While sometimes necessary, wars cause immense suffering to the populations of the countries involved. The least manageable suffering belongs to the male and young population: men go to war aware that they can lose their lives. The female part of the population is responsible, at best, to see husbands, children and brothers leave without knowing if they will return.
So it was with the United States in the Vietnam war. Boys left home to lose their lives on the other side of the world. When the war is not halfway around the world, women are left alone with their children in a country in shambles. This simply means that in the war many women saw prostitutes capable of selling themselves for a plate of food that they will share with their children.
It’s not prostitutes like those we see in times of peace and plenty, called “easy life women”. These had prostitution as an option in a range of infinite possibilities. Those of war, no: in general, they opted for prostitution when the alternative was death by starvation, either their own or that of their dependents. If a foreigner appears from a good and stable country, like Brazil, he will be seen as the salvation of the crop.
Thus, explained, it is understood why Arthur do Val’s conduct in Ukraine is so ugly. It’s ugly to look at a line of refugees thinking about taking advantage of their poverty, citing their physical attributes every now and then. Anyone with a little common sense will understand why women in this situation are easy: they are starving. Things get all the uglier when we think that the deputy in question went to Eastern Europe to pose as heroic and altruistic. (By the way: does anyone know if he actually made the molotov cocktails he claims to have made?)
Of course, a man in good standing can approach a refugee humanely, treat her well, and marry her. I myself could only exist because back in Italy bombed by the Allies, my great-grandmother found someone to bring her and my grandfather to a much better country, where for the first time there would be food every day. But this is not the type of intention revealed by Arthur do Val: the good thing is to approach the refugees because they are poor and capable of subjecting themselves to anything. To lick his , as I said.
Immoral, but illegal?
That said, I was surprised by the reaction from Moro. He said: “I will never commune with prejudiced views, which can even be configured as a crime.” Where is the prejudice? Women in war are usually easy, and that’s precisely what makes Arthur do Val’s behavior so ugly. And where is the crime? Is prostitution a crime in Ukraine? Is he speaking as a Brazilian or Ukrainian jurist?
I try to speculate what a crime Moro may think that Arthur do Val has committed. As he is the darling of liberals in modesty, he must be something of a woman, black and LGBTQUIABO. As there was nothing related to the letter soup, we cut the last one. Machismo is not a crime in Brazil, so cut this one too. Racism is missing, which is a crime. Is it because Arthur do Val was dazzled by blondes? Apparently, he wanted a pretty blonde to show off in São Paulo. If so, I don’t think the anti-racism law has any application; otherwise, we would have a police of tastes. Furthermore, it would be implied that, being ebony goddesses in an African war, they would be liberated.
But the following sentence, as well as the reactions and apologies, indicate that the problem would be machismo: “My unconditional respect to women in general and to Ukrainian women in particular, because in addition to all the daily problems faced, need to live with the horrors of war,” says Moro. How is this a crime? How? The least that Brazil expects from a judge who dismantled the biggest corruption scheme ever dismantled is that he be clear about the criminal types when he says that someone has committed a crime. Otherwise, it is difficult to believe that this judge had the brains to carry out Lava Jato.
Num Tweet, Moro reveals his adherence to the most primary thinking that currently reigns. He says that “women in general” have his “unconditional respect” because of the “daily problems they face”. How is this unconditional and impersonal respect possible? No matter what a woman does, she has Moro’s respect because of the “daily problems faced”. What are these problems? Men don’t face daily problems? If men face daily problems, should I have “unconditional respect” for all men? How can anyone not see that this is ridiculous?
The background thesis is that of structural machismo. Women – whether in France or Pakistan – are oppressed for the mere fact of being women. Thus, it is up to the man to kneel in the corn, keep signaling virtue in tweets and creating quota. Moro proves to be a mere Tabata in pants.
Arthur do Val apologized by machismo, showing that the thing was definitely treated through the lens of identity. Now let’s imagine: a deputy who likes ephebos travels to an area at war and finds that boys are easy because they are poor and they are ready for everything. He walks past a line of consenting young men and pays attention to their attributes. He, who publicly boasted of traveling on a humanitarian mission, arrives at the scene of the war and doesn’t stop talking about the beauty of the refugees, happy that they are poor.
Could the problem be machismo? There isn’t even a woman involved, but the problem would be the same as Arthur do Val’s: going to a war area to pose as virtuous and humanitarian while wanting to take sexual advantage of the victims’ vulnerability. This is ugly, whether the victim is male or female.
Totalitarianism and moral blindness04225522
It worries that there are so many people influential person willing to confuse immorality with lawlessness. If both things are one, the consequence is the transformation of morality into a matter of the police. Humanity is going to need a cop with a truncheon to make sure we’re good. How can anyone fail to notice that this is totalitarianism?
The Mom case I spoke is an opportunity, too, for us to see that a certain sector of society is incapable of thinking about morality without turning to race, gender and sexuality. In a word, the inability to think about morality with a view to the human being. If everything immoral is against women, blacks and LGBTQUIABO, by table, nothing against straight cis white men can be immoral, nor illegal. And when a white woman or a black man is the victim of an injustice, the judge can always decide whether their color or sex weighs more. We know very well that not all black people are black for identitarians. Thus, a black political enemy can be considered an oppressor because he is a man; a white political enemy can be considered an oppressor for being white etc.
This identity march needs to be stopped.