Этапы Большого Пути II

[arbat]

Стоит упомянуть феминизм, как прибегают феминистки и устраивают истерику. Это их стиль обсуждения. Я думаю, потому, что они не очень понимают, что именно написано - и, на всякий случай, срываются "по площадям", надеясь, что хоть что-то попадет.

И я готов очень убедительно это показать.

Итак, прочтем еще раз, что именно я написал. Что бросается в

Comments

[shkrobius]

The only moral system/teachings in which this suggestion is moral is utilitarian ethics in which parenting children is regarded as the highest utility. The latter is a matter of debate. You may personally be a utilitarian and regard that as the highest utility, but other people may have different ideas.

For example, Mishnah (Horayot 3:7) teaches that a man should be saved before a woman. Maimonides explains: males are obligated to keep all of the commandments while the females are obligated to keep only part of them, and so a male is more sanctified and therefore his life is saved first, as the other part of the Mishnah states that the priority goes by sanctification. "Weakness" and "strength" do not enter the argument; it is irrelevant.

Naturally, this applies only to males that observe all of these 600+ commandments, which is hard to expect from the drunk passnagers on a cruise ship in year 2012 AD. I give you this example to show you how such "excellent and rightful" arguments look in retrospective. A childless woman may have 10 children in the near future while the father may be an abusive bastard; you cannot know what people are or will be - even if you consider tending children as sanctification. One cannot judge; all human lives have equal value. Heroism may be noble, but per se it is not more moral than its lack. Other's person life is no more precious than your own. The Talmud, for example, teaches that if two men are stuck in a desert with a jug of water that can sustain only one life they do not have the obligation to share this jug and die together - or sacrifice themselves, one for another. They can do that, and it would not be wrong, but not doing it is not wrong either. If you can save your life AND someone else's, it is you absolute obligation to save this person's life, and not doing so is wrong. There are no other moral obligations in this life-or-death situation. In other words, you can demand heroism, but you cannot do that on moral grounds. "Ladies first" is based on chivalry rather than ethics; whatever erodes chivalry destroys the priority that ensues from it. If men do not sanctify women more than themselves, there is no reason to save ladies first, and that applies to every other such priority. BTW, European tradition of chivalry is based on Albigensian heresy, which provides the religious rationale for sanctification of women; it has nothing to do with their child bearing or weakness or anything else. So if you want X to be saved before Y, all you have to do is suggesting why X's blood is redder than Y's - and convince the others. Good luck with that.

[shkrobius]

No problem. BTW, if you are interested in the origin of "Ladies Fisrt" and "damsel in distress", I once wrote a post on that (Rossetti's theory of chivalric tradition); it's an interesting story,
http://shkrobius.livejournal.com/174318.html
Chivalry originates in the gnostic belief that the masculine and feminine potencies need to combine in the Sacred Marriage for the miraclous delivery from an ordeal to occur; all salvation is by Grace alone. It is hard for me to see how feminism can sustain such beliefs, yet this is the only foundation for "ladies first" that ever existed. Destroying the remnants of such beliefs (revitalized by neo-Gothic revival in Victorian England) is a day's job, instituting them is extremely difficult.

[arbat]

Я его забанил - это уже второй раз, что я его забанил за стирание комментариев.