Original link: https://onojyun.com/2022/06/10/6198/
△ 161｜Dragon Boat, Woman, and Dog
Just by looking at the title, someone should know what to talk about today. In the past two days, an “episode” about the Dragon Boat Festival has been made a lot of noise: Can women get on the dragon boat?
In fact, there is nothing to discuss about this issue, because there are different reasons and arguments on both sides of the issue. About feminism, about the so-called traditional culture, about superstition or belief, if these topics are discussed outside the original framework, they will all be discussed. it’s meaningless. For example, in the past few years, the “Yulin Dog Meat Festival”, which has been on the stage every year, has been noisy for a long time, and it should be regarded as a commercial one. Because there is no way to escape from this framework, if someone objects, there will be supporters of “traditional culture” to stand up for it, and finally develop into a popular among the people between non-dog owners and dog owners contradiction.
Returning to the question of “Can women go on a dragon boat?”, the basic point of view is to use “bad habits” as the starting point, and think that the dragon boat customs in Guangdong should be classified as “bad habits” that are feudal and backward. Fight back and resist by definition. That’s why I said just now that there is no way for us to break out of the original framework to discuss these matters.
First of all, there are customs and taboos about dragon boats in Foshan, Guangdong. No matter how these customs are defined by the world as traditional customs or feudal superstitions, as long as the law does not clearly define them, their existence and compliance are free – because for Private rights are permitted unless prohibited by law. Unless one day the law suddenly stipulates that “women are not allowed to go on dragon boats”, then this traditional rule, which is originally moral, will be covered.
Well, here comes the most critical “problem” in a Chinese-style legal society. We have reversed the order of law and morality. Most people think that morality is the first layer, followed by the use of law as the last step of behavior. constraint. So the problem is here – equality between men and women is recognized by the law, yes, if the law is at the first level, then men and women should be treated equally; then the custom of “women should not go on dragon boats” as morality , to carry out the second layer of restraint, you can think it is a kind of backwardness, or it can be regarded as a kind of religious right, but this is always in the second layer, at least most people enjoy equality between men and women in the first layer, If there is inequality in the second layer, it can be respected as a certain moral and religious belief.
So the problem lies in this link, the Chinese-style laws and moral standards, first think from the moral level, why the dragon boat does not allow women to sit on it, this is not in line with the rules of equality between men and women – and then move out of the law, think that the law It is the ultimate weapon that can sanction morality – at least I think the process is absurd.
Speaking of which, it seems that I haven’t “stand in line” yet. Do I support the decision to sue the owner of the dragon boat that made the dragon boat unusable, or the woman who got on the dragon boat. To be honest, if the law is used as the first layer, it is obvious that with modern law, it can definitely cover the original custom issue, although there are also certain “secondary responsibilities”, such as not following local cultural customs, or without permission. Riding on someone else’s dragon boat, etc., if you really want to discuss the “division of responsibilities” between the two sides with legal rules, you will definitely provoke those supporters who want to destroy “feudal superstition”; but if you act according to morality On the first level, this matter is quite ridiculous, because no matter how you evaluate it, this matter will anger people on both sides of morality.
Let’s talk about “dogs”. Whether or not you can eat dog meat is also a custom in itself, but this custom has not been given some kind of mandatory regulation by the law. As mentioned in previous articles, when Beijing first implemented the ban on urinating and urinating in the streets and alleys, there was also a lot of scolding. But, you see, after the law has been enforced for a period of time, it has now become a default rule – of course, there are still people who carry their children and urinate on the side of the road. They are not much different from dogs. , leash or wear no clothes.
Whether or not you can eat dog meat has not yet been legislated, so there is no way to restrain it from a moral level – but many Chinese people have mistaken a rule, that is, morality is a kind of internal restraint, a person’s restraint on self-behavior and Guiding, rather than restraining and evaluating others. For example, I said just now that there is no difference between children and dogs who defecate anywhere. In fact, it is a kind of moral violation to the outside world. For those parents who wear open trousers and want others to know that they have a male in their home, they are everywhere. Urine itself has no moral standards for themselves. They even think that letting others see their grandson’s little dick is a way of transmitting information to the outside world. It is the same as sniffing each other’s assholes with dogs.
When there is no morality in others, even if we have high standards of morality, we can’t restrain others’ behavior – on the contrary, if a certain moral standard already exists in a field, those who enter this field must abide by this kind of moral standard. Morality , and at this time, there is a person who violates morality. Should he be the target of public criticism? Because morality is not binding on others, why not allow others to poop and pee anywhere, but allow yourself to break through other people’s moral standards?
In the final analysis, the problem lies in the fact that Chinese people first use non-binding morality as the first-level standard for evaluating other people’s behavior. At this time, everyone’s moral level is different, and there is a farce of “who should listen to”. Secondly, the morality formed by some traditional cultures has obvious backwardness and lag. We can define it as “bad habits”, but this level of morality still exists. Before the law does not explicitly prohibit its existence, this morality still exists. Commands its realm, but this morality is only within this realm. If we want to average this standard into the moral standard of all people——
hello, that’s the fucking law
This article is reproduced from: https://onojyun.com/2022/06/10/6198/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.