Why all this immorality in the World?

We live in times where immorality is rampant. Immorality has always been rampant. Immorality comes from human nature - it is part of humanity's fallen nature. This is why we have war, violence, fraud , corruption and hatred. Some people have attempted to find links between science and morality and found that morality is linked to an understanding of science. This is rubbish. A person can have great knowledge but do the most evil things and this can be observed.

The cycle of revenge is based on the feeling that one needs to satisfy one's anger and wrath. It is self-centred. This leads to all the conflicts in the world.

Critique of Melinda Tankard Reist's 'We must follow France and Put an End to Exploitation'

Melinda Tankard Reist has been described as a conservative feminist, (whatever that means) who fights against abortion, pornography and violence. While these are plausible goals, one could argue that her focus is too narrow by excluding boys and men who are subject to pornography. Furthermore, it can be argued that she assumes that all women in prostitution do so involuntarily.

 In her article, We must follow France and Put an End to Exploitation, she uses the death of Tracy Connelly as a example to suggest that all prostitutes want a way out. However, there are many who do it for the easy money and pleasure in any country. She also asks why the government has not made legislated to help prostitutes on the grounds that they are exploited as though only prostitutes are the only people in the world being exploited. While it is absolutely wrong to exploit anyone at all, it is not merely governmental responsibility to stop exploitation. The community has a larger responsibility in preventing exploitation by teaching children family and community values as the government is not a body that can stop everything immoral.

The ultimate silence that Reist makes is that prostitution damages men and children, not just women. It destroys families. What destroys men destroys families, what destroys families destroys communities, what destroys communities destroys a nation. This silence is deafening and so it appears that Reist is only trying to put forward her self-righteous agenda which only focuses on a favoured section of the community, rather than the community as a whole.

Any fight against the vices of the world needs to be done out of love for all others including those who are unlovable and cruel, not out of a legalistic sense of duty or moral outrage.

The Law is No Silver Bullet for Social Stability

Some others argue that the law should be based on rights to ensure social stability. Social stability concerns whether people are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour that harms others. Provided people do not harm others in the positive sense, there is no be no legal reproach towards the one who does not interfere with the action of others. Interfering with the actions of others is to act in a way that discourages or stops the actions of others. This idea is the core of Asian thinking. Asian countries do not tend to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries on the grounds that there is a perceived need to help those other countries.

However, the law can be seen as merely a set of rules drafted by the government. Whether these laws are followed and accepted by the society subject to the law is another matter. Whether people follow the law determines whether the law operates as a framework for society to work. Enforcement is practised to ensure that people comply with the law, however, enforcement alone does not make people follow the law. Whether the law serves as a social framework is inherently dependent on whether they are accepted. In some cultures, the law is regarded as something that exists for political reasons rather than to protect the needs of people. This is especially true in authoritarian states, but is also true in liberal democracies.

The law is indeed limited in its ability to control the way people behave. It does not matter how tough the laws of a country is. If people do not see that they are to be followed, and  choose not to follow them, social stability is not maintained. However, without laws, social stability would be worse. The concept of rights is what justifies the need for laws to protect human dignity.

Academia in modern universities treats the law as though it is the silver bullet for protecting human dignity. However, it is not.

A Counter Revolution against the Norm

American cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Indeed, it is. However, whether the change is good or not is another matter. In a world that is becoming increasing feminist, The Antigones has started, not a movement, but a gathering of people to counter the increasing feminisation of the Europe, and the world at large. Some have labelled it an extremist group. Some  have expressed admiration for its courage to stand up for real womanhood which has been destroyed by radical feminist groups. Some have applauded it as the leader of an antifeminist counter-revolution.

Feminism has destroyed womanhood by telling women that they need to become like men or that women do not need men. It is based on the idea that women do not need men in the family, community or social life. It has failed to recognise that men and women are inherently different and that both have different gifts. Everyone has gifts that are given to them to serve others, not harm or hurt others. Individualistic ideologies, including feminism has conditioned society to think that help others is a sign of oppression.

The Antigones embodies real womanhood and femininity. It makes it clear that real womanhood is not about disempowering men. It is about empowering men. Only when men and women help each other will there be community. One's sexuality is a unique gift, not a curse. Feminism uses the historical injustices faced by women as a pretext to disempower men, leading to the breakdown of families and hence, community.

Watch the video message from The Antigones to Femen, a radical feminist group. 

The Pride in Helping the Marginalised

Some people help the marginalised, not out of genuine care and love for them, but out of pride. They feel sympathy for these marginalised groups and even guilty, for being in an "elite" position. Catherine Deveny, in the SBS series Go Back to Where You Came From, upon arrival in Afghanistan cries about how guilty she feels for being Australian. The thing is, that one cannot change their background. No one wants to be marginalised or oppressed. However, for some, it is their story of the past and present which cannot be changed. Thus, there is no point in feeling guilty for anyone who is marginalised as one's social or cultural status cannot be helped.

However, such as statement is made out of pride. It is the type of pride one feels for having more or faring better than others. It may not be malevolent, or even be of benevolent intentions, but it is inherently based on pride; it is condescension. This explains why so many in the Third World are extremely skeptical about aid from Western nations. The people of Third Word countries are all too familiar with the condescension shown by many Western aid organisations.This pride comes from being humans with a greater reason to be proud. When there is no greater reason to be proud, we tend to feel envious or jealous of those who fare better than us.

Helping the weak when one is strong makes one proud, but helping the strong when one is weaker makes one feel jealous.

What Individualism Is

The ideology of individualism is dominant over communalism in the West. Individualism is the idea that the individual need to look after oneself before others. Looking after oneself before others means to serve oneself, rather than others. In other words, the needs of community and family are placed after the self - they are of a lower status than the self. The needs of others are not as important and do not deserve any care, unless, of course, they can benefit the self.

Individualism is selfish. Although people need to look after themselves, the needs of others need to be cared for in pursuing one's interests. I am skeptical of charities, particularly the ones that seek to help only certain group of people gain their self-interests, as opposed to helping the community as a whole, such a humanitarian groups. Such charities claim that they have to do so, in order to care for the community. I do not agree with this claim as the different sections of the communities depend on each other. 

A community is a whole body made up of different parts with different functions. It is a lie that there is no such thing as society because we all depend on others achieve our interests and obtain our needs. 

The term 'charities; has been abused, especially by interest groups that campaign for the rights of one's own groups. These groups often seek rights without responsibility. They seems to care for the whole community by claiming that groups that oppose their views and actions are oppressing them. 

It is not that focusing on helping a certain group of people is wrong. It is that it is selfish to pursue one's own rights without caring for the needs of others. 

Communalism vs Individualism: How it is viewed in the West

Many people in the liberal West cringe at the term communalism. Many become worried about the rights of valued minorities, not unvalued minorities, believing that communalism is about maximising happinness for the greater good. I argue that it is not communalism, but individualism that harms society more. Communalism is often associated with socialism and communism. This is partially true, but communalism can be understood, not only in the political sense, but the social, cultural and moral sense.

Most Asian and African cultures are communalistic. There is a strong emphasis placed on family and community values. To many in the West, this communalistic system would lead to the marginalisation of minorities. However, the marginalisation of minorities also occur in individualistic societies, if not treated worse in individualistic societies.

My uni is (sadly) run by femocrats

Universities can be said to be the cornerstone of building society. Most people in our increasingly materialistic and self-centred world would agree. This makes university a place of acquiring critical thinking skills as well as a place to brainwash a whole generation of naive uncritical students who are full of youthful open-mindedness.

My uni is run by femocrats. How do I know?

First, we have a gender equity officer. She is usually as woman. The Women's Collective is closely associated with her. They wrote a letter to the Student Union asking them not to be "disrespectful" to her, simply because they wanted to cut down funding. The Women's Collective (at my uni) exists only to weaken men and take away the future of children. It fights for abortion using the pretext that it is needed to "help" women, spreads the idea that there is no such thing as an immoral woman, while all men are immoral, while supporting women who have multiple romantic relationships are the same time.

Second, a vast majority of scholarships are given specifically for women. This has made women feel entitled to place themselves on the pedestal above men, and self-centred.

What a sad world we live in. I urge men to wake up to an ever demanding femocracy (not democracy) and stand up against it.

We will need campaigns for 'Violence against Men (by women)' in the future if this does not happen.

It used to be...(5)

It used to be that people who served the community because they truly wanted to make a positive difference were revered. These people made sacrifices for serve the needy, the poor, the vulnerable and the oppressed.   Power, money, fame and career meant nothing to them. Desiring these things were regarded as desires that contradict the desire to serve others.

Now, people can serve others and their personal needs. It is now normal, and even, fashionable to claim that one wants to serve others through their career where they can also gain power, money or fame. Serving others can be done while serving power, money or fame. Former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon stated in her resignation speech that she encourages young people to consider public serve because one can fight for what one believes. This may be true, however, it does not show an attitude that seeks to serve others although to may outwardly claim to. Instead, it is out of pure selfishness - to fight for what one wants, not what is right.

What people want is not necessarily right. In fact, what people want is often self-centred and has no regard for what others need. The most popular phrase in Australian slang is "I can do what I want". Really, it is not about what one wants. This is evidence that the Australian society is individualistic, self-centred and arrogant. No wonder relationships break down, people fight and, above all, people get hurt. All sorts of people get hurt, not just the groups that are popularly considered to be vulnerable.

The media has contributed to such an individualistic, self-centred and arrogant culture. It portrays the idea that people can serve their own personal desires and the needs of others. It exults rich, powerful or famous people when they act generously because they are not expected to. Although this is realistically true, it reinforces the false idea that people can serve both personal desires and others at the same time.

Helping others now seems hypocritical thanks to the media and an individualistic culture. Helping others can only be truly regarded as serving others when it is done in love for others, not out of selfish ambition.

It used to be..(4)

It used to be that work was done to serve the family and community. The husband and wife would distribute out the work as to who would work at home and who would work in the community. Either way, work was done to serve others.

No longer has work become a service to the community. Work now needs to be a career, especially for women. There has been many expectations placed on women to have a career and family. Those who can have both are successful. Those who can't are unsuccessful. Work that is not capable of being a career, that is, work that is not intellectual, or involving leading others, is not valuable. Such work is regarded as non-work.

Interestingly enough, a career, as the term is understood in the postmodern world, does not have to be one that is lucrative. It can be one that has much power or fame. Many of the powerful politicians and public servants, such as commissioners, are really just after the fame and power, in the guise of wanting to help others. Many of the powerful women politicians use women's rights as a pretext for their want of fame and power. It is an easy pretext to use because half the population is female, such that they can get more votes, and that such an issue is regarded as a sensitive one.

People have become so focused on their careers at the expense of relationships. Parents have neglected the needs of their children by letting other people look after them. Young people are becoming increasingly arrogant about their prospects. Women have become extremely proud about their careers that they look down on stay-at-home mothers.

That work has become a status symbol means that helping others is choice that people make depending on what they can gain. Our humanity has gone. Welcome to the postmodern world where there are very few  who truly serve others through their work.

It used to be...(3)

It used to be that friendship was about respecting others. It was about helping each other through the hard times. Now, friendship is dependent on how the individual person views one's friends, rather than how the person is viewed by others. This is evidence of how we are becoming increasingly individualistic.

We treat our friends as people to be used. It is all about how many friends we have, not how many people who we are a friend of. The idea of friendship is to give each other personal pleasure and to gain personal desires. Friends are now, as understood in the postmodern sense as people to have fun with. One has to have more friends to have more fun, meaning more pleasure.

The activities that we enjoy with friends has become a status symbol. Gaining, not making "friends" is a point-scoring activity. People talk about who is their friend, not who are they friends with. Social life has become a norm to show-off one's popularity, instead of helping others with their needs. As a result, gaining friends has become a political tool for people to gain influence and control over others.

No longer do we feel satisfied about ourselves, but we are concerned with what others think about us. To feel more popular, we look at how many friends we have to feel assured about social status.

It used to be... (2)

It used to be that the education started at the home in the family. A family, now called the 'traditional family' consisted of a husband, wife and children. The parents would serve the family and community. The parents would teach their children values to guide and support their emotional, physical, social, mental and spiritual needs.

Now, parents fail to teach their children family and community values. Many parents of the Generation Y youth do not set examples for their children in many areas. Many parents do not have family values and do not have healthy relationships with others, especially people of the opposite sex. They had children out of wedlock, leaving the children brought up in a family that is unstable. Even if the parents do get married, the children are instilled with the idea that it is acceptable for parents to be unmarried, more importantly that it is right to engage in  sexual relationship outside of marriage.

This has produced a perverse, degenerate and morally decadent generation, a generation that has no respect for others, is selfish, and callous. People of Generation Y blame others for their own problems, except for when someone of their group (the classic example would be a young woman who is outraged about rape, but does not care if a man was harassed in a similar way).

It beggars the question as to how this generation can lead the future generations to come. How? It is a hard question given the lack of community and family values Generation Y has.

Equality: What it really means (2)

Equality, as it is understood in the postmodern world means no differences in the role played in the community or family. However, difference in roles does not mean inequality of social status. It follows from the postmodern understanding of equality that only where there are no difference in roles that people are of equal status, and that no one is a subordinate. No longer does equality mean having an equal chance or access. Equality is the inherent dignity of each human being to be treated the same as others. It is not a mere social construct, but what is means to be treated as a human. Equal opportunities does not mean that social differences between people must be eliminated. A society can be a diverse one, in which different people play different roles to build the community.