1) about the need to endure troubles because of one's own activity, initiative;
2) about getting a result opposite to the expected one.
Live speech. Dictionary of colloquial expressions. - M.: PAIMS. V.P. Belyanin, I.A. Butenko. 1994 .
For that fought for it and ran- Razg. Shuttle. iron. They themselves are to blame for everything; no one to blame for their difficulties, failures. BSRG, 73 ...
For that fought for it and ran- It is said when the results of any actions turned out to be negative against expectations, to the detriment of oneself ... Dictionary of folk phraseology
RUN: WHAT YOU FIGHT FOR, THAT YOU RUN- last To fail or get into trouble from one's own activity. In vain: Kolkhoz Vain labor adj. Something useless, unnecessary, vain. The same: Artel Vain labor ... Explanatory dictionary of modern colloquial phraseological units and sayings
What did you fight for- that's what they ran into about what l. an action that has the opposite effect of the expected ... Dictionary of Russian Argo
WHAT- From nothing to nothing. Sib. For some unknown reason. Versh. 4, 157. What does no one have, where. Novg. About the abundance, large number and variety of what l. NOSE 12, 65. To be in nothing. Crow. Get sick. SRNG 21, 213. Lead no one in anything. Arch. With contempt…… Big dictionary of Russian sayings
Investigations by Gdlyan and Ivanov
cotton business- The cotton case is the collective name for a series of criminal cases on economic and corruption abuses in the Uzbek SSR, which were investigated in the late 1970s and 1980s. Caused a great public outcry in ... ... Wikipedia
Uzbek case- The cotton case is the collective name for a series of criminal cases on economic and corruption abuses in the Uzbek SSR, which were investigated in the late 1970s and 1980s. It caused a great public outcry in the USSR. ... ... Wikipedia
Kasparyan, Yuri Dmitrievich- Yuri Kasparyan At the festival "Rock over the Volga" (2011) ... Wikipedia
Refugees from Sudan raped a left-wing humanist and her young daughter in "gratitude" for protection. The European left banned a woman from complaining about gang rape in a refugee camp, so as not to cause a "wave of xenophobia."
A far-left activist from No Borders was brutally raped by Sudanese "refugees" whom she intended to protect. According to the British newspaper Express, this happened in the Italian town of Ventimiglia on the border of France. A refugee camp from Sudan, Eritrea and Libya appeared in this place due to the fact that it is quite difficult for migrants to get to France, but they do not want to stay in Italy, since the French authorities pay larger benefits than the Italian ones.
The humanist came to the camp with her little daughter. After that, the Negroes took her into the shower and began to rape her, turning on loud music that drowned out her screams. Those "refugees" who did not have enough space in the shower committed depraved acts with her child.
When it was all over, the first thing the woman went to was not the police, but her organization No Borders. Left-wing human rights activists ordered her to keep quiet and not to publicize the incident. They explained this by saying that a police complaint and publicity through the media could lead to an “outbreak of xenophobia” against refugees throughout Europe.
According to Euromedia, the woman endured a month without even turning to psychologists, trying to cope with the trauma of the incident together with her child. And then she wrote a statement to the police.
Much has been written about the harmful effects of feminism. Being a loyal detachment of the "progressive" movement, without flattery devoted to its goals and objectives, feminism is designed to undermine the foundations of traditional society in order to create a revolutionary situation, using which the socialists expect to break through to power.
And as bitter as it is, one cannot but admit that the feminist movement has won a complete victory. American society meekly accepted the norms imposed on it and bowed to the new mistresses of life. Like a primitive hunter uttering a victory cry, placing his foot on the corpse of his victim, the triumphant feminist sings the song of Helen Reddy at the top of her lungs, in fact the anthem of the feminist movement:
"I am a woman, hear me roar!" (“I am a woman, listen to my roar and tremble!”).
For decades, feminist propaganda has poured out from newspaper pages and university departments, from TV screens and from movie screens: women are not inferior to men in anything, but on the contrary, they even surpass them, defeat men on their own field, playing by their own rules. .
Need proof? Please: the films "Bionic Woman", "Wonder Woman" and other feminist action films, whose heroines, muscular Amazons, who are fluent in the techniques of oriental martial arts, playfully scatter crowds of male villains - those who have not yet been struck down by a well-aimed bullet that does not know a miss sniper
It's time to bury the stupid stereotypes of past centuries: they say that a man is the head of the family, a protector, a breadwinner, a breadwinner, and a woman is just a keeper of the hearth, a mother and a friend, preachers of feminism furiously broadcast from progressive ambos. All this is the propaganda agony of the vile patriarchy, clinging to its power with the last of its strength.
But nothing will come of it: the mighty pressure of the movement for women's equality - and to be honest, it's not equality, but superiority - is unstoppable, it sweeps away everything in its path. Men will inevitably be relegated to secondary roles in society - and let them say thank you, if at all they will be left the right to life.
Well, they got their way. This is how life works: you have to pay for everything. And the bitterness of the taste of its fruits is added to the sweetness of victory. For that fought for it and ran! This saying is the best description of the results of the long-term ultrafeminist campaign aimed at the deposition of men as the stronger sex - "patriarchy" in feminist terminology.
The so-called real man in the traditional sense began to recede into the background in the public consciousness, and the "cloud in his pants" - a half-man of a new formation called "metrosexual" - a half-man of a new formation called "metrosexual": gentle, tearful, sensitive, more than anything preoccupied fashion, who loves to change diapers, tinker with the housework and wash dishes, he cooks dinner, sets the table and awaits with trepidation the arrival from work of a strict and harsh earner who supports her family and him, an insignificant one.
And what, are women satisfied with their triumph? Judging by the friendly crying on the rivers of Babylon, not very much. Where have the real men gone? - yesterday's inexorable champions of female hegemony are tearing their hair out. Whom to marry? With whom to have children? Yes, at worst, at least just twist novels? Man - ay, respond! Alas, no answer. And every day the moaning about where the real men have gone becomes more and more feverish and panicked.
Meanwhile, the chariot of the militant feminist movement rolls inexorably forward, sweeping away everything in its path. Under its mighty pressure, traditional ideas about the division of functions between the sexes, developed by thousands of years of experience and understanding of the biological differences between a man and a woman, are collapsing one after another.
If half a century ago someone had hinted that it was time to attract women to the police and fire departments on an equal basis with men, he would have been ridiculed. Candidates for police and firefighters must meet strict requirements for physical strength and dexterity, and women, despite all the successes of feminism, can not only equal men in this respect, but even close the gap a little. Nothing can be done - biology! But feminists were not going to wait for mercy from nature and quickly found a way out: if the requirements for police and firefighters are discriminatory, you just need to lower these requirements - and all for a short time. In the past, the firefighter had to climb a ladder, climb through a window, shoulder a 200-pound dummy, and walk it back. No one will deny that, with rare exceptions, a woman cannot do this. And for the sake of feminists, the standards were sharply reduced.
One viewer of the programs of the famous television journalist John Stossel complained to him that now, if a woman falls to save her in case of a fire, she is allowed to drag the helpless victim across the floor and down the stairs, counting the steps with the back of her head. Interviewing militant feminist matriarch Gloria Steinem, Stossel told her about the complaint, to which the feminist diva vehemently retorted, “Dragging is even better—there’s less smoke on the floor.” So even hinting at how the feminization of the fire department will adversely affect the effectiveness of its work is dangerous: they will be accused of "sexism" (misogyny).
Since ancient times, it was believed that war is a purely male occupation. But there are no fortresses that feminists could not take. Under their mighty pressure, the frightened Congress opened wide the gates of the recruiting centers, and the girls poured into military service. Mostly in search of work and, of course, husbands, but some - for ideological reasons.
In principle, in the modern armed forces, you can find quite a lot of military specialties where women can successfully serve. But the feminist leaders insisted on a completely absurd demand - to allow the fair sex into combat units, despite the damage to combat readiness that would inevitably follow their appearance in infantry units and tank crews.
These combat units were given to them! What is so attractive about them? Whim? But no, the ideologues of feminism know what they are doing. The shortest path to the heights of a military career lies through service on the front lines, and feminists feverishly dream of the day when a woman chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will appear on the American Olympus next to a woman president.
However, combat units again have strict physical fitness requirements. And again, a tried and tested method was put into play - to provide women with indulgences, to reduce the standards for them. And now, women's names appeared in the lists of, say, candidates for naval aviation. Naval pilots are the elite of the elites, not everyone is able to land a jet aircraft on the deck of an aircraft carrier in the darkness of the night, and even in conditions of strong pitching.
Because of this, the most stringent requirements are imposed on the cadets. The slightest miss means automatic deductions. But what admiral would dare to incur the wrath of the all-powerful feminists in Congress? And so Lieutenant Kara Haltgren was forgiven for one mistake, then a second, and the third was no longer needed to be forgiven: she crashed on landing, ruined a car worth 15 million dollars and died herself. Well, the "just cause" requires sacrifice, and feminist ideologists willingly plug the loopholes with the bodies of their followers.
The press is full of articles and essays about the "decline of the male." Women are pouring into the ranks of the student body in droves, filling jobs, taking on the functions of the head of the family, and the number of men in all these categories is steadily decreasing. Why did it happen? The left argues that women simply adapted better to the transition from an industrial to a service economy, while men failed to do so.
For their part, conservatives believe that the feminization of society was primarily the result of the propaganda of radical feminism and the sexual revolution, caused by a general decline in morals and the progress of contraceptive technologies. However, there is a much simpler explanation. It was suggested by psychologist Helen Smith in her book Men on Strike.
According to her theory, men, obeying the voice of reason, simply leave social institutions that have ceased to serve their interests. That is, society was so imbued with a hostile attitude towards the representatives of the former stronger sex, both culturally and legally, that men “followed on the heels of Gault,” writes the author of the book (John Gault is the hero of Ayn Rand’s famous book Atlas Shrugged (“Atlas Shrugged”). ”), who, having made sure that society does not need his work, refuses to continue to hunch over him). That is, men are boycotted by a society that not only does not want to reward them, but even punishes them simply for the “wrong” chromosome set.
Helen Smith, who specializes in men's issues, analyzes the issue of marriage, and more broadly - the relationship of the sexes. Based on her research, she argues that in the past few decades, the incentives for men to get married have dwindled dramatically, and marriage now comes with a lot of risk for men.
If the marriage breaks up, the court, as a rule, takes the side of the wife, despite the fact that the situation has changed radically and now most divorces are initiated by women. The justice system is dominated by the notions of bygone days, when the wife, as a rule, sat at home, raising children and housekeeping, and if the husband, the only breadwinner, left the family, the abandoned wife was left without a livelihood.
The situation has changed, but the laws have not kept pace with social change. In some states, courts in the event of a divorce sentence a man to life hard labor in alimony, even if the marriage was fleeting, the divorcing spouses have no children, and the wife is quite able to provide for herself.
Men are even saltier if there are children. Here the husband is generally deprived of any rights. With rare exceptions, the courts invariably award the mother custody of the children and maintenance from the father for their maintenance. At the same time, writes Helen Smith, judges, as a rule, do not pay attention to the fact that many wives, wanting to have a child or bind their husband even more tightly to themselves, often deceive him, reassuring him that there is no need to be afraid of pregnancy.
Worse, it is not uncommon for a wife who has filed for divorce to demand that her disgusted husband support her child, conceived by her from another. Thousands of men are forced to pay for the maintenance of children with whom they have nothing to do, writes Helen Smith, who qualifies such a situation as "virtually slavery."
As men become wary of marriage, it's natural that they think less and less about how to improve their chances in the eyes of potential girlfriends in life. In particular, a growing number of men are showing a reluctance to pursue higher education. In the coming years, the proportion of women among the students will reach sixty percent. And this is due primarily to the fact that education is losing its attractiveness for men.
This gap is especially pronounced in the Negro environment. A whole class of young women with higher education has formed who have no hope of marrying in their social circle. They would be happy to marry anyone, but men who are on a lower rung of the socio-material hierarchy are somehow not eager to put on the bridle of Hymenenia, because over blacks to a much stronger extent than over white society, traditional the idea of marriage, according to which a man should be the head of the family and the breadwinner.
Helen Smith notes that the representatives of the strong and fair sex, by their very nature, experience the world in different ways: boys are active and competitive, girls prefer peaceful discussion and cooperation. Boys play war, girls play mother-daughters. The old, male-friendly competitive learning model is being replaced in favor of a methodology that focuses less on competition between students and more in line with girls' inclinations—discussion and collaboration. Is it any wonder that male adolescents are showing a growing indifference to learning?
Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 (to the Civil Rights Act of 1964) dealt another blow to "patriarchal" traditions, which required institutions of higher learning to ensure equal distribution of allocations for men's and women's athletic programs. This measure led to an even sharper drop in the popularity of higher education among men. Proponents of Section IX did not take into account (or did not want to take into account) that young men gravitate towards sports to a much stronger extent than girls.
The equalization of women's sports in rights with men's also significantly undermined the financial base of higher educational institutions. Fair or not, most university graduates cherish the memory of their native university primarily due to the success of its sports teams (men's, of course), and the lion's share of donations to universities from their former students is intended for sports purposes. Accordingly, the lower the sports rating of the university, the less interest its graduates experience in their alma mater, and the less generous they are with donations.
But this is not the only or even the main reason for the decline in the popularity of higher education among men. The whole atmosphere on campuses is rapidly becoming feminized, the university is becoming an alien territory for men, where they are increasingly treated as natural born scoundrels, whose vicious nature pushes them to aggression and acts of violence. Universities and colleges, writes Helen Smith, have "become the privileged institutions of noble maidens." However, instead of being taught fine manners, female students are taught that men are the enemy, and exactly how they are treated on campus.
The book details campus sexual harassment and harassment regulations that tend to lead to false libel and guilty verdicts in show trials in which, like Through the Looking Glass, the verdict precedes and determines the trial.
In such processes, the elementary norms of democracy are blatantly violated. Instead of a presumption of innocence, in which the doubt is interpreted in favor of the accused, in cases of sexual harassment, the standard of proof is only the “preponderance of the evidence”. In other words, in order to reach a guilty verdict, the court only needs to agree that the accused is "more likely to be guilty than innocent", i.e. 50.1% guilty.
All generally accepted norms and procedures for collecting and presenting evidence are ignored, any most ridiculous rumor is accepted as irrefutable evidence of guilt. In a word, the wings and Vyshinskys have nothing to teach their American followers in skirts. It should be added that the Obama administration and the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education strongly encourage this practice of the feminist inquisition. So, is it any wonder that so many potential students see no point in higher education (not to mention its poor quality and the huge financial burden associated with obtaining it)?
Perhaps the most intriguing evidence of the decline in the social prestige of men, Helen Smith found, is the narrowing of the "male space", as she calls it, referring to the opportunities for men to spend time in male company.
In the old days, almost everywhere, men communicated with women in fact only within the four walls of their homes, and even then they sought to limit this communication as much as possible, preferring the company of their own kind. At work, the men only dealt with each other; having come home and hastily swallowed dinner, they overwhelmingly dispersed to taverns and other drinking and gaming establishments, while the cleaner public went to clubs.
But now, at work, men, whether they want it or not, are forced to deal with women, and all-male clubs were effectively outlawed by a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision empowering state and city governments to ban sex discrimination by private business clubs. orientation. Surprisingly, for some reason this decision did not apply to purely women's clubs - not that men were so eager to join such institutions.
As a result, the law and social norms in certain circles prevent all attempts to create purely male organizations. Helen Smith delivers a merciless verdict on this practice, leading to the growing isolation of men: “When a husband isolates his wife from her girlfriends and acquaintances, when she is forbidden to go to public places, this is qualified by law as domestic violence. But when such an attitude is practiced in relation to the entire male sex, it is called feminism.
Helen Smith argues that "Men Strike" is not an academic monograph, but a study designed to encourage society to think and try to rectify the situation. Based on hundreds of interviews and thousands of emails and blogs, the book was designed to take the pulse of the country's male population and contribute to the emerging "men's movement."
As a result, the data she collected can be considered a fairly accurate reflection of the mindset of American men and a reliable picture of the social, legal and cultural obstacles erected by the feminist movement in the path of the once strong sex, and the pitiful state of affairs that is becoming more and more obvious every day. And most importantly, her book clearly and clearly explains where the "real men" went and how it happened.
The US Treasury Department has refused to issue an export certificate for the sale of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircraft to Iran. More than 10% of the details of the Russian liner are produced in America, which makes it necessary to approve the transaction by the US Treasury, RIA Novosti reports with reference to the Israeli portal iHLS.
A comment:
Here is the final product of the liberal nonsense on the topic - “We will sell oil and gas, and we will buy everything else!”. To live and make plans for the future, counting on the kindness of the most ferocious predators in world history - the Anglo-Saxons, instead of developing their own high-tech industry, what could be more ridiculous and absurd for such a powerful country as Russia?
Well, a good lesson for the future! Now let Kudrin and Pozner tell the Russians how wonderful and profitable it is to have such a “reliable partner” as the West. If there are still such suckers who are ready to continue to take this noodles on their ears.
But here's what's even more interesting! Almost the entire Western aviation industry is based on Russian titanium. And as soon as Russia responds symmetrically to this American ban, that is, to ban the supply of American Boeings to some countries that are not very friendly to Moscow, the US aviation industry will simply collapse. Perhaps this is the time?
This terrible horror is called "demobilization form of motorized riflemen" and sold to order in the online store.
It is clear, of course, that for other poorly educated and uncultured military personnel, at all times, their hands itched to turn a military uniform into a kind of clown circus outfit embroidered with sequins and braids, so that the girls in their native village would immediately fall off their feet.
But this has always been the handicraft activity of individual individuals suffering from the most hardened bad taste.
But to such insanity that such a frank mockery of a military uniform - a symbol of the state and its army, which in any self-respecting country is supposed to be treated with maximum respect, is openly and legally offered as a variant of military attire, perhaps nowhere else and never reached .
According to TV presenter Vladimir Pozner, Russia is now standing still because it is led by people from the Soviet Union with a certain mentality. It is he who prevents them from governing the country in the conditions of modern reality: they simply do not know how to do it.
This is the main problem of Russia today, Posner is sure. “Until there is a change of generations, until those come who don’t know what the Soviet Union is at all, who haven’t experienced it, who look at life in a completely different way, nothing will change,” he wrote.
A comment:
So, according to Posner, Russia's main problem is that we, the older generation, are not dead yet.
Weird!
Maybe we need to somehow speed up this progressive process? And start with the author of this idea?
That's why, tell me, if you are a liberal, then you must first die someone? And, preferably, on a massive scale. Maybe it is worth looking for other, less deadly, recipes for solving social problems? And even then, depending on what! And then after all, for some, everything that is not Maidan, then stagnation.
Excellent response from the Russian embassy in London to the British government. This is the only way to talk to these scoundrels:
The Russian Embassy in the UK, commenting on the words of the head of the United Kingdom Foreign Office, Jeremy Hunt that Moscow allegedly threatens the “rules-based world order”, said that the world order is based on international law, and not on rules that no one signed up to.
“The international order is based on international law – legally binding rules agreed upon and accepted by all states. By replacing the concept of "international law" with some "rules", London and other Western countries seek to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own numerous violations of legal norms and at the same time get the opportunity to arbitrarily accuse other countries of violating "rules" to which they did not subscribe.
It’s really not for nothing that they are called “small Britons”! Down to a vulgar scam! They were afraid to accuse the Russian Federation of violating international law, because they do not have and cannot have any facts on this score. Instead, they howl about some kind of “rules” that they themselves composed. Gottstrafe England!
US military says Russia will have to 'make a choice' in Syria
US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw American troops from Syria is an extremely logical and at the same time subtle move that is sure to drive a wedge between Russia, Syria, Turkey and Iran. This opinion was expressed by retired US Army Colonel Douglas McGregor on Fox News.
A comment:
Only a complete idiot, or a very cunning troll, could say something like that. But since a retired American colonel does not have to be an idiot, it is quite possible that he is indeed a tricky troll who quite appropriately poked America into believing that without her, everyone in the Middle East would definitely fight. Aha, now!
However, I like both options equally.
NATO Secretary General announced Russia's "last chance" to implement the INF Treaty. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called the last chance for Russia the opportunity to "return to the implementation" of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) before February.
Instead of a comment:
Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz said that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project neutralizes the effect of anti-Russian sanctions and “kills” Ukraine.
Speech turns, or phraseological units, are wise and concise, this is not only an inexhaustible source of life experience and folk wisdom of our ancestors, but also an opportunity to get inspiration or advice, and sometimes this is an occasion to think about your own life. In our publication, we will consider the meaning and meaning of one of the many set expressions that we often and with great pleasure use in everyday speech. In addition, we will analyze those situations that are associated with the expression "what I fought for - I ran into that." So let's get started.
You are an active, purposeful and enterprising person, any work is argued in your hands, the results of your work completely satisfy you, but you always want something more; The "rationalization proposal" you made at the meeting is about to bring its long-awaited fruit. Sometimes in life not everything depends on us, whether to accept this fact or not is your business, but something, let's say, went wrong. And what to do next?
In this way, we came close to the expression “what you fought for - you ran into”, the meaning of which boils down to the following: the result of efforts or actions is directly proportional to the goal achieved, that is, in other words, we can say that you did not get what you expected, moreover, the result brought you tangible inconvenience.
In addition, we note expressions that are close in meaning, for example, “you can’t jump over your head”, “the best is the enemy of the good”.
There are, say, millionaires and oligarchs who are well aware of what it means "what you fought for - that's what you ran into." And they, as responsible and loving parents, do what? Yes, that's right, they disinherit their children! Material inheritance, but the spiritual and eternal that was invested by them in their own children is unshakable. Bill Gates, Jim Simmons, John Arnold, Michael Bloomberg, Gina Reinhard - all these people, whose fortunes have so many zeros that it's simply breathtaking, have come to the general idea that bequeathing their such solid fortunes to their own children would be the wrong thing to do, since big money can spoil even the best person. Moreover, they believe that this act will be the strongest motivation to achieve their own goals. Bill Gates said in an interview that money would not be good for his children and for the whole society. As Vladimir Vysotsky sang: “The giraffe is big - he knows better!” So in this case, the expression “what I fought for - I ran into that” for people of this level is not an empty phrase. Yes, of course, money solves material issues, but I would like to recall once again the expression we mentioned earlier that "the best is the enemy of the good."
So, “what they fought for - they ran into it” is an expression that is like an indicator, that is, it is able to measure those deviations that are designated by society as the norm.
In conclusion, summing up what has been said, it can be noted that the phrase “for what they fought for, they ran into” is best suited as a reminder to the present and subsequent generations about the painful, bitter, instructive history of a country that once occupied one sixth of the planet and which no longer exists. Yes, we are talking about the Soviet Union, where, based on only the best intentions of the political leaders of that time, a revolution was made. The result of this revolution, which turned the life and fate of the whole country upside down, was not justified, moreover, something irreparable happened for millions of Russian people of that difficult historical period - they lost their homeland.
