Chechnya's leader Ramzan Kadyrov has urged men to stop their wives from using WhatsApp after anger over a police chief's forced marriage to a 17-year-old spread on the messaging service:
"Lock them in, do not let them go out, then they will not post anything," Ramzan Kadyrov was quoted as saying. Mr Kadyrov had earlier backed a police chief's marriage to a 17-year-old, even though he was already married, in apparent violation of Russian laws. His chief of staff has since proposed legalising polygamy in Chechnya.
Mr Kadyrov, an authoritarian leader and close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has in recent years outlawed the abduction of brides and underage marriage. He is also thought to be in favour of polygamy. His top aide Magomed Daudov said: "It all has to be in keeping with Sharia: But if a man can support more than one wife, then why not?"
Before Saturday's ceremony, local media reported that police chief Nazhud Guchigov, 47, had prevented Kheda Goylabiyeva from leaving her home and threatened her family with reprisals if they did not hand her over.Mr Kadyrov denounced discussion of the marriage on WhatsApp in comments broadcast on local state-run TV. "Stop. Behave like Chechens," he was reported as saying. "The family honour is the most important thing. Do not write such things. Men, do take your women out of WhatsApp." Last week he took to his Instagram account to criticise Russian media coverage of the marriage as "this fuss ordered by some liberals". "The girl's parents gave their blessing to this marriage," he claimed, arguing that reports to the contrary were filled with lies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday May 22 2015, @03:47PM
Link to an article about the marriage [businessinsider.com] He sounds like a really charming guy. If Western feminists want to actually make a difference in the world, they ought to go after abuses like this. Heck, the British Queen goes out of her way to make the point to these barbarians; [independent.co.uk] surely the rest of the West could follow along?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @07:31PM
That takes too much work. It is easier to publicly shame men that want equal custody rights or complain about comic book covers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @08:12PM
> If Western feminists want to actually make a difference in the world, they ought to go after abuses like this.
Tumblr and Twitter "feminists" are bullies. Do you bully someone who is unwilling to hit you back, or someone who would ENJOY giving you a black eye?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Friday May 22 2015, @04:00PM
Blame the messenger that a society acts like a bunch of savages. And the answer? More savagery.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @04:18PM
This sounds like the same old goofy shit that happens in 3rd world countries with tinpot dictators all the time.
Perhaps it is more interesting that it is getting coverage in the west at all.
Maybe that has something to do with the falling out between Putin and this 'ally.'
Security services told to fire on authorities from elsewhere in Russia that try to carry out operations in Chechnya [wsj.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Nuke on Friday May 22 2015, @04:28PM
Magomed Daudov said: "It all has to be in keeping with Sharia: But if a man can support more than one wife, then why not?"
How about : because there are already not enough nubile young women in the world to go round the young men seeking them, without rich old men buying the best ones up. Of course, we nerds don't need to worry as we all have plenty of girlfriends already, don't we?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @04:37PM
Be careful.
You will piss off the libertarian nerds since that same argument can be made about any resource.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by tftp on Friday May 22 2015, @04:58PM
How about : because there are already not enough nubile young women in the world to go round the young men seeking them
I don't have hard facts [pewsocialtrends.org] to prove it, but I believe that the opposite is true [pewsocialtrends.org]. There aren't enough men. (One of the linked charts shows that in 2012 there was only 91 employed man for every 100 women.) The reason is that nearly every woman wants to marry. This is caused by her need to have a child, and that requires significant financial and other support. However not every man wants to marry. Plenty of men don't mind spending a night with a woman, but that doesn't mean that they are going to sign their name on the dotted line the very next morning. Not every man is even a viable marriage candidate. Well, not every woman either - but even fat, lazy and mean women want a husband; they are in the market.
I, personally, never met a man who'd be dreaming of marriage. Unmarried men want many things - job, wealth, cars, houses, business - but marriage is somewhere there, on a backburner. At the same time nearly every girl wants to marry their "prince on a white horse." Well, guess what - that isn't happening all that often. Many girls can't marry.
Historically, polygamy also has ties to the fact that men die in wars. There were wars in Chechnya about 20 years ago. In today's Chechnya young men jump on a train and go to other cities of Russia to earn money. Girls can't do that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @05:21PM
> The reason is that nearly every woman wants to marry. This is caused by her need to have a child, and that requires significant financial and other support.
> I, personally, never met a man who'd be dreaming of marriage.
Another unintentionally revealing post by a misogynist.
Most men want to have a family. Maybe not those red pillers, but normal men do. Even in backwards cultures where the stereotype is that men aren't involved with their kids the stereotype is also that they do care deeply about having an heir to continue the family name.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @07:37PM
You don't get it. "Those red pillers" as you say, are often men that were married and were treated so badly that their actions are purely reactionary. Nobody blames a Jewish man for not wanting to live in Germany even though there are plenty of good people in Germany. The emotional scars are too deep for reconciliation. In western personal relationships right now women have all the power and men have none. Is it so abnormally wrong to opt out of servitude when the benefits do not exceed the costs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @10:05PM
Hhhm, comparing a bad marriage to the holocaust.
You are definitely on to something there. Or at least on something.
Like a red pill perhaps?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:25AM
Instead of ad hominem you could contribute to the conversation. Think and help, or be catty and make things worse. Choose.
My point is that a negative experience is likely to be avoided in the future. As anyone with a college education is accustomed to, extreme examples that still fit the mold make for better analogies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:14AM
> Instead of ad hominem you could contribute to the conversation.
Pro-tip - ad hominem is "you are wrong because you are an idiot."
I am saying "you are an idiot because you are wrong ... so ridiculously out of proportion wrong"
> As anyone with a college education is accustomed to, extreme examples that still fit the mold make for better analogies.
Yes, because comparing marriage to the holocaust is totally the same mold.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @07:53PM
>Most men want to have a family. Maybe not those red pillers, but normal men do. Even in backwards cultures where the
Nope. Men want a cute young girl or a pretty woman.
That's as far as it goes. Nature dose the rest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:16AM
> Nope. Men want a cute young girl or a pretty woman.
> That's as far as it goes. Nature dose the rest.
Speak for your own, developmentally stunted, self.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 22 2015, @05:27PM
Gettin' bitches is really easy - Don't look like shit and be a little aggressive. One of the biggest complaints from women I date in the U.S. is that too many men are passive and effeminate. These are good-looking women who would date a slob like me and would also date the guy you replied to if he could muster the courage to pull his hands out of his pockets, look the woman in the eye and hold the gaze, not staring at the floor, and not hunching shoulders and recoiling head into them like a frightened turtle. It's simple, if a straight man can't think on the fly then his mind should have been made up in advance and he should stick to his guns.
Women of all political stripes HATE when you give them reason to think that you're misrepresenting your true beliefs to match theirs. I fucked a fat Hispanic tattooed pierced ultra-liberal cow on the first date and after saying the word 'Beaner' because she was actually flattered that a man would be aggressive enough to want her and ballsy enough to risk provoking her in his honesty. Her typical crowd were fucking hipsters -- fast-talking folks who can yap and yap (note: like I am now, because none of you have a vagina for me to impress) because it's all about them and not sweeping a woman off her feet and making her stinkbox all juicy and musty.
All this Jew-owned media (including the moderators at OK Cupid) would like to have you believe that women prefer passive White men and that it's only okay for a man to be simultaneously aggressive and attractive when he's black. This cuckolding myth is a Jew-propagated myth to provide forced political correctness and multiculturalism as a smoke-screen to not only weaken the host society, but to distract from what the Jews are up to in that society (which is usually attacking free-speech laws, lobbying for aid to Israel, and otherwise accumulating monies).
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @05:50PM
Ethanol is ever classy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @07:58PM
>women I date in the U.S. is that too many men are passive and effeminate. These are good-looking women who
We do not want to go to prison.
America is a woman's cunt(ry).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Friday May 22 2015, @05:52PM
I want a child and my wife doesn't. You are painting with a very wide brush.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Friday May 22 2015, @06:29PM
I want a child and my wife doesn't.
Yes... but being married, you're hardly a representative sample of all men? (In the nicest possible way :-) There seems to be an element of "well, I'm married, so now I think some children would be nice". There are a number of factors. Married people often associate with other married people, who quite often end up with children - so you are around babies and children and even that's enough to make a man a little clucky. There's also parents being excited about the possibility of becoming grandparents and even if they don't ask directly, you know they think about it occasionally. Those married friends of yours, now with children, now also have less time to spend with you, and what better way to spend all that extra time that to have a little one of your own? Lastly, there is a certain element of "in for a dime, in for a dollar", so if you wear a wedding band, you might as well maximise your potential and change some nappies.
The grandparent poster; tftp; despite being currently moderated as "troll"; does make a number of valid points. His thesis
I, personally, never met a man who'd be dreaming of marriage.
does have a ring of truth about it. Myself... I have met quite a number of men who have wanted to be married. I'm not so sure he's correct about the marriage part but he'd be spot-on if he was talking about babies. (At least where I live, having children "out of wedlock" is only likely to raise an occasional eyebrow - so "marriage" and "children" don't have to be conflated.)
So, to put my stamp on it: most men I've met aren't particularly fussed about children but most women are. If "the wife" wants children, the husband usually obliges and most seem quite happy. I do know that older, childless men often have considerable regret that they didn't have any children but likewise, older childless women do to. It would be a very rare man that dreamt about babies but such an experience is common amongst women. That's simply how we're wired and nothing to be ashamed of.
(Score: 1) by Noble713 on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:16PM
I want a child and my wife doesn't.
I'm curious. Were you aware of your spouse's differing opinion on children before you got married?
If you *did* know, why did you marry this particular female instead of an alternative (equally attractive, interesting, mentally stable) one? Did you not have sexual access to a variety of unique desirable women?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:32PM
> Did you not have sexual access to a variety of unique desirable women?
What kind of freak talks like that?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:03AM
When we first started dating i wasn't going to dump her because she wasn't sure if she wanted kids or not. She might still change her mind (i hope so). But i married her because we get along so well (still do). Getting married has nothing to do with sex or a perfect significant other, imo. For me it is about trust and companionship.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by Noble713 on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:49AM
Getting married has nothing to do with sex or a perfect significant other, imo. For me it is about trust and companionship.
If you had never had sex, ever, with your wife would you still have married her? I'd agree that there is no "perfect" significant other as all people are flawed. I tend to use the "80%" guideline: settle down with a woman who provides 80% of what you are looking for, where the 20% that's missing aren't deal-breakers.
I hope you don't feel like I'm grilling or trolling you. My social circle consists entirely of 1) playboys 2) guys who can't even get a girlfriend 3) a small number of married couples who already have kids.
So I'm genuinely looking for some insight into the decision-making methodology of a male who enters a legally-binding, potentially financially ruinous contract with a female who has a radically different perspective on procreation. Because most of the men I know would absolutely dump her and get another woman (or two). Good companions aren't that hard to find IMO....Loyal ones that you can trust? Slightly more difficult but they aren't unicorns either.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:18PM
Marriage isn't potentially financial ruin if you get a prenup and marry someone you trust. All benefits and property under my name (bank accounts, cars, houses, stocks, VA, and items purchased from personal accounts) are still mine after a divorce. Same for her. Property under both names is split 50/50 with the option of one person buying out the other (if both agree).
As far as sex goes some people wait until after marriage to have sex. We didn't. We dated for years before getting married. We are both still young and even if we both wanted kids we wouldn't have them just yet. They are certainly on my mind though. She doesn't dislike kids. She doesn't want to birth the things, lol. Worst case, we'll adopt.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday May 22 2015, @06:03PM
The reason is that nearly every woman wants to marry. This is caused by her need to have a child, and that requires significant financial and other support. However not every man wants to marry.
This is a bunch of sexist, misogynist crap. There's tons of women who don't want to marry, or are just so un-marryable that they can't find a husband throughout their fertile years. Just go on OKCupid in a major city (preferable a liberal one) and look at all the women around 40 years old who have never been married in their lives, and are just now saying they want to have kids. Of course, there's lots of men like this too, but it's worse for women since they have a built-in time limit for fertility, unlike men, and it's pretty short. There's also plenty of women who don't want to have kids at all and never did (again, you can find plenty in the big cities on OKC); these women just aren't very maternal. And on top of that, there's tons of women who DO have kids (mainly because society and relatives push them to), and then they're lousy mothers because again they're not very maternal or nurturing. The really horrible ones end up in the news for sticking their kids in a car and pushing it into a pond, but there's countless more who are just lousy parents without murdering their kids.
Well, not every woman either - but even fat, lazy and mean women want a husband; they are in the market.
No, actually, they don't. First off, there's a bunch of women who are lesbians, so they don't want a man at all. Then there's a bunch of women who would simply rather be alone. Some of those hook up with men out of financial necessity, but not all do. They used to have a word for these women 100+ years ago: "spinsters". These women don't need a man either, either because they're independently wealthy (heiresses for instance) or are able to earn a sufficient living on their own. These days, that's pretty easy if a women has an education; marriages out of financial necessity (on the woman's side) are becoming less and less common as women rise in the workforce. These days, there's tons of youngish women working to support their loser boyfriends who just sit on the couch and play Xbox all day or hang out at a tattoo shop.
At the same time nearly every girl wants to marry their "prince on a white horse."
Sexist stereotypical bullshit.
The point of all this is, just like there's all kinds of different men, there's all kinds of different women. Yes, a lot of women in our American society these days are spoiled brats who dream of being a Disney princess and having Prince Charming, but that does not mean that all, or even the vast majority, are like this. And the idea that all women want a kid is patently ridiculous. Lots of women have no desire to have kids, just like lots of men have no such desire.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday May 22 2015, @07:11PM
I don't know what country, culture or even what century you are living in, but you need to stop reading "Pride & Prejudice" - because the world it and you described was 200 years ago in a certain high level of society. The girls desparate to marry in Pride & Prejudice (and many classical novels) are in the particular situation of wanting to (or their mother wanting them to) marry a rich guy, not any guy, and rich guys who were not just interested in drinking, gambling and whoring were hard to find in those days.
You give figures about the sex ratio - which are figures for employed men against all women. As if unemployment stops a guy from flirting. I specifically said nubile young women - ie ones who are both fit and ready for partnership. What I see in the UK is this :-
1) Many young women at about the age of 20 have an illegitimate baby by a guy who then clears off. At this point the girls mostly withdraw from the dating/marriage scene out of necessity (they cannot afford baby-sitters). They live on Social Security. They are no longer nubile. OTOH, the father is back in the dating scene the very next day, worsening the sex ratio.
2) Many young women prefer to live alone but nevertheless seeing a boyfriend just once or twice a week for the sexual satisfaction and so they can say (to parents, friends) that they do have a boyfriend. This phase of their lives might only last a few years. They cannot stand the idea of actually living with the guy because he is untidy/uncouth/silly/spendthrift/etc. These girls have got their flat or little house just how they like it for themselves.
3) Many young women turn their back on men completely - more or less from the start, but the Group 2 above can also join into this group by the age of 30. They are not necessarily lesbians; fact is women do not generally have such a strong sex drive as men and most can do without sex quite easily. This group tends to includes career girls and unattractive girls (though obviously not all of them).
4) Women have a harem instinct. Many women are more strongly attracted to men who already have women. I know of men living with two or three women, and others with several girlfriends, all aware of each other (the man brags about it), believing they can oust the others one day.
As someone else said here, the difference today from even a generation ago, is that women earn as much as men; they can afford their own housing. They are no longer forced either to marry or to live with their parents for the rest of their lives.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @08:01PM
Women are cunts.
Why would anyone want this shit you describe.
Also they get fat right quick.
Marry young girl children, like men did in the past.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @05:41PM
That's like saying it's not OK to be rich because there are poor people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:12AM
False analogy. Humans are social animals and feel a need to bond with other humans, and have an instinctual need to mate; there's no instinctual drive to bond or have sex with money.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @07:50PM
Marry cute little girls from the next generation and there's more than enought for everyone.
Plus they are cute.
Young girls also actually like men too. Women are jaded and do not.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tftp on Friday May 22 2015, @04:36PM
This little article contains several discussable items:
It's curious, of course, how different their customs are from a typical Christian, Western way of life. But they have their right to peacefully live as they want, don't they? Should the government raid people's bedrooms at night and check that each man has not more than one woman in his bed? If it shouldn't, then why would it be in any way shameful to publicly announce that a certain man takes care of two women? Plenty of men do that :-) they just don't tell the government. Those are interesting questions, IMO.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 22 2015, @05:50PM
I read the translated article and the journalist didn't say the bride was unwilling. One of the bride's friends said the bride was unwilling. I couldn't find any quote from a family member. In-fact i saw the exact opposite. No journalist has been given access to the father or grandfather. Underage marriage is usually legal but a parent gives the consent.
Apparently stealing women to marry them had been a common crime in Chechnya until recently. I think the reason for all the concern is the groom could have abused his position to pressure the family (and possibly bride) for permission. The town is poor and the family is poor. They can't fight a police chief for anything.
There is a lot of guessing going on but the police chief taking two wives is fact. I would be accepting of this if both he and his current wife both agreed that he could take a second wife. Marriage is a contract and fucking a 17 year old girl who is still in school would probably be breaking that contract. Marrying the 17 year old does not suddenly mean that the first marriage is no longer being violated.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday May 22 2015, @06:24PM
The thing is: even if a journalist had talked to a male family member, who would believe him? It is entirely normal for fathers in Islamic culture to marry their daughters off. Whether or not the daughter wants married off is not a factor in the equation. I mean, who asks property what it wants?
Women are essentially slaves in that culture. Read the police chiefs comments, they are pretty explicit.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 22 2015, @07:05PM
I think it would still matter even in that context. If the girl was property then the father's consent was absolutely required, not optional.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:17AM
That's nothing inherent in or unique to Islam, its an "old world" thing (Christian countries were the same, until very recently); many Islamic countries aren't socially 'modern', but Islam isn't exactly to blame for that, abusive, power-hungry, exploitative scumbags are, Islam is just their excuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:20AM
inb4 "the Quran says...!", because The Holy Bible says the same thing and probably worse. Its nothing specific to Islam.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 22 2015, @05:56PM
It's curious, of course, how different their customs are from a typical Christian, Western way of life. But they have their right to peacefully live as they want, don't they?
Whether they're "living in peace" when they kill their own wives for dishonoring them (see above) is rather debatable.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tftp on Friday May 22 2015, @06:12PM
Whether they're "living in peace" when they kill their own wives for dishonoring them (see above) is rather debatable.
Imagine that they are an isolated, alien society ("civilization B") that lives in a glass bubble. They do not cross the border and attack you, and you don't cross the border and attack them. (I said "imagine" :-)
Given this scenario, would civilization A be justified [wikipedia.org] in enforcing its own morals and ways of life onto the civilization B? Does it matter if civilizations A and B are separated by 100 light years or by 100 miles? Does it matter if A and B share some of the genetic code? Would members of A be able to deal with tourists from B?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday May 22 2015, @07:12PM
Forget you imaginary scenario-it does not exist, or apply to this case at all.
If they were truly isolated, then we would not have even heard of this to be having this discussion.
Since they are not isolated, the rest of the world can have an opinion about it. And the rest of the world can impose sanctions, refuse aide and trade, enact border restrictions, etc.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Friday May 22 2015, @07:32PM
I don't understand your position. Do you mean that you will start a war with Mars if you learn that Martians, who look exactly like humans, are customarily eating 10% of their children, and you learned about that from a TV report from Mars, where a Martian reporter mentioned it as a matter of fact? If so, be ready for an invasion from Mars because they, obviously, have a symmetrical problem with you.
Would you be happy if those Martians come to Earth and force you to do things that are contrary to your civilization and your way of life?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Friday May 22 2015, @08:20PM
LOL!!
Now we are getting invaded by Martians?
You don't understand my position because I have not stated one for this issue.
And because you don't understand, you throw more FUD out...Martians, indeed.
A rational and/or reasonable person would ask me what me position is, instead of just going off the deep end with Fox News style FUD, well, because MARTIANS!!!OMG!!!
Now that I 'have your measure', I will decline to debate Martians with you, and leave you to your delusions/fantasies and bid you 'Good Day'. Bye.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:23AM
The question of whether interference is justifiable becomes a lot easier to answer when the issue being discussed is people being killed.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Friday May 22 2015, @07:59PM
Definition of a marriage. The West is actually leading the world in redefinition of the old "one man, one woman" formula. So what is then wrong, in principle, with one older man taking a second wife?
Because there is only so many women to go around. If you want men to be resentful, then go ahead, have your "second wife". Then don't be surprised someone doesn't come and kills you for your wife.
There is approximate 50/50 ratio of men and women. Wise people noticed long ago that one men and one women heterosexual marriages seem to result in a more stable society. You know, less insurrections, less hate and less resentment. Maybe you (or your society) didn't get the memo.
In case of LGBT marriages there is such a reason.
And what reason is that? Gays have nothing to do with polygamy and they were never available to be in "normal" marriage anyway.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday May 22 2015, @08:38PM
Because there is only so many women to go around. If you want men to be resentful, then go ahead, have your "second wife". Then don't be surprised someone doesn't come and kills you for your wife.
Actually, in many places in the world there simply aren't enough women available, which leads to an excess of angry males. But unlike your suggestion, this virtually never results in killing the powerful to take their wives.
The excess of men are made into soldiers, and the rage is turned against the enemy. The men are subtly (and not so subtly) trained that power and respect and wives will come from defeating the enemy. And if you die in the effort you still get the women, maybe even more women, all virgins.
An Excess of males is historically true of many civilizations, often, but not always due to polygamy. Sometimes due to post-natal gender selection.
There is a reason ISIS and Bokoharam have a penchant for executing defeated males and making off with large numbers of women. We in the west are incensed by this, but in those parts of the world it is taken as something to be expected.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:28AM
That's just how things were in the old world. Women were spoils of war, just like food and gold, prizes to be carried home. Raping and pillaging and bringing home slave women was traditionally one of the benefits of war. Most of the world has grown past this kind of savagery, but there's still some extremist holdouts left that want to take the world back to the stone age.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gravis on Friday May 22 2015, @04:39PM
The president Ramzan Kadyrov is quoted as saying "I have the right to criticize my wife. She doesn’t. With us [in Chechen society], a wife is a housewife. A woman should know her place. A woman should give her love to us [men]... She would be [man’s] property. And the man is the owner. Here, if a woman does not behave properly, her husband, father, and brother are responsible. According to our tradition, if a woman fools around, her family members kill her... That’s how it happens, a brother kills his sister or a husband kills his wife...
he seems like a truly reprehensible person.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 22 2015, @05:43PM
I'd buy him a beer. He comes from a society that values a strong family and understands the proper place of women in that family.
Contrast that with American society -- You let women say whatever they want to say and do whatever they want to do and now you're liable for raising another man's kid [huffingtonpost.com] into adulthood, having a woman take at least half your shit in a divorce [businessinsider.com] and sue for alimony for no fucking reason, falsely accuse [utsandiego.com] you of rape [nypost.com] and have you thrown in jail to be raped by big black cocks because you looked at her funny, or because she led you into bed and then needed a good excuse since she was with another man at the time, or...
Well, you get the idea.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 22 2015, @05:55PM
In case you didn't know, you get half of her stuff too : ) Better to have a pre-nup.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 22 2015, @06:07PM
Contrast that with American society -- You let women say whatever they want to say and do whatever they want to do...
Imagine that, the Constitution of the US actually applies to everyone!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @08:07PM
If the constitution is a feminist document, every copy of it should be burned.
You ignore the fact that men in the USA married 9 yr old girls till feminism happened in the mid to late 1800s.
But fine.
If the constitution is a feminist document, every copy of it should be burned.
I would rather have a little girl as a bride (or 2) than whatever completely useless and abrogated false rights supposedly exist on that parchment.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Zinho on Friday May 22 2015, @09:24PM
I was wondering when you were going to show up! Finally, a thread where your comments are on-topic!
If the constitution is a feminist document, every copy of it should be burned.
It's not a feminist document, it's a humanist one. We're just adopting a broader definition of "human" than was used in the past. Most Americans these days consider the inclusion of anyone whose species is homo sapiens sapiens under the umbrella of "humanity" to be appropriate. That includes a wide range of skin colors, sexual preferences, and a few genders as well. Sorry if that last one is giving you heartburn.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @11:31PM
> having a woman take at least half your shit in a divorce and sue for alimony for no fucking reason
Absolutely false. A divorcing spouse is only deserving of 50% of the assets acquired during the marriage. Anything that existed before the marriage is off-limits. But you are right, the reason isn't for fucking, it is for being a partnership where each spouse supports the other in life. That is how partnerships work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @06:51PM
I saw Kadyrov on TV, once.
I was zapping around, came across "Grozny" TV and watched it for a bit. I couldn't understand it.
The channel showed a session of the Chechnian government or parliament, Kadyrov was speaking. Everybody was wearing a funny hat.
The camera occasionally panned to the other MPs / ministers.
I couldn't tell if they were looking disgusted or just plain scared, but it was a very strange thing to watch.
This was last year, on Ekspress AM22 I believe (53° E, transponder 11044 V)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 22 2015, @04:55PM
Really, it never crossed my mind before. But, yes, it appears that Chechnya does indeed have it's share of douchebags.
(Score: 1) by dingus on Friday May 22 2015, @06:02PM
Yes. Chechnya vs. Russia is a bit like Syria vs. ISIS.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @07:11PM
I hope he kills some (more) feminists too.
Why didn't the friend marry a 7 yr old cute adorable girl tho.
17 is old. She won't last long looking good.
Mohammed married a 6 yr old.
King Richard a 7 yr old.
Various other earls etc 9 yr olds etc.
Young girls were within the reach of men.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 (hebrew) allows man + young girl.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @08:13PM
Not a troll.
--
I hope he kills some (more) feminists too.
Why didn't the friend marry a 7 yr old cute adorable girl tho.
17 is old. She won't last long looking good.
Mohammed married a 6 yr old.
King Richard a 7 yr old.
Various other earls etc 9 yr olds etc.
Young girls were within the reach of men.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 (hebrew) allows man + young girl.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @08:33PM
> Not a troll.
Seems like you believe what you write, so you are definitely not a troll.
But there is no -1 fuckwit moderation so instead of "-1 troll(ing for fish)" think of it as "-1 troll living under the bridge."
(Score: 2, Informative) by Dr Spin on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:24AM
If you are after fish, that is called "trawling", not trolling. Trawling means "dragging a net".
It is an entirely different word from troll - a diminutive figure that extracts tolls for crossing bridges.
Don't they have education where you live? or even children's books?
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:54AM
> If you are after fish, that is called "trawling", not trolling. Trawling means "dragging a net".
> Don't they have education where you live? or even children's books?
It never, ever fucking fails.
Dictionary pedant does not check dictionary before calling his better an idiot.
I grew up on the ocean, I know what I'm talking on about.
Trolling: [wikipedia.org] A method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or bait fish, are drawn through the water.