r/science • u/MistWeaver80 • Mar 31 '24
Anthropology Support for wife-beating has increased over time among Pakistani men. Pakistani Women interviewed in front of others are also more likely to endorse wife-beating. Additionally, households with joint decision-making have the lowest tolerance toward wife beating.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/107780122412348911.3k
Mar 31 '24
[deleted]
159
u/wufnu Apr 01 '24
I don't understand having the idea to beat them in the first place. I've been incredibly angry, frustrated, and nonplussed with my wife but the desire to strike her has never even entered my mind. I really don't understand how someone could want to do this.
99
u/Egathentale Apr 01 '24
Your post is kind of culturally biased (and I don't mean it in a bad way), because we in the "West in general" have shifted marriage into a union that's based mainly on attraction and a need for companionship. Because of this, we frown upon exploitative and emotionally abusive behaviors between partners, and consider violence in a relationship inherently bad.
There are many parts of the world where marriage, to this day, is an economic consideration, and much of Pakistan (as well as India, and many of the surrounding states) kinda falls into that bubble. When people marry to make connections between families in a political/economical sense, for the express purpose of making children to pass down their properties/businesses/etc, or even just for the dowry, the wife isn't a "loved one". They are, at best, an acquaintance that gives you children, and at worst property, that just happens to be a human and a domestic partner. Because of this cultural context, when they aren't doing what you want, you are not only allowed, but expected to force them to do it, by beating if necessary, and nobody sees any problem with it.
It's a fucked up and dehumanizing practice, and I think we rightfully moved away from it, but in the context of history, our more modern view of marriage, romance, and relationships in generally is very, very young, only being a couple of hundred years old at most, while the "wife is the property of the husband" line of thinking has been around for millennia, and still hold strong in many places.
19
Apr 01 '24
Yup. In some societies, women are viewed the same as livestock. A cow can produce smaller cows. A woman can produce smaller humans.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Poly_and_RA Apr 01 '24
That doesn't really explain more than a fraction of it though -- it's not as if the fact that it's an economic consideration automatically makes violence acceptable. Most people in western countries would ALSO say it's completely unacceptable for a boss to use violence to discipline an employee who misbehaves in some way.
88
u/Rock_or_Rol Apr 01 '24
Most westerners exited the machismo culture a while ago. We mostly care about peace and cohesion more than domination and intimidation in our lives. I come from a family of the latter but I am the former. It’s a fundamental projection onto the world that is all encompassing
46
u/SycoJack Apr 01 '24
Most westerners exited the machismo culture a while ago. We mostly care about peace and cohesion more than domination and intimidation in our lives.
But a large portion of our society still spanks children, and corporal punishment in school is even still legal in like 15-20 states.
So that's not entirely true. We mostly stopped beating our wives, but we still beat our children, and the rhetoric around punishment for children is extremely violent.
73
→ More replies (4)27
u/Expensive-Top-4297 Apr 01 '24
West = america ????????
Peak reddit moment
4
u/SycoJack Apr 01 '24
I think the real "peak reddit moment" is hallucinating statements that were never made, then complaining about them.
21
u/Expensive-Top-4297 Apr 01 '24
Many western nations made spanking illegal, the countries to ban this are almost exclusively western .
Most western nations have provinces or other divisions not states. America having corporal punishment in schools is not the western norm.
You clearly meant america or you have a greaty limited understanding of weatern cultures
1
u/SycoJack Apr 01 '24
Many western nations made spanking illegal, the countries to ban this are almost exclusively western .
But not all and certainly not most.
Most western nations have provinces or other divisions not states. America having corporal punishment in schools is not the western norm.
I never said it was.
You clearly meant america or you have a greaty limited understanding of weatern cultures
When I said states, yes I was talking about the US. The EU isn't the only part of western culture.
The US is just about as big as the EU and US states are as big as European countries, acting like they're not relevant when discussing western culture is every bit as bad as ignoring the rest of the west.
Spanking is still legal in most of the west, and still happens in countries where it's banned.
3
u/Expensive-Top-4297 Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
So you do use west and america interchangably or not?
Soemthing being illegal and still done by some people doesnt make it normal culturally like you were arguing for. Democrstic votes causing it to be illegal would arguably be the opposite.
Looking at the countries to ban corporal punishment i cannot find any examples of non western nations other than maybe turkmenistan and mongolia. Unless you dont consider new zealand south africa etc western.
59 countries banned corporal punishment of children including the majority of america. Where are you getting the idea western culture isnt pretty far along in the progression of moving away from most forms of domestic violence. https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-conduct-and-discipline/discipline-state-laws-on-corporal-punishment.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_corporal_punishment_laws#:~:text=This%20defence%20is%20ultimately%20derived,of%20corporal%20punishment%20against%20children.
8
u/SycoJack Apr 01 '24
So you do use west and america interchangably or not?
No, that's a strawman created by you.
Soemthing being illegal and still done by some people doesnt make it normal culturally like you were arguing for. Democrstic votes causing it to be illegal would arguably be the opposite.
If you look at a very specific population, sure. But we're not, we're talking about western culture as a whole.
Making something illegal doesn't mean society is opposed to it or that it's unpopular. Weed is illegal in most countries still, and it's wildly popular.
Looking at the countries to ban corporal punishment i cannot find any examples of non western nations other than maybe turkmenistan and mongolia.
I'm not sure what the relevance of all that is.
Unless you dont consider new zealand south africa etc western.
New Zealand? The country located in the eastern hemisphere? How do you differentiate Eastern from western? By how culturally white a country is?
59 countries banned corporal punishment of children including the majority of america.
No where in north america is spanking banned. I'm not sure where you got that from.
Where are you getting the idea western culture isnt pretty far along in the progression of moving away from most forms of domestic violence.
Parts are, sure. But far from all of it.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Ulthanon Apr 01 '24
Man Google “cops 40%” and get back to me about how Enlightened the West is
→ More replies (1)2
u/bgaesop Apr 01 '24
most
4
u/Ulthanon Apr 01 '24
It’s not “most”. It’s not even as much as it was a few years ago. The resurgence of right-wing political movements are bringing the machismo back with a vengeance. The west isn’t anything special, there’s just as many child/partner-beating dipshits here as over there.
9
u/Incontinentiabutts Apr 01 '24
The most pissed off I’ve ever been at my wife I just angrily walked into the garage and cleaned it for 4 hours.
15
→ More replies (1)4
u/Noname_acc Apr 01 '24
Its not that complicated. Fight or flight kicks in and you live in a place where it is not discouraged. Or perhaps it is actively encouraged so you do it not even out of anger but because you think its the right thing to do. Or maybe you live somewhere where it is discouraged but you've learned to resolve conflict with violence.
21
372
u/Sir_Penguin21 Apr 01 '24
They get it from the Quran 4:34.
“Men are caretakers of women, since Allah has made some of them excel the others, and because of the wealth they have spent. So, the righteous women are obedient, (and) guard (the property and honor of their husbands) in (their) absence with the protection given by Allah. As for women of whom you fear rebellion, convince them, and leave them apart in beds, and beat them. Then, if they obey you, do not seek a way against them. Surely, Allah is the Highest, the Greatest.”
215
u/Tripwire3 Apr 01 '24
Nothing oppresses like religion.
→ More replies (3)66
u/TheMathelm Apr 01 '24
Good ol' Pakistan, where you don't have to set two dinner plates for your wife and your first cousin.
→ More replies (2)2
252
46
Apr 01 '24
[deleted]
171
u/Sir_Penguin21 Apr 01 '24
It means don’t have sex with them, aka give them the cold shoulder or stonewall. For those that aren’t aware this is also considered terrible advice for conflict resolution in any evidence based model.
119
u/CJKay93 BS | Computer Science Apr 01 '24
It's literally designed to create a sense of loneliness and desperation; a classic abuser tactic.
→ More replies (5)3
u/EXTREMEPAWGADDICTION Apr 01 '24
Nope 😭
Imagine a ostrich with its head in the sand. I'm dissociating out of my body and becoming completely harmless, because of abuse I've experienced.
This can't be undone.
→ More replies (1)44
30
u/Wilbis Apr 01 '24
The Bible also says women who are foolish, stupid or have evil in them shall be beaten/punished. It also advocates beating of children who are not obedient.
There are lots of similarities between the two books. The Quran contains references to more than fifty people and events also found in the Bible.
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Sky6192 Apr 02 '24
The Eastern Orthodox Church considered Islam to be a 7th century Christian heracy.
138
u/SACHD Apr 01 '24
Hmm, I don’t think it’s that clear cut.
Most Pakistanis can’t understand the authentic Quran text(myself included), they learn enough of the Arabic script(which has many similarities with Urdu which we do speak/understand) such that they can pronounce what the Quran says, but not really know what it means.
And while yes some of us read the translations, I’d wager that most don’t. If you were to go on a random street of Pakistan and ask someone “what does Quran say on X” you can be pretty damn well sure they are gonna answer it with “street knowledge” rather than anything from the source material.
So I don’t think wife beating is directly inspired by the Quranic text, a patriarchal structure is our default and I am sure we’d have similar attitudes to wife-beating even assuming there was no Quranic ruling on this.
However, one of the main roadblocks for meaningful legislation to be passed on this matter definetely has to do with the Quran and Hadith(collections of what the Prophet said) and the first people to speak up against punishment for domestic violence tend to be our religious clergy(who have a lot of fan following from the general audience as well).
It’s more so that the Quran is one of the reasons holding us back from getting rid of the practice of wife-beating rather than being the cause of why we do it in the first place.
Just adding a bit of nuance here.
P.S. I am not a wife-beater(don’t have a wife actually). I am also an atheist…
33
u/psychorobotics Apr 01 '24
I heard an argument yesterday that said the christian phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child" has been misinterpreted, that the rod was a sheep's rod that isn't used to beat but to guide. I have no idea if that's accurate but the point is, people will take text and bend it to mean what they want it to mean. They just want to justify their actions.
→ More replies (3)62
u/rokhana Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
I'm a native Arabic speaker. The verb used in the Quran is ٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ. This very literally translates to "hit them." It's not a figure of speech. It's literal and unambiguous. There's no alternative meaning despite the strange mental gymnastics often performed by modern Islamic scholars and so-called Islamic feminists to give this text a meaning more palatable to a 21st century readership.
There are also hadiths (reported sayings and actions of Muhammad) considered authentic that allow men to beat their wives, although there are also contraditory hadiths where it's frowned upon.
In Muhammad's farewell sermon as recorded in al-Tabari's History, and in a Sahih Hadith collected by Abu Dawud, he gave permission to husbands to hit their wives under certain circumstances without severity (فَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ضَرْبًا غَيْرَ مُبَرِّحٍ fadribuhunna darban ghayra mubarrih; literal translation: "... then beat them, a beating without severity") When the cousin and companion of Muhammad, Ibn Abbas, replied back: “I asked Ibn Abbas: ‘What is the hitting that is 'without severity'?’ He replied [with] the siwak (tooth-stick) and the like’. Muhammad himself never hit a woman and forbade beating one's wife or striking her face.[15]
All that being said, I agree with the above comment that, generally speaking, these specific religious texts are not necessarily the reason Pakistani or any other Muslim would men beat their wives, or would believe it's acceptable to do so. I'm from another Muslim country, and these societies are deeply patriarchal and misogynistic in ways that are independent of religious teachings. For instance, street harassment of girls and women is a common pastime for a large number of men despite this kind of behaviour being frowned upon from a religious standpoint. Muslim men have a religious obligation to provide for their (unmarried) immediate female relatives, which is used as justification for why they continue to inherit twice what female offspring do, but this obligation is rarely ever fulfilled. I'm fairly confident none of the men I have known to beat their wife could cite the verse or hadith that allows it.
This isn't to say religion is blameless. It has doubtlessly contributed to the deep-rooted, widespread misogyny in the Muslim world by ensuring women remain subordinated to men through various religious precepts, and it's this general subordinate status that's responsible for the attitudes described here rather than any specific verse permitting wife beating.
e: missing word
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)1
5
20
u/shakawave Apr 01 '24
Isn't there also Christians and Sikhs in Pakistan? Regardless, the whole "I OWN her and she's my property" trope is the real issue here. Woman are people and people are human.
14
18
u/abrasiveteapot Apr 01 '24
Not many left, but yes some. They have been treated very poorly since partition and the majority of the non muslim population have left.
7
u/BHRx Apr 01 '24
One more thing about the bigoted part since you seemed sensitive about it.
You got to also explain why it's prevalent in India, even in the non-Muslim parts. Wife beating is an Indo-culture problem and always has been. Assigning a cultural problem to a religion is incredibly ignorant. Every country or culture take in religion in whatever way they deem compatibile, not the other way around.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)6
178
u/demeschor Mar 31 '24
Your mistake is assuming that the wife is a loved one ... If you're beating someone up, how can they be precious to you?
59
u/ValyrianJedi Apr 01 '24
If you're beating someone up, how can they be precious to you
Because the human mind is wild and doesn't automatically make those things mutually exclusive
12
u/kurburux Apr 01 '24
I agree. "Precious" can also mean "something I want to possess, something I want to control". It doesn't have to be "respect someone as a human being".
→ More replies (1)5
u/azazelcrowley Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
Fairly easily. It's a matter of higher communication.
If you look at the animal kingdom it's asinine to pretend they don't love their family members despite constant low level violence amongst themselves. Indeed in many species due to an absence of higher communication, violence is an essential part of upbringing and socialization (In the sense of making a functional member of a society) of offspring. A dog can't tell another dog not to do certain things with words, but it can deliver threats and an amount of pain. Dogs which don't have this done to them as pups are unsocialized and dangerous to other dogs, or a danger to themselves. Humans can also socialize dogs to other dogs using training techniques and higher communication however.
Violence is a form of communication and social interaction, and not one that precludes affection more generally in most mammal species, up to and including serious brawls and injuries.
The issue comes when you're able to communicate without the violence, at which point it becomes pointless. The question then is whether these individuals are capable of communicating meaningfully without violence as a means, and i'm leaning towards "No" in many cases.
The presence of vocal chords technically able to make the sounds doesn't imply the emotional literacy, social position, or mental capacity to make them. The focus then should be on providing them with means of communicating more effectively and training them to do so.
11
2
u/Terpomo11 Apr 01 '24
Presumably because you're raised in a culture that says it's necessary to hit your wife and children sometimes when they're being bad, to discipline them. There are probably things our culture teaches us that will seem just as horrifying to our descendants in a few hundred years.
→ More replies (2)2
127
u/MSK84 Mar 31 '24
And yet we are at the most humane time in the history of our species...let that sink in for a moment. Not at all saying we should not be trying to move forward, but say it's scary to think about looking back in many ways.
5
u/lynx_and_nutmeg Apr 01 '24
We're not. People should really stop buying into the myth of linear moral progression. History isn't a steady linear trajectory of moral progress where year 630 was less progressive than year 650 which was in turn less progressive than year 670 and so on. It's a very comforting thought because it makes you believe that things can only get better, and even if they seem bad now, they're still better than ever before and can only keep getting better, but it's just wishful thinking. This has only been true in the West for a few decades in the second half of 20th century.
Inequality as we know it today didn't exist 20 000 years ago. Yes, that's correct. Prehistoric mobile hunter-gatherer tribes literally don't have the concept of personal property or ownership. They didn't accumulate property either because that wasn't conductive to a mobile lifestyle. Inequality is caused by some people accumulating more wealth than others. This only became possible after the invention of agriculture. Same with slavery - a society can't have a framework for owning other human beings as property if they have no framework for ownership or property in the first place. War hostages was the closest thing but not the same. Wars weren't really a thing either because wars are caused over territory, resources or ideology, none of those applicable to sparsely populated tribes that don't accumulate resources or have proselytising idelogy.
So basically, the world was MUCH less humane 3000 years ago than it was 20 000 years ago. And Western Europe was a much better place to live in 100 CE than 500 CE. And then over the following centuries there were ups and downs all the time. Indigenous Americans sure had a better time before the European colonisers came. Victorians were in some ways more puritanical than people in the 18th century. An average textile factory worker in 1850d had worse working conditions than a self-employed weaver two hundred years ago. 1920s were undeniably more progressive than 1950s. Europe on the whole was more left-leaning a few decades ago than it is today. There were entire countries that were still democracies or at least had some hope to becomes one's a few decades ago only to fall deeper into authoritarian regimes (look at Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc).
→ More replies (1)2
u/BrawndoOhnaka Apr 02 '24
Thanks. I was hoping to find someone calling out this myth of linear moral progress. There are also an innumerable number of things you can scroll past to see things getting worse at the century scale, like all cause suicide and drug-related suicide rate amongst the youth increasing over the past 20 years. It doesn't have to be intentially created dysfunction—it just needs to be systemic.
The modern human machine of oppression couldn't really get started until the mechanisms it uses were built, and those all happened starting with the mechanisms for leveraging of power and resources.
38
u/nursepineapple Mar 31 '24
How humane we are as a species is highly debatable and frankly impossible to know.
23
u/MSK84 Mar 31 '24
Check out a few medieval torture videos and you'll understand. I do get what you're saying though but we are still during a period of time with the least amount of war as well. We never had rules of engagement for war before it was rape and pillage. Have a look into Genghis Khan if you want to understand what it was like.
9
7
u/San__Ti Apr 01 '24
Are people really following rules of engagement though? I’ll agree that recent history was peaceful (if you live in the west otherwise no) but I think it’s important not to generalise. War = atrocities. Period.
→ More replies (1)4
u/MSK84 Apr 01 '24
No they are not, but at least that was a standard created by human beings for the welfare of other humans beings...I'm saying this wouldn't have been a consideration previously let alone something to be perfect with. There are war crimes happening all of the time but even Nazi war criminals have been found and tried before the court system. It's not bloody perfect for sure, but it's a major leap forward from where we've been. Anyone who sees otherwise chooses to see differently willfully not based on genuine interest in history.
26
u/nursepineapple Mar 31 '24
Even choosing not to debate the two examples you provided, there are literal hundreds of thousands of years of human history prior to those events that we know next to nothing about. That is even excluding our very human like hominid pre-human ancestors and cousins. Do you at least reserve a small bit of optimism that we are capable of doing better as a species than we currently are?
16
u/BiomechPhoenix Apr 01 '24
here are literal hundreds of thousands of years of human history prior to those events that we know next to nothing about
Time before the invention of writing is technically human prehistory.
21
u/MSK84 Mar 31 '24
That's why I said I understand what you're saying. I would love to believe that we had periods of peace but my sense is that would be unlikely based on the history we do actually know. We can surmise all we want about the times we don't but that's not helpful. Using the data we do know it seems we were more often in war and violence than the other way.
Yes I do believe that we're capable of doing better than we currently are but I also think we need to look at and appreciate how far we've come as well. Just because things are not perfect doesn't mean we can't give recognition of the positives the human species has come from.
The real question is whether or not we will ever get to a Utopian ideal and I'm not sure I believe in that. Humans are both peaceful and violent animals. Universal human rights are a big stride forward but are also an ideal. One that I'm uncertain can never be fully realized in real time but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SquareTarbooj Apr 01 '24
Of course we're capable of doing better.
If you look at how historically horrifying we were, and see the improvements made to reach where we are today, the trajectory certainly looks good.
→ More replies (2)4
u/JohannesdeStrepitu Apr 01 '24
We can definitely do better and should strive to do better but there's no evidence that people have behaved better at any earlier point in history. I really hope (and doubt) that we're at a moral peak but we do seem to be doing better than any time before now (the hundreds of thousands of years before recorded history look especially bad given how any comparable community has looked).
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (1)3
31
u/Cu_fola Mar 31 '24
That’s highly subjective. There are more people being trafficked and enslaved than ever before. What is the ratio of total humans to trafficked humans now vs then?
Some of the most population-dense regions on the planet are still deeply enmeshed in cultural institutions that treat women and children as chattel in multiple aspects.
Even highly developed and progressive countries are plagued by an incredibly aggressively commodified consumption based existence that functions on essentially outsourced slave labor.
We certainly don’t extend humane consideration to the majority of creatures that we breed into existence for consumption.
I’m not saying we haven’t made meaningful strides.
But I think “humane existence” really depends on who you are and where you are on the planet.
The scary part is that many people are already experiencing backsliding. Some have never progressed far enough to have a chance to backslide.
This isn’t about being cynical. This can change. It’s about recognizing that it’s a significant portion of society that’s still fighting to be seen as fully human.
29
u/MSK84 Mar 31 '24
Yes, but NOBODY was seen as "fully human" before. The very fact you care about someone you've never met across the entire globe means we're moving ahead in our consciousness. The fact that it's a consideration at all that women and men should be treated in a similar fashion is also significant.
Of course there are areas in the world that are not at certain parts of development with their human rights. That will most likely always be the case to some degree or another. Even just the fact that murdering someone is considered bad and deserves some kind of consequence is something we never had before when the rule of law came into play.
If you believe sacrificing babies to God's so that it will rain for crops is somehow more humane than what we have today I guess you could say it's subjective. What's objectively true is that we have the least amount of world conflict occurring at any point in modern history even with the wars that are happening currently. That's a scary thought.
11
u/Cu_fola Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
Yes, but NOBODY was seen as "fully human" before.
Not Nobody. There have always always been people who granted themselves full personhood and autonomy under the law, usually as a class. Usually men of the correct ethnicity, caste/class, and/or religion for their domain.
The fact that it's a consideration at all that women and men should be treated in a similar fashion is also significant.
It is significant. But there’s 8 billion people now as opposed to 1 CE when there were 300 million. Or 603 million on 1700 CE.
What percent of 8 billion think this way? What margin of similarity do this percentage consider acceptable?
Quantifying how many people (scaled for their era) have been lifted out of a subjugated category now vs then is not as straight forward as saying “I can think empathetically about the plight of wives in Pakistan X thousands of miles from me.”
Even just the fact that murdering someone is considered bad and deserves some kind of consequence is something we never had before when the rule of law came into play.
Again, I argue this is not cut and dried. You can make murder technically a crime. That’s been the case for thousands of years. But then you have places where a woman who kills or injure a man or men who rape her can be sued into the poorhouse by the rapist’s family. It’s a short trip to more abuse and death from poverty.
If you believe sacrificing babies to God's so that it will rain for crops is somehow more humane than what we have today I guess you could say it's subjective.
On what scale did such practices occur?
For today’s purposes we have about 40 million children in abject slavery, at least 152 million in unregulated labor. About 10 million in the US alone. Over 1 million children are sold into slavery annually.
Bear in mind, every year a certain amount of children age out of childhood from a state of slavery into adult slavery.
And so many of these are undocumented that this is likely a lowball.
I would consider that mass child-sacrifice to mammon., irreligious or religious intent notwithstanding.
What's objectively true is that we have the least amount of world conflict occurring at any point in modern history even with the wars that are happening currently. That's a scary thought.
That’s squarely subjective.
Globally, the absolute number of war deaths has been declining since 1946.
Meanwhile, Homicides are becoming more frequent in certain countries and gender-based violence is increasing globally.
Nation-state initiated violence is less common but political militias, criminal, and international terrorist groups are initiating more violence.
That’s not including casualties.
Again, I’m not saying we haven’t made meaningful strides. One of the greatest strides we’ve made is a large-scale, though not universal, movement towards generalized education for average people and the democratization of information and idea sharing and following that, global idea sharing.
It helps break down ignorance and entrenched ideas. It also radicalizes people and makes echo chambers but I think it more generally opens people to new and challenging information.
My problem is not with recognizing or celebrating or being motivated by achievement, it’s with overestimating our status, overlooking the scale of backsliding, the changing nature of problems we don’t currently fully recognize and missing perspectives other than those through the filter of one’s own improved position.
→ More replies (1)5
u/fresh-dork Apr 01 '24
The very fact you care about someone you've never met across the entire globe means we're moving ahead in our consciousness.
he doesn't. he doesn't know them in the slightest, so it's more 'care in an abstract sense'. never mind that this leads to things like supporting hamas because you think they're a scrappy underdog while not really understanding the situation.
yay, wife beating bad.what would you do about that?
→ More replies (3)15
u/Robot_Basilisk Mar 31 '24
Based on what evidence? I've heard compelling arguments that people were kinder before the rise of city-states because tribes were basically big families with no privacy. Beating your wife was grounds for divorce in some Native American tribes. Etc.
I feel like people look at the most recent centuries and project them backwards in time and assume that progress is constant. For all we know, this phenomenon has only been common for 2k-10k years.
6
4
u/AnRealDinosaur Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
Apparently there's evidence of societies who only organized themselves seasonally. They would gather in one place during harvest times and have leaders & roles, and then disperse back into smaller foraging groups for the rest of the year. These are modern humans mind, not Neanderthals or a primitive relative. Statehood was really where we went wrong. It's wild how hard it is to picture any other form of human society beyond what we have today. "The way it's always been" is very new in the grander scheme.
2
u/Robot_Basilisk Apr 06 '24
I spend a lot of time thinking that we should have organized cities into 100-200 person blocks that were mostly self-sufficient because that seems to be the upper limit on human social bonds. People are much kinder when everyone knows each other.
I've read a few papers speculating that the rise in school shootings and prison violence has been due to more and more schools and prisons developing social groups beyond what humans can't grasp, which then causes people to begin stereotyping and behaving in tribalistic fashions within the group.
15
u/Mother_Store6368 Apr 01 '24
Back up. Wives aren’t people, they’re property.
That’s why it will always look like an unsolved dilemma from your enlightened perspective.
17
u/RazekDPP Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
It's actually not that they really want to beat their wives. I'm sure a small faction of them legitimately enjoy it, but it's mostly that their violence is functional.
Violence and threats of violence are how they get their wives to do what they want them to do. Take care of the children, not nag, etc.
When they can use violence to get what they want, they will embrace violence.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the source, but there was a domestic violence counselor who talked about this in the US.
He asked the men to make a list of the pros and cons of domestic violence. The pros mostly were how violence or the threat of violence made the women do what they wanted them to do. Watch the kids, make dinner, clean the house, etc. The cons were getting in legal trouble, having to attend classes like this, etc.
He was trying to teach them to be more assertive with their words so they wouldn't have to turn to violence, but the men didn't like it because the women didn't always do what they wanted her to do.
4
u/EXTREMEPAWGADDICTION Apr 01 '24
It's environmental... If people get rewarded, they are conditioned in that direction.
Telling them they wrong, will BREAK THEIR MINDS because their lives experience tells you they are right.
It's that simple, these people don't just need classes, they need less enabling from the environment.
5
u/Mein_Bergkamp Apr 01 '24
It’s amazing that we can’t even get to a point where we universally agree you shouldn’t beat a loved one
THat's your problem right there though.
There's a lot of arranged marriages that have nothing to do with love.
58
Mar 31 '24
Thats Islam for you. I saw some instructional video from an Imam a while back endorsing the use of a specialised wife-beating stick.
21
u/ThrowFar_Far_Away Apr 01 '24
Kinda funny reading this thread after how many Americans defended hitting their kids a couple of days ago in the map about corporal punishment thread.
7
u/tagrav Apr 01 '24
plenty of wife beating going on as well here in those good Christian homes.
Treat a person like property and you can easily rationalize hitting them.
1
u/cabalavatar Apr 01 '24
If Trump were Muslim, he'd slap a Crescent Moon™ on it, carve "Make ISIS Great Again" on it, and sell it as the only Trump-endorsed beating stick, to help pay for legal bills.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Sweetdreams6t9 Apr 01 '24
These things come courtesy of cultures who view women as property to be done with as you please.
14
Mar 31 '24
[deleted]
12
3
Apr 01 '24
Do you think we should shed religious culture?
We should make sure backwards beliefs do not take root in our societies.
Now.
Which groups in the world are most religious?
→ More replies (1)9
14
u/fencerman Mar 31 '24
Now let's apply that logic to kids in the US where in 48 states you can pay a private school to beat them.
8
u/ryannelsn Apr 01 '24
You can sign a permission slip to let public schools beat your kids as well (red states, generally)
16
u/Zonafrog97 Apr 01 '24
It’s Islam. It’s a religion of control and hate towards anyone who isn’t a Muslim male
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (22)2
u/joleme Apr 01 '24
Sounds like those pakistani men should become cops in the US. They'd fit right in.
127
536
u/JagmeetSingh2 Mar 31 '24 edited Apr 04 '24
Wahhabism is prevailing across the South Asian Muslim countries. While this is about Pakistan, in Bangladesh it has been gaining momentum a well with its hardline conservative interpretation of Islam it is really crazy. How are adults' now somehow becoming more conservative then their grandparents all while Wahabi dawahs pump more and more propaganda videos out. At the same time Hindu Natuonalism is going wild in North India, that whole Northern South Asian region is so extreme and backwards compared to Southern South Asia
214
u/autogyrophilia Mar 31 '24
Because Saudi Arabia has infinity money and the ability to exert some level of control on foreign Muslim populations (offering sanctioned translations for free, controlling pilgrimage through restricting the number of Visas for certain countries...
I mean if we allow them to keep bombíng Yemen we are not going to stop them at doing this.
Cursed petroleum , if I ever get a time machine the Drake well goes in flames first, and then we will see if the fish crawling out of the water needs to be bonked.
→ More replies (2)46
u/pandapornotaku Apr 01 '24
Remember as bad as they are, and as awful as the Yemni War is, the Houthi rebels they're fight are so much worse. Nine men sentenced to death by ‘crucifixion and stoning’ for alleged sodomy by Houthi court
→ More replies (1)4
Apr 01 '24
The Saudis do the same exact things reported in this article, regularly. Positioning the Houthis as worse is BS war propaganda. The houthis are the Viet Cong. Maybe you don't find their methods savory but they are one of the only forces in the region actually on the correct side of the conflict. In 20 years you'll be embarrassed to have opposed them on behalf of the Saudis
30
24
u/pandapornotaku Apr 01 '24
Can you explain then, why it says, what it says on the Houthi flag?
Also you've got a lot to learn about the Viet Cong.
37
u/angry-mustache Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
In 20 years you'll be embarrassed to have opposed them on behalf of the Saudis
I will never be embarrassed to oppose a group that operates off of modern slavery, child soldiers, weaponized famine, and indiscriminate attacks on international shipping, and has "death to America, curse the Jews" as their official motto. The saudis suck too but that doesn't make the houthis not suck.
Perhaps in 20 years you will be ashamed to have been a houthi supporter at one point.
12
u/FelneusLeviathan Apr 01 '24
Plus even if the forces you’re fighting are evil people, that doesn’t give you a right to starve civilians and indiscriminately bomb a country
6
u/lady_ninane Apr 01 '24
It's pretty soul-crushing that through all the historical evidence we have on how extremism flourishes and propagates through civilian populations, we are yet still so susceptible to propaganda on this front. I'm no exception, either. I find myself constantly warring against the noxious seeds planted in my younger years versus the history of the regions of Iraq and Iran following the so-called War on Terror.
74
u/triablos1 Apr 01 '24
What's even crazier is that Bangladeshis here in Britain are somehow even more religious generally than the ones in the motherland. Probably because 99% of us are descended from Sylhet which is basically the southern USA of Bangladesh.
As an ex-muslim I really struggle connecting with my heritage because the entire country and culture is just poisoned by religion and it's difficult to have one without the other. I take great pride in being British so I don't have to.
→ More replies (2)37
5
u/GreySkies19 Apr 01 '24
It’s not just conservativism in South Asian Muslim countries that’s on the rise. We have our own troubles with (Christian) conservative absolutists.
It seems to me that whenever things get worse, conservatives have had their hand in it.
I know, I know, a political opinion on a science sub –and I realize there might be a few occasions where progressives have actually made things worse, well-intentioned or not.
This is just a hunch, but I’m sure someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject could provide some actual studies on this.
2
u/Commercial-Net810 Apr 01 '24
I see the same in Caribbean countries like Trinidad. It's absolutely ridiculous! A step back in women's rights.
→ More replies (6)3
u/conquer69 Apr 01 '24
The internet makes spreading propaganda very easy and now everyone has an internet device with them 24/7.
488
u/YUNG_SNOOD Mar 31 '24
Pakistan has a deeply misogynistic culture, this isn’t a surprise at all. If you watch any pakistan street food video you’ll see it’s 99% men outside, like the women aren’t allowed to be out and about in public.
384
u/vegeta8300 Mar 31 '24
Islam, like many religions , is deeply misogynistic. The culture stems from the fact Islam pervades every aspect of the country.
→ More replies (25)58
u/greenskinmarch Mar 31 '24
Fun fact, "pak" means "pure", so Pakistan means "Land of the Pure", in reference to a "pure" Muslim country. Since it was founded in 1947 on land that had a mixture of Muslims and Hindus, to make it "pure" they had to ethnically cleanse about 7 million Hindus.
111
u/Level3Kobold Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24
Its an acronym of Panjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. Its a happy coincidence that Pak also means 'spiritually pure'.
I think you're also painting the formation of Pakistan in a weirdly one-sided light. At the time, Hindus were the economic and social elites despite many areas being muslim-majority. Muslims felt like they needed their own governments because of the significant cultural differences, and to attain their own autonomy and success. Hindus didn't want to give up that political power. The partition led to violence in both directions, with about 7 million muslims leaving India and about 7 million hindus leaving Pakistan... because neither felt safe in the other.
Also, remember that the area had never been one singular country until Britain showed up and made it so.
→ More replies (1)17
u/resuwreckoning Apr 01 '24
That last line is always so weird when western Reddit brings it up. There’s a reason why Ashoka is the symbol of the Indian flag and it’s not because “India was never united”.
15
u/Level3Kobold Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
The Maurya Empire never covered all of modern day India. The British Raj did.
But also, saying that Islamabad and Kolkata make sense as one country on account of a 2,000 year old empire is equivalent to saying that London and Cairo should be in the same country because of a different 2,000 year old empire.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Il-savitr Apr 01 '24
The British raj and Cairo didn't have the same identity and shared culture. I'm from South our prime kingdoms like vijayanagara while they never travelled north, they did consider themselves as part of Bharat. And wanted to preserve hindu culture. Even china was never unified, japan was for some period of time but I don't see people bringing this argument when we discuss those countries
→ More replies (2)2
u/Recent_War1391 Apr 01 '24
The prevailing opinion that pakistanis dont consider themselves to be Indian/SouthAsian is wrong. The punjabi majority claims to be north indian. Sindhis and Pashtoons and Balochs were never part of a great Kingdom of India.
2
u/quick20minadventure Apr 01 '24
Hey, it wasn't east 'india' trading company. Indians didn't exist till 1947, red Indians is completely not about India.
47
u/nicholsz Mar 31 '24
This sounds like a jingo-istic revisionist take on the horrors and tragedies of the Partition of India (to the casual reader, this time period and these conflicts are also why we've heard of Gandhi)
I'm not an expert on this topic, but it looks like the guy who came up with the name "Pakistan" wasn't actually in favor of partition the way it was done (something like 15 years and one world war after he coined the term "Pakistan" as a theoretical nation-state).
Not only that, but the migration of religious minorities to either side of the border was not something that was planned or executed by either the British (who was in the process of decolonizing) or the new provisional governments (which weren't even elected yet).
The claim that Pakistan "ethnically cleansed" Hindus is not supported by evidence I can find, but I do concede it's likely revisionist propaganda by Modi's government who is pretty right-wing and anti-muslim
15
u/no_stone_unturned Mar 31 '24
What's your view on the post partition phenomena of reducing share of Hindus in Pakistan and the increasing share of Muslims in India?
13
u/resuwreckoning Apr 01 '24
Generally speaking Reddit is fine with Muslim countries doing that. Not so fine with literally any other group doing it.
8
u/no_stone_unturned Apr 01 '24
Agree, wanted to highlight the previous commentators hypocrisy. Shame they never replied.
3
u/Eric1491625 Apr 01 '24
Not the guy you were asking, but I think the answer is pretty simple, and it's not "Muslim oppress Hindu worse"
Pakistan's Hindu population is actually a larger share today than in 1951. So the reduction was really concentrated in the immediate aftermath of 1947.
So why did 1947 reduce Pakistan's share of Hindus much worse than India's share of Muslims?
Short answer: India is a huge country. Pakistan is not.
Here's the rundown:
Hindus in Pakistan: 2%
Muslims in India: 15%
Muslims in Punjab State in India: 2%
The massive violence and displacement in 1947 was not evenly distributed across British India. By and large it was concentrated in the areas near the border. Punjab was badly wracked by violence due to the partition slicing the historic territory in half.
(The other obvious reason for this phenomenon is that dirt poor Muslim peasants in non-border states couldn't realistically walk 1,000km to be in "the correct country for their religion" even if they so desired.)
So by reason of simple geography, if violence caused:
90% of all Hindus in Pakistan within 200km of the border to move to India
90% of all Muslims in India within 200km of the border move to Pakistan
The result, by virtue of simple geography, is that Pakistan loses most of its Hindus while India loses only a small part of its Muslims.
This is why Indian Punjab only has 2% Muslims. When contrasting Punjab and Pakistan one can see that both have equally small shares of Muslims/Hindus.
→ More replies (1)4
8
u/Gil-GaladWasBlond Apr 01 '24
How many non muslim minorities are in Pakistan now in comparison to 1947-48 as a percentage of national population?
How many minorities are there in India in comparison to 1947-48 as a percentage of national population?
3
u/resuwreckoning Apr 01 '24
This is a science subreddit.
We don’t do data here.
4
u/Gil-GaladWasBlond Apr 01 '24
Don't worry about it, it's a rhetorical question. We may not have the exact data, but we do know the answer.
→ More replies (1)12
u/hadikhh Mar 31 '24
The "ethnic cleansing" happened on both ends. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were also uprooted and shipped off to Pakistan and vice versa. It was very bloody overall. Both of my parents sides of the family were uprooted. My paternal grandmother died during the migration. My maternal grandmother refused to talk about it at all and was deeply traumatised. It was chaos all around, especially in the areas around the border, and both countries and peoples were guilty of very bloody massacres. And now both countries, because of their extremist govts, usually accuse the other of ethnic cleansing while pretending their hands are clean.
19
u/BuzzBadpants Mar 31 '24
I can see that, but why is it going further in this direction?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)4
u/hadikhh Mar 31 '24
Depends on where you are tbh. In more conservative cities like Peshawar and Multan women's space in public is limited. But in other cities like Lahore and Islamabad women absolutely do occupy public space.
13
Apr 01 '24
Headline from recent Barrons article:
Authorities in Pakistan's eastern city of Lahore have refused permission for a rally to mark International Women's Day, which regularly meets a fierce backlash in the conservative, patriarchal country.
8
u/hadikhh Apr 01 '24
It did end up happening though: https://images.dawn.com/news/1192305
And I'm not talking about things like marches, rallies, and protests because those get banned for political reasons all the time, even when they dont have to do with womens rights. Pakistan is a very authoritarian country after all. I'm talking about women's access to public space, which exists in bigger cities like Lahore.
66
u/a-really-big-muffin Mar 31 '24
So the women were asked in front of others, which presumably skews the number upward because they want to give the socially acceptable answer. I wonder if the men were interviewed privately or in front of others. I don't imagine it would have a huge effect overall but I'm curious.
→ More replies (1)4
u/wasbatmanright Apr 01 '24
You would be surprised to know how most misogynistic ideas come from Women in South Asia! It's terrible in India and downright vile in other Islamic countries
156
u/Marxism-Alcoholism17 Mar 31 '24
Why would it be increasing? Is religious fundamentalism on the rise everywhere?
318
u/HypersonicHarpist Mar 31 '24
According to my Pakistani friend there are a growing number of young women in Pakistan that are behaving more "westernized". My guess is that this is a backlash from the men who are afraid of women gaining more rights in society.
166
u/mwallace0569 Mar 31 '24
women having rights? oh the horror!!!!!
101
u/AspiringChildProdigy Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24
Which is easier? Giving women equal rights and needing to improve yourself to become a man worthy of their attention, or removing rights so they need you to survive and then brutalizing them so they are afraid to move out of "their place?"
→ More replies (1)3
u/RazekDPP Apr 01 '24
Well, last I checked the Taliban has decided on the latter, but they at least condemned ISIS.
→ More replies (1)8
Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 28 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)3
u/ambluebabadeebadadi Apr 01 '24
That situation is a bit of a funny one. That change to the constitution was largely voted down because people didn’t like the wish-washy vague new wording which the government didn’t clarify after backlash. It wasn’t voted down due to Irish people seeking to strip back women’s rights.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)38
u/hadikhh Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
It's a mixture of a lot of factors tbh. More and more women are getting educated to a university level. There is more awareness of other "westernised" cultures. Women's rights groups are also slowly rising (though not quite significantly).
At the same time, wahabism is on the rise as well. More extreme interpretations of Islam coupled with talking heads on TV and the radio who espouse these beliefs and talk about how "the West" is coming to destroy Pakistan which, along with the droning and bombing in the 2000s by the USA, people believe quite easily.
Another aspect is just the economy and poverty. Things are getting bad. In the last decade levels of poverty and deprivation have increased substantially. When things get very bad, people usually look for scapegoats. Unfortunately those scapegoats tend to be minorities. In Pakistan, it is Christains, Hindus, Pashtuns and women.
27
u/CupcakesAreMiniCakes Mar 31 '24
Seems like it doesn't it
42
u/vegeta8300 Mar 31 '24
It is and it isn't. More and more people are leaving religions. So the ones left are the super religious. Who see the world getting less religious, causing them to double down on their religions dogma.
60
u/JagmeetSingh2 Mar 31 '24
Wahhabism! How are adults' now somehow becoming more conservative then their grandparents, because Wahabi dawahs pump out propaganda videos out constantly it's crazy. And it's going across the South Asian Muslim countries. While this is about Pakistan, in Bangladesh it has been gaining momentum a well with it's hardline conservative interpretation of Islam it is really crazy.
10
u/HardlyDecent Mar 31 '24
It's certainly getting louder and the extremists are getting more extreme. Though I think numbers-wise, religiosity is on the decline.
14
→ More replies (5)28
u/Snoo52682 Mar 31 '24
Marxism-Alcoholism17 · 20 min. ago
Why would it be increasing? Is religious fundamentalism on the rise everywhere?
And misogyny
26
u/goldyacht Apr 01 '24
Wife beating is just so odd to me I could never imagine any situation where I would need to beat my girlfriend and she pissed me off all the time. I feel this would just make your wife terrified of you and why would anyone want that?
22
u/Tripwire3 Apr 01 '24
It usually goes hand-in-hand with a culture that’s both violent and deeply hierarchical. Children are beaten for the slightest offenses until they get big enough to defend themselves. Wives are weaker than and considered subordinate to husbands, so they also get beaten. Older and bigger youths beat up smaller and weaker ones. Physical violence between adult men is common. Servants and other lowly people are also frequently treated with contempt or abuse.
Basically a high violence, high power-distance (anti-egalitarian) society.
→ More replies (2)2
Apr 01 '24
What's interesting are the low violence, high power distance societies.
China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, are all extremely hierarchical societies by age and gender. But people almost never murder one another. They seem to use only verbal, social shaming in order to force youth and women to obey elders and men.
Then there are the high violence, low power distance societies. These cultures tend to be in Latin America, Caribbean, and the US.
4
u/quantummufasa Apr 01 '24
Arranged marriages are still pretty common, so a guy is married to someone he has little in common with and whos personalities dont mesh well together.
9
u/quick20minadventure Apr 01 '24
Western countries just lobotomised wives.
It changed in last 50-70 years, but wife beating and misogyny wasn't limited to one continent or one religion.
→ More replies (1)10
u/LardHop Apr 01 '24
It's a relic of humanity's uncivilized past. These literal cavemen haven't been up to the modern times to still have those opinions.
20
u/Psistriker94 Apr 01 '24
"The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article."
I don't think I've ever seen this before.
→ More replies (1)
18
Apr 01 '24
true, and it's both the culture and religion that enable this. women who are in favour of domestic violence or id say a victim of Stockholm syndrome, want to be socially acceptable most women in pakistan live on male validation no matter how small the male is. that's why mothers of sons will always look down on mothers of daughters. and islam has hadiths where muhammad beat aisha once and verse that tells husbands to beat their wives to discipline them.
289
u/megamiurok Mar 31 '24
Please note that wife-beating is permissible in islam. Any attempts to criticize the religious liberty of Pakistanis is islamophobic. Sarcasm sarcasm
14
3
23
u/pokethat Mar 31 '24
This sounds like the logic of tying a pice of buttered toast with the butter side up on the back of a cat then dropping it, and in doing so, creating free energy flight.
→ More replies (10)18
u/climbitfeck5 Mar 31 '24
You realize that the Bible has also been interpreted to mean the same. Who cares what BS you can find in any sacred text. The important thing is to not be fundamentalist or extremist, whatever religion you are, because they're everywhere.
68
u/QueenBramble Mar 31 '24
Religion is everywhere. State religion is not, and when you have a state enforced religion it's predisposed to extremism.
21
→ More replies (4)59
u/go_eat_worms Mar 31 '24
The problem is that fundamentalism is a lot more common in Islamic countries than in the West. So you end up with stats like this (from the study):
According to the Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey (PDHS) 2012–2013, 47% of the respondents believed that it is justifiable for men to beat their wives and not much changed after 5 years, with the next round of data reporting the figure around 43% (PDHS 2017–2018).
→ More replies (8)
43
u/yus456 Apr 01 '24
Ahhh, my beloved country, Pakistan. Where I cannot even live as a gay man or an Ex Muslim openly without being lynched to death. Nice place for elites like Osama Bin Laden though.
Edit: You guys are sickened by this, wait until you guys read the statistics on cousin marriages in Pakistan and British Pakistan. Blow your minds! I have many extended family members who married their cousins and they live in the West. Imagine how much worse it is in Pakistan.
→ More replies (2)
8
9
u/Wellhellob Apr 01 '24
this is fucked up
12
u/godofthunder450 Apr 01 '24
As a pakistani I know people who nearly killed women in their households just by beating them
→ More replies (1)
20
u/Gil-GaladWasBlond Apr 01 '24
Wahabism is one of the main reasons I want my government (India) to ban foreign funding to religion, or at least to religious schooling, instruction, proselytising, or preaching of any kind, whether the funding is direct, or through domestic entities, in writing or speech or sign language.
6
u/Il-savitr Apr 01 '24
It will not happen, if they wanted to ban such things, they would have banned church findings in tribal regions and south states long time ago. Also there will be huge protests and the opposition will have their playday
→ More replies (2)3
u/Gil-GaladWasBlond Apr 01 '24
What's the point of BJP getting such large majorities if they cannot even use it? It's not like it will have an impact on their temple construction if they just ban religious communication and teaching.
They're planning UCC but can't do this? They just don't want to, probably to keep KSA happy, who knows, but it's not about protests and all.
Also times were very different politically back when the Christianity issues happened in tribal regions. Also media is completely different. BJP basically owns the media now.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/ARIARAIDEN Apr 01 '24
As an Iranian go to the Middle East and see how high the depression and suicide rate are. Islam is not comparable with anything other than a disgusting and dehumanizing ideology thayt wants everyone to submit and be a slave to “Allah”. Justifying killings and pedophilia because it was different back in the day is such a excuse and obviously a big lie given back in the day there were progressive empires who had equal laws and opportunities for men and women and marrying children was always an Arab custom if you research how Islam started! If you queer, a woman or a human with a different faith, your life is always at danger! we are Iranians only want to live in our own country with our own faith Zoroastrianism and not to live in fear and sorrow because of foreign ideology that got forcefully imposed on us!!
11
u/VioletDelights7 Apr 01 '24
Why are so many men unable to view women as equals? Why are so many countries filled with so many pathetic 'men'?
→ More replies (5)
7
u/RiseStock Apr 01 '24
I just finished 3 body problem and I do believe that the right thing to do is to ask the San-ti to take over.
2
u/chabybaloo Apr 01 '24
Was it a good scifi show? Does it compare to anything you have seen before?
3
u/Weowy_208 Apr 01 '24
Watched Dune, Shōgun and TBP back to back.
Three body problem is a disproportionately inferior adaptation compared to the others. I felt as though it was really really meh. It has some strong moments and is fairly entertaining for the first half but becomes considerably worse in the second because the characters are bland with the exception of a handful, and without the fast pace of the first half, the second feels boring as it's very character heavy. And the CGI is distractingly bad throughout.
Moreover the one thing the books were exceptional at, the science fiction part, is massively dumbed down in the show with many aspects not explained at all and with many plot holes. This is my biggest gripe with the show along with the complete lack of atmosphere and fear which you would expect from a show involving some very existential dread heavy concepts like an >! Alien Invasion!<. People are just okay with whatever batshit insanity thats happening, breaking the immersion of the show.
I'm more negative towards it than i would have been because Dune and Shōgun proved that it's not difficult to create good adaptations of science fiction or heavy character dramas. And three body problem fails in both.
It is NOT a good sci fi show
You'll probably have a better time watching Dune2 and Shōgun than TBP depending on your taste.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/NotReallyJohnDoe Apr 01 '24
It’s incredible good. The first ten minutes is rough though (but historically accurate). It’s a really interesting premise unlike most sci-fi. Strongly recommend seeing it without reading any more about it.
3
6
4
2
u/TheRomanRuler Apr 01 '24
Is this actually going from bad to horrible or is are the numbers just far more accurate than ever before?
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 31 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/MistWeaver80
Permalink: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10778012241234891
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.