26
Surge in domestic violence feared during long Chuseok holiday in South Korea
(www.straitstimes.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2025
26 points (93.3% liked)
World News
51389 readers
1294 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
^^ Ah, there it is, folks.
Quite disgusting, really.
There are patriarchal customs found in many cultures. We need to be progressive and take them all down.
Down with the patriarchy.
Those are outdated practices that only occur in families with 70 to 80 year old grandfathers. Once they're gone the gender roles largely disappear.
Yeah let's all" civilize" all those other barbaric " non-progressive" countries and cultures, by using and imposing ours via imperialistic agendas/s.
Add: Maybe just maybe, let them find their own way, and just focus on what you can do in your own country first.
And also, just to be clear, I'm against domestic violence ofc.
unfortunately, there is a consistent harmonic of male-bullying-female among babboons, chimps, & humans, throughout known history.
unfortunately, "waiting until prejudice decides, of its own volition, to cease to exist", as the people who push that ALL cultural-alternatives are equally-valid, .. well, the evidence is that prejudice fights for its perpetual dominion instead.
I don't find it "disgusting" that such prejudice is still normal in the majority of the world's population: I find it DEPRESSING, instead.
Apparently male-bullying-female ( while gaslighting: pretending that male-"protects"-female ) has right to perpetuate itself, instead of equal-validity having the right to break/displace such male-bullying-female?
You have your position, I've got mine.
Because I've had it with karma: & I want to chop my continuum/soul out from getting-caught-in-any-more-lives, I'm sticking to mine.
I once came across a blog what was only photo-images of the 1920's..
Eventually I noticed that nearly none of the women in the images were happy.
They all looked either depressed, worn-down, fearful, infringed-from-having-validity, or otherwise harmed.
I don't care that some cultures have "established" that kind of asymmetry of human condition: it isn't a right to do that to any entire-category of humankind, & it especially isn't male right to do that to female-lives, while gaslighting about it.
The more competent one becomes at seeing through appearances, the more clear it is that it's still normal, among North American celebrities, too..
Finally, the adulteration of the story in the book of Genesis probably sets the standard for machiavelianism/dishonesty/gaslighting..
It's plainly visible even now that the text states that women "ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good & evil" WHICH MEANS MORAL-UNDERSTANDING, & then shared that with men.
That is rooted in hard fact: altruism is generalized mothering .. in wasps, in mammals, in anything we've found it in.
A Western philosopher has noted that nihilism's more common among men-philosphers: mothers can't afford to sell-out their children's lives that way, can they?
That the Judeo-Christian tradition twisted "women earned moral-understanding & shared it with men" to the perversion/prejudice-basis "women committed original-sin, downfalling our entire race" .. is unconscionable, yet established.
No matter: IF humankind WON'T get upright, THEN humankind won't survive The Great Filter, & next-century this world will be silent of our dishonesty/abuse/gaslighting, permanently.
This-century, our kind gets cornered into either growing-all-the-way-up XOR force-exterminating-our-species.
All the ideologies/prejudices/"religions" fighting for exclusive supremacism, still-accelerating-ClimatePunctuation, food-insecurity-migrations, war-produced-migrations, accelerationism, mass-shootings, civil-wars, every kind of machiavellianism imaginable, all of it, all together, until there's no rationality left, & only rampaging-ideological-BUTCHERING-tantrum is going-on, that's what it looks like humankind's epitaph is going to be.
But that's every-bit as fine as other-cultures-have-the-right-to-their-prejudices, isn't it?
There's no objective standard for judging anything, is there?
Maybe there isn't to you, but there is to me: objective-morality is a valid-concept, though only for a subset of questions ( not cultural-stuff, but things like equal-validity, yes )
_ /\ _
Yes, I get your point , though you make some colorful extrapolations. I'm not saying I'd be agreeing to others morality or condoning differences in our own morality, because they are all different, everybody has their own views. What I don't like is when people claim the higher moral ground, without understanding any of the other's cultural context and by proclaiming their culture should be like ours. Other cultures are other cultures. You can disagree with (some) of their practices, and equally other cultures will probably say similar things of yours.
But when femicide. and domestic abuse in the West is on the rise it's an increasing problem. So, that's why I said; maybe lets focus first on fixing our own shit, before pointing the finger on someone else.
A ( metaphoric ) point that I find humankind is ignoring/denying:
WHEN you're on a bus that's being driven by 1 or another gang, & those gangs are fighting each-other for supremacism/dominion, & they don't care whether anyone survives, because it is their ruling that is the only thing that matters to them,
AND THE PATH THEY'RE TAKING IS FATAL TO THE WORLD,
it doesn't matter "who" drives the bus when it leaves the cliff: the "stampeding off the cliff" is fatal to the whole herd, see?
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is something that needs to be having ALL gov't policies tied to it, when judging what is authorized, & what isn't.
AND it needs to be the test for moralities, too.
Does something amplify the still-accelerating ClimatePunctuation?
IF so, THEN it has to have sooo much benefits that it's worth it.
Does it protect the millenia-established male-bullying-female?
THEN it costs both current & future lives, and rights, and our species' real-viability.
As many have pointed-out, male-bullying-female automatically shuts-down 50% of our brains being allowed to contribute to our surviving this-century, & that is idiotic or worse.
ALL the problems have to be seen, & balanced against each-other.
What Russia's doing to Ukraine ( & soon to the EU as a whole ), what Trump will shortly be doing to Canada ( same as Russia->Ukraine, for the same colonial-imperial motivations ) are survival-grade problems.
Different election-systems/processes have long-term-morality consequences.. making particular-futures more or less likely..
There's an English mathematician ( redhead, kinda roundish, moved to Glasgow for professional reason, it was a yt video of his, aweful video, stupendous insight ) who identified that there is exactly 1 thing that all the most-successful complex-projects do, that none of the unsuccessful ones do:
create a functionally-complete visual-spacial model of the required system, leaving no kind of function out,
and only then begin the scaling of that model into implimentation.
Even questions of morality can be dealt-with this way, identifying that some choices extinguish us, & when people can SEE that, then our thinking changes.
It isn't hearing-about this-issue, or that-issue, or whatever, it isn't being reminded and holding-everything-in-our-heads,
it is SEEing it, as a visual-spacial model, so that the consequences become implied in how the representation looks, and then we can begin judging things objectively.
Now consider 2 allowed-futures, 1 where 50% of the human-lives have their life-potential stomped-on by male-supremacism, & the other where ALL humans are allowed contributing to our viability..
Which is more-likely to survive this-century's Great Filter ( when a species that won't grow-up has nuclear-level technologies, & does a multi-stage global tantrum-pogrom to beat/break/smash "god" into obeying unconscious-ignorances "godly" ENTITLEMENT, as the tantrum-toddler it is, that OUR OWN unconscious-mind is now enacting )?
That's objective, not mere-opinion/cultural-opinion.
Here's an example of competing-moralities:
Some want all internal-combustion-engines killed, today, no matter the cost.
Others want a phased switch.
I'm with the phased, but aggressive switchover people, simply because I know that if you kill all of them, immediately, then you've just executed the economic-viability of remote-regions, & their people.
City people don't have a problem with policies which butcher rural lives: this is consistently proven..
& the remote lives of people who live .. say in the Aussie outback, or in Canada's north, or offshore .. why should international-policy respect/value them, when they're not where the money is, right?
But to me, you have to look at the whole overall, & consider all the effects, & balance the whole.
You can't hold that women's lifeworth "isn't important enough to count in the world's balance-sheet, because men never counted it in the past" .. that isn't good-enough.
Here's another example of competing-moralities:
Which should we do?
Oppose the genociding of Palestinians, XOR oppose the genociding of Ukranians, XOR oppose genociding in Sudan, XOR oppose genociding in the Congo region, XOR oppose femicide in either China, XOR India, XOR here in the West?
The framing is the problem: it presumes that only 1 can be chosen.
Caving on ANY of these is .. disintegrity, to be polite.
& caving on any of these will have strategic-survival consequences for our future.
The leaving-Somalia-to-piracy, and not providing them with any alternative, meant that they did convert to piracy, & now that piracy-economy can't be removed: it's now a whole world shipping problem.
The leaving-northern-Mexico-to-the-drug-cartels and not breaking that from ruling that country's civilization, means that now those drug-cartels can't be removed.
What we allow to set-deep-roots bites our future in the face, with venom, consistently..
All this to say, that .. yeah, sometimes morality is objective, in spite of what the absolute-relativists pretend.
Red-meat based diet isn't only economically strategic-suicide, & health ( yes, the heart-attack-rate is increased by eating red meat, no matter which country one is from ), but it's also ecologically-suicide.
Opposing those facts is ideological/moral for some factions.
But objectivity must override ideology, XOR we, as a species, are .. finished, this-century.
In Science there is a fundamental-principle: IF the experiment contradicts the theory, robustly, & it isn't some confounding-factor, THEN the theory's falsified.
Feynman was big on that.
Ideology-based "science" IS NOT Science, see?
All who hold that all questions of morality are only-cultural-opinion, & that there is no objective-standard that can validly be applied.. the evidence contradicts that.
"it's all relative" is an ideological position, but the fact that some choices produce greater-slaughter whereas other choices reduce harm .. is real, is objective, is fact.
So, no, I do not accept that morality is only opinion/culture-habit, and is not in any way objectively-testable or objectively-measurable..
The problem is in finding which values are long-term, vs which aren't,
in finding which values are concentration-of-benefits-to-few/eradication-of-benefits-from-many & forcing the measurement-system to correctly-identify that as narcissism, as it objectively is ( instead of the propaganda-is-"journalism" system we now have, brainwashing all the discussions )
in finding which values uphold the LivingPotential in all lives, vs the values which only value some lives' potential..
etc..
Eventually patterns of bias become visible, & then one has to remember that universe's Natural Selection law is going to be the final judge.
Our opinion isn't what kills us when we stampede-off-a-cliff, right?
It's the fact that we indulged in making-believing & now our bones & body-lives are broken, right?
The question of whether incompetence/intentional-ignorance is a socially valid decision, however: certainly it's socially valid.
Stupid, but socially valid.
Humankind has every right to force its own extinguishment, while making-believing in ego-games, all it wants!
But there is "morality" in that snuffing-of-all-future-generations, too, isn't there?
No, I do not stand with the "it's all relative: no objective-standard for any moral-question exist, nor can it ever exist, & we ought just accommodate prejudice until it ceases perpetuating-itself, that's the proper moral stand".
Exactly as Martin Luther King, Jr, stated: accommodating injustice anywhere, is a moral crime: it means that fundamentally, one is accommodating injustice, & that has consequences everywhere.
Our world's in a survival-of-the-fittest stage, natural for this level of population-saturating-the-planet, & which morality survives this-century will be decided by questions of moral-darwinism AND by questions of did-humankind-survive-or-not.
Women having equal-validity increases the odds of humankind-surviving this-century.
Women not being allowed equal-vality decreases the odds of humankind-surviving this-century.
The same is true of the question about oligarchy/corporate-feudalism/monarchy/etc .. various concentration-of-rights-and-exclusion-from-rights paradigms.
Objective-morality requires that civil-rights stand against such privilege-rules-exclusively paradigms.
This, itself, is objective morality, in action.
( everybody, feel free to block me, as all logged-in people can do .. see only what you want to be seeing, right? )
_ /\ _