If there is fondness and trust in a relationship, care and respect follow. It is like breathing, one does not even have to think about it, let alone make an effort.
If, for example, a man commits an indiscretion, the fondness, trust, care and respect can be interrupted. While a woman in an oppressive relationship has the right to squelch the excesses of a man, when a woman takes her rights too far and stoops to herself committing excesses by taking drastic measures, one thinks such rights be damned, that divest a woman of her sacred emotions like forgiveness, compassion, sacrifice and devotion.
We have broken homes when the glue of forgiveness, compassion, sacrifice and devotion that binds people with fondness, trust, care and respect is diminished due to one, usually due to haste or vengeance, being focused on one’s rights as opposed to one’s duties.
Education has given us a scenario of knowledge without good sense, rights without duties, spending without earning and utilitarian relationships without love and care.
All suffering is caused by ignorance. People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their own happiness or satisfaction.
— His Holiness The Dalai Lama XIV
Happy Children’s Day, with my, as always, sincere wishes that with every parent focusing on their duties instead of their rights, every child has the amazing parents that they deserve.
It is “normal” practice for separated or divorced parents to share children, much like time-sharing of real property. This practice is “justified” by the belief that children are resilient and as such will “adjust” in time to being shunted like chattel between the parents who own them.
Why should the child be made to “adjust”? It is the parents’ job to sacrifice for the sake of their children, not ask it of their children. Getting a child to adjust is child abuse, and the justification is obviously a workaround to believe and make society at large believe that there is no abuse.
Why does the law support such injustice? Obviously because either the lawmakers themselves might be separated or divorced parents or ill-advised by professionals who in turn might be separated or divorced parents engaged in such a practice themselves. There certainly are no children consulted in framing such laws, lest the law work against parents who might be judges, lawyers or the average taxpayer.
Law in general does not permit the exercise of one’s rights in violation of the rights of another. But not so in Family Law. The parent or parents choosing to separate or divorce are permitted to exercise their right/s impeding upon the rights of the child. Unless one or both of the parents advocate the child’s rights, no attempt is made to discover the child’s views or wishes. And even so, depending on the age of the child, little to no consideration is awarded for what the child desires as an outcome for his or her own life and no real attempt is made to ascertain what the child’s wishes are. So even at best it is an uphill battle for a child.
Tomorrow is born out of today. You reap what you sow. It is ludicrous to surmise that a child who is unhappy today with being herded like cattle between the parents would miraculously be happy tomorrow.
If a car and a bicycle collide, the driver of the car is more often than not held to be the one at fault, even if he or she might be the victim, because the car has the greater physical potential to cause damage, and only physical characteristics are ordinarily considered. The same goes for abuse in relationships. Men are ordinarily considered to be at fault due to their physical characteristics; and feminist dogma leverages such gender profiling by dictating that men are naturally oppressors and women are naturally victims.
Women are acutely aware of this societal advantage and a large proportion of them, citing patriarchy and oppression by men as a weapon of covert emotional abuse, guilt men into submission so they can dominate and ill-treat them on an ongoing basis. This form of abuse while rampant is never made an issue of, because men often endure oppressive relationships just for fear of ‘rocking the boat’ of their seeming smooth-sailing relationships, because they are too weak to be without the woman.
Do you not hear women refer to themselves in the collective, as in “we women” and putting-down husbands, boyfriends and men overall?
Worship without sacrifice means paying lip service to a belief, but not actually living those beliefs. What good is a conviction without the courage? Intent alone is not good enough. Action is required to make good on one’s intent, without which, intent in itself has no real value.
If a woman were to tell her friends that she is the one that cooks and cleans, her friends would think that she was being horribly oppressed and they would tell her so, perhaps offering to confront her husband. Conversely if she mentions that her husband does all of that for her, her friends would say, “He really loves you”.
Women should not be embarrassed of admitting to caring for and serving their spouse and children, as their grandmothers and mothers have, and their marriages lasted longer.
Men like a woman who respects and appreciates them, cares and cooks for them, makes them feel important and on occasion even assumes the traditional role of a man, such as paying for a meal or initiating intimacy.
Women should not mar the kind act of caregiving by construing it to constitute gender privilege, weakness or subservience.
We all have strengths and weaknesses, and where we possess special powers or talents, we are supposed to use it for good, to help the weak, not to harm others.
Chivalry in medieval times called for male physical strength to be used constructively, such that women be treated better than how they were being treated at the time. Women possess greater emotional strength, and chivalry in modern society calls for this emotional strength being used for good; to protect and nourish men emotionally.
If a woman were to slap a man in public, other women would likely cheer her, and men might say he asked for it. If genders were reversed, other women would be appalled and protest, likely report to the police and a chivalrous man would step in to protect the woman. Why the difference? Women have men convinced that they are always the ones at fault, which in itself is abusive, so they believe that the man deserved it, whereas women as a collective look out for each other. The sexist double standards of modern society are evidently in reverse.
Women too need to be chivalrous and step in to defend a helpless man against a vile woman, since they have the emotional strength to deal with another woman. There should be no hesitation lest it be construed as emasculating. Chivalry is charming, and as long as it comes from a good heart it is not at the mercy of how it is perceived. If it is not appreciated, it is the recipient’s loss.
There are people that (a) either take a stand based solely on merits, (b) withhold comment or opinion, or (c) side with who they benefit from.
I am dismayed to find myself alone in the first category. The nicest people I meet lack the courage to endure unpleasantness and/or are apathetic to morals, and as such form the second category. The majority of people I come across fall in the third category.
It is bad enough having to live with spineless cowards; one could forgive them for being weak, but not for being indifferent. It is much worse when the population is mainly comprised of scumbags.
I need not look far; I have had to mould my own family, instill the courage to speak out for what is just with no age bias or fear; and it is an ongoing effort. The memory of a senior family member choosing to retain an unruly paying client over retaining me at our family business just does not fade away.
People in general side with who they need or benefit from the most. It is about valuing friendship and/or an ongoing business relationship over doing the right thing, and such skewed ethics are the norm. There is no moral dilemma to speak of, it’s just business as usual.
Jesus Christ, or any good and pure person, is more valuable to society dead than alive. If He were to be reborn, the people profiting from His name would be the first ones to want Him dead. Society would once again virtually nail Him to the cross because pure, honest and just people have no place in today’s society. Good people are social misfits because they do not pander to the the large proportion of society that has tainted values.
“The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
― George Orwell
I think most people “just don’t get it”, or feign ignorance or play dumb as an avoidance tactic. But that would make them overly clever and deceitful. So then why are most people clever and not clean?
What about being a person of your word? Promises, contracts, estimates etc. have no sanctity for most people. They consider it perfectly acceptable to go back on their word, to suit what’s convenient for them. I consider them flakes. Or are they smart in doing what’s in their best interest?
Most people expect an apology for others’ legitimate mistakes, but don’t so much as own up to their own wrong doings, let alone apologize. What’s worse is that they meekly detract from the issue and shift the focus to their “feelings being hurt” due to the confrontation, rather than admit and apologize. Why such moral weakness?
So most people are either stupid or dishonest; and don’t so much as think twice about their actions – perhaps because when a large proportion of people do the same thing, it becomes “normal”.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
— Jiddu Krishnamurti