Is equality possible between husband and wife in marital relations? Social equality and equality Is equality possible in society?

“Perhaps equality is a right, but no force on earth will make it a fact” (O. Balzac).

Is it possible to achieve equality? Some see great benefits in it and are sure that it is real. Others argue that in modern society the establishment of equality is impossible.

Equality is the position of people in society, ensuring their equal attitude to the means of production, equal political and civil rights, equality.

A right is a state-protected, legalized opportunity to do something.

Types of rights:
 personal;
 political;
 socio-economic;
 cultural.
The essence of this statement by O. Balzac is that equality is a right, but a society in which all people are equal cannot exist. This statement is still relevant today, because social inequality is the subject of study by modern sociologists.

This statement corresponds to the views of socialists. Socialism is an economic, socio-political system of social equality, characterized by the fact that the process of production and distribution of income is under the control of society. This statement also corresponds to the rule of law theory, according to which laws apply equally to everyone without exception.

From the standpoint of pragmatism, equality is a strong social regulator. I believe that a society where equality prevails and people have equal access to the means of production is not threatened by revolutions and social conflicts. In an atmosphere of universal equality, contradictions and therefore clashes cannot arise. Then it turns out that every person should try to bring the state of which he is a citizen closer to this model?

But, from the standpoint of existentialism, everyone strives to improve their level of existence. This implies an uneven distribution of income, the level of influence of individuals becomes different... Everything is reflected in a person’s position in society or his social status. Depending on social statuses, social layers are formed, forming social stratification, the main principle of which is social inequality.

This statement is also supported by the biological point of view. People are already born unequal: each child has certain innate abilities that distinguish him from others. In addition, history knows cases of discrimination against people based on their appearance - Hitler’s theory about the superiority of the Aryan race, the conflict between “whites and blacks” in America, where Indians are still prohibited from leaving their reservations. In modern times there are also fascist groups that put their race above all others.

Therefore, I believe that there has never been equality. Even though in primitive society people did not differ from each other either in their financial status or in the presence of special rights (differences appear only with the emergence of agriculture and cattle breeding), people still differed in physical fitness and personal qualities, and, therefore, they had different access to resources (the one who is stronger and more dexterous will get the loot). In a slave society (according to the formation theory of K. Marx), rights, income and power were distributed unevenly: everything depended on the origin of the person. The same thing happened in feudal society, only the method of production changed, and peasants had more rights compared to slaves (they could have their own farm and means of production, family...). Under capitalism, signs of equality began to appear, but access to the means of production still remained different. Under socialism, proclaimed at the beginning of the 20th century as the social system of some countries, there was no equality either. Thus, the Decree on Land, adopted in Russia in 1917, led not to equality, but to the dictatorship of the worker-peasant masses and the infringement of the rights of the nobility and intelligentsia. Also not unknown are the brutal repressions (the fight against sabotage, the “doctors’ case”, persecution of cultural and artistic figures), which made certain sections of society powerless. And the layer of nomenclature that formed later, which enjoyed obvious privileges in access to the means of production, and the thriving “telephone law” finally refutes the existence of equality in the USSR.

We should agree with this statement by O. Balzac that equality is a right, but a society in which all people are equal cannot exist. Equality can prevent revolutions and social conflicts in society, but the desire of people to improve their social status and the uneven distribution of income and power make it unrealistic. In the modern world, children have limited rights, there is inequality between men and women... Despite the fact that the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that everyone is equal before the law and the court (Article 19), media headlines are increasingly full of facts of corruption and injustice of the authorities towards "ordinary people." Believing this or not is a personal matter for everyone, but maybe it was not in vain that V.I. Lenin said: “Equality under the law is not yet equality in life”?..

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful. All praise and thanks be to Allah, peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. We thank you for your trust. We call upon Allah Almighty to illuminate our hearts for the truth and grant us blessings in this world and on the Day of Judgment. Amen. Answered by the European Council for Fatwa and Research. The wife is equal to the husband in marital relations. The Holy Qur'an has called each one "half of a couple" as each is responsible for the cares and feelings of the other half and thus both of them form a complete couple. Allah says: “[Another] of His signs is that He created from among yourselves wives for you, so that you could find peace in them, and He established love and [mutual] favor between you. Indeed, in all this are clear signs for people who reflect" (Quran, 30:21); and: “Allah has given you spouses from your midst, given you children and grandchildren from them, and endowed you with benefits.”(Quran, 16:72). It is clear that both verses are addressed equally to both men and women, since there is no evidence that they are addressed exclusively to men. However, the verse in which Allah addresses only men is accompanied by the statement that men and women are equal within marriage. Allah said: “You are allowed intimacy with your wives on the night before fasting. Your wives are a garment for you, and you are a garment for them” (Quran, 2:187). Here we see how Allah has impeccably described the relationship of men and women to each other as “dressing” each other, which reflects closeness and warmth. However, this equality, in principle, does not contradict the fact that each participant in these relations has specific duties and obligations, for example, a man’s duties to protect and support his wife and family, which is called qavama. Allah said in the Quran: “Husbands are guardians of [their] wives, because Allah has given some people preference over others and because husbands spend money from their property [to support their wives]” (Quran, 4:34). The beauty of the Qur'an's style is reflected in the words "Allah has given some people an advantage over others", rather than simply favoring men over women because men have an advantage in some aspects and women in others. This especially concerns the emotional aspect, since it is the man who is obliged to pay the marriage gift, known today as the bride price or mahr, and also the material aspect, since it is he who must create and maintain the marital home. Therefore, if a man somehow tries to harm this family, he will be the first to suffer from this. The Qur'an also emphasized that the duties and obligations of both parties are exactly equal with a few exceptions. Allah said: “Women have [relative to their husbands] the same rights as duties, according to Sharia and reason, although their husbands are superior to them in merit” (Quran, 2:228). Ibn Abbas said: “I adorn myself for my wife, just as she does for me,” and then cited the previous verse as proof. Imam Al Tabari interpreted the term daraja (or degree) found in the verse as additional marital duties and obligations. Others interpreted it as a synonym for the previously mentioned term kawamah, and both of these interpretations are correct.The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) placed responsibility on each partner in marriage, as follows from the hadith narrated from Ibn Umar: “Each of you is a shepherd, and each is responsible for his flock. A man is a shepherd of his family, and he is responsible for them, and a woman is a shepherd in her husband’s house, and she is responsible for him.”(Al-Bukhari and Muslim). A woman's responsibility within the confines of her marital home obliges her to play an educational and advisory role towards her husband as she advises him and wants the best for him. She must call him to do what is approved whenever he does not do so, and forbid him what is blameworthy. Because it is the duty of every Muslim towards others, for example, a son towards his father, a student towards a teacher, a citizen towards a ruler. However, this call for what is approved and the prohibition of what is blameworthy must be within the framework of the injunctions mentioned by scientists in reliable books and references. Allah says: “The believers, both men and women, are friends to each other: they encourage what is good and discourage what is wrong” (Quran, 9:71). Thus, marriage relations in no way cancel the call for what is approved and the prohibition of what is disapproved, but, on the contrary, encourages them. We know that when our righteous ancestors left home to work, trade or travel, their wives reminded them before this: “Do not return with haram, for we can endure hunger and cold, but we will never endure the heat of the hellish tribe and the wrath of the Almighty! ” Therefore, if a woman sees that her husband is not performing the obligatory prayers, she should gently advise him to perform prayers, and if she sees that he is drinking alcohol, she should advise him not to drink the thing from which all evil comes. She should also advise him to take care of religion, faith, property, children and family, and not follow Satan in his actions. As for the question of whether a husband has power over his wife and to what extent, the answer is that the husband has the right to the above-mentioned kawama. But this right gives him power not unlimited, but limited by the regulations of Sharia and the society in which he lives. According to the Holy Qur'an, family law has two restrictions: First: divine restriction, that is, [restriction] from Allah. In the Qur'an it is mentioned as "the boundaries of Allah" and appears many times when talking about family. Secondly: human limitation, which is mentioned in the Qur'an as "maruf" or good, that is, what is valued and recognized by rational, cultured and wise people. As for the first restriction, regarding divorce, the Koran says: “These are the laws established by Allah. So do not violate them. And those who do not observe the laws of Allah are wicked” (Koran, 2:229). And further: "These are the laws established by Allah. He explains them for people who are knowledgeable."(Quran, 2:230). And further: “These are the regulations of Allah. Whoever transgresses the regulations of Allah will commit wickedness to his own detriment. You do not know that perhaps Allah will decide differently after this” (Koran, 65:1). Regarding the second, human limitation, Allah says: "Treat your wives with dignity"(Quran, 4:19). And further: “And the father of the child, according to custom, provides food and clothing for the mother.”(Quran, 2:233). And further: "...keep them [with you] according to custom, or release them according to custom..."(Quran, 2:231). And further: "For divorced wives, maintenance should be according to custom, as required by the God-fearing"(Quran, 2:241). Thus, matters of the matrimonial home and family should be decided in council between husband and wife, since council brings only good. The Holy Qur'an emphasized this in the context of weaning: “And if the father and mother want to wean [the child] from the breast by mutual consent and advice, then there is no sin on them.”(Quran, 2:233). But if they cannot reach an agreement, then the husband must decide, but within the limits of the mentioned maruf. A husband should not force his wife to do something simply according to his wishes under the pretext of “obeying her husband,” since any obedience must be within the limits of maruf. Thus, the wife must obey her husband only within the limits of maruf, i.e. follow the Koran, which tells about the oath of allegiance sworn by women to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): "...they will not disobey you in what is established for everyone..."(Quran, 60:12). An authentic hadith says: “Obedience truly lies in justice”(Al-Bukhari and Muslim). Allah Almighty knows best.

Analytical capabilities of accounting (financial) reporting.

A Turbulent Decade: Volatility and the Energy Sector Leveling Up

The rich synonymy of the spoken language allows the Japanese to structure a conversation in a special way and makes it possible to tactfully touch on sensitive topics.

What is the essence of a possible project for our survival?

IN). In conditions of diversification, the effect of better use of resources is achieved, the ability to vary products when demand changes, and increase competitiveness

Can society exist without hierarchy and inequality? In Marxist theory, attempts were made to justify that inequality and stratification did not always exist, for example, they did not exist in primitive society. Is it really? It was shown above that inequality and dominance are present in animal communities. Even in the simplest human societies, despite the appearance of equality, there was gender and age dominance. The most successful hunters, skilled craftsmen, persons with rare abilities (shamans, healers), etc., also occupied a higher position than the rest. There has always been inequality in access to useful resources between different communities (jade, obsidian, salt, clay), and those on whose territory these resources were located derived certain benefits from their position.

All this indicates that inequality, even in its most primitive form, has always existed. Many prominent thinkers were skeptical about the possibility of creating a society without hierarchy and stratification. They believed that the desire to make everyone equal in everything is a prerequisite for the disappearance of all individuality. Considering this problem, Pitirim Sorokin selected many examples from history when people tried to create a society of equals. But they all ended unsuccessfully. Christianity began with egalitarian communities, but built a powerful pyramid with the pope, cardinals and the Inquisition. Saint Francis created the institution of monasticism for the same purpose, but after seven years not a trace remained of the former equality (Sorokin 1992). The large-scale communist “experiment” of the 20th century only confirmed this pattern based on a large amount of factual material. Throughout the entire space of the “world system of socialism” from the USSR to Cuba and Korea, a general trend, a law of world history, clearly emerges - the initial egalitarianism of revolutionaries is quickly replaced by the establishment of a rigid hierarchy, class barriers, the elite’s desire for luxury, total surveillance of citizens, and mass terror. Every time, the noble intentions of social engineers turn into a road to hell. It is important to emphasize that the bright future turned out to be hell for those who once again began to create it. Revolutions, as a rule, devoured their creators - if naive reformers did not have time to get rid of dreams of social justice from their heads, a wave of careerists rushing to power swept them away on their way.

The gap between the masses and their representatives who have managed to rise one step higher in the social hierarchy occurs almost automatically. Bruno Bettelheim describes how quickly this happens in a concentration camp to a person who has gone from ordinary prisoners to the camp “elite”. The headman, who only yesterday was ready to rummage through the trash heap in search of potato peels, today sends to death a prisoner whom he caught doing the same thing. It is difficult for him to imagine what it means to be hungry. He can no longer look at the world through the eyes of a person on the other side of the barbed wire. An amazing property of the human psyche is to quickly forget everything that happened to you before (Bettelgeim I960).

Privileged groups stand firm in guarding their gains. A little less than three years have passed since the October Revolution, and the young nomenclature has already acquired such a taste for privileges that in hungry, warring Russia they had to create a special “control commission” designed to deal with the abuses of some party representatives. The commission did not last long. Two years later, at the XI Congress of the RCP(b) in 1922, a more moderate demand was put forward: to put an end to the large difference in pay between different groups of communists. A year later, a circular was sent out by the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the RCP(b), which only condemned the use of public funds by some party officials to equip their offices, dachas and personal apartments. The document proclaimed that “the necessary standard of living for responsible workers must be ensured by higher wages” (Vselensky 1991: 319). In this regard, don’t the statements of some modern Russian politicians who assure the public that massive corruption among bureaucrats can be prevented by establishing high salaries for the apparatus look naive?

Robert Michels (1876–1936) used the example of modern trade union workers' organizations to show how organizational hierarchy arises (Michels 1959). What makes his analysis particularly poignant is the fact that he did it using the example of social-democratic parties. According to Michels, any political party or trade union organization faces various problems in its activities (organization of political campaigns and elections, printing activities, negotiations, etc.). This activity is time-consuming and sometimes requires special training. If an organization has a large number of members, then additional efforts are needed to coordinate them. A management apparatus is gradually being formed, which is responsible for ensuring the life of the organization, collecting contributions, conducting correspondence, etc. Managers receive compensation for their work. Thus, direct democracy in socialist parties is replaced by representative democracy.

As an organization grows, the masses inevitably lose control over it. This task is entrusted to special auditors or relevant services, which are charged with supervising functionaries and periodically informing the majority about the results of inspections.

Over time, a gap arises between the masses and the elected leaders of organizations. First of all, this gap concerns lifestyle and income. The new way of life is more varied (mental work, travel, contact with the business world, government and trade union bodies, the press, etc.) and brings more satisfaction. A higher level of income and access to channels for redistributing funds from their organizations allows them to lead a comfortable lifestyle, improve their living conditions, purchase a more luxurious car, etc. All this is gradually changing the worldview of trade union functionaries.

They no longer strive so much to fulfill the program guidelines of their party as to preserve their own position. The distance between them and ordinary workers is increasing more and more. At the same time, they are becoming more and more close to other trade union officials of other organizations, as well as to the administration of their own organization. Aware of their common interests, functionaries develop mechanisms to protect their position and power within the entire group. They concentrate in their hands the organization's infrastructure, press organs and financial resources. Finally, they are better informed than the common masses and more sophisticated in intrigue and political struggle. If opposition arises within the organization, then all these levers can be directed against the revisionists. This, according to Michels, is the “iron law of oligarchy.”

From all this, Michels concluded that the mere presence of trade unions in organizations is not a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy. Trade union leaders and functionaries have their own goals, often different from the interests of the masses who elected them, they are very tempted to eliminate democratic control procedures and the possibility of re-election, and strive to turn their influence into oligarchic power. These findings are consistent with the ideas of Bertrand Russell, who showed that without organizational hierarchy no form of society can exist. The main problem of any social system, including a democratic one, is that a complex society presupposes the introduction of an organizational hierarchy, but the managerial elite pursues completely different interests than the controlled majority (Russel 1938).

Social equality - This is a type of social structure in which all its members have the same status in any area. For example, in the political sphere it is the right to participate in elections, and in the economic sphere it is the right to have a job, receive social benefits, etc.

In ancient times, equality existed within classes, while there was inequality between classes. In the Middle Ages, equality was manifested only in religion, that is, “before God we are all equal.” Later, the idea of ​​equality took on a more secular character, with a person's social position determined not by his ancestry, but by his personal achievements. In our time, equality has become as fundamental a concept in sociology and jurisprudence as freedom and law.

Equality.

Equality - this is the equality of all people before the law, regardless of their nationality, race, religion, social status, gender, political views. Equality implies that everyone should obey the law equally, and authorities should treat everyone equally.

Back in the 13th century BC in Ancient China, Guan Zhong declared: “The ruler and officials, high and low, noble and vile - all must follow the law.” Nowadays in Russia, the same principle is ensured by Article 19 of the Constitution, according to which everyone is equal before the law and the court.

In cases where this principle is violated, we face discrimination. Discrimination - This is, most often, an unjustified difference in a person’s duties and rights on one or more grounds. An example of discrimination is Whites-only clubs in the United States in the 50s.

Currently, various international organizations, including the UN, are fighting all types of discrimination.

Or vice versa; equality of a person in society, relative to society. Who invented such pearls? I don’t know, maybe an ancient philosopher, but this is unverified information. What does modern science think about this?

Modern science answers unequivocally - the principle of equality of people is not true.
All people are not equal from birth. This is not a slogan, it is a scientific fact.
They are not equal in mental, physical, mental, or moral abilities.
This has been proven, at least, by genetics, which buried the principle of equality, clearly proving that all people from birth have a different genotype. And the range of this inequality is quite large.
This is the real truth, whether you like it or not.
Now genetics has clearly proven the inequality of not only people, but also nations and races. Different nations and races have different genotypes.
When the communists persecuted genetics, calling it a fascist and racist pseudoscience, they did not do it out of stupidity or because they had nothing better to do.
These actions are quite consistent and inevitable. Genetics was destroying the foundation of communism, knocking out the central block - the principle of equality.
Therefore, Christians and communists understood that genetics was incompatible with them. And they had to choose: either genetics bury Christianity and communism, like false religions, or communism and Christianity declare genetics a pseudoscience.
Naturally, they chose the latter.
In fact, only equality of opportunity is fair, and for people who are unequal from birth, it will automatically lead to inequality of results, to social and economic inequality, the presence of poor and rich, etc.
And this is normal, this corresponds to the real, and not far-fetched, nature of man.

If all people have one God, and they are His likeness, then, therefore, all people are EQUAL to each other from birth.
This is where the principle of equality of people came from. For communists, the idea of ​​equality sounds like “equality and brotherhood.”
And the communists imposed this equality with brutal force, trying to eliminate inequality, equalize the poor and the rich, destroy the difference between city and countryside, between mental and physical labor, between men and women.
Rivers of blood were shed for this vicious principle of “equality.” And they destroyed the entire multi-level social structure of society and destroyed the entire economy, the entire culture, all the richness of life, since equality can only be in poverty. This is what the vicious idea of ​​the One God leads to.
There is no equality in polytheism. Society had a caste and later class organization. There are many gods and different social groups have their own divine patrons. Instead of the principle of equality, the principle “To each his own” prevails.
When Jews hear the principle “to each his own,” they begin to shout: “Fascists, fascists. This slogan was written on the gates of the Buchenwald concentration camp."
So what if this slogan was written somewhere? Is the truth of a slogan determined by where it is written or not written?
If “2x2=4” was written on the gates of Buchenwald, would that be a wrong statement?
We see that different religions have opposite attitudes towards human equality. What is the true state of affairs?
This question is answered by science, which, in its field of competence, always takes precedence over religious thought.
The Christian “only” God created woman, supposedly from the rib of a man. Can you believe this? No. Why?
Yes, because this contradicts science, in particular genetics, which clearly proves that all people have a different gene pool. And in the rib of any man, the genes are absolutely the same as in the man as a whole.
Where did this genetic diversity among people come from? In addition, Adam's rib contains the genes of a man, that is, Eve should have turned out to be a man.
Either this myth is a lie or there are, after all, many Gods and the Gods are genetically different. Then, naturally, people are different from these Gods, with different gene pools.
There are even 7 primary colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Where did this diversity come from?
The question of whether there is one God or many Gods has not only religious, but also scientific significance.
Let's take physics, for example. What is God, from the point of view of physics? This is, first of all, some kind of objective world power.
In Einstein's time, the scientific picture of the physical world was very heterogeneous. Several theories described different forces that were irreducible to each other.
Since Einstein was a Jew and a religious monotheist, he was the first to put forward the idea of ​​​​building a unified field theory, where all forces are different manifestations of one single universal force.
Einstein worked on this idea for about 30 years and achieved nothing. The most powerful minds of theoretical physicists in the world are now following his path.
And what? Today, in the physical world there are four physical Gods independent from each other:
. gravity;
. electromagnetic forces;
. weak interactions;
. strong interactions.
And all this is only in the physics of inanimate nature. How many more Gods can the phenomenon of life give birth to? Science still knows little about this.
Of course, it's not just about the number of Gods.
In general, if you look deeper, the problem of monotheism or polytheism depends on the attitude to the TRUTH.
(U.R.B. Istarkhov) (c)