japan's like, close to India and UAE? Which our new resident troll described as the source of misogyny? Good lord, for a moment I thought he's actually going to get it, but no.

Just for contrast:

The survey was based on four areas; employment opportunities/salary, educational background, health/longevity, and political participation. In the combined rankings, the Scandinavian nations, where women’s social progress is well-established, occupied the top positions, with Finland ranking 2nd, Norway 3rd, Sweden 4th, and so on. Among the G8 nations, Germany was 13th, the UK was 18th, Canada 21st, and the USA 22nd.

What is even funnier, Japan is actively degrading, which would mean that it is becoming more sexist - not less - and at the same time Japan is one of the most restrictive nations in regards to immigration, not to mention that its ranking position seems to be much worse than China and Bangladesh...

[Iron Bridge]

Did you even read it? I said these are the two logical possibilities, not that even one single person believes either. I think 1. is in fact closest to what you've stated, but you've been too vague and incoherent to tell exactly.

Actually, in my post, I suggested a third possibility: that a large amount of the "worse" ideology can be put down to low HDI, rather than through anything intrinsically "wrong" with the people, and moving to a more prosperous nation will largely sort out any misogyny all by itself. I hope you will address that shortly.

I agreed with this, I think, already before. The problem is this isn't an instantaneous process; in fact it probably proceeds 'from one funeral to the next' - the children adopt the norms of the society they join, while middle aged and older people tend not to radically change their views.

In the meantime, electorate shifting the centre ground on that issue toward the less progressive stance can cause a long-term shift (obviously, not the full way) in societal norms on that issue.

Also, if immigrants form very large communities of only other immigrants, which does have a tendency to happen, this process can be slowed or even arrested.

For the record, I don't like this way you blatantly describe whole cultures as having "worse" ideology and norms than western culture. While it is perfectly possible to find a standard whereby they are objectively "worse", I feel that using such inflammatory language serves no real purpose than to otherise and dehumanise whole cultures. Furthermore, by describing a whole culture as "worse" as you do, you are implicitly disregarding any positive aspects that the culture might possess. I would appreciate if you instead said "more misogynistic" or "more patriarchal" or any other descriptor you might choose in order to specify which area you believe the culture happens to be deficient in. If you did that, you would sound less racist.

I am of course taking averages here, and even then cultures have facets such that they can be in general less preferable and yet not worse in every way. Nonetheless, I have no qualms saying a society that produces children climbing on garbage heaps searching for scrap metal to sell, or that executes people for being witches, or that embraces internal passports and a secret police, as being inferior to Western civilisation. Obviously this is a matter of opinion, but I don't care about the opinions of people who think those things are acceptable.

[K. A. Pital]

Nonetheless, I have no qualms saying a society that produces children climbing on garbage heaps searching for scrap metal to sell, or that executes people for being witches, or that embraces internal passports and a secret police, as being inferior to Western civilisation.

I am sorry, but for quite a large part of its history the Western civilization did have all or some of these things (and even worse ones) and some of them lasted well into the XX century. So why were these things acceptable in the West before, but are not acceptable now? Incidentally, are you seriously trying to say India's "secret police" (whatever that may be) is somehow worse than the now defunct, but recently existing Gestapo or the still active CIA, all Western products? Or you meant the recently active secret police of the British Raj, created by the Westerners in India? Tell me what's the name of India's secret police agency, want to know it.

Children on heaps of garbage is really like, trying to appeal to the left-wing sense of deep injustice at the cruel and inhuman conditions children are subjected to... but your pathos with "Western civilization" falls a bit flat:

[The Yosemite Bear]

So the land of rape and plunder is now a becon in it's treatment of women?

whoa consider my world view shocked....

[Lusankya]

You actually believe that children looking for scrap metal to sell is a cultural thing, rather than a result of poverty? Like, people in the crap parts of India or wherever have kids and say, "Gee, I sure hope that I　die while they're still young, and they're forced to search through garbage heaps for scrap metal. That is a long and proud tradition of our people." And that internal passports* and secret police are things that the people embrace, as opposed to things the government does.

Obviously this is a matter of opinion, but I don't care about the opinions of people who think those things are acceptable.

I take this to mean that you don't actually care about changing anything, and instead just care about grandstanding and being a self-righteous jackass. If you want to actually make things better, you would care about their opinions at least insofar as the people who hold these opinions would be an obstacle in improving things. Better yet, you would care abut their opinions because it may turn out that the people who live in such conditions don't actually think they're acceptable, but don't know how to change things - except you don't realise this, because you just assume they think these things are acceptable, and then dismiss their opinion out of hand.

I actually know a large number of people from the countries whose cultures you consider to be "inferior". While they may follow their own culture amongst themselves, in my experience, most of them are perfectly capable of recognising that I come from a different cultural background, and they don't try to force their way of life on me. People who emigrate tend to be self-selecting. Those who aren't willing to go at least partway towards adjusting to another culture tend not to do it.


*By which I assume you mean something like China's hukou system, which is a lot more complex a matter than you think. China's basically the size of the EU, and your hukou doesn't actually stop you from moving anywhere you want in the country, which means your hukou doesn't actually impede your freedom of movement any more than your EU passport does. It just means extra bureaucracy in certain situations. It does discourage internal migration a bit, but that's kind of the point: the Chinese government doesn't want too many people moving to the city and creating slums, because they think that's horrible. By using systems like the hukou to slow the rate of migration, they can better increase their country's standard of living.

[Iron Bridge]

Nonetheless, I have no qualms saying a society that produces children climbing on garbage heaps searching for scrap metal to sell, or that executes people for being witches, or that embraces internal passports and a secret police, as being inferior to Western civilisation.

I am sorry, but for quite a large part of its history the Western civilization did have all or some of these things (and even worse ones) and some of them lasted well into the XX century.

Right but you are mistaken to think I favour just whatever the West was doing at a given time because I happen to have been born there, rather than the civilisation as it is now because it is a collection of good (or at least, least bad) ideas. If I were alive in the 14th century when the West did witch burnings &c. I would be trying to destroy Western civilisation. Everyone is implacable in assuming I am a parochical nationalist despite all statements and evidence to the contrary; I am afraid you are dunking a straw witch!

So why were these things acceptable in the West before, but are not acceptable now? Incidentally, are you seriously trying to say India's "secret police" (whatever that may be) is somehow worse than the now defunct, but recently existing Gestapo or the still active CIA, all Western products?

Not all those references are to India. And Nazi Germany isn't part of the continuity of current Western culture; rather, it is explicitly a rejection of the Enlightenment, being destroyed by Britain, America, and the non-Western but equally repugnant USSR. As for CIA being the same as the Gestapo - LOL!

Children on heaps of garbage is really like, trying to appeal to the left-wing sense of deep injustice at the cruel and inhuman conditions children are subjected to... but your pathos with "Western civilization" falls a bit flat:

Nah, the left loves children crawling on rubbish heaps apparently. It only really happens in countries ruled by socialist parties. They don't love it, of course, they rather don't understand what they are doing.

Also, there actually is a big difference between child labour in the 19th century and child labour now: then it was due to technological limitations that meant families couldn't support themselves on only one or two labourers. Today, it's an avoidable choice caused by the adoption of bad economic policies, like state socialism.

[Iron Bridge]

You actually believe that children looking for scrap metal to sell is a cultural thing, rather than a result of poverty? Like, people in the crap parts of India or wherever have kids and say, "Gee, I sure hope that I　die while they're still young, and they're forced to search through garbage heaps for scrap metal. That is a long and proud tradition of our people." And that internal passports* and secret police are things that the people embrace, as opposed to things the government does.

Instead they say, "Gee, I sure would like Maoists to be in power!" They don't understand the chain of causation, but that doesn't make their choices any less culpable or harmful. For that matter, I don't think the Nazis went "Gee, I sure would like to be remembered by history as a vile stain on the face of mankind" - but nonetheless that is what they are.

I agree the culture of the state needn't necessarily be the culture of people. Nonetheless there are enough third world and middle income democracies that genuine desire has to be considered a serious explanation in many cases. Also, the people arguing that misogyny is "cultural" in countries where it is legally enforced are already essentially taking dictatorial policies as proxy for personal beliefs.

I take this to mean that you don't actually care about changing anything, and instead just care about grandstanding and being a self-righteous jackass. If you want to actually make things better, you would care about their opinions at least insofar as the people who hold these opinions would be an obstacle in improving things.

Of course I want to change things and persuade people in the third world democracies to favour better policies. But saying their current opinions are equally as valid as those of people who live in not-horrible countries isn't the way to change things, quite the opposite. First we should tell them that they are wrong and second we should tell them how to do things better. Economic science gives us most of the answers; there are enough "economic miracles" when countries adopt market liberal policies that we should maybe stop assuming divine causation.

Better yet, you would care abut their opinions because it may turn out that the people who live in such conditions don't actually think they're acceptable, but don't know how to change things - except you don't realise this, because you just assume they think these things are acceptable, and then dismiss their opinion out of hand.

You're turning this into some kind moral judgment of the people involved when it's just a practical question. I doubt anyone votes to, say, seize foreign capital, ban trade abroad, or institute heavy taxation on capital gains because they want people to be poor. The opposite, in fact! But that's still what they accomplish.

I actually know a large number of people from the countries whose cultures you consider to be "inferior". While they may follow their own culture amongst themselves, in my experience, most of them are perfectly capable of recognising that I come from a different cultural background, and they don't try to force their way of life on me.

Not personally, but the chances are that if they voted for a populist demagogue party in their country they will vote for the closest available party here. If the numbers are small and integration pressures are strong, that may not be a problem. Otherwise, it might be.

*By which I assume you mean something like China's hukou system, which is a lot more complex a matter than you think. China's basically the size of the EU, and your hukou doesn't actually stop you from moving anywhere you want in the country, which means your hukou doesn't actually impede your freedom of movement any more than your EU passport does. It just means extra bureaucracy in certain situations. It does discourage internal migration a bit, but that's kind of the point: the Chinese government doesn't want too many people moving to the city and creating slums, because they think that's horrible.

Or, the USA, which doesn't have any internal passports! Nb: you do not need to show a passport to cross most borders in the EU either.

Chinese government, like the Russia and Ottoman governments, wants/wanted to control the population, because it is a slave state. As a result, they trap losers of the political influence lottery in grinding poverty in backwaters rather than giving them the opportunity of a better life.

It's the same logic as the one child policy: socialism can't produce enough food, so rather than replacing socialism by a system that can, let's reduce the number of people! Welcome to backwards land!

By using systems like the hukou to slow the rate of migration, they can better increase their country's standard of living.

Do you realise that is exactly the same logic as denying voting rights to immigrants with bad ideologies? Except hukou actually makes people worse off.


edit: btw why is it that there always seem to be a dozen people on this board who will line up to defend any crazy or horrible thing that happens in a non-Western country, even outright theocratic policies? No one says something like "Yeah those things are shitty but I don't think if you opened borders to everyone it would actually result in those being adopted." or even "Yeah those things are shitty but it's better to make the West more like that than to deny inhabitants of the third world the chance for a better income.". Both of which I could respect and even agree with to some extent. Instead I get this "Nyah but actually burkas and internal passports and the secret police are good! And in the Arab world women like misogyny! And what about the CIA, you hypocrit?! That's at least as bad as the KGB!" Cut out this cultural relativist crap. We all know you would vitriolically rail against these things if they existed in the West - and quite right too!

[mr friendly guy]

So the guy that gave us the word communazi also used the word slave state to describe people being paid for their labour, able to change jobs if they don't like it, and where people and their children are not the property of another individual or the state. Wow, just wow.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Iron Bridge, are you aware of the Indian state of Kerala? You seem to think that good and bad are directly linked to how much market freedom somewhere has (up to child labor being a product of socialism somehow), but Kerala has consistenly been one of the best places to live in India despite having elected outright communists to government for the past several decades.

[Lusankya]

Iron Bridge, are you aware of the Indian state of Kerala? You seem to think that good and bad are directly linked to how much market freedom somewhere has (up to child labor being a product of socialism somehow), but Kerala has consistenly been one of the best places to live in India despite having elected outright communists to government for the past several decades.

He clearly isn't, or he would also realise that the CCP-controled PRC has had greater gains in HDI over the last 30 years than the democratic India.

And he makes all kinds of unwarranted assumptions about the reasons that people support things he disapproves of. I mean, the people here generally have a very nuanced and intelligent attitude towards democratisation. They do value the idea of being able to elect their own leaders, but they feel that in the context of China, there are issues with implementation. How, for example, will they ensure that the poorly-educated rural population manages to be properly represented in a democracy? How will an election cycle affect the government's plans for development？Will it encourage short-term thinking and stifle long-term growth? How can they ensure that any elected government be both representative of the population, but also small enough that it can function? Would having a popularly elected president make them run the risk of having another Mao? And so on. Rather than actually addressing these issues or even acknowledging that they may exist, he just goes on about how people vote for demagogues because they're culturally inferior.

First we should tell them that they are wrong and second we should tell them how to do things better.

Yes, because that's working so well when we do that to you.

[mr friendly guy]

He clearly isn't, or he would also realise that the CCP-controled PRC has had greater gains in HDI over the last 30 years than the democratic India.

And he makes all kinds of unwarranted assumptions about the reasons that people support things he disapproves of. I mean, the people here generally have a very nuanced and intelligent attitude towards democratisation. They do value the idea of being able to elect their own leaders, but they feel that in the context of China, there are issues with implementation. How, for example, will they ensure that the poorly-educated rural population manages to be properly represented in a democracy? How will an election cycle affect the government's plans for development？Will it encourage short-term thinking and stifle long-term growth? How can they ensure that any elected government be both representative of the population, but also small enough that it can function? Would having a popularly elected president make them run the risk of having another Mao? And so on. Rather than actually addressing these issues or even acknowledging that they may exist, he just goes on about how people vote for demagogues because they're culturally inferior.

The other thing we see with the democracy discussion can be highlighted when Jeremy Paxman interviewed some young Chinese. When asked about democracy they said why would they want to change the government. When he argued it was a right (I supposed just in case), they just shrugged. If they don't want democracy, then its undemocratic to force them into it, or to badger them until they accept it. In a more fair world that would have been the end of it, and try focussing on other aspects of human rights, wealth inequality etc. Instead we get people saying democracy leads to wealth, and don't want to defend that statement when people point out that this is utter rubbish using historical examples.

[Simon_Jester]

Iron Bridge, are you aware of the Indian state of Kerala? You seem to think that good and bad are directly linked to how much market freedom somewhere has (up to child labor being a product of socialism somehow), but Kerala has consistenly been one of the best places to live in India despite having elected outright communists to government for the past several decades.

He clearly isn't, or he would also realise that the CCP-controled PRC has had greater gains in HDI over the last 30 years than the democratic India.

For the record, Lusy, I don't think he knows what the Human Development Index is...


Oh, one thing I saw further up the thread- about the conservative Muslim tradition of women's clothing. Metahive saw it as another form of objectification of women... but it occured to me that it's hardly unusual anywhere for women to put on concealing or 'frumpy' clothes to avoid drawing sexual attention from men.

The idea that someone should have to do that, against their will, is loathesome. But it's interesting to put that in the context of a society like Iran, where they have all-female police units under arms... wearing those same heavy, concealing clothes. Presumably someone in the Iranian government takes these women seriously enough to arm them and make them police officers (or for that matter a SWAT team), and yet we can totally say that their uniforms are the product of sexism.

I don't really have an agenda with this, so much as a desire to point out that the world can be very strange and complicated, and issues of gender relations are not simple.

[ray245]

The other thing we see with the democracy discussion can be highlighted when Jeremy Paxman interviewed some young Chinese. When asked about democracy they said why would they want to change the government. When he argued it was a right (I supposed just in case), they just shrugged. If they don't want democracy, then its undemocratic to force them into it, or to badger them until they accept it. In a more fair world that would have been the end of it, and try focussing on other aspects of human rights, wealth inequality etc. Instead we get people saying democracy leads to wealth, and don't want to defend that statement when people point out that this is utter rubbish using historical examples.

True. It is not as if some of the successful democratic nations in East Asia grew wealthy because they were democratic either. Korea and Taiwan both prospered under a dictatorship.

The view that democracy somehow equals wealth and prosperity is more or less a relic of propaganda during the cold war.

[AniThyng]

Oh, one thing I saw further up the thread- about the conservative Muslim tradition of women's clothing. Metahive saw it as another form of objectification of women... but it occured to me that it's hardly unusual anywhere for women to put on concealing or 'frumpy' clothes to avoid drawing sexual attention from men.

The idea that someone should have to do that, against their will, is loathesome. But it's interesting to put that in the context of a society like Iran, where they have all-female police units under arms... wearing those same heavy, concealing clothes. Presumably someone in the Iranian government takes these women seriously enough to arm them and make them police officers (or for that matter a SWAT team), and yet we can totally say that their uniforms are the product of sexism.

I don't really have an agenda with this, so much as a desire to point out that the world can be very strange and complicated, and issues of gender relations are not simple.

On the other hand, in places like Japan, arguably young women are pressured into dressing as skimpily as possible, for whatever reasons, including highly mysigonistic ones that are the opposite of "show nothing". And there is I think a whole lot of mixed messages all around, it does seem like you can't really win one way or another.

Yet Japan for all that, has never had a female prime minister, while Pakistan, India and Bangladesh DO. Malaysia probably often falls into the category of "muslim third world shithole" to some ignorant westerners, yet we have muslim women in high corporate and governmental positions e.g. Minister of International Trade. I remember on this very board someone once making a disparaging joke about our space program and women, and it was pointed out the DG or somesuch was in fact a woman.

I do find it a bit amusing that Korea ranks just as poorly as Japan. What was that about you hate that which is most similar to you*?

*Yes I know Korea does not have a history of being one of the worst war criminal nations on earth, but culturally? From my perspective they aren't all that different in terms of day to day cultural norms.

[Metahive]

Oh, one thing I saw further up the thread- about the conservative Muslim tradition of women's clothing. Metahive saw it as another form of objectification of women... but it occured to me that it's hardly unusual anywhere for women to put on concealing or 'frumpy' clothes to avoid drawing sexual attention from men.

I didn't say that, AnyThing did. It's also not at all wondrous since, as I already said, the Just World Fallacy isn't limited to muslim nations.

The idea that someone should have to do that, against their will, is loathesome. But it's interesting to put that in the context of a society like Iran, where they have all-female police units under arms... wearing those same heavy, concealing clothes. Presumably someone in the Iranian government takes these women seriously enough to arm them and make them police officers (or for that matter a SWAT team), and yet we can totally say that their uniforms are the product of sexism.

I don't really have an agenda with this, so much as a desire to point out that the world can be very strange and complicated, and issues of gender relations are not simple.

Compartmentalization, explains most if not all of these kind of behaviours. Blacks also serve in the US armed forces, but still are subject to racist discrimination.

I do find it a bit amusing that Korea ranks just as poorly as Japan. What was that about you hate that which is most similar to you*?

If all, it's Korea that inspired Japan here. Korea drew its gender attitudes from chinese confucianism, which is pretty sexist to begin with and later exported them to Japan, along with Buddhism. That China ranks now higher in this regard is due to the more gender-egalitarian views of communism.
Also, are you completely ignorant of why Korea might have legitimate reasons to hate Japan? I give you a hint, look up Korea from 1910 to 1945.