Intercultural Relationships and Gender Fairness

Everybody thinks that they know what is justice, but what they conceive of as justice is different from place to place. The just-world hypothesis of different people in different places and times conceive of completely different kinds of justice. And it is by flux between people and places that any meaningful concept of what is justice can be attained.

In Muslim and rural Indian cultures, it is seen as justice that man bludgeon the woman into being his dog and kill her if she disobeys in the slightest. In American feminist culture, it is seen as justice that a woman treat men like garbage, get a coworker fired for sexual harassment if he tells her she's good-looking, deal with all women who are nicer and prettier by abusing and sabotaging them and destroying their careers and relationships, abuse and emasculate any relationship partner, screw exes in court out of every cent they can get, claim that anyone who objects to such conduct is a misogynist or a bimbo, and aim to destroy as many men and beautiful women in one's life as one can and then claim oneself strong or smart or spiritual or a true servant of woman's cause. Both sets think that they are right and that what they are doing is justice. With such extremes in the world claiming themselves to be justice and righteousness, the way to arrive at any realistic notion of the preceding is for the real-world mechanism of people choosing each other based on how they are willing to treat each other to balance out whatever is believed in their respective homelands - and create a more informed conceptions of justice and a more balanced just-world hypothesis in every component part of the world.

It is ridiculous for Islamists in Middle East to claim to be speaking for justice; in Middle East, Islamists are the injustice. The same is true for the Dworkin-McKinnon types in the United States. The in-good-faith feminists have a real point about behavior of men in Middle East and many other parts of the world (and some in the West), and Islamists about behavior of the not-in-good-faith ones among American women. But they both have much less of a point at home. On their home turfs, they apply a grossly imbalanced conception of justice pursuant a grossly slanted just-world hypothesis to shape the country's concept of justice into gravely distorted forms that lead to grave mistreatment of people - women or men - who have done the least to deserve it.

A positive match is created between men and women whose just-world hypotheses are a positive-sum situation. A man from a feminist culture, whose just-world hypothesis would be seen at home as slanted toward patriarchy but in most of the rest of the world would be seen as fairly matriarchial, and a woman from a patriarchial culture, whose just-world hypothesis is seen in her own country as feminist but would be seen in a feminist culture as patriarchial or equalist, have just-world hypotheses that are better than complementary and that therefore can create among them a joyful appreciation of one another and a positive-sum relationship. Take a woman from the patriarchial culture, and put her together with a man from the feminist culture, and we see people who stand to treat one another better than they've ever been treated by other gender at home. As intercultural flux allows people to make matches based on what they see in each other and how they are willing to treat each other, is checked the wrong in each culture that caused the imbalance, and the graver wrong that is the mistreatment of either women or men in relationships in pursuit of that false concept of justice. And this creates a real-world mechanism toward creating social justice between men and women, as well as toward a goal that is just as important:

Creating relationships between men and women where both parties appreciate one another and treat each other in a manner that merits their vows of love.

The global social injustice will be solved at least in part by large-scale intercultural, interracial and international flux of people for love and marriage. Bringing together the men from cultures where the concept of justice is an extreme of feminism, with women from cultures where the concept of justice is an extreme of patriarchy - even people from cultures whose concepts of justice are not as extremely off-target but still noticeably apart - will bring together people who can appreciate one another, treat each other better than they are treated at home, and be seen by each other as positive influence and an improvement upon what they had to deal with. It will also create a real-world check-and-balance upon the tendency of societies - all societies - to go injust in one or another direction at the expense of one or another group. There were many people for a long time who believed that economic justice around the world would be achieved by Communism. In fact global capitalism did a much better and faster job by allowing billions of people in places like China and India to rise out of poverty using their own efforts with global market for their goods. And it is international flux for purpose of marriage that has real possibility of doing the same for social justice - while also creating many marriages along the way where people have genuine appreciation for one another and treat each other in commensurate way.

Global economy made it possible for international business to move across borders to find people who want to work and know how to work, and for people to move across the borders to find employers who constructively use and rightfully reward their endeavor. This resulted in over a billion of people rising out of poverty in less than three decades and businesses having better and more affordable products that benefited consumers and business itself. By similar mechanism, the men and women being free to move across borders to find people who would treat them better than they are treated at home results in tremendous improvement in people's relationships, as well as improvement in gender fairness.

But far more importantly, it creates a real-world incentive for people in all societies to treat their partners - men or women - in rightful manner, for knowing that there are other people around the world who would treat them well if they do not. And this breaks the stranglehold of local oppressors and thugs - both thugs of muscle and thugs of morality - who want to keep one or another group in their cultures in shackles so that they can be guiltlessly and without consequence mistreated.

Protectionism - attempt by rich countries to create walls against international products - has been described as bullying and
extortion. The consumer is being extorted, and the working people around the world are being bullied, by the rich country attempting to protect unearned priviledge of some of its workers at everybody else's expense. The communities that want to deny their citizens the right to make interracial, intercultural or international matches, are likewise using extortion and bullying to protect unearned privilege - such as the unearned privilege of Middle Eastern or rural Indian men to treat women like cattle, to throw vitriol in their faces, and to execute them in case they do not obey their every command. Like tariffs and quotas of the protectionists are used to maintain economic imbalance, so the violence, moral thuggery, and oppressive laws, are used to sustain social injustice. And just as in case of protectionism, where the greater the economic imbalance the higher the obstacles that are required to sustian it, so the greater the scale of violence, moral thuggery, and oppressive legislation, the greater the social injustice and the graver the system abuse.

There are many people who falsely claim that protectionism is more moral than global economy. It is not; it is bullying and extortion against one's citizens and against the world to protect unearned privilege. The same is also true of efforts by any local entity at any level to keep people from marrying people external to itself. If a country or a community constructs walls against intercultural, inter- ethnic or international marriage, then it is performing bullying and extortion against its own citizens and against the rest of the world, in order to keep its citizens chained to partners who want the unearned privilege of treating them like trash.

The greater the scale of economic imbalance, the greater the need for protective barriers. And the greater the scale of social imbalance, the more artificial barriers are required to keep it in place. Thus, the greatest amount of violence, threats, moral bludgeoning, character assassination, psychological abuse and oppressive legislation will be expected to be, and is, done by the communities that are the most gravely injust and abusive - and to the least extent by the communities that are the least abusive and least injust.

It takes more barriers to keep people from leaving a raw deal than it does to keep them from leaving a fair deal. From this follows that the greater the obstacles placed by the culture to women or men finding partners elsewhere, the greater the systemic injustice that they embody. The more abuse, violence, legal oppression and moral bludgeoning is directed against one or another group, the greater the injustice that is perpetuated against them. The greater the actual need for intercultural, interracial or international flux in order to rectify the imbalance.

The people are bullied into lives they would never have chosen if they were aware of the true range of options before them, and are kept there by oppressive laws that want to make a commitment based on inadequate knowledge and false advertising life-long. That state of affairs is falsely regarded as being moral. It is not moral state of affairs; it is a state of affairs based on systemic injustice. The disadvantaged are kept to inhuman treatment and denied relationships with people who would treat them better, and the people around the world are kept from partaking of what they have to offer, all in order to defend unearned privilege of the wrongly advantaged class to abuse and oppress the disadvantaged.

Thus, the people who are against intercultural matches in cultures such as the Muslim scream about tradition and morality. The real reason they are against such matches is that they want to abuse women as much as they want to abuse women, and for the women to have no other options but to put up with living hell that is life as a woman in Middle East. The people who attack intercultural matches in feminist cultures claim all kinds of silliness as well. The real reason is that they want to treat men like trash, and for the men to have no possibility but to take it. In both cases, the resistance to international relationships is a result of systemic wrong that leads to systemic imbalance. And it is this wrong that is checked and balanced by the real-world mechanism of people being meaningfully free to choose their partners in parts of the world that are not formulated by the same systemic imbalances and the wrongful mistreatment of one or another gender that these imbalances create.

The same of course is the case in relationships themselves. The greater the scale of the intended and later accomplished injustice, the greater the amount of physical violence, threats, psychological abuse, character assassination, reputation destruction and legal and social bullying that the perpetuator of the injustice needs to do in order to artificially protect and maintain the wrong. This is the case either when the imbalance is that of the perpetrator being with partner who is too good for them but not being willing to treat the partner at level accorded their merits, or of the desire of the perpetrator to grossly mistreat the partner, or of the desire by the perpetrator to take from the partner all that they have to offer and give poison and violence in return. Like barriers to trade being evidence of artifiically maintained economic imbalance, these actions are evidence of artificially maintained imbalance in the relationship.

The more we see done of all or any such things, the more the intended or the accomplished injustice, the more apparent is the injustice perpetuated by the partner who does these things.

Which means that abuse in relationships is more likely to be done not for the things that are wrong in the partner, but for things that are right in them. And the greater the amount of any such violence, the more we see the injustice that one commits or intends to commit. In the same way as global economy provides a way for workers around the world to rise out of poverty - and for entrepreneurs to have access to people who are willing and able to work effectively - so do international matches allow a way for women from cultures slanted against women and men from cultures slanted against men to create matches with people from whom they can expect better treatment that in home societies, and whom they likewise will treat in ways better than they are treated at home. The women from cultures where women treat men right but are mistreated by men in their own homeland - and men from cultures where men treat women right but women do not treat men right - find in each other better treatment than they could hope for in partners from their own communities. Not only are beautiful matches created, but social imbalances are rectified, and people in the communities are shown how truly loving, mutually appreciative and mutually respectful relationships can be made real. In this are created two positives, and rectified many negatives. The positive of mutually appreciative, mutually positive matches and positive influence that they exert on the disadvantaged group in society - and the negative of the wrong that creates social imbalances and the abusive ways that maintain them.

Thus international relationships therefore work for freedom, fairness, and good treatment by men and women of one another in relationships. And that is a valuable and meaningful good toward which it is worthy to aspire for men and women around the world.