Today, I heard a friend complain, saying that he brushed Douyin to a **, the content was a woman's cheating, and the man beat the woman, but the friend commented below **: It should be beaten! Unexpectedly, this comment caused a strong response in a short period of time, and more than 100 people left messages abusing him. There are comments that if you are incompetent, you will beat your wife, and there are comments that you can just divorce directly, why do you beat people, and some comments have risen to regional attacks, saying that it is really a pedantic province, and you will beat women. When my friend saw that this was so scary, he deleted the comment directly, and he didn't dare to comment anymore. This also reminds me of a ** I saw this morning, a man's daughter-in-law cheated, dated in his own house and locked the door, the man couldn't get into the house after he found out, and had no choice but to climb down from the window of the upstairs neighbor's house, and wanted to climb into his house from the balcony, but he didn't succeed and unfortunately fell from the balcony and died. The comments below accuse the man of being stupid, but no one sympathizes with him, and no one criticizes the cheating woman.
This not only made me think deeply, but it was also a woman's cheating, one hit someone and was widely criticized, and the other unfortunately fell to death when he was **, and he was also criticized, but no one criticized the cheating woman. I don't know if the melon-eating crowd in the comments is male or female, but the position is surprisingly consistent. I don't deny that there is indeed that kind of scumbag man, domestic violence against women, and to some extent, women may be in a vulnerable position in the family. But thinking of the sky-high bride price incidents that have been argued with the court on the Internet in recent years, and then thinking about the ratio of men to women in China today, can men really still dominate the family? I'm afraid this is going to be a deep question mark! In terms of the marriage market, there are obviously far more single men than single women. Generally speaking, if a man wants to find a partner, he must at least have a house and a car, otherwise there is almost no one in the blind date market. On the contrary, if a woman, as long as she is young and beautiful, whether she is materially rich or not does not affect her finding a person of the opposite sex, unless her requirements are far higher than her own conditions. Of course, this is determined by the basic market of the marriage and love market, because if it is put in India and Vietnam, not only does the man not have to pay the bride price, but the woman has to accompany the dowry in turn.
What I want to say is that our country pays attention to the equality of men and women, and the slogan of equality between men and women has been shouted for hundreds of years. So, what exactly is the equality of men and women? From a work point of view, equal pay for equal work; From the family's point of view, housework is shared; From the point of view of opportunity, there is equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, in our 5,000-year history, we have always advocated that the male protagonist is outside and the female protagonist is inside. China has produced a total of 494 emperors, and Wu Zetian is the only female emperor. Historically, there is no equality between men and women, but I think it is very unequal. In modern times, the awareness of equality between men and women has gradually become popular, and after the founding of New China, the status of women in China has been greatly improved. So does the situation in my country represent the world? Obviously not, you can look at some Islamic countries, where there are strict restrictions on what kind of clothes women choose and what kind of occasions they can go out. If we follow the (democratic) principle of the minority obeying the majority, then the status of women in our country is simply too high!
If we don't seem to have gender inequality relative to these countries, there shouldn't be a market for women's rights. But obviously the truth is not so simple, whether in work or life, you can see the best or obvious differential treatment of women, such as many recruiting units, only recruit married women with children. For example, many important positions have been occupied by men for a long time. There is a problem in this, employers who only recruit married women with children, considering that once a woman is pregnant and gives birth, she will take nearly half a year's maternity leave, which will cause the cost of the employer to rise, so there is this unspoken rule. Of course, employers have their own cost considerations, but if they hire women who are married and have children, it is obvious that this risk will be greatly reduced, and if only men are hired, this risk can even be eliminated. Does this count as discrimination? Before answering this question, it is necessary to talk about the issue of maternity leave for women, because there is no so-called maternity leave for men, and of course men do not have to have children. Women give birth to children, so there is maternity leave, but should the employer bear the employment cost during the maternity leave?
In fact, this problem is not valid in ancient times, because outside the male lead, inside the female lead, women in ancient times did not need to go to work, they only need to do housework, and there is no so-called maternity leave. The question arises, does maternity leave really take that long? If you are an employer, are you willing to hire a woman and have to face her for half a year of maternity leave at any time and then pay her salary? There is also the popular confinement in our country, and in foreign countries, there is no such thing as confinement at all. Interestingly, although we take good care of women after giving birth, our people are not physically better than foreigners, and women in confinement are not grateful for the extra care they receive. These problems seem to be cut and cut out of order, women need to have children, men do not need to have children, so women have maternity leave, men do not have maternity leave. Then it is understandable to miss the opportunity for promotion and salary increase because of having a child. From this point of view, women have made sacrifices, so many women choose not to have children and put their careers first. But if you choose a career, you can't take care of your family, and if you choose a family, you have to sacrifice your career to a certain extent. This is the fundamental reason why the ancient times advocated that the male protagonist is outside and the female protagonist is inside! It's not that men and women are not equal, it's a real need.
In fact, in ancient times, there was no such thing as equality between men and women, because this is a consensus that has been formed by successive generations through countless summaries and practices, and since modern times, the concept of equality between men and women has been born. So what exactly is equality between men and women? Men and women are born different, you can't force men to have children, and similarly, there are some advantages that women have, men will never be able to have. If you have to pursue absolute equality, will the men's basketball team and the women's basketball team have a chance to win? Men's and women's matches match, does the women's team have a chance to win? So why do you demand the same treatment for men's football and women's football, and the same treatment for men's basketball and women's basketball? Similarly, can male and female employees create the same value? If not, why ask for the same treatment? We talk about distribution according to work, this is fair, right? Fairness does not mean egalitarianism.
Going back to the aforementioned matter of women cheating and being beaten, if in ancient times, cheating men and women were to be immersed in pig cages, although there is no such torture today, but morally condemnable. The woman's cheating was beaten, and the man's cheating should be beaten? should also be beaten, but why wasn't he beaten, there is a high probability that women can't beat men, so they haven't been beaten. But morality and law are two different things, cheating is one thing, and hitting someone is another. Cheating is only against morality, and hitting people is an illegal act. So from a moral point of view, the wife cheats, the husband beats the wife, and it should be beaten. From a legal point of view, the man broke the law, and the police should take care of it. Someone said that it should be beaten, but this can only represent the opinion of the commentator, which is neither a moral code nor a legal article, so why should the commentators be attacked en masse? The so-called freedom of speech, everyone can speak, and saying that it should be beaten does not clearly violate the universally accepted moral norms, right? If you defend a cheating woman, this is a blatant provocation of the moral order, right? This kind of thing should be criticized by everyone, right?
Those who criticize the commenters, isn't it such a logic, I'm cheating, but you can't hit me? So cheating is not illegal, it violates morality, and I can't dip you in a pig cage like in ancient times, so I deserve to be cheated? Can I just suffer in silence? Do you think this kind of thing makes sense? From another point of view, if a man cheats, it is also not illegal, it only violates morality, will the woman beat the man? Or endure in silence? When I was beaten, I talked about equality between men and women, and when I was beaten, I said that I was a weak woman, which is a bit of a double standard, right? I've seen a lot of young guys who grovel when chasing girls, and if they don't sound good, they will become licking dogs, but it's still hard to find a match. If it is really said that men and women are equal, why should the man pay a bride price? In other words, how much bride price the man pays, the woman should give back as much dowry, which is called equality. Otherwise, men don't have a bride price, and women don't need a dowry, which is called fairness, right? If one party always pays, then how can there be equality?
Every time this kind of confrontation between men and women is set off on the Internet, it is always easy to cause heated discussions, because the relationship between men and women is swayed by all kinds of reasonable and unreasonable thoughts, so the current marriage relationship has become extremely fragile. In many provinces of our country, the divorce and marriage ratio has risen to 50%-60%, why was there no such a high divorce rate in ancient times? Do modern people really think that they are happy when they are divorced? Compared with the world, the status of women in my country cannot be said to be the highest, at least in the forefront, but it seems that female compatriots do not feel satisfied. In the family, at work, it is more women who complain about dissatisfaction, dissatisfied with their husbands, dissatisfied with their work, as if the whole world is sorry for her, do you think this is normal? If you do a survey of satisfaction with family and work, I think that the proportion of women who are dissatisfied is definitely higher than that of men. Is it so unbearable for Chinese men? What is the problem of this, has no one thought about it? Those women who are dissatisfied with their marriage, after the divorce, do you really have a happy life?
Deng Gong once said: Practice is the only criterion for testing truth. Whether an idea is correct or not still depends on practice to test. If you can really achieve the same treatment of men and women in any field, absolutely equal, do you think that is fair? Why is it that not a single country in more than 200 countries in the world can do it? Why doesn't the army take half men and half women? Why don't workers take half men and half women? Why isn't *** half male, half female? Let's rely on practice to prove that the last country that was so average has been extinct for a long time. If there is a creator, it makes men and women so different, obviously there is its own unique consideration, and it will definitely not make you engage in absolute equality, egalitarianism. Otherwise, just create a bunch of unisex people, or intersex people, why bother to distinguish between genders? Maybe you don't want to admit it, but it's true. Men and women are two animals by nature, and their ways of thinking are fundamentally different, so why do they have to force them to be consistent?
I'm not trying to speak for men, but in my perspective, a lot of women are really badly taught by some vicious women. What are the popular ways of the husband, the strategy of fishing for women, and the tutorials of celebrities, these poisonous chicken soups, why don't you mention the equality of men and women when you drink them? When men and women fall in love, there is a conflict, it must be the man's mistake, and I rarely see a woman take the initiative to admit the man's mistake. In the cold war between husband and wife, the man is basically the first to give in, and it is rare to see the woman who is the first to give in and apologize, no matter whose fault it is. Many women agree with a famous saying: home is a place of love, not a place of reason. If you don't apologize and accommodate me, you just don't love me! Is there something wrong with this logic? At this time, if you dare to talk about equality between men and women, I am afraid that what awaits you is a kitchen knife! Where is there any equality? Have you ever seen a woman on the street who is unfair, and have you ever seen a man who is unfair? You might say, because men have the upper hand! Before the sinking of the Titanic, women, the elderly and children were given priority on board, but there were no men! If you quarrel with a woman, the onlookers will say, "You are a big man, you can't let a woman be subdued, but no one will tell you about the equality of men and women!"
Because you are a man, you can only show the world that you are strong, women can use tears to protect themselves, men, tears can only prove that you are weak! Because you are a man, you should be the pillar of the family, you should be the backbone of the company, you should be a man who spills blood at a critical moment, and you should be a grievance and break your teeth and swallow it. Your grievances shouldn't be confided in others, your troubles should be digested by yourself, your wife cheated, you shouldn't do it, you should endure it, and then go for a divorce? Does this make sense? What kind of truth is this? I don't support either men's rights or women's rights, I think that true fairness should be like ideals, and harmony is the best. I'm not a philosopher, I'm not a thinker, I don't know what's right and what's wrong, and I hope there are philosophers who can answer this problem for me!