There is that man who, while dating, is charming, romantic, and helpful.
After getting married, he turns into a tyrant, escalating to domestic violence.
In the past, this was easier to happen; dating in general was short and heavily monitored.
The woman could only truly get to know her boyfriend after he had already become her husband.
Obviously, this also applies to a man regarding his girlfriend.
It turns out that in this dynamic, the woman is at greater risk because the man is biologically stronger and is hardly ever the one physically assaulted.
After children are born, the situation gets more complicated.
The woman has already left her parents' house, and returning with more mouths to feed is not always possible.
Before the 1970s, pregnancy happened quickly, as contraceptive methods were not very efficient.
That being said…
Communists and socialists claim to be the main ones responsible for improvements in working conditions.
I disagree.
Negotiation between people is normal; it is part of our group life.
The rest is the law of supply and demand in 90% of situations.
During the slavery period, there was forced labor, but let's focus on the post-1900 era.
Especially since the main party responsible for fighting the slave trade was capitalist England.
My point in this meditation is:
Historically, socialists have acted like that gentle man who promises the moon and stars to a young woman, even making her give up another, more realistic suitor.
After marriage, he shows his most tyrannical face.
Take our greatest socialist experience, the USSR.
There is no record that the poor worker in Russia had a quality of life much superior to that of the poor worker in the United States; generally, the opposite happened.
We knew China before it opened up to some capitalism, and we know it after.
It becomes obvious that the improvement in the quality of life of the Chinese worker was brought about more by the ideas of Adam Smith than by the ideas of Karl Marx.
Concluding the meditation…
In the past, a young woman did not have enough time to get to know the guy.
For a long time now, dating can take quite a while and involve a lot of freedom.
Even waiting until marriage to have sex is no longer a common practice in our Western culture.
In addition to face-to-face contact, there is virtual contact where the young woman can observe a lot about the suitor through his posts.
Even with all of this, knowing what a person is like in shared life only happens by actually getting married; however, the volume of information and the time to get to know the person better have increased significantly.
If the man already has a harmful track record, the woman cannot play the role of the innocent victim of all male society.
Certainly, a process of choice on her part took place.
Socialism has this harmful track record with theoretical and practical information regarding how it behaves and what kind of relationship it has with the quality of life it delivers to the people when it comes to power.
For a society to be fooled before 1989 (being very generous with the date) is tolerable, but after that, it is surreal.
It is like that young woman who has all the available knowledge to choose the best suitor (or the least bad one), but gets involved with the one she knows will bring many problems.
Don't ask me why this still happens; it defies any logic.
Something as simple to understand as not spending more than you take in and that there is no such thing as a free lunch doesn't sink into the heads of billions of humans who seem satisfactorily intelligent.
I am not religious, but it seems like something out of "demons"… in the sense of some mental disorder that mysteriously affects many without me being able to objectively identify the cause.
✧✧✧
.
