Islam Is Right About Women

[Ors Might]

so you're saying its part larper, part loser, all stupid. Sounds like the internet in a nutshell.

Pol is like the ultimate embodiment of the modern internet. It's like how some people will say trump doesn't represent america. I disagree. Trump is the ultimate representation of modern america. He's stupid, he acts entitled, he spends too much time on Twitter bitching and complaining and he pushed racism toward certain groups of people. Joe Biden couldn't possibly represent america more than Trump.

/pol/ is an eldritch location that acts as the beating heart of the beast known as the internet. Just the act of going there can cause irl sanity loss.

[Sundiata]

Interesting.

Being a Catholic, I hold a certain reverence for women, especially mothers. When men and women join together, it's a form of experiencing who God is.

Womanhood is variable but powerful, women should have the means to do God's will on Earth. My favorite woman...

Mother Mary.

[Ostroeuropa]

Women have a high in group bias and are attracted to sexism, they also perceive equal treatment as an attack on them. You're starting from the assumption that their approval is a good thing rather than their values and opinions being unhealthy and negative. If I changed it to; "If you're repulsing sexists, you're doing something right" you'd get it. Guess what, if you draw a venn diagram...

You're not being a jackass for standing up for yourself and your principles. You have espoused a gynocentrist viewpoint that assumes that womens views are justified by default and assumed that their opinions are valid so you should have to adjust yourself for their approval.



You ofcourse wont take note of your gynocentric impulses here naturally. Why do you start from the assumption that womens viewpoint is the valid one?

We won't get equality until men like you get over that silly shit. Imagine a civil rights movement that was obsessively concerned with validating the perspective of white America as the baseline which we had to live up to instead of going "Actually your perspective is the problem in the first place and if you hate what we're doing and despise us for the way we're confronting it, we're doing something right.".

and yet I notice most of the incels are incels. I thought by this logic they should all be crawling in women, yet they're still treated like the disgusting dog shit they are. And will you stop using that meaningless made up word for the millionth time? Gynocentric is as pointless as zhanghism. You keep using some stupid word to criticize men for (let me get this straight) not acting like sex predators? I'm sorry can someone remind me when the world ended, because this is some straight up dystopian shit, trying to justify behavior like that. Here's a little secret so come close. If you treat a woman like shit and try to be overly dominant, she will leave you...unless of course you lock her in the basement and won't let her out. Many men have tried what you suggest and you know what happens ostro? They either get arrested, get their ass kicked by someone or gain the worst women possible and end up miserable. The fact incels are incels is proof that your ideas about women don't work. They haven't been working. Yet you keep fantasizing about women wanting to be beat, spit on and told they aren't worth a penny. I think it's hilarious that I literally live in one of the worst parts of the country, and yet half or more of the women here still don't behave like you claim. Speaks volumes about your values

The problem is that you can't conceive of any options other than feminism or being a sex predator, because your worldview has closed you off to other possibilities. The studies are perfectly clear mate and no amount of denial and lashing out at other people and calling them sex predators is going to change that, it merely means you cannot comprehend ideas that feminism has not prepared you to comprehend.

Gynocentrism isn't a made up word either dude and I laid out a pretty clear example of how you engaged in it, which you didn't address.

You also demonstrate a lack of comprehension between different types of attitudes toward women which the studies directly address, namely that if you treat a woman like an equal, she will interpret that as you being "Overly dominating, hostile" and so on to the same degree as treating her overly dominating and hostile would be seen that way. It's only when you acquiesce and treat her as a superior that she thinks you're treating her equally.

So...

You don't understand what either I or the studies I linked are discussing, and don't understand that i'm not discussing domineering attitudes to women. The reason you don't understand them is that feminist ideology has left you ill equipped to do so, and you cannot conceive of anything but a straight line with feminism on one end and domineering patriarchs on the other.

You think i'm suggesting something i'm not as a consequence of your limited worldview. It's like if I'm suggesting maybe we don't be anarcho capitalists and you are literally not able to think of any alternative except stalinist gulags.

The studies are clear. A certain sexist attitude to women is the most beneficial if you're looking for their sexual approval. This includes feminist women. That doesn't mean the sexist attitude you think i'm talking about, and the study is explicit on that as a seperate type of sexist attitude.

I also note that this is only true if your goal is to get in womens pants. If your goal is to do what's right, you should instead treat them like equals and consider what that means, but this will be as repulsive to them as this attitude you are pretending I am espousing because they cannot tell the difference.

That's due to their in group bias and the old "When you're used to privilege equality feels like oppression" problem. You have then internalized this dysfunction of theirs through feminist ideology and are displaying it here.

It's all in the studies. Why not address them?

You're claiming I am espousing something i'm not dude and it was explicitly covered in the study. Did you read it, or did you just not understand it? Because those are your only options here.

[Deamonopolis]

Pol is like the ultimate embodiment of the modern internet. It's like how some people will say trump doesn't represent america. I disagree. Trump is the ultimate representation of modern america. He's stupid, he acts entitled, he spends too much time on Twitter bitching and complaining and he pushed racism toward certain groups of people. Joe Biden couldn't possibly represent america more than Trump.

/pol/ is an eldritch location that acts as the beating heart of the beast known as the internet. Just the act of going there can cause irl sanity loss.

Lovecraft warned us, and we did not listen. Woe onto us, fools!

[Fahran]

Continuing to make advances when someone tells you off means you're desperate and you're a damn creep. No means no, whether it's sex or just even talking to someone. And we all know btw that when many of the most extreme elements of the MRA say no doesn't always mean no, they are often clearly referring to sex. These pick up artist are weirdos

I often imagine what it must be like to wake up as a pick-up artist. Then I realize Franz Kafka already wrote a book about that.

Witty.

[Gormwood]

Continuing to make advances when someone tells you off means you're desperate and you're a damn creep. No means no, whether it's sex or just even talking to someone. And we all know btw that when many of the most extreme elements of the MRA say no doesn't always mean no, they are often clearly referring to sex. These pick up artist are weirdos

I often imagine what it must be like to wake up as a pick-up artist. Then I realize Franz Kafka already wrote a book about that.

Wrong.

Cockroaches actually reproduce.

[Cekoviu]

I often imagine what it must be like to wake up as a pick-up artist. Then I realize Franz Kafka already wrote a book about that.

Wrong.

Cockroaches actually reproduce.

Well, in some species, the males reproduce exactly as much as PUAs (e.g. the parthenogenetic Pycnoscelus surinamensis).

[Fahran]

The problem is that you can't conceive of any options other than feminism or being a sex predator, because your worldview has closed you off to other possibilities. The studies are perfectly clear mate and no amount of denial and lashing out at other people and calling them sex predators is going to change that, it merely means you cannot comprehend ideas that feminism has not prepared you to comprehend.

When your argument boils down to "women like sexist men" and "men shouldn't have to stop pursuing a woman just because she said no", which is the original argument a literal white nationalist and misogynist made and which you are now defending, the choice doesn't boil down to the options of being a feminist and being a sexual predator. It boils down to making apologias to sexual predators, especially when coupled with the other arguments you've made in the past, or being a decent human being. You don't have to be a feminist to think that "women want to be treated like garbage" or "women want you to ignore them when they tell you no" is a bad perspective to adopt. You're pulling out the nuance you attempted to inject into the conversation earlier.

Gynocentrism isn't a made up word either dude and I laid out a pretty clear example of how you engaged in it, which you didn't address.

Society on the whole is hardly gynocentric. The average man within the context of society is no more oppressed than the average woman, especially after he hits thirty and if he remains in a stable, healthy relationship. There are institutions and mores that favor women, just as there are institutions and mores that favor men, but the assertion that man on the whole constitute some sort of oppressed class is quite divorced from reality. We do need to contemplate changing some things, but not because gynocentrism is a real thing with pervasive influence on society.

You also demonstrate a lack of comprehension between different types of attitudes toward women which the studies directly address, namely that if you treat a woman like an equal, she will interpret that as you being "Overly dominating, hostile" and so on to the same degree as treating her overly dominating and hostile would be seen that way. It's only when you acquiesce and treat her as a superior that she thinks you're treating her equally.

I happen to believe in chivalry to some extent, and in paying it back through considerate gestures of my own - such as cooking meals, baking food, or offering small gifts. When you're pursuing someone romantically, it's a bit of a balancing act. A lot of the MRA types I've talked to, for instance, seemingly refuse to do anything thoughtful for women they find interesting or attractive. That's not as attractive as a guy sending me flowers and being sweet in other ways. Sorry. But that's not really the scenario we were discussing. If I tell a guy I'm not interested and he continues bothering me anyway, I'm not going to be happy or feel comfortable. So I'm asking guys not to assume the default position that it's okay to just disregard women telling you no.

You don't understand what either I or the studies I linked are discussing, and don't understand that i'm not discussing domineering attitudes to women. The reason you don't understand them is that feminist ideology has left you ill equipped to do so, and you cannot conceive of anything but a straight line with feminism on one end and domineering patriarchs on the other.

You're conflating the results of a study with something the study wasn't attempting to elucidate - while defending an actual misogynist and racist.

You think i'm suggesting something i'm not as a consequence of your limited worldview. It's like if I'm suggesting maybe we don't be anarcho capitalists and you are literally not able to think of any alternative except stalinist gulags.

RFS isn't a radical feminist. He's just not on board with harassing women. I know plenty of boys back home who believe a woman should stay in the home and raise babies while holding the exact same attitude about not messing with women who tell you know. They're definitely not feminists either.

The studies are clear. A certain sexist attitude to women is the most beneficial if you're looking for their sexual approval. This includes feminist women. That doesn't mean the sexist attitude you think i'm talking about, and the study is explicit on that as a seperate type of sexist attitude.

That's because you're conflating two separate issues and two separates types of sexism, namely the domineering sort and the more conventiona benevolent sort. And there could be antecedent and intermediate variables that explain women's reactions as well, namely that confidence, assertiveness, ambition, drive, manners, etc. are all attractive qualities and that those often align with the attitudes your studies reference.

I also note that this is only true if your goal is to get in womens pants. If your goal is to do what's right, you should instead treat them like equals and consider what that means, but this will be as repulsive to them as this attitude you are pretending I am espousing because they cannot tell the difference.

Shall I pull some studies to generalize about the negative qualities of men?

That's due to their in group bias and the old "When you're used to privilege equality feels like oppression" problem. You have then internalized this dysfunction of theirs through feminist ideology and are displaying it here.

You do realize that women were effectively confined to particular roles and limited in the exercise of many of the rights you enjoy up until the 1960's, right?

You're claiming I am espousing something i'm not dude and it was explicitly covered in the study. Did you read it, or did you just not understand it? Because those are your only options here.

Then maybe stop defending a misogynist and racist, and trying to explain how his remarks about women wanting to be dominated are acceptable.

[Rojava Free State]

and yet I notice most of the incels are incels. I thought by this logic they should all be crawling in women, yet they're still treated like the disgusting dog shit they are. And will you stop using that meaningless made up word for the millionth time? Gynocentric is as pointless as zhanghism. You keep using some stupid word to criticize men for (let me get this straight) not acting like sex predators? I'm sorry can someone remind me when the world ended, because this is some straight up dystopian shit, trying to justify behavior like that. Here's a little secret so come close. If you treat a woman like shit and try to be overly dominant, she will leave you...unless of course you lock her in the basement and won't let her out. Many men have tried what you suggest and you know what happens ostro? They either get arrested, get their ass kicked by someone or gain the worst women possible and end up miserable. The fact incels are incels is proof that your ideas about women don't work. They haven't been working. Yet you keep fantasizing about women wanting to be beat, spit on and told they aren't worth a penny. I think it's hilarious that I literally live in one of the worst parts of the country, and yet half or more of the women here still don't behave like you claim. Speaks volumes about your values

The problem is that you can't conceive of any options other than feminism or being a sex predator, because your worldview has closed you off to other possibilities. The studies are perfectly clear mate and no amount of denial and lashing out at other people and calling them sex predators is going to change that, it merely means you cannot comprehend ideas that feminism has not prepared you to comprehend.

Gynocentrism isn't a made up word either dude and I laid out a pretty clear example of how you engaged in it, which you didn't address.

You also demonstrate a lack of comprehension between different types of attitudes toward women which the studies directly address, namely that if you treat a woman like an equal, she will interpret that as you being "Overly dominating, hostile" and so on to the same degree as treating her overly dominating and hostile would be seen that way. It's only when you acquiesce and treat her as a superior that she thinks you're treating her equally.

So...

You don't understand what either I or the studies I linked are discussing, and don't understand that i'm not discussing domineering attitudes to women. The reason you don't understand them is that feminist ideology has left you ill equipped to do so, and you cannot conceive of anything but a straight line with feminism on one end and domineering patriarchs on the other.

You think i'm suggesting something i'm not as a consequence of your limited worldview. It's like if I'm suggesting maybe we don't be anarcho capitalists and you are literally not able to think of any alternative except stalinist gulags.

The studies are clear. A certain sexist attitude to women is the most beneficial if you're looking for their sexual approval. This includes feminist women. That doesn't mean the sexist attitude you think i'm talking about, and the study is explicit on that as a seperate type of sexist attitude.

I also note that this is only true if your goal is to get in womens pants. If your goal is to do what's right, you should instead treat them like equals and consider what that means, but this will be as repulsive to them as this attitude you are pretending I am espousing because they cannot tell the difference.

That's due to their in group bias and the old "When you're used to privilege equality feels like oppression" problem. You have then internalized this dysfunction of theirs through feminist ideology and are displaying it here.

It's all in the studies. Why not address them?

You're claiming I am espousing something i'm not dude and it was explicitly covered in the study. Did you read it, or did you just not understand it? Because those are your only options here.

Lmfao I didn't know women were turned off by a man saying "women should be treated like everyone else is and shouldn't be victims of Eliot Roger style violence or domestic abuse or rape." Last time I checked 99% of women don't wanna be with a man who disagrees with those sentiments (not making life a living hell). But please, tell me again how I'm wrong and how women actually want to be sexually harassed by a creep. Argue with an actual woman (farhan) about what women are like.

[Gormwood]

The problem is that you can't conceive of any options other than feminism or being a sex predator, because your worldview has closed you off to other possibilities. The studies are perfectly clear mate and no amount of denial and lashing out at other people and calling them sex predators is going to change that, it merely means you cannot comprehend ideas that feminism has not prepared you to comprehend.

Gynocentrism isn't a made up word either dude and I laid out a pretty clear example of how you engaged in it, which you didn't address.

You also demonstrate a lack of comprehension between different types of attitudes toward women which the studies directly address, namely that if you treat a woman like an equal, she will interpret that as you being "Overly dominating, hostile" and so on to the same degree as treating her overly dominating and hostile would be seen that way. It's only when you acquiesce and treat her as a superior that she thinks you're treating her equally.

So...

You don't understand what either I or the studies I linked are discussing, and don't understand that i'm not discussing domineering attitudes to women. The reason you don't understand them is that feminist ideology has left you ill equipped to do so, and you cannot conceive of anything but a straight line with feminism on one end and domineering patriarchs on the other.

You think i'm suggesting something i'm not as a consequence of your limited worldview. It's like if I'm suggesting maybe we don't be anarcho capitalists and you are literally not able to think of any alternative except stalinist gulags.

The studies are clear. A certain sexist attitude to women is the most beneficial if you're looking for their sexual approval. This includes feminist women. That doesn't mean the sexist attitude you think i'm talking about, and the study is explicit on that as a seperate type of sexist attitude.

I also note that this is only true if your goal is to get in womens pants. If your goal is to do what's right, you should instead treat them like equals and consider what that means, but this will be as repulsive to them as this attitude you are pretending I am espousing because they cannot tell the difference.

That's due to their in group bias and the old "When you're used to privilege equality feels like oppression" problem. You have then internalized this dysfunction of theirs through feminist ideology and are displaying it here.

It's all in the studies. Why not address them?

You're claiming I am espousing something i'm not dude and it was explicitly covered in the study. Did you read it, or did you just not understand it? Because those are your only options here.

Lmfao I didn't know women were turned off by a man saying "women should be treated like everyone else is and shouldn't be victims of Eliot Roger style violence or domestic abuse or rape." Last time I checked 99% of women don't wanna be with a man who disagrees with those sentiments (not making life a living hell). But please, tell me again how I'm wrong and how women actually want to be sexually harassed by a creep. Argue with an actual woman (farhan) about what women are like.

In his mind women just want to castrate and oppress men.

[Fahran]

In his mind women just want to castrate and oppress men.

I think his exact quote was "women don't understand themselves."

By the way, this really belongs in the Feminist Thread, y'all.

[Ostroeuropa]

When your argument boils down to "women like sexist men" and "men shouldn't have to stop pursuing a woman just because she said no", which is the original argument a literal white nationalist and misogynist made and which you are now defending, the choice doesn't boil down to the options of being a feminist and being a sexual predator. It boils down to making apologias to sexual predators, especially when coupled with the other arguments you've made in the past, or being a decent human being. You don't have to be a feminist to think that "women want to be treated like garbage" or "women want you to ignore them when they tell you no" is a bad perspective to adopt. You're pulling out the nuance you attempted to inject into the conversation earlier.

I never claimed women want to be treated like garbage, nor that women want you to ignore them when they tell you no. I claimed women prefer sexist treatment to non-sexist treatment and that this includes feminists, and that no does not always mean no within the context of courting and need not necessarily be the end of the matter if you know what you are doing in terms of flirtation.

Society on the whole is hardly gynocentric. The average man within the context of society is no more oppressed than the average woman, especially after he hits thirty and if he remains in a stable, healthy relationship. There are institutions and mores that favor women, just as there are institutions and mores that favor men, but the assertion that man on the whole constitute some sort of oppressed class is quite divorced from reality. We do need to contemplate changing some things, but not because gynocentrism is a real thing with pervasive influence on society.

Firstly that's a separate matter from gynocentrism being a made up buzz word.
Secondly, we disagree with eachother quite strongly on this point. The average man in society is worse off than the average woman along a key string of issues and experiences, and we can simply point to in-group biases along with studies on who is deserving of aid in situations where they require it and who isn't for evidence of gynocentrism. The assertion men constitute an oppressed class is divorced from feminist perceptions of society, but not from reality. Gynocentrism describes particular trends of treating women and their experiences as the default against which other things are measured, along with other issues. It is clearly a real thing, and has a pervasive influence in society, and studies show that quite conclusively.

I happen to believe in chivalry to some extent, and in paying it back through considerate gestures of my own - such as cooking meals, baking food, or offering small gifts.

Good for you. I don't object to this.

When you're pursuing someone romantically, it's a bit of a balancing act.

Agreed.

A lot of the MRA types I've talked to, for instance, seemingly refuse to do anything thoughtful for women they find interesting or attractive.

Usually there's no reciprocation is why, that's one of the issues with the one sidedness feminism has caused for society.

That's not as attractive as a guy sending me flowers and being sweet in other ways. Sorry.

It may well not be, but that's partially the point. If you want something you should do something in return, and there's a lot to be said about men being forced to make the initial investment of that time and resources being unfair. I would wager MRAs would be more ammenable to reciprocation rather than initiation.

But that's not really the scenario we were discussing. If I tell a guy I'm not interested and he continues bothering me anyway, I'm not going to be happy or feel comfortable. So I'm asking guys not to assume the default position that it's okay to just disregard women telling you no.

I did not claim they should disregard women telling them no.

You're conflating the results of a study with something the study wasn't attempting to elucidate - while defending an actual misogynist and racist.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out in response to some feminist guy coming in here telling people that disliking feminists will make you repulsive to women is contrary to facts, especially when they then go on to claim treating them like equals is attractive. Quite the opposite. As the study notes, women will perceive being treated equally and treating them like they are your property as the same treatment, which says practically everything you need to know about their mental state and the validity of their contribution to this discussion on what constitutes equality.

RFS isn't a radical feminist. He's just not on board with harassing women. I know plenty of boys back home who believe a woman should stay in the home and raise babies while holding the exact same attitude about not messing with women who tell you know. They're definitely not feminists either.

You don't need to touch them and indeed shouldn't before receiving a sufficient amount of evidence their mind has changed.

That's because you're conflating two separate issues and two separates types of sexism, namely the domineering sort and the more conventiona benevolent sort.

I'm not conflating them. I'm explicitly rejecting that conflation.

And there could be antecedent and intermediate variables that explain women's reactions as well, namely that confidence, assertiveness, ambition, drive, manners, etc. are all attractive qualities and that those often align with the attitudes your studies reference.

Confidence, assertiveness, ambition, drive and so on are also present in having self-respect and not treating women like superiors, so these rationalizations to excuse womens attitudes aren't really any good.

Shall I pull some studies to generalize about the negative qualities of men?

If you can find a study on mens internal attitudes and perspectives that casts them in a negative light i'd be happy to discuss it with you.

You do realize that women were effectively confined to particular roles and limited in the exercise of many of the rights you enjoy up until the 1960's, right?

You do realize that men are effectively confined to particular roles and limited in the exercise of many of the rights you enjoy in the present day, right? And that this was also true when it was true for women, but remains true for men while being far less true for women in the modern day? In spite of your desperation to pretend men and women are equally oppressed in the current dynamic so you don't have to admit feminism was a supremacy movement?

How fortuitous for you all that men and womens burdens equalized at precisely the moment you were finally forced to admit misandry was real after all and that mens burdens should be counted as real. I note you held this position a few years ago too, tell me. Has the progress for men and women been at equal pace since then as well?

Or is this, as I suspect, some axiomatic belief of yours you cling to to avoid facing the truth?

If they're equal now, will they be equal tomorrow too? in a year? Even if the pace of progress remains so one sided? That's curious. It's almost like what happens in the real world has no impact on your evaluation.

It's laughable frankly, that you claim i'm the one divorced from reality. It stems from your feminine identity and a refusal to see yourselves as domineering over men, a borderline inability to do so, which makes it that much harder to stop you behaving that way when you do it because of the lack of self-awareness it causes about your behavior and the dynamic being imposed. Femininity has serious flaws, same as masculinity does. Men will always be at worst oppressors and at best no worse off than women are, no matter the circumstances, because you convince yourselves that is the case since your very conception of yourselves is at stake. To admit to yourselves what you have done is to stop being women in many respects, since it would mean you have become a major source of societal injustice and oppression of men, and those things are completely at odds with the conception of what being a woman means for most of you.

So you make up excuses and rationalize reasons why favorable treatment isn't really favorable treatment and impose them, most often against the will of men, in order to avoid confronting the fact that your "Equality" is female supremacy, and you avoid confronting that fact about yourselves because it would shatter your self-image. No amount of pointing this out seems to break through.

We're only ever oppressors, or in equal status to women. We're equal today, and we'll be equal tomorrow when yet more gynocentric garbage is forced through without any progress on mens issues. Because that's the ceiling on your willingness to comprehend reality and confront what you are. We can show you the studies, but then the rationalizations start.

If I showed you a study saying a certain group of people view 2+2 as 5 and are not able to do otherwise, would you make them mathematicians?

Or would that depend on how good they are at sophistry and excuse making too?

It's like if a man refuses to accept that they like flowers, because that's a woman thing.

Womens refusal to accept they are being oppressors and a source of widespread injustice against men is sourced in their belief that that is mens role, which feminism convinced them of.

If men like flowers then what does being a man even really mean anymore? So it goes for women and this trend you are displaying here.

Then maybe stop defending a misogynist and racist, and trying to explain how his remarks about women wanting to be dominated are acceptable.

I didn't defend his comments so much as criticize the rebuttals as inaccurate.

[Ostroeuropa]

In his mind women just want to castrate and oppress men.

I think his exact quote was "women don't understand themselves."

By the way, this really belongs in the Feminist Thread, y'all.

I have studies to prove it, so...

The problem is that you can't conceive of any options other than feminism or being a sex predator, because your worldview has closed you off to other possibilities. The studies are perfectly clear mate and no amount of denial and lashing out at other people and calling them sex predators is going to change that, it merely means you cannot comprehend ideas that feminism has not prepared you to comprehend.

Gynocentrism isn't a made up word either dude and I laid out a pretty clear example of how you engaged in it, which you didn't address.

You also demonstrate a lack of comprehension between different types of attitudes toward women which the studies directly address, namely that if you treat a woman like an equal, she will interpret that as you being "Overly dominating, hostile" and so on to the same degree as treating her overly dominating and hostile would be seen that way. It's only when you acquiesce and treat her as a superior that she thinks you're treating her equally.

So...

You don't understand what either I or the studies I linked are discussing, and don't understand that i'm not discussing domineering attitudes to women. The reason you don't understand them is that feminist ideology has left you ill equipped to do so, and you cannot conceive of anything but a straight line with feminism on one end and domineering patriarchs on the other.

You think i'm suggesting something i'm not as a consequence of your limited worldview. It's like if I'm suggesting maybe we don't be anarcho capitalists and you are literally not able to think of any alternative except stalinist gulags.

The studies are clear. A certain sexist attitude to women is the most beneficial if you're looking for their sexual approval. This includes feminist women. That doesn't mean the sexist attitude you think i'm talking about, and the study is explicit on that as a seperate type of sexist attitude.

I also note that this is only true if your goal is to get in womens pants. If your goal is to do what's right, you should instead treat them like equals and consider what that means, but this will be as repulsive to them as this attitude you are pretending I am espousing because they cannot tell the difference.

That's due to their in group bias and the old "When you're used to privilege equality feels like oppression" problem. You have then internalized this dysfunction of theirs through feminist ideology and are displaying it here.

It's all in the studies. Why not address them?

You're claiming I am espousing something i'm not dude and it was explicitly covered in the study. Did you read it, or did you just not understand it? Because those are your only options here.

Lmfao I didn't know women were turned off by a man saying "women should be treated like everyone else is and shouldn't be victims of Eliot Roger style violence or domestic abuse or rape." Last time I checked 99% of women don't wanna be with a man who disagrees with those sentiments (not making life a living hell). But please, tell me again how I'm wrong and how women actually want to be sexually harassed by a creep. Argue with an actual woman (farhan) about what women are like.

A man saying that? Dependent on context it's probably fine, though feminists often underestimate just how badly their shibboleths alienate people, as a general rule if someone thinks you might be one, your chances decrease.

Once again you failed to understand the complexities of sexism and default to the most hostile versions of it, despite me pointing out to you this isn't the type of sexism i'm discussing.

As an example, the draft.

TYPE ONE
Women are too shit to be in the army

TYPE TWO
Men are expendable and should lay down their lives to protect women, who are more important.

The presentation and style of the sexism changes its character and are rooted in different attitudes. On an interpersonal level, the former is what you are railing against and suggesting i'm implying is beneficial to adopt when sleeping with women. Not so. I explicitly pointed out to you the study says;

Women think that when you treat them equally, you are a type one sexist, because they can't tell the difference.
But they think type two sexism is attractive and fair treatment.

There are ofcourse outliers to all of this and It annoys me to put this disclaimer here, but you know.

To women, the absence of treatment in their favor at the expense of men is viewed as identical to hostile treatment against women. That's what the evidence shows.

[Fahran]

I never claimed women want to be treated like garbage, nor that women want you to ignore them when they tell you no. I claimed women prefer sexist treatment to non-sexist treatment and that this includes feminists, and that no does not always mean no within the context of courting and need not necessarily be the end of the matter if you know what you are doing in terms of flirtation.

Yes, but the individual who posted initially and whose arguments warranted the rebuttals specifically came into the conversation expressing attitudes that amounted to an apologia for sexual harassment and, in my view, a dismissive tendency towards the agency and boundaries of women. I'm well aware that you disagree with his particular opinions, but my rebuttal was aimed at his opinions and, in my view, my rebuttal was an adequate explanation for why you should respect the boundaries of women. We can discuss courtship at greater length somewhere else perhaps, but, again, my specific goal here was advocating for respecting the boundaries of women and not assuming that we're all manipulative.

Firstly that's a separate matter from gynocentrism being a made up buzz word.

I consider it about as, if not slightly more, legitimate as/than manspreading or HIStory to be honest though I don't believe that you ought to apply it more narrowly to the myopia of women and feminist paradigms in addressing gendered issues that impact men. I get your meaning so I see no need to quibble over the use of the word.

Secondly, we disagree with eachother quite strongly on this point. The average man in society is worse off than the average woman along a key string of issues and experiences, and we can simply point to in-group biases along with studies on who is deserving of aid in situations where they require it and who isn't for evidence of gynocentrism. The assertion men constitute an oppressed class is divorced from feminist perceptions of society, but not from reality. Gynocentrism describes particular trends of treating women and their experiences as the default against which other things are measured, along with other issues. It is clearly a real thing, and has a pervasive influence in society, and studies show that quite conclusively.

Up until the 1990's, men were treated as the default in medical studies. Men, on average, still outearn women. Men are still more likely to hold leadership positions in government and in the corporate world. Men are often treated better in STEM fields. Women are more likely than men to be killed as a result of spousal/gendered violence. Women are arguably more likely to be sexually assaulted and are socialized by society to live in a state of constant fear as a result. Married men tend to live longer than their unmarried counterparts while unmarried women tend to live longer than their married counterparts. Men who need help are less likely to receive it, yes, but that's not the average, just as being a CEO or president isn't the average, and it can be neatly explained by the actor-object distinction Gallo mentioned earlier as opposed to society simply valuing women more or treating us better. I think it's more accurate to stated that we're still treated to a substantial degree according to gender norms and that those gender norms have merely shifted somewhat.

Usually there's no reciprocation is why, that's one of the issues with the one sidedness feminism has caused for society.

Women don't want to feel like we're being paid for. If you're dating someone considerate and thoughtful, you'll get out what you put into a relationship. Really, I feel like a lot of those guys over-think it or just have no desire to do those things at all. Some people like relationships like that. I just never have. I want to do sweet things for my partner and I want him to do sweet things for me.

It may well not be, but that's partially the point. If you want something you should do something in return, and there's a lot to be said about men being forced to make the initial investment of that time and resources being unfair. I would wager MRAs would be more ammenable to reciprocation rather than initiation.

Honestly, the MRAs who make the most sense to me are those who are rape survivors and divorced dads. The current courtship practices that dominate in our society emerged beginning in the nineteenth century and, excusing a few bumps amid industrialization and urbanization, have served well enough to ensure the happiness of men on the whole and the continuation of our society up until now. I think a lot of our modern dating problems have to do with a decline in the frequency and quality of social interaction overall more so than intrinsic flaws in the practices. Rejection sucks for both the person getting rejected and the person doing thing rejecting. I feel bad when I see a guy struggling to overcome his shyness and nerves, walking up to me to strike up a conversation and ask me for my number, and then I have to turn him down. You can see the disappointment. It sucks.

I did not claim they should disregard women telling them no.

The other poster heavily implied it and it was his arguments to which I responded.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out in response to some feminist guy coming in here telling people that disliking feminists will make you repulsive to women is contrary to facts, especially when they then go on to claim treating them like equals is attractive. Quite the opposite. As the study notes, women will perceive being treated equally and treating them like they are your property as the same treatment, which says practically everything you need to know about their mental state and the validity of their contribution to this discussion on what constitutes equality.

I don't really view feminism as intrinsically attractive or unattractive until I get a bit more. A lot of guys who call themselves feminists come off as arrogant, domineering, milquetoast, and boring. A lot of guys who hate feminism come off as arrogant, domineering, milquetoast, and boring. I care a lot more about the person as a person.

You don't need to touch them and indeed shouldn't before receiving a sufficient amount of evidence their mind has changed.

You can harass someone without touching them. You can make someone feel uncomfortable without touching them.

I'm not conflating them. I'm explicitly rejecting that conflation.

I sorta missed that.

Confidence, assertiveness, ambition, drive and so on are also present in having self-respect and not treating women like superiors, so these rationalizations to excuse womens attitudes aren't really any good.

I'm not really trying justify women's attitudes. I'm merely explaining them. I just know that I don't want to date a doormat or someone who doesn't know how to respect my boundaries. I think your studies are correct, but I think intermediate variables make the difference and that we could get more illuminating results by controlling for those.

If you can find a study on mens internal attitudes and perspectives that casts them in a negative light i'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Maybe on a different occasion. I'm not that keen to try to paint men in a negative or problematic light in a thread about women and Islam.

You do realize that men are effectively confined to particular roles and limited in the exercise of many of the rights you enjoy in the present day, right? And that this was also true when it was true for women, but remains true for men while being far less true for women in the modern day? In spite of your desperation to pretend men and women are equally oppressed in the current dynamic so you don't have to admit feminism was a supremacy movement?

Because a lot of feminists aren't encouraging female supremacy.

How fortuitous for you all that men and womens burdens equalized at precisely the moment you were finally forced to admit misandry was real after all. I note you held this position a few years ago too, tell me. Has the progress for men and women been at equal pace since then as well?

I mean... my main argument has mostly been that feminism emphasized progress for women while often remaining myopic towards progress for men. I don't believe that women are necessarily equal at the moment either. My argument was more that men tend to dominate the upper echelons of society and that men, likewise, are overrepresented in the bottom rungs of society. I don't think you'd have an easy time refuting that assertion given that it seems to be born out by empirical studies. The actor-object dynamic Gallo mentioned explains why society reacts to these issues through a gendered lens.

Or is this, as I suspect, some axiomatic belief of yours you cling to to avoid facing the truth?

I will face the truth when you provide it. I have never debated or discussed with you in bad faith.

If they're equal now, will they be equal tomorrow too? in a year? Even if the pace of progress remains so one sided? That's curious. It's almost like what happens in the real world has no impact on your evaluation.

I do have some misgivings that the current state of education may well lead to men and boys being underrepresented in the educated classes in the near future and this might lead to a corresponding decline in the average income for men, especially as technological advances eliminate dangerous blue-collar and specialized labor niches. We'll have a number of social problems if that comes to pass. I don't see it as an imminent threat, given that men will likely remain as dominant over the next twenty years as they have been since the 80's and 90's, but it is something we may well have to contend against.

I didn't defend his comments so much as criticize the rebuttals as inaccurate.

The initial rebuttals had nothing to do with misandry or gynocetrism. They had to do with not painting all women as manipulative and respecting our boundaries.

[Totenborg]

When your argument boils down to "women like sexist men" and "men shouldn't have to stop pursuing a woman just because she said no", which is the original argument a literal white nationalist and misogynist made and which you are now defending, the choice doesn't boil down to the options of being a feminist and being a sexual predator. It boils down to making apologias to sexual predators, especially when coupled with the other arguments you've made in the past, or being a decent human being. You don't have to be a feminist to think that "women want to be treated like garbage" or "women want you to ignore them when they tell you no" is a bad perspective to adopt. You're pulling out the nuance you attempted to inject into the conversation earlier.

I never claimed women want to be treated like garbage, nor that women want you to ignore them when they tell you no. I claimed women prefer sexist treatment to non-sexist treatment and that this includes feminists, and that no does not always mean no within the context of courting and need not necessarily be the end of the matter if you know what you are doing in terms of flirtation.

Society on the whole is hardly gynocentric. The average man within the context of society is no more oppressed than the average woman, especially after he hits thirty and if he remains in a stable, healthy relationship. There are institutions and mores that favor women, just as there are institutions and mores that favor men, but the assertion that man on the whole constitute some sort of oppressed class is quite divorced from reality. We do need to contemplate changing some things, but not because gynocentrism is a real thing with pervasive influence on society.

Firstly that's a separate matter from gynocentrism being a made up buzz word.
Secondly, we disagree with eachother quite strongly on this point. The average man in society is worse off than the average woman along a key string of issues and experiences, and we can simply point to in-group biases along with studies on who is deserving of aid in situations where they require it and who isn't for evidence of gynocentrism. The assertion men constitute an oppressed class is divorced from feminist perceptions of society, but not from reality. Gynocentrism describes particular trends of treating women and their experiences as the default against which other things are measured, along with other issues. It is clearly a real thing, and has a pervasive influence in society, and studies show that quite conclusively.

I happen to believe in chivalry to some extent, and in paying it back through considerate gestures of my own - such as cooking meals, baking food, or offering small gifts.

Good for you. I don't object to this.

When you're pursuing someone romantically, it's a bit of a balancing act.

Agreed.

A lot of the MRA types I've talked to, for instance, seemingly refuse to do anything thoughtful for women they find interesting or attractive.

Usually there's no reciprocation is why, that's one of the issues with the one sidedness feminism has caused for society.

That's not as attractive as a guy sending me flowers and being sweet in other ways. Sorry.

It may well not be, but that's partially the point. If you want something you should do something in return, and there's a lot to be said about men being forced to make the initial investment of that time and resources being unfair. I would wager MRAs would be more ammenable to reciprocation rather than initiation.

But that's not really the scenario we were discussing. If I tell a guy I'm not interested and he continues bothering me anyway, I'm not going to be happy or feel comfortable. So I'm asking guys not to assume the default position that it's okay to just disregard women telling you no.

I did not claim they should disregard women telling them no.

You're conflating the results of a study with something the study wasn't attempting to elucidate - while defending an actual misogynist and racist.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out in response to some feminist guy coming in here telling people that disliking feminists will make you repulsive to women is contrary to facts, especially when they then go on to claim treating them like equals is attractive. Quite the opposite. As the study notes, women will perceive being treated equally and treating them like they are your property as the same treatment, which says practically everything you need to know about their mental state and the validity of their contribution to this discussion on what constitutes equality.

RFS isn't a radical feminist. He's just not on board with harassing women. I know plenty of boys back home who believe a woman should stay in the home and raise babies while holding the exact same attitude about not messing with women who tell you know. They're definitely not feminists either.

You don't need to touch them and indeed shouldn't before receiving a sufficient amount of evidence their mind has changed.

That's because you're conflating two separate issues and two separates types of sexism, namely the domineering sort and the more conventiona benevolent sort.

I'm not conflating them. I'm explicitly rejecting that conflation.

And there could be antecedent and intermediate variables that explain women's reactions as well, namely that confidence, assertiveness, ambition, drive, manners, etc. are all attractive qualities and that those often align with the attitudes your studies reference.

Confidence, assertiveness, ambition, drive and so on are also present in having self-respect and not treating women like superiors, so these rationalizations to excuse womens attitudes aren't really any good.

Shall I pull some studies to generalize about the negative qualities of men?

If you can find a study on mens internal attitudes and perspectives that casts them in a negative light i'd be happy to discuss it with you.

You do realize that women were effectively confined to particular roles and limited in the exercise of many of the rights you enjoy up until the 1960's, right?

You do realize that men are effectively confined to particular roles and limited in the exercise of many of the rights you enjoy in the present day, right? And that this was also true when it was true for women, but remains true for men while being far less true for women in the modern day? In spite of your desperation to pretend men and women are equally oppressed in the current dynamic so you don't have to admit feminism was a supremacy movement?

How fortuitous for you all that men and womens burdens equalized at precisely the moment you were finally forced to admit misandry was real after all and that mens burdens should be counted as real. I note you held this position a few years ago too, tell me. Has the progress for men and women been at equal pace since then as well?

Or is this, as I suspect, some axiomatic belief of yours you cling to to avoid facing the truth?

If they're equal now, will they be equal tomorrow too? in a year? Even if the pace of progress remains so one sided? That's curious. It's almost like what happens in the real world has no impact on your evaluation.

It's laughable frankly, that you claim i'm the one divorced from reality. It stems from your feminine identity and a refusal to see yourselves as domineering over men, a borderline inability to do so, which makes it that much harder to stop you behaving that way when you do it because of the lack of self-awareness it causes about your behavior and the dynamic being imposed. Femininity has serious flaws, same as masculinity does. Men will always be at worst oppressors and at best no worse off than women are, no matter the circumstances, because you convince yourselves that is the case since your very conception of yourselves is at stake. To admit to yourselves what you have done is to stop being women in many respects, since it would mean you have become a major source of societal injustice and oppression of men, and those things are completely at odds with the conception of what being a woman means for most of you.

So you make up excuses and rationalize reasons why favorable treatment isn't really favorable treatment and impose them, most often against the will of men, in order to avoid confronting the fact that your "Equality" is female supremacy, and you avoid confronting that fact about yourselves because it would shatter your self-image. No amount of pointing this out seems to break through.

We're only ever oppressors, or in equal status to women. We're equal today, and we'll be equal tomorrow when yet more gynocentric garbage is forced through without any progress on mens issues. Because that's the ceiling on your willingness to comprehend reality and confront what you are. We can show you the studies, but then the rationalizations start.

If I showed you a study saying a certain group of people view 2+2 as 5 and are not able to do otherwise, would you make them mathematicians?

Or would that depend on how good they are at sophistry and excuse making too?

It's like if a man refuses to accept that they like flowers, because that's a woman thing.

Womens refusal to accept they are being oppressors and a source of widespread injustice against men is sourced in their belief that that is mens role, which feminism convinced them of.

If men like flowers then what does being a man even really mean anymore? So it goes for women and this trend you are displaying here.

Then maybe stop defending a misogynist and racist, and trying to explain how his remarks about women wanting to be dominated are acceptable.

I didn't defend his comments so much as criticize the rebuttals as inaccurate.

Anyone who thinks that males are oppressed in any society by virtue of being male is delusional at best and disingenuous or pathetically weak at worst.

[Ostroeuropa]

Anyone who thinks that males are oppressed in any society by virtue of being male is delusional at best and disingenuous or pathetically weak at worst.

I'll reply to this in the feminist thread, Fahran is right, we're drifting from the focus on Islam here.

viewtopic.php?p=36302206#p36302206

[Fahran]

Anyone who thinks that males are oppressed in any society by virtue of being male is delusional at best and disingenuous or pathetically weak at worst.

I'll reply to this in the feminist thread, Fahran is right, we're drifting from the focus on Islam here.

viewtopic.php?p=36302206#p36302206

Thank y'all. I might swing along later. I'm sorry if I was overly vitriolic.

[Rojava Free State]

I think his exact quote was "women don't understand themselves."

By the way, this really belongs in the Feminist Thread, y'all.

I have studies to prove it, so...

Lmfao I didn't know women were turned off by a man saying "women should be treated like everyone else is and shouldn't be victims of Eliot Roger style violence or domestic abuse or rape." Last time I checked 99% of women don't wanna be with a man who disagrees with those sentiments (not making life a living hell). But please, tell me again how I'm wrong and how women actually want to be sexually harassed by a creep. Argue with an actual woman (farhan) about what women are like.

A man saying that? Dependent on context it's probably fine, though feminists often underestimate just how badly their shibboleths alienate people, as a general rule if someone thinks you might be one, your chances decrease.

Once again you failed to understand the complexities of sexism and default to the most hostile versions of it, despite me pointing out to you this isn't the type of sexism i'm discussing.

As an example, the draft.

TYPE ONE
Women are too shit to be in the army

TYPE TWO
Men are expendable and should lay down their lives to protect women, who are more important.

The presentation and style of the sexism changes its character and are rooted in different attitudes. On an interpersonal level, the former is what you are railing against and suggesting i'm implying is beneficial to adopt when sleeping with women. Not so. I explicitly pointed out to you the study says;

Women think that when you treat them equally, you are a type one sexist, because they can't tell the difference.
But they think type two sexism is attractive and fair treatment.

There are ofcourse outliers to all of this and It annoys me to put this disclaimer here, but you know.

To women, the absence of treatment in their favor at the expense of men is viewed as identical to hostile treatment against women. That's what the evidence shows.

So you're saying that women don't want a man who treats them equal. They want a man who treats them like the man is an inferior?

I still disagree but less than before

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll reply to this in the feminist thread, Fahran is right, we're drifting from the focus on Islam here.

viewtopic.php?p=36302206#p36302206

Thank y'all. I might swing along later. I'm sorry if I was overly vitriolic.

It's a contentious topic and i'm not exactly good on that front either. No worries.

I have studies to prove it, so...



A man saying that? Dependent on context it's probably fine, though feminists often underestimate just how badly their shibboleths alienate people, as a general rule if someone thinks you might be one, your chances decrease.

Once again you failed to understand the complexities of sexism and default to the most hostile versions of it, despite me pointing out to you this isn't the type of sexism i'm discussing.

As an example, the draft.

TYPE ONE
Women are too shit to be in the army

TYPE TWO
Men are expendable and should lay down their lives to protect women, who are more important.

The presentation and style of the sexism changes its character and are rooted in different attitudes. On an interpersonal level, the former is what you are railing against and suggesting i'm implying is beneficial to adopt when sleeping with women. Not so. I explicitly pointed out to you the study says;

Women think that when you treat them equally, you are a type one sexist, because they can't tell the difference.
But they think type two sexism is attractive and fair treatment.

There are ofcourse outliers to all of this and It annoys me to put this disclaimer here, but you know.

To women, the absence of treatment in their favor at the expense of men is viewed as identical to hostile treatment against women. That's what the evidence shows.

So you're saying that women don't want a man who treats them equal. They want a man who treats them like the man is an inferior?

I still disagree but less than before

You can disagree all you want, but the evidence says i'm right.

[Rojava Free State]

Thank y'all. I might swing along later. I'm sorry if I was overly vitriolic.

It's a contentious topic and i'm not exactly good on that front either. No worries.

So you're saying that women don't want a man who treats them equal. They want a man who treats them like the man is an inferior?

I still disagree but less than before

You can disagree all you want, but the evidence says i'm right.

Tfw what some women want is what all women want.

Haven't experienced what you're talking about yet. You know, women not valuing a man who wants true equality and all. Then again, when I go out dating I don't tend to discuss politics anyhow because believe it or not, it's kinda odd when people talk about it all the time

[Ostroeuropa]

It's a contentious topic and i'm not exactly good on that front either. No worries.



You can disagree all you want, but the evidence says i'm right.

Tfw what some women want is what all women want.

Haven't experienced what you're talking about yet. You know, women not valuing a man who wants true equality and all. Then again, when I go out dating I don't tend to discuss politics anyhow because believe it or not, it's kinda odd when people talk about it all the time

What they say they want and what they actually want are not the same thing as the study shows, since they don't understand themselves. They will tell you they want equality, but that means female supremacy, because they think those two are the same thing, much like they think actual equality and hostility to women are the same thing. Don't pay attention to what they say they want, but rather how they actually behave.

You're not going to find a woman who just straight up tells you this is the case, because it's only the case because of a lack of self-awareness on this point. If they became self-aware enough to articulate it, they would no longer want it. (One would hope.).


As for Islam and Women;
There's the hadith that says womens court testimony is worth less than mens. I don't particularly see that as valid, though I could see a case for concluding that testimony about sexual assault or rape is not valuable from either sex until there are multiple accusers, in the absence of other evidence.

[Chernoslavia]

Flirting with someone isn’t rape or molestation. Sit the fuck down.

Continuing to make advances when someone tells you off means you're desperate and you're a damn creep. No means no, whether it's sex or just even talking to someone. And we all know btw that when many of the most extreme elements of the MRA say no doesn't always mean no, they are often clearly referring to sex. These pick up artist are weirdos

What's pathetic and idiotic is that people think that women especially feminists want a guy who continuously agrees with them on everything, does free favors for them like give money, shine their shoes or w/e or who just constantly kisses their ass. There's a difference between a woman who's being amused by the flirting and one who is genuinely creeped out and trying to get away. If one isn't capable of telling the difference in person, then maybe it's them who shouldn't be making any advances.

[Neko-koku]

In a scheme ostensibly conceived by users of 4chan's /pol/ board, fliers declaring "Islam Is Right About Women" have begun appearing across Massachussetts. These have sparked a multitude of reactions, mostly ranging from offense to confusion. It is suspected that this is a bit of right-wing and/or Islamophobic trolling intended to reveal the inherent contradictions that allegedly pervade left-wing thought on issues relating to Islam and feminism. Specifically, offense generated from this can be interpreted to confirm that progressives and feminists do not genuinely believe that Islam can fit neatly into a progressive and inclusive worldview.

Of course, the counter-argument is that these fliers amount to a dog-whistle that stigmatizes and others local Muslims while not contributing to any meaningful dialogue on or critique of patriarchal social mores and rigid gender norms within Muslim institutions and society. For their part, the majority of Muslims who have been interviewed by local media outlets have reacted with confusion and/or magnanimity, assuming good intentions where it is likely none are present. One preacher stated that he hoped the fliers would encourage members of the community to do research on Islam's attitudes towards women and that this would serve to dispel bigotry and harmful stereotypes.

As a quick aside, while this story would arguably fit with the theme of the Islamic Discussion Thread or the Feminist Thread, I felt that it represented a unique intersection of issues such as Islam, feminism, racism/bigotry, progressive, and right-wing thought and that we could explore those ideas with greater flexibility by setting aside a thread for it.

So NSG what do all y'all think about this? Does it highlight the hypocrisy of the political left and reveal that progressives often hold more negative attitudes about Islam and Islamic religious doctrine in private than they let on? Is it simply a bunch of dog-whistles fueled by confirmation bias and Islamophobia? Is Islam right about the nature and role of women? How would this translate to other religious traditions?

As it's customary and polite to offer your opinion as OP, I'll give it a go. I tend to perceive Islam in much the same way as I perceive Judaism or Christianity, albeit conceding that it is more often at odds with liberal conceptions of the world and a good many of the social mores that have come to predominate in the West. As a traditionalist of sorts, I'm often somewhat sympathetic to rejections or critiques of modernity and hyper-individualism. That said, I'm inclined to assert that I don't necessarily agree with the statement "Islam Is Right About Women" because I'm not a Muslim and, beyond that, Islam is as broad as most religions and a variety of opinions exist within it. I do think this campaign unnecessarily singles out Muslims and that it doesn't really serve as an effective critique of the more problematic attitudes towards women and femininity in the Ummah, but that the aim was more geared towards "owning the libs."

What say you?

https://www.boston25news.com/news/-isla ... /987837653
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/islam-is ... bout-women
https://wSourww.spiked-online.com/2019/ ... men-stunt/

What they reveal is in fact some dark truth about the nature of power itself.

[Neko-koku]

None of the "muh women don't contribute to humanity and shit hence they have to obey men" argument applies outside the global north.

Now my question is, why the fuck isn't Sub-Saharan Africa a huge matriarchy? Why? Don't women provide or at least used to provide most of the food? BECAUSE OF VIOLENCE.

OUR FUCKED UP UNIVERSE BELONGS TO ROBBERS, NOT CONTRIBUTORS.

[Neko-koku]

Gynocentrism is of course real. However it is not a consequence of feminism. Instead it is caused by evolution itself. Without transhumanism there is no way to remove gynocentrism.

Even Muslim societies that MRA folks love are still gynocentric.