Reposted from the thread on feminism:


在我年轻的时候，女人们不戴围巾是不会出门的。但他们并没有从政治角度出发。应该有人画一幅穆罕默德和法蒂玛的漫画，让法蒂玛在围巾里戴卷发器。关键是，这只是一个问题，因为其中包含强迫。没有其他理由可以肯定它是一种“权利”。更不用说面纱了。这不是由被奴役的人来支持奴隶制的条件。有些妇女可以自由穿戴围巾或面纱吗?文化是一种权利吗?如果它不是自发的，它就不是不可分割的。 The earliest talk of right was about the right to self-defense. The point there was that no law can prevent it, and so it was taken as a demonstrable fact of natural law supreme over human laws and customs. Cultural constraints are not a natural and spontaneous expression of rights. A recent film on arranged marriages (I do not know its title) portrays an ex-patriot Indian community desperately clinging to social norms that are fading in India itself. Should their right to be sticks-in-the-mud be regarded as an inalienable right? Indigenous cultures should not be protected from the future, they should be provided the means to adapt to it in their own terms. Assimilation is a two way street, we adopt them as much as they us. The only crime is where it is unilateral and coercive. Absent that coercion and that implacable resistance to being influenced by the stranger, two way assimilation is the future for us all, not just those who feel they need to be protected from it, or from "them". Go to Iran and watch the girls push back their scarf when they think no one is looking, but quickly pull it over their hair when they think officials might be present, and then tell them it is their "right" to wear it. In France the scarf is outlawed in public schools. Does this go to far? Or do they have a point? After all, they don't allow visible Christian symbols either.

我对文化受害者身份的评论很可能不会让那些长期信奉平等原则的人喜欢我，甚至可能支持像平权行动这样的难以调和的概念，以纠正过去的不公平。我也曾经信奉过这种理想主义，并在一个民权组织工作了多年，就像之前提到的那样。但是，随着时间的推移，少数民族和妇女逐渐认识到处于不利地位的好处，从而逐渐削弱了平权行动的最佳意图。作为文化受害者可以变成某种资产，机会将从这片迄今为止毫无希望的流沙之海中流出。几乎每个人都开始认识到正在发生的事情，受人尊敬的弱势群体领导人拒绝平权行动和其他这种人为的机制。AA现在可能已经临床死亡，尽管尸体可能还保留着一些残余的热量。在他的结语中，泰勒教授想知道“关于受害者文化的讨论可能会真正发展到什么程度”。让我提出这样的建议:也许，只是也许，它们可能清除一些蜘蛛网，并使我们能够以事后诸明的态度评估我们最好的意图所产生的结果。是的，有时候真相很伤人。

“受害者心理”这个词是什么时候出现的?标准英语术语“受害”有什么问题?
"Victimhood" by definition suggests that "victims" are milking their condition and making undue demands. It's a shaming term which is designed to put victims on the defensive. "Victimhood" reflects contempt for victims.

In honor societies, individuals (men) kept up their honor by reacting to affront, insults, infringement of rights without anyone else's input help roughness. For the most part respect societies exist where the principle of law is frail. In honor societies, individuals ensured themselves, their families, and property through having a notoriety for quick savagery. Amid the nineteenth century, most Western social orders started the ethical move toward pride societies in which all nationals were lawfully enriched with equivalent rights. In such social orders, persons, property, and rights are protected by plan of action to outsiders, ordinarily courts, police, et cetera, that, if fundamental, wield roughness on their benefit. Respect societies rehearse resistance and are a great deal more quiet than honor societies.thesis writing service

Modulo a Nietzchean rejection of there being anything proper to a victim, an illegitimate victim would be one not truly victimised. This implies a judgement of whether or not there has been an actual tort, to dip into legal language. Roughly speaking, those on the Right used to generally claim that the victims in whose interest the Left spoke were not true victims because the supposèd injuries done them were either due them by virtue of their failings ('The poor are lazy. ') or represent the natural and inevitable consequences of the way society, if not the entire Universe, is set-up ('Blacks/women/infidels are naturally unsuited to lead, so in a well-ordered world they will naturally have to defer to whites/men/{the One True Church}.'). Those on the Left, roughly again, see false victimhood in members of formerly dominant classes of people constructing their new lack of acknowledged superiority as a form of injury.