| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| How to protect men from domestic violence |
| 2023-09-08 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Sergey Khudiev [REGNUM] Senator and LDPR member Elena Afanasyeva proposed developing a program to protect men from domestic violence and to rehabilitate victims of it. Domestic violence fighters may have noble motives, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But first things first. As the senator noted, “female violence, let's be honest, is still perceived in society as acceptable. <...> It is believed that men are physically stronger, which means that it is easier for them to avoid domestic violence. But violence is not only physical. Often men are put in a hopeless situation, manipulating money, children, the very possibility of saving a marriage. Isn't that why men after 40 years of age die of a heart attack much more often than women? What is the problem with "violence" in general and with the desire to protect men from it in particular? The concept of "violence" takes on such a broad meaning that it becomes useless for the pursuit of violence itself - but very useful for the pursuit of anything else. This is largely due to the deterioration of the language. Consider, for example, the anglicism abuse, which in Russian is most often conveyed by the word "violence". However, sometimes they write “abuse” in Cyrillic. In English, this is the word with the broadest meaning, which means "abuse" in almost any sense. Drunkenness is substance abuse. Swearing is verbal abuse. Pedophilia is child abuse. Torture is also abuse. Abuse is also committed, for example, by an unscrupulous employee who abuses the trust of the employer. That is, this word means anything, from minor offenses to the gravest atrocities. "Name is an abuser" can mean anything from "he swears" to "he is a sadist, rapist and murderer." But when we use a foreign word, it's not so bad. It is worse when the Russian word familiar to us - "violence" - begins to acquire an unjustifiably expanded meaning. A wife who scolds her husband because he earns little is acting very stupidly. No one has yet become a millionaire from being sawed. But she doesn't do anything resembling violence. There are many unkind, unjust, harmful and counterproductive acts that are not violence. Why is it important to emphasize this difference? Because violence is what is right and appropriate to stop from the outside. Beatings, threats to life, violence in the traditional sense should be stopped by the police. She, in this case, can and should break down the door and take away the outrageous man in handcuffs. To call “violence” something quite different—for example, distressingly strained family relationships—is to introduce state coercion where it can only cause harm. Spouses themselves can fix the shaken relationship, with the help, if they wish, of family psychologists. It is possible (and necessary) to stop physical violence. You can't force people to love each other. If a man no longer loves his wife, it is very sad, but the state will not help here. Worse, the more we create opportunities for intervention in the family, the more we create grounds for abuse. Any government intervention has inevitable side effects. We are creating opportunities to persecute people on highly vague grounds. If “violence” begins to mean anything, a “rapist” (or since such equality and feminists have gone) a “rapist” can be declared whoever we want - a person who occupies a living space, a competitor, a political opponent, just someone who does not liked it. There is no guarantee that at the next turn of history, the same accusations of "domestic violence" will be leveled against those who helped promote this concept. We create a situation where marital status itself becomes a source of vulnerability - so that people will simply avoid marriage. Yes, you can point to serious crimes that can be committed in the family. Such cases happen. Although, according to statistics, a family is a much safer place than, say, an enterprise. But the persecution, in fact, of crimes, the blurring of the concept of "violence" only interferes. If a “rapist” is anyone ranging from a real rapist to someone who swears or upsets in some other way, then the word simply ceases to be a stigma and denote a serious crime. This is similar to how political activists in the West, throwing the word “racist” right and left, eventually create a situation where the word itself ceases to mean something terrible and shameful, since everyone around is racist. “Equality” — the idea that a law that protects women should equally protect men—can also backfire. A few years ago in the United States there were a number of well-known cases when adult women (often teachers) seduced teenagers 16-17 years old (without any kind of violence) and got long sentences for this - Jennifer Fichter, for example, received 22 years. We may be shocked by such severity - but this is precisely a manifestation of equality. If it is fair to jail a man for seducing a teenage girl, then equality requires the same treatment for a woman. Such equality is absurd - as absurd as it is in a situation of "family violence". A woman is much more vulnerable - physically weaker, bound by pregnancy or children, so it is much more difficult for her to remarry, and therefore she is more in need of protection. But it should be precisely protection from violence in the understandable and traditional sense. The blurring of this concept does nothing to curb criminals and only creates additional opportunities for abuse. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #2 Russia leads the World in male rights?:-) |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2023-09-08 02:21 |
| #1 How? Don't let them be sissies. Married teacher preyed on teen students at private Christian school: police |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2023-09-08 01:32 |