Conservative gentlemen and a little more

[Horoshij]

... in response to I have written about this in papers...., posted by yoe on Jan 1, 2003

Yoe, I tried hard to understand what you really meant. As you see English is a foreign language to me. Let me take your last statement:
"Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat"

I do not agree. Communism didn't mean liberation of the proletariat. Maybe in its idealogy and in a society which had adopted communism fully, some kind of ideal state. In Russia (and China) the Communist Party looked at themselves as an elite that should educate the people to achieve the real communist society by changing people and transforming the society. Therefore they had the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In reality that means that the leadership knows best and should decide.

I'm always afraid of a situation where all power is in on one or in a few hands. Power corrupts. In our democracies we have solved this problem by dividing the power in three, the lawmakers, the judicial system and the executive power (the government).

Corporation rule is best known in facists states as in Italy under Mussolini, and has never promoted a democratic development of society.

However, I agree that strong trade unions are good. I think that is some property left after my social-democratic up-bringing :-).

Haroshij

[Philb]

... in response to Re: I have written about this in papers...., posted by Horoshij on Jan 1, 2003

Don't feel bad.  Many of us native English speakers are also unable to understand what he means :-)

[yoe]

... in response to Re: Re: I have written about this in pap..., posted by Philb on Jan 1, 2003

the greats are never understood! But the crazies are not either-go figure!
I will try to be a little more direct and less, shall we say, 'out there'?
Joe

[Philb]

... in response to in the immortal words of Emmerson and Da..., posted by yoe on Jan 2, 2003

[Pordzhik]

... in response to that is the irony..., posted by yoe on Jan 1, 2003

Whooose "Traditional" are we talking about?

[yoe]

... in response to As I wrote somewhere below, posted by Pordzhik on Jan 1, 2003

I said old fashioned....you know
when women stayed in the kitchen and kept their mouths shut. When voting was barely a right. When they had little to no choices at all......
But what many do not understand that they must give their wives freedom to enhance these qualities. Many men I have seen hide their wives in their trailers and keep them in Podunk Idaho for their owm little tyranny. My wief gets 100% freedom. We have our designated roles and these do overlap at times. So, it is a very ambiguous thing this tradition....I have been through too many relationships to waste any more time living my wife's life. It is time consuming enough to fill my own day with nonsubjugated folly.

[Pordzhik]

... in response to I did not say traditional..., posted by yoe on Jan 1, 2003

[This message has been edited by Pordzhik]

Old fashioned.

Anybody who wants an Old Fashioned stay in the kitchen and keep her mouth shut kind of a woman is unlikely to find her in FSU. These women have seen their mothers, aunts, sisters and friends out at work most often full time work, working as hard if not harder than the men and making more than a full contribution to the household. Of course when we bring them to our countries, without language skills, with often worthless degrees, needing to learn a whole new way of life, then for a short time they will be stuck at home doing the baking in the kitchen, but that don't last, they are up and job seeking at the first opportunity.

How many FSU women you know of are living in trailer parks suffering tyranny? They're just not daft enough for any of that.

BTW My wife takes her 100% freedom, I don't give it.

[yoe]

... in response to Alright then, posted by Pordzhik on Jan 1, 2003

if you went to a foreign land and somebody took your passport, you did not know the laws or the language and you were told you would be beat or even killed------you may not be so brave. And then there are many women who do run the house! I am the man in my house and I have all veto powers. I am the CEO. That being said, there are women living in squalor and in very dangerous environment. Check it out for yourself. There are many girls hiding halfway houses afraid of the husbands. This goes on in any country. And it has always gone on here. So for you to find it odd is suprising.
There are stereotypes and generalities but there are also exceptions.
joe
remember the 2 sides to every coin thingy?

[Pordzhik]

... in response to believe me..., posted by yoe on Jan 1, 2003

What kind of 100% freedom is it when that freedom has a veto? By all means wear the trousers and don't let a woman walk all over you. But veto? Bit strong ain't it?

I like to think that I chose a sensible girl for my wife, someone who I can trust to make good decisions and if we can't agree, then at least we can agree to disagree. When the day comes when I think I need a veto or must try to impose my will upon her, I'll go send her on her way and go buy myself a dog.

Of course I'm not blind to what happens in the world, I've seen abusive relationships, usually it's sad to say I've seen women drift from one abusive relationship straight into another and another. It's like these people have some kind of radar for each other, filling some kind of need for each other.

Where I am, there is plenty of support on offer for those women who find it hard to get out of that kind of relationship, the police and courts here don't take kindly to domestic abuse, it's more than likely an abuser will get gaoled with no messing about. But if the woman then goes chasing after the gaoled abuser? Then she seeks the life she wants, I've seen it.

I can't imagine that anybody reduced to or used to living in squalor in a trailer park anywhere would be able to get his sh!t together long enough to raise the funds to get himself off to the FSU in the first place, let alone be able to bring a woman back with him.