Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
A community can't function with a 60% rate of alcoholism (unless it gets external support, like some Canadian Indian reservations.)
If that's Estonia's problem, it doesn't deserve a continued existence.
If that's Estonia's problem, it doesn't deserve a continued existence.
The author is well-meaning, but the stats are a bit rich, to say the least! The 60% figure is way out of kilter, although the social problem of alchohol is only too evident wherever one looks these days. The worst problem in Estonia today is the almost complete lack of social care and awareness of others' interests. The need to show one's own physical power and personal rights above everyone else is a characteristic that starts at the top echelon of society, and and is just as rampant when you get to the bottom. It is the primary source of giving birth to things like JOKK...juriidiliselt OK..but everything to do with any kind of deal otherwise is rotten to the core! And this notion repeats itself constantly to the amazement of everyone. The problems outlined by the author are only too true, but I can't see a way around the issue before there is a major social biopsy done-and soon!
www.suri.ee/etnofutu/4/omausk..... doesn't open. Can anyone help?
http://www.suri.ee/etnofutu/4/...
Leave the dots off at the end!
also go to maavald.ee and check out the hundreds of articles.
Leave the dots off at the end!
also go to maavald.ee and check out the hundreds of articles.
Societies that achieve a certain level of economic prosperity show a corresponding sudden decline in birth-rates. This phenomenon can be seen around the globe. There is nothing particularly Estonian about it and, certainly, it can not be reversed with restrictions on emigration, "politically correct" social policies or other measures which would be risible were they not draconian.
The problem with statistics is that not everyone is capable of understanding what they mean. Surely it is unthinkable that 60% of our men are alcoholics., especially since all the on-line statistics are significantly lower. Has the author just read some random statistic that contained 60% such as (example only, not a verified statistic) 60% of all Estonian families are touched by alcoholism, and extrapolated from that?
Perhaps someone with some REAL knowledge of alcoholism in Eesti could chime in here with the real scoop.
Oh, and Ms. Kivi, are you from a "healthy Estonian family" or an "unhealthy one" and have you reproduced that?
Perhaps someone with some REAL knowledge of alcoholism in Eesti could chime in here with the real scoop.
Oh, and Ms. Kivi, are you from a "healthy Estonian family" or an "unhealthy one" and have you reproduced that?
Linda Kivi’s conclusion is one that most of us are sympathetic with: [what is required] is not a return to [the] old ways, but a bringing forward of strong Estonian cultural values that know how to honour the land and its people.
But her preceding diatribe, litany of errors and misrepresentations speak for themselves and diminish the conclusion.
Let’s just summarize some of the more egregious and salient examples:
“Why are Estonian [women] worldwide reluctant to bear quantities of children?” Her answer is “[it is because of] the [negative] quality of relationships possible with Estonian men”.
Next she summarizes some MÜ lectures, but again errs:
Note that had Kivi been a little more attentive, she would have noticed that Jaan Männik criticized Estonian Feminist Eda Sepp, who went to Eesti and “offered solutions, without ever taking the effort of trying to find out what the problems were.” Consequently, Sepp’s effectiveness suffered.
Kivi could also have reported that Jaan Männik was the head of Eesti Telekom and not only of its Mobile subsidiary… but what do details matter (to her)?
Later in the article we find
“After I waded out into the minefield, one heckler suggested that Estonian women marrying outside the country are … gold-diggers.”
Here Kivi’s ego shows since a heckler is someone who tries to embarrass a Public Speaker. But the Public Speaker was Jaan Männik. And it was she, who made declarations based on his presentation.
Subsequently, it was Linda Kivi who called fire upon herself and was ridiculed.
I would submit that it was [i]Linda Kivi[i] who was the heckler and not the person(s), who responded to Linda’s provocations.
Also, to dismiss, outright, that some Estonian women did emigrate from Estonia in the last 15 years for monetary motives is really disingenuous. But Linda Kivi would indeed have you believe it was to get away from the Estonian men. Wow!
But here I’ll direct the reader back to the article, which I find insulting to Estonians, erroneous in fact, and laden with so much ideological baggage as to be rendered irrelevant.
PS:
Linda Kivi heartily announced at MÜ that she is boycotting Estonia, because Estonia’s authorities are unable to satisfy her requirements for safety and security… A clear thinker? I don’t think so.
But her preceding diatribe, litany of errors and misrepresentations speak for themselves and diminish the conclusion.
Let’s just summarize some of the more egregious and salient examples:
“Why are Estonian [women] worldwide reluctant to bear quantities of children?” Her answer is “[it is because of] the [negative] quality of relationships possible with Estonian men”.
Next she summarizes some MÜ lectures, but again errs:
Note that had Kivi been a little more attentive, she would have noticed that Jaan Männik criticized Estonian Feminist Eda Sepp, who went to Eesti and “offered solutions, without ever taking the effort of trying to find out what the problems were.” Consequently, Sepp’s effectiveness suffered.
Kivi could also have reported that Jaan Männik was the head of Eesti Telekom and not only of its Mobile subsidiary… but what do details matter (to her)?
Later in the article we find
“After I waded out into the minefield, one heckler suggested that Estonian women marrying outside the country are … gold-diggers.”
Here Kivi’s ego shows since a heckler is someone who tries to embarrass a Public Speaker. But the Public Speaker was Jaan Männik. And it was she, who made declarations based on his presentation.
Subsequently, it was Linda Kivi who called fire upon herself and was ridiculed.
I would submit that it was [i]Linda Kivi[i] who was the heckler and not the person(s), who responded to Linda’s provocations.
Also, to dismiss, outright, that some Estonian women did emigrate from Estonia in the last 15 years for monetary motives is really disingenuous. But Linda Kivi would indeed have you believe it was to get away from the Estonian men. Wow!
But here I’ll direct the reader back to the article, which I find insulting to Estonians, erroneous in fact, and laden with so much ideological baggage as to be rendered irrelevant.
PS:
Linda Kivi heartily announced at MÜ that she is boycotting Estonia, because Estonia’s authorities are unable to satisfy her requirements for safety and security… A clear thinker? I don’t think so.
Much of what Linda Kivi says is true, not because she specifically knows the problems confronting Estonian women, but simply because those problems fall within common ground vis a vis women v's me's relationships. That Merilo dismisses outright at least one of Kivi's conclusions-which happens to be a very genuine reason for a certain percentage of women leaving Estonia even today-indicates that he is not in touch with the reality of women's problems in Estonia. I do not support feminism per se, but it seems to me that in this day and age a lot of Estonian men have simply not made sense of what proportion of domestic duties should be theirs to share. It is living proof that men in Estonia earn more than their female counterparts, and men generally tend to be awfully inflexible towards women-much more so than is the case in Western Europe. However, there is a small percantage of men who are brilliant at fulfilling their roles as husbands, and perhaps it would only be right for Kivi to do some more research on the subject as a means to improving the current situation in Estonia. There is no escaping the fact consumerism in Estonia has smitten and socially wounded our nation, and the blood from these wounds is the lifeline of hope that many young women leave Estonia in the hope of discovering better opportunities elsewhere.
Estonia's problems can be solved with a bit of socialism, a stop to women's emigration and men's alcoholism. Everything is simple when you're omniscient.
Luckily for Estonians, K. Linda Kivi is boycotting Estonia.
Luckily for Estonians, K. Linda Kivi is boycotting Estonia.
As an Estonian woman, I proudly carry the "burdens" that our foremothers carried. Gratefully, most of the men of my generation, share a larger portion of the burden of childrearing, than did their forefathers, but even if they didn't, I would gladly carry the load, as my duty an obligation and joy, to pass on to my children, our family and national heritage and to raise them. I consider myself a feminist too, but I also feel honoured to be an "ema" in all senses of that beautiful word.
I'm sorry that Linda will not experience this and only sees the situation as that of an outsider looking in.
P.S. I look forward to being a "vanaema" in the true sense of that glorious word too!
"Maa tuleb täita lastega....."
I'm sorry that Linda will not experience this and only sees the situation as that of an outsider looking in.
P.S. I look forward to being a "vanaema" in the true sense of that glorious word too!
"Maa tuleb täita lastega....."
Linda Kivi is more than an outsider looking in. She examines Estonian society, as a whole, from a vantage point of arrogant superiority and believes that she knows how to cure individual problems with general solutions. She reminds me of a microbiologist examining microbes. She's a scary type and it's no surprise to see the warped Maxim applauding her.
Let's agree to disagree. I probably wouldn't agree with some of Kivi's assertions, should I be listening to her in a one hour lecture. But I don't see why on earth she is pounded upon for stating something she believes in? Why is this such a crime?? It's a shame that our community spurns alternative opinion, and let's face it-much of the lifeblood of the Toronto community has dried up because of this very problem. It is not only Toronto's problem, it is widespread throughout the globe. The talent is there. It just doesn't pump its energy into the community because people know too well they will be ostrasized anyway. The proof is in the comments!
When K. Linda Kivi spoke out at Metsaylikool she was personally attacked by derogatory commentary and heckling, as she describes in her article. Being there at the time, I found this treatment offensive and shocking. I felt that what she had to say was valuable and important. Instead, she was ridiculed. It wasn't fair and it wasn't right.
What's worse, it was an attack on her freedom of speech and the basic human right to be treated with respect. This type of treatment is how people are marginalized and silenced. All this after we had just spent several days hearing about the value of diversity in the environment and in society. In my opinion, the hecklers owe her an apology.
The reaction at Metsaylikool and in some of the online comments to her article actually prove one of her points. Are women's voices included in the discussion around social issues, or are they marginalized and silenced?
Let's stop the personal attacks and look at the issues. Who has the right to speak? Are men and women treated equally? What are the social effects of alcohol and drug abuse? How do we heal ourselves from years of collective oppression and trauma? What would healthy families and a healthy society look like?
Let's include everyone in this discussion, even feminists, even people with different points of view. And let's treat each other with respect and tolerance. If we're concerned about numbers of Estonians, the last thing we need to do is to exclude insightful, accomplished, and courageous Estonians such as K. Linda Kivi who aren't afraid to venture into the minefields of gender relations and social taboos.
What's worse, it was an attack on her freedom of speech and the basic human right to be treated with respect. This type of treatment is how people are marginalized and silenced. All this after we had just spent several days hearing about the value of diversity in the environment and in society. In my opinion, the hecklers owe her an apology.
The reaction at Metsaylikool and in some of the online comments to her article actually prove one of her points. Are women's voices included in the discussion around social issues, or are they marginalized and silenced?
Let's stop the personal attacks and look at the issues. Who has the right to speak? Are men and women treated equally? What are the social effects of alcohol and drug abuse? How do we heal ourselves from years of collective oppression and trauma? What would healthy families and a healthy society look like?
Let's include everyone in this discussion, even feminists, even people with different points of view. And let's treat each other with respect and tolerance. If we're concerned about numbers of Estonians, the last thing we need to do is to exclude insightful, accomplished, and courageous Estonians such as K. Linda Kivi who aren't afraid to venture into the minefields of gender relations and social taboos.
To: Toomas Sepp
I’ll be honest, I just got off the phone with Toomas Sepp, because I wanted to know where he was coming from with this e-comment of his. Turns out we agree on much, but not all. Hence, I don’t feel badly about my online response to him below.
Firstly, Toomas Sepp wrote, “[K. Linda Kivi] was ridiculed. It wasn’t fair and it wasn’t right.” I suggested that I too would have been ridiculed, had I come up with a statement like, “Every Canadian Estonian male, who left Canada to live in Eesti did so to escape the Oppressive Estonian Females in Canada.” And in such a case, ridicule would have been fair and right… not to mention obligatory.
Furthermore Toomas Sepp wrote, “What’s worse, it was an attack… In my opinion the hecklers owe her an apology.” Here I reluctantly agree: to have brought up points like Linda Kivi’s ability to form personal relationships does not belong in this discussion. But I do believe she purposely inflamed the audience, to the point where both males and females pounced upon her words.
Insofar as diversity is involved, I fully support the notion that it is not only desirable, but nigh necessary in any organic environment. This includes Society.
This being said, I find that while there may not be an infinity of supportable viewpoints, there are an infinity of unsupportable viewpoints on any subject matter. The latter are often referred to as “nonsense”, something to be dismissed out of hand.
Much of what Linda Kivi articulated at MÜ falls into this category.
I’ll be honest, I just got off the phone with Toomas Sepp, because I wanted to know where he was coming from with this e-comment of his. Turns out we agree on much, but not all. Hence, I don’t feel badly about my online response to him below.
Firstly, Toomas Sepp wrote, “[K. Linda Kivi] was ridiculed. It wasn’t fair and it wasn’t right.” I suggested that I too would have been ridiculed, had I come up with a statement like, “Every Canadian Estonian male, who left Canada to live in Eesti did so to escape the Oppressive Estonian Females in Canada.” And in such a case, ridicule would have been fair and right… not to mention obligatory.
Furthermore Toomas Sepp wrote, “What’s worse, it was an attack… In my opinion the hecklers owe her an apology.” Here I reluctantly agree: to have brought up points like Linda Kivi’s ability to form personal relationships does not belong in this discussion. But I do believe she purposely inflamed the audience, to the point where both males and females pounced upon her words.
Insofar as diversity is involved, I fully support the notion that it is not only desirable, but nigh necessary in any organic environment. This includes Society.
This being said, I find that while there may not be an infinity of supportable viewpoints, there are an infinity of unsupportable viewpoints on any subject matter. The latter are often referred to as “nonsense”, something to be dismissed out of hand.
Much of what Linda Kivi articulated at MÜ falls into this category.
As the "heckler" at MU who jokingly suggested gold-digging as a possible motive of women who emigrate from Estonia, I would like to say a few words in my own defense.
Toomas Sepp's e-post paints a grim picture of Linda Kivi's heckling ordeal as the moral equivalent of Kristallnaht or something like that. As a participant and an observer, I can say that the tenor of the discussion was moderately spirited - at best.
What needs to be remembered is that the heckling was not just coming from one side. For instance, what motivated me into saying my piece was the fact that Linda had wound up a coterie of older feminist friends of hers into shouting anti-Estonian-men slogans that I considered insulting.
But that is OK. What bothers me though is that some people seem to think that if one side shouts and heckles, its all in the name of "diversity of opinion" and "freedom of speech" and is therefore a Good Thing, but if the other side responds in kind then it is "intolerant", "mean spirited" and "hateful" and therefore a Bad Thing.
Going back to the family theme, Linda seems to suggest that healthy (i.e. modern, liberal, feminist) families are better at forming families than unhealthy (i.e. old-fashioned, patriarchal) families. Why is it then that societies, the world over, that aspouse "healthy" values are in demographic decline while societies that aspouse "unhealthy" values are all growing exponentially. I know. I know. We should, of course, prefer healthy family environments to unhealthy ones but ultimately, as Mark Steyn says, "history is made by those who show up." And, like it or not, those who show up are those who determine how humanhind rears its offspring.
Toomas Sepp's e-post paints a grim picture of Linda Kivi's heckling ordeal as the moral equivalent of Kristallnaht or something like that. As a participant and an observer, I can say that the tenor of the discussion was moderately spirited - at best.
What needs to be remembered is that the heckling was not just coming from one side. For instance, what motivated me into saying my piece was the fact that Linda had wound up a coterie of older feminist friends of hers into shouting anti-Estonian-men slogans that I considered insulting.
But that is OK. What bothers me though is that some people seem to think that if one side shouts and heckles, its all in the name of "diversity of opinion" and "freedom of speech" and is therefore a Good Thing, but if the other side responds in kind then it is "intolerant", "mean spirited" and "hateful" and therefore a Bad Thing.
Going back to the family theme, Linda seems to suggest that healthy (i.e. modern, liberal, feminist) families are better at forming families than unhealthy (i.e. old-fashioned, patriarchal) families. Why is it then that societies, the world over, that aspouse "healthy" values are in demographic decline while societies that aspouse "unhealthy" values are all growing exponentially. I know. I know. We should, of course, prefer healthy family environments to unhealthy ones but ultimately, as Mark Steyn says, "history is made by those who show up." And, like it or not, those who show up are those who determine how humanhind rears its offspring.
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.