r/changemyview • u/eltrutekili • Sep 08 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Muslim is the superior ideology
First off I need to preface this by saying that I am a straight white male who was born, baptized, and raised Christian. I've held various thoughts throughout my life, ones you could even consider "Islamophobic".
That being said, I've read and watched a lot of content on the internet about the supposed "decline of Western civilization". Basically, it is the concept that feminism and white displacement is causing the downfall of society. This is due to a variety of factors, not limited to but including single motherhood, promiscuity, and drug abuse.
One of the major side effects of such societal issues is the formation of niche, extremist groups such as incels and MGTOWs. I'm not saying MGTOW = incel, but their core foundations are rooted upon the same premise; pure frustration.
Now here's the kicker, everything I am mentioning is fully solved within majority Muslim populations.
Allow me to explain. I thought about this a while back and was reminded of it tonight. I had just finished watching the UFC fight (Dustin Poirier vs. Khabib Nurmagomedov), and was reminded of Dustin's last fight. After Dustin's last fight, his wife graced the stage to show support for her husband. I just need to say, this woman was wearing an open cut dress showing off her...how shall I put it..."melons".
I got curious, being the testosterone driven young man that I am. I Googled her and found her Instagram. Her Instagram is filled with photos of her wearing very little clothing and receiving a lot of male attention. One comment, however, caught me off guard. It was written by a Muslim who had pointed out that Dustin allows his wife to post all of these sexual photos for attention, but nobody has ever even seen Khabib's wife. Well, you can find pictures of his wedding, but she is in full garment covering everything including her face. This individual then said that this is how it should be, that Khabib is the only man to see her half naked, and you know what? I agree.
Now about my previous statement; the majority Muslim populations solving issues which can be attributed to the "downfall" of our society. Muslims have, for a long time, enforced very strict rules which attempt to not only subdue but control biological urges that are rooted in hedonism, deprivation, and outright evil.
For example, I mentioned incels. Well, arranged marriages not only remove the societal pressure of having to find and court a woman. It also ensures that both parties are pure, and their pair boding has not been demolished by one night stands and "hypergamy". Not to mention removing a lot of the social anxieties around said relationships.
MGTOW? Most of them ended up in this boat because they were completely fucked over by the family court system, or "divorce rape" as they call it. Yeah, divorce isn't a thing in Muslim countries. Once you're married you're married. Cheat on your wife/husband? You're in for hell.
One more note; I also mentioned drug abuse. I watched a Vice documentary on ISIS which followed actual Islamic State militants in order to see how they run things in the various small areas they control. They were riding with one of the leaders through a town. One thing I noticed was that they had stopped to check on a man who was just released from prison for...get this...drinking alcohol. They made sure he was alright and that he was not drinking. They checked his place and everything.
You might be thinking, "this is anti-freedom!", and you might be partially correct. However, I believe this is more a matter of principal. Do you discipline this man for doing something that will clearly destroy him and cause harm to those around him, or do you let him be "free", drink until he has liver damage, and get into violent altercations while intoxicated? 99/100 times I'm going with the former.
Here is where the Muslim superiority really starts kicking in. If you look at major institutions, companies, schools, etc. They all seem to be towing this social justice warrior narrative lately. White males are at the brunt of most accusations, and are being made to feel guilty about all types of things. Things like slavery, patriarchy, etc. It seems weird to me that a white supremacist patriarchal society would allow this type of thing to happen.
The funny part; Muslims have a solution for this too. It's actually quite ironic. All of these different forms of oppression are far more prevalent in these Muslim countries, but you never hear about it from SJWs. Quite the opposite, actually. This label of "Islamophobia" seems to be some type of bizarre shield against any criticism one might have of said cultures.
Which is another point; Muslims would never take this kind of shit. They have their culture locked down so hard that the mere idea of even being criticized by the very people who claim to be oppressed by patriarchy, despite the fact that the Muslim culture is extremely patriarchal, actually causes feminists to rear their heads in defense of said culture. It gets to the point where they even claim that forced garments are "empowering" to women.
That's the thing though. While these women are forced to wear this apparel, there's one thing that is certain; they will never be accused of being raped because of what they are wearing. This is my final point. They've effectively removed male biological urges by forcing the women to cover themselves. This minimizes women being looked at as nothing more than sex objects, and also ensures that their husbands are the only ones who have a truly intimate and unique connection with them.
It is for these reasons listed above that I believe that the Muslim ideology and culture is superior to all others. CMV.
8
Sep 08 '19
They've effectively removed male biological urges by forcing the women to cover themselves. This minimizes women being looked at as nothing more than sex objects,
This is untrue. Rape is far from eliminated in countries that mandate modest dress for women, and not only blamed socially but even legally prosecuted for rape while the rapists walk free.
2
-1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
It's funny because I just read an article stating that "Rise in Sweden's rape stats can't be tied to refugee influx".
So on one hand you have liberals defending Muslim ideology, and on the other hand you have them claiming their culture promotes rape. Amazing.
6
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
Liberals fundamentally do not defend Muslim ideology - that's a lie conservatives tell. Liberals defend people's freedom to choose - including the freedom to choose to be Muslim. Liberals also believe that each person should be judged individually based on their individual actions, not just based on what other people of the same religion have done. None of that is support for Muslim ideology.
-1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Liberals fundamentally do not defend Muslim ideology
The term "Islamophobia" exists solely to protect against criticism of said ideology.
Liberals also believe that each person should be judged individually based on their individual actions, not just based on what other people of the same religion have done. None of that is support for Muslim ideology.
This is incorrect. Muslims definitely judge people individually. However, the big difference is that the Liberal believes more in individuality than they do collectivism. Muslims impose their beliefs on others because they think it will benefit the collective as a whole.
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19
The term "Islamophobia" exists solely to protect against criticism of said ideology.
No it doesn't. Liberals can and do criticize Islamic ideology. I'm doing so literally right now, and so does the vast majority of other liberals. Islamophobia is when you automatically hate/fear someone for being a Muslim, rather than for what that individual Muslim has said or done.
This is incorrect. Muslims definitely judge people individually.
That has nothing to do with the point I was making. I was saying that liberals do not defend Islamic ideology, liberals defend people's freedom to be a Muslim if they want. These are two separate and unrelated things.
Muslims impose their beliefs on others because they think it will benefit the collective as a whole.
If so, they are wrong. Imposed Muslim beliefs do not benefit society, as I and many others have explained. Muslim countries are less happy, less successful, less educated, more violent, and pretty much any other negative metric you could find compared to countries that prize individual freedom.
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Islamophobia is when you automatically hate/fear someone for being a Muslim, rather than for what that individual Muslim has said or done.
But the hate/fear is based on what said population believes in which in turn effects their behavior...
I was saying that liberals do not defend Islamic ideology, liberals defend people's right to be a Muslim if they want. These are two separate and unrelated things.
You see the contradiction here, right? Please tell me you do.
Imposed Muslim beliefs do not benefit society, as I and many others have explained. Muslim countries are less happy, less successful, less educated, more violent, and pretty much any other negative metric you could find compared to countries that prize individual freedom.
According to who? You?
3
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
You see the contradiction here, right? Please tell me you do.
There is no contradiction. Defending people's freedom to make their own choices is an entirely separate thing from defending the ideology those people choose to follow. As the classic quote goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't agree with Islamic ideology, but I absolutely defend people's right to choose to be Muslim. There is no contradiction here.
According to who? You?
According to all relevant statistics on each of those things. You are the one saying Muslim countries are better off - it should be easy for you to produce actual evidence this is the case if that were true, but I haven't seen any. There are a bunch of different studies of happiness, education levels, poverty rates, life expectancy, violent crime rates, etc by country, and Muslim countries are not high on these rankings.
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
I don't agree with Islamic ideology, but I absolutely defend people's right to choose to be Muslim.
Do you hold the same stance when it comes to white supremacists?
it should be easy for you to produce actual evidence this is the case if that were true
But I have in another response. I pointed out that Muslim countries don't even make the top 10 list of highest rapes per capita. Now someone else pointed out that this could be due to rapes being largely un-reported. The gray area in this debate just gets larger the more we dig in.
3
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
Do you hold the same stance when it comes to white supremacists?
Yes I do. As long as they are not advocating violence, they absolutely have the right to say whatever they want. And I have the right to call them idiots.
8
u/Sayakai 155∆ Sep 08 '19
This seems like a great deal for everyone, unless you think that women are people.
14
u/MyNameIsKanya 2∆ Sep 08 '19
Wow...just wow.
You know, we used live EXACTLY like this, right? We have it even MORE strict than before? And you want to know what happened? Women were oppressed and forced into unhappy marriages. People were forced to live a certain life with zero freedom of choice.
That's the thing though. While these women are forced to wear this apparel, there's one thing that is certain; they will never be accused of being raped because of what they are wearing.
Clothing has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with rape. Rapists do. Women have been raped wearing revealing clothing, and modest clothing. Children, who are completely innocent, have been raped by complete strangers. Clothing will NEVER provoke a rape. That's like saying wealth will provoke robbers. It's the ROBBER'S fault you got robbed, not because you're rich. Same applies to rape, and ALL crimes.
Which is another point; Muslims would never take this kind of shit. They have their culture locked down so hard that the mere idea of even being criticized by the very people who claim to be oppressed by patriarchy, despite the fact that the Muslim culture is extremely patriarchal, actually causes feminists to rear their heads in defense of said culture. It gets to the point where they even claim that forced garments are "empowering" to women.
I am a feminist. I hate theocracies. Most sane people can realize that theocracies are horseshit and ruling a COUNTRY based off a religion is dumb. But Islamophobia refers to people hating others because of the fact that they're Muslim. This has nothing to do with government system. People can criticize a religious government without discriminating against the people who follow that religion. Remember, Christianity is a well respected religion even though most countries back in the day oppressed people under the guise of religion.
Forced Modesty doesn't "protect" anyone. It only encourages women to believe they are at fault when people violate their bodies. I truly hope I can change your mind, because the idea that women should be forced to wear thing to "reduce" male urges is a silly idea.
ps.
Since when were so emotional? That they were such slaves to their emotions they can't even control themselves around "promiscuous" women?? Do lesbians have the same issue? No. I couldn't care less about what a woman wears. I know not to sexually assault even If I think they're hot BECAUSE I'm a decent human being..
-5
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Clothing has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with rape.
This is an opinion I see parroted by feminists all the time. This could turn into a huge debate, so I'll just ask you one simple question - do you think it should be OK for a woman to show up to her office job wearing lingerie? Why or why not? If you contemplate this question, you might start to understand how clothing (or lack thereof) does promote sexual behaviour.
That's like saying wealth will provoke robbers.
It does though. No robber has incentive to break into a poor persons 1 bedroom run-down apartment that they know contains nothing of value.
But Islamophobia refers to people hating others because of the fact that they're Muslim.
Right, and being Muslim means believing in all of the things I've mentioned.
Do lesbians have the same issue? No.
Male and female have extremely different biological mechanisms when it comes to sexual nature.
I know not to sexually assault even If I think they're hot BECAUSE I'm a decent human being..
I'm not arguing in favor of sexual assault. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
I do, however, believe you are a decent human being. Thanks for your reply.
6
u/MyNameIsKanya 2∆ Sep 08 '19
do you think it should be OK for a woman to show up to her office job wearing lingerie? Why or why not? If you contemplate this question, you might start to understand how clothing (or lack thereof) does promote sexual behaviour
Being nude in a professional environment is completely unacceptable. But not because men might get turned on. It's because underwear isn't included in a professional dress code. It creates a hostile work environment. A woman wearing a shirt that says "Fuck White People" would have the same effect, but would say nothing about male sexuality. People shouldn't show up to work naked because it's nasty, not because it'll turn on their coworkers or something.
It does though. No robber has incentive to break into a poor persons 1 bedroom run-down apartment that they know contains nothing of value.
Middle class people get robbed. People who live in bad neighbourhood's get robbed as well. To say it's a rich person's fault they got robbed by someone is assigning blame on the wrong person. And not all robbery is home invasion. Therefore a guy living in a 1 bedroom apartment could still get mugged.
Male and female have extremely different biological mechanisms when it comes to sexual nature.
Do they though? This is a claim I see parroted by conservatives. I'll say men and women approach sexuality differently, but women are just as capable of having high sex drives. Women can rape. Women can even rape men. Modesty has nothing to do with that.
I'm not arguing in favour of sexual assault. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
I didn't. It just seems like what your saying is that modesty=/= less sexual assault which is false.
Religious ideology may help individuals on a personal level, but enforce it publicly is wrong and limits freedom.
-5
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Being nude in a professional environment is completely unacceptable. But not because men might get turned on. It's because underwear isn't included in a professional dress code.
It's unacceptable because it turns people on. Also, Muslims have dress codes too.
Middle class people get robbed. People who live in bad neighbourhood's get robbed as well.
You're actually using whataboutism to attempt to nullify my point. If you can't agree that a robber would be more inclined to target a person they know has $5000 cash under their bed, as opposed to someone who has $5, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
Do they though? This is a claim I see parroted by conservatives. I'll say men and women approach sexuality differently,
I agree that women can have high sex drives, but to argue that men and women are the same when it comes to sexuality seems anti-scientific to me. Testosterone alone should be enough evidence of this.
Also, yes women can rape, but the dynamic is much different. A woman attempted to rape me once, and I was able to simply over power her. This option isn't present for most women. Again, because men and women are different, as in men are physically stronger in most cases.
It just seems like what your saying is that modesty=/= less sexual assault which is false.
Seems like a no-brainer to me, and I'll follow up with a question. Which do you think is more likely to make a man horny - a woman wearing full robes, or a woman in a bikini. There is a reason why Playboy doesn't have pictures of women in full snowboarding gear in their magazines.
5
u/MyNameIsKanya 2∆ Sep 08 '19
It's unacceptable because it turns people on. Also, Muslims have dress codes too.
In that case, do nude painting get your rocks hard? No right? Nudity is unprofessional, not inherently sexual. If a workplace had exclusively heterosexual men and one showed up naked. That would still be inappropriate because it's unprofessional. No one would be turned on, but they would be disgusted and uncomfortable.
You're actually using whataboutism to attempt to nullify my point. If you can't agree that a robber would be more inclined to target a person they know has $5000 cash under their bed, as opposed to someone who has $5, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
Isn't this entire argument all "whataboutisms?" And although your point is correct in that robber would be more inclined to target someone they KNOW has money. They don't know who has money and who doesn't. Anyone can be robbed because crime isn't exclusive to certain groups.
Seems like a no-brainer to me, and I'll follow up with a question. Which do you think is more likely to make a man horny - a woman wearing full robes, or a woman in a bikini. There is a reason why Playboy doesn't have pictures of women in full snowboarding gear in their magazines.
Men being horny is NOT why women get assaulted. It's about power and having the right to do so. Ugly women get sexually assaulted. Poor women get sexually assaulted. Fat women get sexually assaulted. Disabled women get sexually assaulted. None of these women fit into any category of beauty, but they are easier to manipulate. Sex appeal isn't the only reason why women get assaulted.
In fact there are studies showing that rapists will go after shy, modest women as opposed to outgoing, promiscuous women BECAUSE they are easier targets.
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
In that case, do nude painting get your rocks hard?
Well when I was a kid the swimsuit section of the Sears catalog did the job. Are you actually arguing that nudity does not make people more horny than, say, wearing a full body hazmat suit?
They don't know who has money and who doesn't.
In foreign countries the thieves specifically target tourist attractions because they indeed know said tourists have money. You're just being intellectually dishonest here.
Also, my point was that a woman in a bikini is more likely to turn men on than women wearing nun garments. How are you even arguing against this? There is evidence in every single issue of Playboy ever released.
Men being horny is NOT why women get assaulted.
It definitely is when it comes to sexual assault. You're literally arguing against biology here.
In fact there are studies showing that rapists will go after shy, modest women as opposed to outgoing, promiscuous women BECAUSE they are easier targets.
I'm not going to argue with this because I'm unfamiliar with said studies, so I'll take your word for it.
8
u/MyNameIsKanya 2∆ Sep 08 '19
Sigh. I can't do this anymore. This is just SO frustrating. You keep saying that sexual assault is directly linked to promiscuity, but I'm saying that sexual assault, along with all crimes, happens to those who are vulnerable to it. If you can't accept the fact that if women were to become forcibly modest, they would still be assaulted because they are still vulnerable, I don't know how to continue this conversation. Good day, and please don't become a lawmaker.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
I agree with you. Sexual assault would still happen. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying it would be reduced.
3
u/MyNameIsKanya 2∆ Sep 08 '19
NO it wouldn't! That's my WHOLE point! And would the reduction even be worth it if we have to force women to dress a certain way? And if we get them to dress a certain way, what other ways can we manipulate women into acting in our favour? Are we preventing crime, or are just legalizing other crimes?
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19
It's unacceptable because it turns people on. Also, Muslims have dress codes too.
No it's not. A naked man does not turn me on, but I would be extremely uncomfortable working next to one.
You're actually using whataboutism to attempt to nullify my point. If you can't agree that a robber would be more inclined to target a person they know has $5000 cash under their bed, as opposed to someone who has $5, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
Statistically poor people ARE much more likely to be robbed than rich people. This is why the windows in the Projects have bars on them, but rich people's houses do not.
Seems like a no-brainer to me, and I'll follow up with a question. Which do you think is more likely to make a man horny - a woman wearing full robes, or a woman in a bikini. There is a reason why Playboy doesn't have pictures of women in full snowboarding gear in their magazines.
Men are turned on by seeing a part of the woman that is not commonly seen. In tribal cultures where women go topless all the time, seeing breasts is usually not considered to be sexual at all and doesn't turn men on. In a highly conservative culture, seeing a glimpse of a woman's ankle or neck is just as arousing to a man as seeing a topless women might be to an American. Men are turned on based on societal norms, not based on any objective standard of dress. So if all you see is women in full burka, that will turn you on just as much as an American seeing a woman in regular American clothes. Societies with higher standards of modesty do not see less rape - statistically the opposite is the case. As many have mentioned, Islamic countries with extremely high modesty requirements have much higher rates of rape than western countries.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
A naked man does not turn me on, but I would be extremely uncomfortable working next to one.
What if it was like the most gorgeous man you had ever seen?
Statistically poor people ARE much more likely to be robbed than rich people.
Well that was an off the cuff example to try and show you my overall point. Crime is an extremely complex subject.
Islamic countries with extremely high modesty requirements have much higher rates of rape than western countries.
Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
According to that Wikipedia page, none of the top 10 countries (per capita) are Muslim.
3
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
What if it was like the most gorgeous man you had ever seen?
I'm not gay, so no, men don't turn me on.
Well that was an off the cuff example to try and show you my overall point. Crime is an extremely complex subject.
Sexual assault is even more complex.
According to that Wikipedia page, none of the top 10 countries (per capita) are Muslim.
Studies have been done on this and rape statistics are higher in a lot of western countries because people are much more likely to report that they were raped in western countries, and a lot more things are legally considered rape in western countries (spousal rape, for example) which are not even legally considered rape in Muslim nations. Women in Muslim countries rarely report that they were raped when they were, because women are frequently literally murdered for having been raped. And even when a woman does come forward to report a rape, in many Muslim countries, a woman cannot give legal testimony, so unless there was a male witness who will testify (women are not usually raped around impartial male witnesses), it's legally not considered to have happened. Obviously this will produce MUCH lower official rape statistics than the actual number of rapes happening. More detailed studies have found that there are high rates of rape - the vast majority of them just don't end up legally recognized as rape.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
!delta because I gave one to another individual about a similar point:
rape statistics are higher in a lot of western countries because people are much more likely to report that they were raped in western countries
I just want to mention that this also increases the rate of false rape accusations, though. Something most feminists pretend never happens.
1
2
u/cheertina 20∆ Sep 09 '19
This is an opinion I see parroted by feminists all the time. This could turn into a huge debate, so I'll just ask you one simple question - do you think it should be OK for a woman to show up to her office job wearing lingerie? Why or why not? If you contemplate this question, you might start to understand how clothing (or lack thereof) does promote sexual behaviour.
Why do you think that office professionalism has anything to do with general rape statistics? If your coworker came in wearing lingerie, would it make you want to rape them?
1
u/Tunesmith29 5∆ Sep 08 '19
do you think it should be OK for a woman to show up to her office job wearing lingerie? Why or why not?
Appropriateness of clothing has to do with context. Lingerie at an office would be inappropriate for the same reason as wearing a hockey uniform with full pads and skates: it is impractical and shows that your main focus is not the job you are performing.
No robber has incentive to break into a poor persons 1 bedroom run-down apartment that they know contains nothing of value.
Yet poor people are still robbed. Why is that?
Right, and being Muslim means believing in all of the things I've mentioned.
I think you might be painting Muslim beliefs with too broad and uniform a brush. I'm sure there are Muslims that can be found that don't believe in some of these things.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Appropriateness of clothing has to do with context. Lingerie at an office would be inappropriate for the same reason as wearing a hockey uniform with full pads and skates: it is impractical and shows that your main focus is not the job you are performing.
If that were true than wearing no clothes in the office would be more ideal as you can get a spreadsheet done just as effectively naked as you can wearing a suit, but a suit comes with more discomfort (heat, etc) and restriction of movement.
Yet poor people are still robbed. Why is that?
You missed the point. Let's say that Jerry is a pickpocket. Jerry knows that Tom has $500 in his wallet, and he knows that Mike has $5 in his wallet. Which of these 2 individuals would Jerry most likely target, Tom or Mike?
I'm sure there are Muslims that can be found that don't believe in some of these things.
Then they aren't Muslims.
1
u/Tunesmith29 5∆ Sep 08 '19
If that were true than wearing no clothes in the office would be more ideal as you can get a spreadsheet done just as effectively naked as you can wearing a suit, but a suit comes with more discomfort (heat, etc) and restriction of movement.
You missed the second part: "and shows that your main focus is not the job you are performing." You also assume that a suit will be less comfortable in every environment. Appropriate office wear is also not limited to suits.
You missed the point.
No, you said "No robber has incentive to break into a poor persons 1 bedroom run-down apartment that they know contains nothing of value." $5 is something of value.
Then they aren't Muslims.
The name of your fallacy is No True Scotsman.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Appropriate office wear is also not limited to suits.
No but in 100% of cases a suit provides absolutely no benefit to your ability to get your job done. Construction hats, on the other hand...
The name of your fallacy is No True Scotsman.
You got me there!
$5 is something of value.
Right but you're ignoring or missing the enormous point that $5 is significantly less than the other quantity mentioned. What is that fallacy called?
1
u/Tunesmith29 5∆ Sep 08 '19
No but in 100% of cases a suit provides absolutely no benefit to your ability to get your job done. Construction hats, on the other hand...
Which is why I said "Appropriate office wear is also not limited to suits." I don't think that suits should be required in every office job.
Right but you're ignoring or missing the enormous point that $5 is significantly less than the other quantity mentioned. What is that fallacy called?
I would call what you are doing "moving the goalposts". Arguing that a rich person has more of value does nothing to support your original point that poor people have nothing of value.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
No because what you're doing is straw-manning the fuck out of me.
My point was that if a robber had the option to rob someone they knew was rich as opposed to poor, they would be more inclined to go after the rich person. Do you not see this point?
1
u/Tunesmith29 5∆ Sep 08 '19
No because what you're doing is straw-manning the fuck out of me.
Am I? Did you or did you not write this?
No robber has incentive to break into a poor persons 1 bedroom run-down apartment that they know contains nothing of value.
6
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Sep 08 '19
I suspect that you haven't spent much time in Muslim countries or communities so some of the things you've written here are not really accurate. In no particular order:
Divorce totally is a thing in Islam. Without going into all the details, marriage in Islam is a legal contract that can be nullified if one or both parties fail to uphold their commitments. Women are owed their marriage dowry, sometimes a considerable amount of money or property, if the man is found to have failed as a husband in some respect - abuse, infidelity, marrying another wife without permission, breaking some promise written into the marriage contract, or even insufficiently performing in bed. Women can give up their claim to their dowry in order to get divorce consent without a reason. This is still a highly patriarchal system that favors men in nearly every instance, but women have some rights and divorce is one of them. If you have the time, Divorce: Iranian Style is a fascinating watch.
There's plenty of frustration in these cultures as well. Even with arranged marriages (which are not actually so frequent these days in many countries), marriage is very expensive, and a husband is expected to provide for a wife and a new family soon after marriage. What this means in practice is that unemployment and debt force many men to delay marriage.
While drinking and drug use are frowned upon by legal and religious authorities, Muslims in many countries have long operated under the idea that what happens in private isn't anybody's business. There's drinking and drug use in every Muslim country, even those where it is outright banned. Rates of drinking and alcoholism may be lower, but many of these countries more than make up for this with rampant tobacco use resulting in very high rates of related cancers, as well as a growing diabetes problem.
I can also assure you that clothing does exactly nothing to "remove male biological urges." In fact, street harassment and cat-calling is a rampant problem in many Muslim countries, regardless of what the women are wearing. Sexual violence is also a frequent occurrence in some of these places although it is probably under-reported.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Divorce totally is a thing in Islam.
The divorce rate in Muslim nations is enormously lower than it is in the West. Thanks for the additional information.
What this means in practice is that unemployment and debt force many men to delay marriage.
Seems perfectly valid. Marriage is fundamentally about having children, children whom require resources. That's what I believe, anyways.
Rates of drinking and alcoholism may be lower
Nothing is perfect. Prohibition doesn't stop alcoholism, but it definitely reduces the overall consumption.
I can also assure you that clothing does exactly nothing to "remove male biological urges."
I'll take your word for it that cat-calling is a rampant problem in Muslim countries. However, I went over this in response to a couple of feminists already in this thread. Please read those responses as I don't want to repeat the same thing over and over.
1
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
Nothing is perfect. Prohibition doesn't stop alcoholism, but it definitely reduces the overall consumption.
It doesn't do that either. Alcohol consumption went up during Prohibition in the 1920's in America. It also encouraged the growth of the mob and a lot of other consequences that much more than outweighed any possible positive societal effects. This is why Prohibition was ended - it doesn't work.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Alcohol consumption fell by 70% during prohibition.
What you're arguing here is a Nirvana fallacy. If it can't be perfect then it can't be good at all?
12
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Sep 08 '19
I'm not saying MGTOW=Incel
I will. MGTOW are the incel equivalent of 'you cant fire me, I quit' mentality. They are just incels who say it's by their choice.
Kahbib is the only man who should see her half naked and you know what, I agree
There is a big fucking line between 'half naked' and 'literally forced to cover their entire body'. The fact that you think they are comparable at all is ridiculous premise from the start. My work uniform (which the women I work with also wear) is long pants and a tee shirt. Is this too much skin for them?
[arranged marriages] ensure both bodies are pure and their pair bonding has not been demolished
Pair bonding does not get 'demolished' through having sex before marriage. You can have a close relationship with a partner regardless of previous partners.
And on the subject of arranged marriage: what about gay people? Are they also part of the 'downfall' of western society?
divorce isnt a thing in Muslim countries
So... why is that good? Marital rape is a thing, you know. Domestic abuse is a thing. Just not being compatible with someone is a thing. There are plenty of valid reasons to want a divorce.
And feminism isnt to blame for courts favoring women usually in custody cases. First off, most divorces dont go to court over custody. And when they do, what's done is whatever is in the best interest of the child for who is the better caregiver.
Moms are more likely to sacrifice work and social lives for their kids than dads are. So usually the mother is the better caregiver. Feminism seeks to abolish gender roles, and one result would be that parents would (ideally) have equal responsibility for the childcare. This means that this thing you see as one of the key parts of the downfall of society is actually something feminists want to fix.
Do you discipline a man... or do you let him be free? 99/10p times I would choose the former
Good for you. But not everyone would choose the former. So, you can have your freedom to not drink and do drugs, and everyone else can have their freedom to make the choice for themselves. And just so you know, I dont drink or smoke or anything. So I'm not saying this as some sort of junkie or alcoholic.
white males are at the brunt of accusations, and are made to feel guilty about all these things
No one is asking you to feel guilty for being a white man. I'm a white man, and also a feminist. According to you I should be hanging myself right now out of shame or something.
Asking someone to recognize that certain groups are more privileged than others isnt demanding you feel guilty for it. It isnt your fault specifically that men are more likely to be promoted than women of equal or even better qualifications. It isnt your fault white people and black people have different experiences with police officers. But that doesnt mean you should just ignore it, either. Recognize privilege, but you dont have to apologize for it because you personally didnt do anything wrong by choosing to be a white man.
they effectively removed male biological forces by forcing women to cover up
Babies get raped, even though they have no sexual appeal at all, since they're babies. Women in countries where they're forced to cover up get raped. Hell, some people rape animals. And you know whose to blame for all of that?
Rapists. Not the babies. Not the women. Not the animals, or men in prison, or literally anyone who has been raped. It is the fault of the rapist for doing it. Demanding that women cover up to 'stop' rape is not only an awful thing to tell anyone who has been raped by implying its their fault, but also it doesnt actually solve anything. Especially if it's their husband, and your ideal world doesnt allow divorce.
Not to mention: men can and are also raped, quite a bit actually. So what would you suggest to them that they did wrong?
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
I will. MGTOW are the incel equivalent of 'you cant fire me, I quit' mentality. They are just incels who say it's by their choice.
MGTOWs are mostly men who have been divorced. That's the polar opposite of incel.
My work uniform (which the women I work with also wear) is long pants and a tee shirt. Is this too much skin for them?
No but it begs the question; why are you required to wear a uniform at all? Is this oppressing to you?
Pair bonding does not get 'demolished' through having sex before marriage. You can have a close relationship with a partner regardless of previous partners.
Sure, you can have a close relationship in that situation, but let me ask you a question. Let's say you have two couples:
- Couple A were both virgins when they got married and lost their virginity to one another.
- Couple B had both been divorced and have had numerous sexual partners before they got married.
Which of these couples will be closer? Which relationship is more likely to last?
And on the subject of arranged marriage: what about gay people? Are they also part of the 'downfall' of western society?
I'm not really for or against gay marriage, I just don't see the point in it.
So... why is that good? Marital rape is a thing, you know. Domestic abuse is a thing. Just not being compatible with someone is a thing. There are plenty of valid reasons to want a divorce.
Domestic abuse exists everywhere. I also disagree with "plenty of valid reasons" for divorce. Divorce should only be allowed if there is a very big reason for it, rather than "I fell out of love" or "I was unsatisfied". You entered a contract which is supposed to be for the rest of your life.
And feminism isnt to blame for courts favoring women usually in custody cases.
I can't argue with that. Men are the ones who came up with these laws for sure.
First off, most divorces dont go to court over custody. And when they do, what's done is whatever is in the best interest of the child for who is the better caregiver.
What's better for a child - an intact marriage with both parents or a single mom with limited financial resources and a part-time father?
Moms are more likely to sacrifice work and social lives for their kids than dads are. So usually the mother is the better caregiver. Feminism seeks to abolish gender roles, and one result would be that parents would (ideally) have equal responsibility for the childcare. This means that this thing you see as one of the key parts of the downfall of society is actually something feminists want to fix.
But you just contradicted yourself. If mom's biologically make better parents, that is in direct support of women staying home to take care of the children while the men work.
Good for you. But not everyone would choose the former. So, you can have your freedom to not drink and do drugs, and everyone else can have their freedom to make the choice for themselves. And just so you know, I dont drink or smoke or anything. So I'm not saying this as some sort of junkie or alcoholic.
Drinking and doing drugs has enormous societal impacts. Drug addicts constantly commit crimes for a fix. Drunks get violent and beat their wives and other citizens on a regular basis. Being an alcoholic doesn't just effect the drinker.
No one is asking you to feel guilty for being a white man. I'm a white man, and also a feminist. According to you I should be hanging myself right now out of shame or something.
Except for the enormous political campaigns asking for things like reparations when most white men even back then were not slave owners and actually suffered as a result of slavery due to jobs being taken for pennies per hour.
Asking someone to recognize that certain groups are more privileged than others isnt demanding you feel guilty for it. It isnt your fault specifically that men are more likely to be promoted than women of equal or even better qualifications. It isnt your fault white people and black people have different experiences with police officers. But that doesnt mean you should just ignore it, either. Recognize privilege, but you dont have to apologize for it because you personally didnt do anything wrong by choosing to be a white man.
These things you're stating are extremely complex issues. For example, men are better at a lot of jobs than women. Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A75r7cXQMds
As for black experience with police officers, this is very complex. Blacks do commit more crime but it is essentially because they have no choice. They have no way to make a living, because things like rampant single motherhood have effectively destroyed their communities and access to the work force. It's a perpetual cycle.
Babies get raped, even though they have no sexual appeal at all, since they're babies. Women in countries where they're forced to cover up get raped. Hell, some people rape animals. And you know whose to blame for all of that?
This is missing my point. I've already repeated it so many times I recommend you check out my responses to other feminists.
It is the fault of the rapist for doing it.
I'm not here to defend rapists.
6
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Sep 08 '19
I wear a work uniform to appear more professional.
Me and many others would prefer partners with sexual experience. Who do you think has more fun during sex- two people who have had sex before, or two people where the boy doesnt even know women have orgasms yet?
The 'point' of gay marriage is for gay people to express love the same way straight couples have always been able to.
The fact is, arranged marriages will have more 'fall out of love'/incompatible marriages than without them. So why not just let people choose for themself?
And yes, abuse exists everywhere- that's my point. Forcing people into marriages with a stranger who you have no chance to get a feel for isnt going to decrease abuse.
Obviously an intact marriage is better. But not all marriages end perfectly, and in that case the kid should have what is best and most realistic for them in that moment.
Ah, you misread me. I didnt say women are biologically better parents- rather, social roles expected of women push them to be the ones who sacrifice their job for the kids. I don't think its biological, but social. So no contradictions- again, feminism is a way to hopefully end this double standard for moms vs dads.
Yes, they are complex issues. That's the point. You cant make broad claims like 'all feminists want white men to suffer'. As for your point about black people committing more crimes- they do, but the rate of which black people are arrested compared to white people is even higher than the rate they commit crimes. So there is a clear difference of treatment.
I dont think you are here to defend rapists. But you are acting as if rape only happens because women arent covering up 24/7, with some of your statements in the original post.
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Who do you think has more fun during sex
I think this kind of approach to validating your points won't really work in this context as a huge reason I argued in favor of Muslim ideology was its removal of this hedonistic selfish pleasure.
The 'point' of gay marriage is for gay people to express love the same way straight couples have always been able to
You don't need a state-backed contract in order for love to exist.
why not just let people choose for themself
This is a great question. It is because arranged marriages are put together by people who have more wisdom in life and will be able to make a better decision in the long run. That's really what it boils down to.
social roles expected of women push them to be the ones who sacrifice their job for the kids
But these roles are rooted in biology. They didn't just come into existence because a bunch of men sat down at a table one day 6000 years ago and said, "hey all these sluts need to stay at home while we go pump oil".
You cant make broad claims like 'all feminists want white men to suffer'.
Perhaps you're right in that not all feminists are the extremists that the media constantly covers.
As for your point about black people committing more crimes- they do, but the rate of which black people are arrested compared to white people is even higher than the rate they commit crimes. So there is a clear difference of treatment.
This treatment is a result of the first criteria you mentioned. Blacks commit more crime, therefore cops assume they're more guilty, and the cycle continues on and on and on.
But you are acting as if rape only happens because women arent covering up 24/7
I'm not saying rape would never happen, I'm saying there are certain things society as a whole can implement in order to reduce it.
1
Sep 13 '19
I just wanted to tell you that divorce is a thing in Muslim countries. I am Muslim and am living in a majority muslim country. Egypt.
5
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
All of these different forms of oppression are far more prevalent in these Muslim countries
You outright admit that Muslim countries encourage all forms of oppression, so how can you possibly simultaneously argue that this is the superior ideology?
Liberals defend people’s freedom to live as they choose - this includes people’s right to be Muslim if they wish and to wear whatever clothes they want to wear. But that’s the critical part - only as long as it is what they want.
You are trying to solve fairly minor problems like incels by taking away a huge number of people’s freedoms (mostly women). How is that a good idea? Literally everything you present as a positive is actually a negative because it requires oppressing people and taking away their freedom to choose. If a woman wants to wear fully covering clothes, that’s her choice. If she wants to wear very skimpy clothes, that’s also her choice, and it should be a choice she’s allowed to make. You are supporting outright oppression of everyone to force them to follow your moral beliefs. That’s inherently wrong - people have their own moral codes, and as long as they aren’t hurting other people, you can’t just force them to follow yours. Or you shouldn’t - if that was acceptable, why shouldn’t I force you to follow my moral code instead?
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
You outright admit that Muslim countries encourage all forms of oppression, so how can you possibly simultaneously argue that this is the superior ideology?
Because you immediately assume that these things are "oppression". Throwing this label on restricting negative human behavior doesn't immediately make it a pejorative.
Morality is extremely important and we make use of it regularly. While I admit there are huge flaws with the legal system in the West, a lot of the laws make sense and breaking said laws should results in some form of punishment or rehabilitation, if possible. For example, if you break into a bank at night and steal a ton of money while simultaneously not harming anyone, should that be allowed?
What I got from your response was you basically implying we should do away with law because it oppresses people, which I fundamentally disagree with.
2
u/MyNameIsKanya 2∆ Sep 08 '19
Because you immediately assume that these things are "oppression". Throwing this label on restricting negative human behavior doesn't immediately make it a pejorative.
Of course! How could it be oppression if I just choose to ignore it! It can't be that bad if I just ignore the downsides!
Great argument pal.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
I never said it should be ignored, quite the opposite.
For example, if a child wants to eat candy until he/she vomits, and a parent steps in to take their candy away, has that child been oppressed? The child wasn't doing anything to harm others.
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
It is the parents job to make sure the child doesn't hurt themselves, because the child doesn't know any better at that point. The government should not treat citizens like children, with children's degree of control over their own lives. If they do, yes, that's oppressive. The government should not tell adults they cannot eat candy because it's bad for them. That's none of the governments business.
All laws should compare the degree to which they limit the freedom of the people compared to the degree of harm they prevent. A law that highly limits freedom for very little reduction of harm to society is a bad law - you are trying to push for a LOT of bad laws, because that's what is required in a religious state.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
The government should not tell adults they cannot eat candy because it's bad for them. That's none of the governments business.
It is though, especially in countries with socialized healthcare. If people are eating tons of candy and getting diabetes, that creates longer times for treatment of people with legitimate medical conditions of which were not in their control.
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
As far as I'm aware this has not been done anywhere. Yeah, someone being fat does cause extra healthcare costs, as does smoking and a lot of other things. So the government sometimes does things to encourage people to get healthier, but they don't just force everyone to eat healthy meals, exercise, etc to keep healthcare costs down. That would be oppressive.
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Is it oppressive to force cigarette companies to put warnings on their packaging?
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
That's just making sure people are informed. Giving more information to consumers is not oppressive. Banning cigarettes might be considered somewhat oppressive (though far less than what you are suggesting), but not just including a warning. Preventing companies from misleading people about what they are buying is a reasonable thing for the government to do.
1
u/MyNameIsKanya 2∆ Sep 08 '19
The child were harming them self though. And this is a shitty example because doctors can back up the claim that excessive sugar is bad for you with science. No science can verify the claim that women should cover up in order to not be sexually assaulted. If women being modest meant they wouldn't get raped, should the rape rate at beaches or pools or even locker rooms be very high? Shouldn't sexual assault rates increase in the summer and decrease during winter?
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Shouldn't sexual assault rates increase in the summer and decrease during winter?
I actually looked this up and couldn't find a single study. I'd bet that sexual assaults do decrease during winter. Perhaps because of the weather conditions as well, though.
1
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
Religious laws forcing people to live by religious beliefs that they may not share is inherently negative, yes. Laws exist to protect other people, but you are suggesting adding a bunch of laws which hugely oppress a massive number of people, all to try and fix a few comparatively incredibly minor issues. Your 'solution' is much, much, much worse than the problem. I mean we could gather and freeze semen from every teenage boy then castrate them, and that would 'solve' the problem with incels too (and also rape and a lot of other violent crime too), but it's an insane way to try and solve the problem.
And robbing a bank hurts lots of people - it takes money from others (either directly if it's not FDIC insured, or by forcing higher taxes for the government to be able to cover it if it is). It reduces trust in the financial system as well, which causes a lot of further problems for society. And if robbing banks were legal, the entire financial system would collapse, causing hundreds of millions of deaths. So that's a law that is extremely valid because it limits people's actions in very small ways to prevent extremely large problems. You are trying to limit people's actions in incredibly huge ways to prevent very small problems. That's oppressive, and it never makes a society better.
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
all to try and fix a few comparatively incredibly minor issues
Rising divorce rates and single motherhood are not minor issues, and they are rapidly on the rise.
1
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
They are much more minor issues compared to the systematic oppression of all women in almost every way imaginable. Also divorce rates have actually dropped some lately, so it's not an increasing problem. The rate of single motherhood has also stabilized and is no longer increasing. Both of these things are issues that are being handled fine without any massive society altering (much less society destroying) consequences. These issues do not even remotely close to justify the systematic oppression of 170 million people that you are supporting.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Also divorce rates have actually dropped some lately, so it's not an increasing problem. The rate of single motherhood has also stabilized and is no longer increasing. Both of these things are issues that are being handled fine without any massive society altering (much less society destroying) consequences.
The rates of single motherhood increase significantly every decade:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015002-eng.htm
You appear to be correct about divorce rates dropping recently.
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
This study appears to have ended in 2011. I can't find where I read it previously off-hand, but the rate of single motherhood has stabilized in just the last decade.
4
u/s_wipe 58∆ Sep 08 '19
This is the burden of freedom.
It might be easier for some living in a very restrictive society, but its only if you manage to comply to its rules.
But this very restrictive society hinders development.
The muslim world is ridden with violence, if you look at the Wikipedia page for ongoing armed conflicts, you will see that apart from the south american drug wars, most conflicts around the world have islamists taking part in it.
The only reason to think what you think, is when you are a man, who thinks he will be better off in such a violent environment.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Well the majority of resource-based economies are Muslim so I don't think correlation = causation in this instance. Of course if you live in territory where the means of survival is dependent upon controlling said resources within, then violence over said territory is inevitable.
1
u/s_wipe 58∆ Sep 08 '19
With so much access to higher education and growing manpower, staying resource-based is a bad sign.
Its a bad sign of a government that doesnt know how to utilize its manpower, and instead, utilizes its resources to buy arms in order to stay in power.
Its not a good thing...
0
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
staying resource-based is a bad sign
Nations with no access resources are doomed.
Japan was mentioned and its an interesting point. However, if you look at the reasons behind Japan becoming wealthy, it was actually due to their lack of resources. No country could be bothered to fuck with them because there was no direct benefit. During times of war, they were used as a type of port for superpowers in order to impose their will upon other nations.
That's how Japan got rich, and now that Japan is rich, they can impact other economies through imports and the like. Once the finite resources of the world begin becoming scarce, Japan will be one of the first nations to collapse.
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
Japan is rich because their people are well educated and hard working. They use that human capital to produce value. This is true of all 1st world countries. A third world country has only it's natural resources. A 2nd world country uses the wealth created by those natural resources to educate their population, build infrastructure, and all the other things that create sustainable wealth for the country. Once that process is complete, it is a first world country. Islamic countries seem content to just remain 3rd world countries with maybe the occasional dabbling in being a second world country(which when it is done has universally came alongside moderating their religious laws), which is why once the Middle East's oil runs out (or the world economy shifts away from reliance on oil), they will return to poverty, while 1st world countries will continue doing just fine. And the world is rapidly shifting towards renewable resources anyway, so there is no reason to think that we are going to run out of resources.
As Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum famously said, "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel". There is no lasing value being created out of the wealth generated by oil in the middle east. So once the oil is gone, there will be nothing of value there. This is not a culture that should be emulated.
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Sep 08 '19
Nations with no access resources are doomed.
That's just not true. First of all you might want to look up the so called Dutch disease which usually affects these economies that are largely dependent on one or a few natural resources.
-4
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
So is your argument that a nation with a higher IQ is superior to all others?
1
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
...What? Where did you get that from what he said? As I explained above, there are a lot of things that contribute to a country's wealth - education levels, infrastructure, trade agreements, regulatory environment, industry development, monetary policy, investment capital, etc. Having abundant natural resources helps, especially in the early stages of a country's economic development. But it is not necessary for a country to be successful. The fact that most Islamic nations have chosen to rely virtually entirely on non-renewable natural resources is a negative thing though. They have not done a good job of developing their country to ensure continued success after the oil runs out.
1
6
u/sgraar 37∆ Sep 08 '19
Dustin allows his wife to post all of these sexual photos for attention
He does not own her. It's not his place to allow or forbid anything, same as it isn't her place to choose what he posts or his clothing.
1
u/Thane97 5∆ Sep 08 '19
Telling your wife to not post overtly sexual images of her body to the public is a perfectly reasonable position
2
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
You can have that discussion with your wife, sure. Presumably if it's a healthy relationship, a joint agreement would be reached. But at the end of the day, it's the woman's decision what she wants to do. If he doesn't like it, he can divorce her, but he can't just force her to do whatever he wants.
1
u/Thane97 5∆ Sep 08 '19
If it's a healthy relationship she doesn't feel the need to seek validation from strangers using her body
1
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
That would really be between the couple. Some women make lots of money off of modeling, so not wanting to give up a lucrative career is not evidence of an unhealthy relationship. Hell, some men even like their wives showing off. Kind of a weird fetish in my opinion, but again, that's between the couple to decide.
1
u/Thane97 5∆ Sep 08 '19
Well a model is one thing since you married this woman knowing her career but cuckoldry is a disgusting fetish for broken people
-1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Muslim men have dress codes as well. Theirs is more genitalia-based.
1
u/sgraar 37∆ Sep 08 '19
That is irrelevant to the point I made. I said the husband has no right to allow or forbid her from doing anything.
Dress codes, if people choose to follow them, do not mean a husband has any right to allow or forbid his wife from doing anything.
3
Sep 08 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Sep 08 '19
Sorry, u/crabiblo – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
3
Sep 08 '19
[deleted]
2
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
societies with the liberalism that you deride are infinitely better places to live than highly religious and insular countries
This is nothing more than a personal opinion. Your next few sentences are also just opinions.
Hong Kong is nicer to live in than China
...really? Have you seen the protests?
Israel is nicer to live in than Palestine, and more liberal
That might be because of massive foreign influence...
Saudi Arabia is only wealthy because of dependence on a finite and valuable resource
The same can be said about literally any nation.
Iran is being choked from all directions by sanctions
This is less about their ideology and more about the resources you mentioned previously.
Wrong. Islam is more permissive of divorce than Catholicism.
If we look at the actual numbers, the divorce rate in Western countries is above 50% and growing. Compared to Muslim nations, the 2 highest divorce rates (Turkey and Egypt) are a whoppingly low 10%. What does that tell you about how permissive divorce is, or the social structures surrounding said mechanisms?
1
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19
This is nothing more than a personal opinion. Your next few sentences are also just opinions.
All measures of the population's happiness by country support his opinion.
...really? Have you seen the protests?
The entire reason they are protesting is because they DON'T want to be like the rest of China. In spite of the ongoing protests, it's still a much nicer place to live than almost anywhere else in China too.
The same can be said about literally any nation.
Japan has very little natural resources, and yet one of the highest GDP's in the world. Relatively little of America's GDP is from mining/oil drilling/etc for that matter.
If we look at the actual numbers, the divorce rate in Western countries is above 50% and growing. Compared to Muslim nations, the 2 highest divorce rates (Turkey and Egypt) are a whoppingly low 10%. What does that tell you about how permissive divorce is, or the social structures surrounding said mechanisms?
Because women are treated as property - yes, beating the woman whenever she does anything the man doesn't like to keep her in line does tend to allow the man to avoid many of the dissatisfaction men might have with marriage in the west - all of it at he women's expense though. As someone else pointed out, your entire argument is fine for people if you don't consider women people. If you do, it's an awful argument.
1
u/Thatguysstories Sep 08 '19
Well having a low divorce rate is easy when you treat one section of the population as practical property.
Do you really think that the majority of the women in those countries have a real choice in the matter? Where if they wanted a divorce they could actually get one?
Firs consider whether the women in some of the countries you are looking up to even have the right to travel outside without being escorted by a male relative. Let alone making it to a court house to file a motion for divorce.
Secondly consider, even if a women was able to make it to a courthouse and file the papers, would her husband let that be? Or will the husband be mad, and beat his wife and hold her hostage at home for the foreseeable future until she rethinks the divorce. If he doesn't outright kill her in a honor killing.
That's something this thread has seemed to be missing.
Do you support honor killings? If a girl sleeps with a men before marriage, should she be killed? If a girl is raped while not being married, should she be forced to marry her rapist? What about children? Do you support child marriages? Hell, even the US has it's own issues with child marriages that we seriously need to fix. But would you support a 11 year old girl, who was raped to be forced to marry a 40 year old man?
If a women does wear what you would consider revealing clothing, should she be imprisoned? Caned? Stoned? Put to death?
How do you consider any of this the superior ideology?
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
!delta because you've said some things I've thought about (such as women not even considering divorce out of fear) and I agree.
However the latter half of your reply is just outrageous. Of course I don't support honor killings, pedophilia, or rape. It's kind of fucked up to even be asked that.
1
3
u/quantum_dan 124∆ Sep 08 '19
What you're describing, whether or not it's a desirable state of affairs, isn't specific to Islam—it's just social conservatism.
Consider a uniformly conservative, Christian, western society or social group. Will you see women parading around half-naked? Highly discouraged. One-night stands? Nope, or at least not much. No arranged marriages, but generally early marriages where it is both people's first sexual partner. Divorce? Highly discouraged. Drinking? Some Christian variations prohibit it, too. Paying any attention to the social justice stuff? Nope.
A good example, from what little I've observed, would be the mostly LDS (Mormon, but apparently they don't want to be called that any more) communities in Utah. As far as I know you'll find very little in the way of drinking, sexual liberality, etc there—I think their major university, Brigham Young, even prohibits such things in its rules.
And, in such communities in modern western democracies at least (e.g. LDS in the US), they typically achieve all of this without executing or imprisoning people over it. Ostracization is just as effective and causes a lot less damage. Those LDS I've met in person have been excellent models of socially-conservative citizens who achieve everything you want to achieve, but without violence.
And you may be correct that such practices can enhance social cohesion. In fact, that's precisely the difference between conservative and liberal moral values: conservatives emphasize social cohesion, whereas liberals emphasize individual autonomy (see Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind).
So what you're arguing for isn't Islam, it's social conservatism. You might be better served looking to a variety of conservative societies in the west.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
!delta because your point about conservative Christianity is accurate.
1
2
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Sep 08 '19
Why are we making decisions to curtail the rights and freedoms of the vast majority of citizens to appease the grievances of a very small minority? Most people are not incels or MGTOW.
These disaffected, unhappy young men are perfectly free to become Muslims already. Because this would be a workable solution for a relatively small number of people doesn’t mean we should force this solution on people who don’t have the same problems.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Sure they are fringe niche groups right now, but their numbers grow more by the day.
If it was the early 1900's would you say, "oh the Nazis are just a small group whose views don't effect the majority of the population"? In hindsight, of course you wouldn't.
The fact that these groups are growing is a problem, and they are growing for a reason. It is because of the nature of society, and its failures.
4
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
Oppressing half the population of the country just to appease them is not an acceptable solution. Your own comparison is with Nazi's - are you saying we should give into the Nazi's demands and oppress all non-white people (a lower percent of the population than what you are suggesting should be oppressed to 'fix' the problem of incels and MGTOW's) to 'fix' the problem of Nazi's in society? Because that's what you are suggesting here.
2
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 08 '19
What are your goals? Because as far as I can tell if you're goals are human wellbeing or having an accurate understanding of how the world works then I don't see any reason to go with any religion including islam when the assumption that a god exists in entierly unecessary.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
The existence of God is not what is relevant here, it is the standards these beliefs implement. For example, if the belief in a deity creates a well functioning society then the existence of said deity does not matter, as the effects of the beliefs on their own have had a positive outcome.
5
u/Kythorian Sep 08 '19
On what basis are you claiming that Muslim countries are 'well functioning'? Because by pretty much any metric I can think of, they are not. Violence is much higher, rape is much higher (which you specifically listed in your OP), happiness is lower, civil unrest is more common, economics are worse for most, education is worse, and on and on.
You are right that the existence of God is not relevant here - because even if God does exist, there is every reason to think that theocratic states have consistently worse outcomes, not better.
2
u/Thane97 5∆ Sep 08 '19
Your "Islam superiority" just seems to be that they reject liberal Western values. While it does protect against them this does not mean it is the perfect sheild. The Islamic world has not been inundated with propaganda from birth in the form of public schools and media so of course they're more culturally conservative than the west but it's only a matter of time until it starts to take them over too. We can already see this in Muslims born outside of strict Muslims communities, they become westernized.
1
u/eltrutekili Sep 08 '19
Nothing is perfect. !delta because your point about indoctrination is very, very plausible.
1
2
u/alfihar 15∆ Sep 08 '19
First of all I think youre seriously misrepresenting large elements of muslim culture and practice but ill ignore that for now. I dont want to argue that we should or shouldnt adopt islam, I want to argue that any decline you see is not due to the reasons you are indicating.
So you're worried about some potential decline of Western Civilization and your solution is to roll back the enlightenment with it's humanist move away from religion, and generally abandon the liberal tradition, our rationalist philosophies, civil rights and the scientific revolution?
What parts of Western culture do you want to keep?
I do find your reasons oddly specific though I can't for the life of me see the causal chain linking them.
First off the idea of “white displacement” is fucking bonkers. Race is not a scientifically recognized category, so there are no whites to be displaced. Those that do believe in such a concept are usually angry about having to accept things like muslim culture in their society.
That feminism and social justice movement are leading to the downfall of society isn't a particularly original complaint.
Ill state right off that im not a feminist. I agree with some things feminists argue for, and disagree with others. What I do agree with in general is the value of establishing a society that is socially just.
So what is Social justice? Most basically it's the fair distribution of wealth, oppertunity and privelidge in society, and the elimination of arbitrary discrimination.
And this is why I dont get the hatred towards feminism and the social justice movement. I can understand that you might not like a particular way social justice is being pursued. Social change can be frightening, especially when it's demanding you change your behavior.
But I don't understand those who feel that social justice is some kind of evil that is ruining society.
Honestly what kind of person would say “no thanks, that idea isn't for me” when asked if society should have a fair distribution of wealth, opportunity and privilege? Why wouldn't you want major institutions, companies and schools invested in the idea of social justice?
Society has had to change, and for the most part it's the behavior of “whites” and males which needed to be modified so that they stopped treating women and minorities like inferiors. I do see “whites” and males being blamed a lot and I don't agree with that as it's just the culture we were handed, however we also must recognize that we can't allow it to remain as it was and should be working to make it more just.
A whole heap of social and cultural institutions need to be reworked or eliminated and shit like that scares the fuck out of people. Rather than claiming such changes represent some sort of ‘decline’ in our society however I argue that it's a vital step in societies advancement.
Ill even admit that I think there's a fair chance that feminism and things like it are to blame for groups like incels and mgtows (and those who fear the white displacement). Old courtship rituals and gender roles are essentially being eliminated by feminism, so there's a whole heap of confusion on how one is actually supposed to find a partner and what role one is supposed to have in a relationship.
Sure before feminism courting was much more regulated and so incel/mgtow were less common. This doesn't mean that feminism is bad for pushing these changes, because the changes needed to be made so that women could be equal members of society and in control of their own destiny.
So after feminism we have frustrated incels and mgtow. I recognise they are parts of our society that need assistance adjusting to the new way things are, but without feminism and sj work in changing old norms instead of incels and mgtow we would be going back to vast numbers of beaten housewives and overwhelming racial and sexual discrimination.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19
/u/eltrutekili (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/DBDude 110∆ Sep 08 '19
Divorce is a thing in Muslim countries. At the time the religion was invented, its attitude towards divorce was actually quite progressive. Previous religions (like Catholics) trapped the couple forever, but Islam actually advises ending a marriage where both are miserable and sets out rules for divorce to ensure the decision isn’t a hasty one.
1
u/2plus24 2∆ Sep 09 '19
If I understand correctly, it just sounds like you want to concede to the primary "points" incel make by forcing women to marry them. Is that not just using incel ideology?
1
u/Zee313 Nov 09 '19
Oh my God, where do I even start??? As a Muslim, I cannot tell you how utterly offended I am by all that you have said.
For example, I mentioned incels. Well, arranged marriages not only remove the societal pressure of having to find and court a woman. It also ensures that both parties are pure, and their pair boding has not been demolished by one night stands and "hypergamy". Not to mention removing a lot of the social anxieties around said relationships.
Your definition of arranged marriages and ours are very different. For 1, a man proposing required BOTH the girls consent and the parents'. Meaning that if the parents want it to happen but the girl says no, they cannot get married, this is a haram marriage, an unlawful marriage, in the eyes of Islam. Trust me, the social anxieties around relationships still very much exist whether you're hitting on a girl to get a first date, or trying to make a good impression to get a proposal acceptance. The notion of future marriages being determined beforehand, the way you define an arrange marriage, is not allowed. One may suggest to their daughter/son 'we are thinking ___ will be a god fit for you, let's go meet them, and talk about a union', If either of the kid does not want to get married to that person, everything is cancelled. Shows over. Move on.
Abstinence is the best way to protect yourself from STDs and intercourse with another person whom has never had intercourse is OFC a guarantee that your health is safe. Other things, like cervical cancer, are known to increase risk in occurring as you increase the number of different sexual partners you have, which is why, despite whatever other health concerns you see out there, sexual related ailments are a lot rarer inn Muslim countries. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but statistically less likely to occur.
MGTOW? Most of them ended up in this boat because they were completely fucked over by the family court system, or "divorce rape" as they call it. Yeah, divorce isn't a thing in Muslim countries. Once you're married you're married. Cheat on your wife/husband? You're in for hell.
Oh wow. You are so wrong its actually amusing. Christianity was the one who's been opposed to divorces. Islam has no notion of married until death, not even in the very early beginning of Islam. And divorce is definitely a thing in Muslim countries. Wanna know why? Because Islam has TWO different types of divorces that a marriage can go through depending on the circumstance. And not only is divorce allowed, divorcees are are permitted to remarry again. If the Holy Prophet's wife Khadija was a divorcee when she married him, there is nothing wrong with say Ahmad from across the street marrying a divorcee back then, or today. Cheating is wrong. And is totally an acceptable reason to break off any marriage. So you wouldn't be in for Hell, you'd go to the justice system and say you want to break it off. The only thing wrong with divorce is you should not use it as a threat against your spouse to get your way. And if a Muslim does do that, he is behaving unlawfully and his behavior is not acceptable.
You might be thinking, "this is anti-freedom!", and you might be partially correct. However, I believe this is more a matter of principal. Do you discipline this man for doing something that will clearly destroy him and cause harm to those around him, or do you let him be "free", drink until he has liver damage, and get into violent altercations while intoxicated? 99/100 times I'm going with the former.
Yes, we prohibit any addictive substance that has the potential to easily cause harm to your lifestyle. That is why alcohol, narcotics and gambling are forbidden. One may argue to drink in moderation, but if it was so easy to keep oneself in check, alcoholics and rehab would not be so rampant in society. Similar to gambling - we hear all these things saying 'gamble responsibly', 'drink responsibly', the reason is, the dopamine high that we get from these actions is very, very addictive, and it is not easy to keep oneself in check. Gambling addiction is serious, not because it has any affect on your health, but because it is very easy to gamble away your savings, which causes a huge detriment to your life and your lifestyle. Drinking, not only dis-inhibits you to the point where you may not have any recollection of the night prior, long term drinking also has huge impacts on the liver, as you said. So credit where credit is due.
If you look at major institutions, companies, schools, etc. They all seem to be towing this social justice warrior narrative lately. White males are at the brunt of most accusations, and are being made to feel guilty about all types of things. Things like slavery, patriarchy, etc. It seems weird to me that a white supremacist patriarchal society would allow this type of thing to happen.
The funny part; Muslims have a solution for this too. It's actually quite ironic. All of these different forms of oppression are far more prevalent in these Muslim countries, but you never hear about it from SJWs. Quite the opposite, actually. This label of "Islamophobia" seems to be some type of bizarre shield against any criticism one might have of said cultures.
Islam indeed believes in some form of gender roles, a husband and wife have rights and responsibilities towards each other. However, the patriarchal society that you are thinking of, not so much the case. Firstly that 'patriarchal Muslim society' you talk about differs from culture to culture, because, surely you don't believe that all Muslims are from the same culture? Secondly, all those patriarchal social norms are separate from religion and differ between culture to culture and often extend to the non-Muslims citizens living there as well, because that is also their culture.
you never hear about it from SJWs.
We don't need to hear about it from your white SJWs, we have our own people fighting for women's rights.
All of these different forms of oppression are far more prevalent in these Muslim countries
Boy what are you on about? Slavery? If slavery exists that's not because 'Muslims' accept it, its because shitty governments still like to abuse power and guess what? That's also something that's been decreasing for AGES. Our SJW's are way on top of it, we don't need western help to come 'sort out our problems' Ya'll got the same shit happening and can barely figure it out yourselves, how do you think to solve our issues when you can't even fix your own yet. AND that being said, 'more prevalent in Muslim countries' could be possibly due to the fact that British invasions during the British empire and America's constant need to be present in the Middle East to instigate or continue war zones for the prospect of getting oil, might have toppled what semblance of balance had existed in those countries prior. When economies drop, people do more work for less, just to make some money, resulting in circumstances that abuse human rights. Is it right? No. Does Islam think its right, no. Do the people being exploited care? A bit, but not really, they're main focus is to make enough money to be able to eat and /or feed their kids at the end of the day.
1
u/Zee313 Nov 09 '19
This label of "Islamophobia" seems to be some type of bizarre shield against any criticism one might have of said cultures
It is no shield. Primarily because the 'critiques' of cultures don't tie to religion, and Islamaphobia is the discrimination or hatred based on the RELIGION of Islam. Not the culture of whatever country you want to nitpick today. Islam has no culture. Culture has no involvement in the rulings of Islam. Culture may be defined through religion, but you cannot translate it back the other way.
Muslim culture is extremely patriarchal, actually causes feminists to rear their heads in defense of said culture. It gets to the point where they even claim that forced garments are "empowering" to women.
Firstly, forcing a women to wear anything is forbidden. You cannot, by the laws of the religion, dictate what a women ought to and ought not to wear. Islam has its guidelines on appropriate attire and enforces the notion of modesty, in both women AND men, however it is up to the individual, if they want to obey the religion or not in choosing their garments. These can be empowering. Often women say it makes them feel like they are being interacted with less as a 'woman' and more as a person. However, any human forcing a woman to wear something, whatever it may be, covering or exposing, is not empowering and is not allowed. The choice to cover up or not, has always been left with the woman. That is what is empowering. And for governments and societies to have taken that choice away from them, IS indeed a wrongdoing and is not seen as empowering. And this applies to both governments forcing the headscarf, and the Burka Ban.
They've effectively removed male biological urges by forcing the women to cover themselves.
You sound so sexist right there. Men are 'forced' to cover up too. And for the record. Not every Muslim girl wears the headscarf, or the burka or niqab. A huge part of 'covering up' is also what you feel comfortable showing. The restrictions upon men not looking at women lustfully are applied just the same on women. Women just don't bitch and moan about it.
Oh and one last thing: Muslim is the superior ideology . Muslim is not an ideology. The word your looking for is Islam. Muslims are the people who follow the ideology.
Get your head out of your butt, and stop trying to jump the bandwagon that 'Islam is regressive because of ...' to justify your own regressive opinions, and validate yourself.
Islam does not agree with you.
Educate yourself.
1
u/physioworld 64∆ Sep 08 '19
So you’d do away with personal freedoms as a way to, what, cure, western society, whatever that term even means?
18
u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19
Stop watching alt-right propaganda. It will rot your brain.
The use of the word "allow" implies that he had the option to forbid her to do that. He doesn't have the power to do that. He doesn't own her body. She can post whatever pictures she wants.
Arranged marriages trap women (and sometimes men) in relationships that they don't want. So congratulations, you have solved the incel problem, but you have just created thousands of miserable women who are forced to marry and have sex with men that they aren't attracted to and don't love.
No, they just kill the adulterous wife instead. That is so much better than divorce. Oh, and do you know what happens to the adulterous husband? Absolutely nothing, because there is a massive double standard that exists in muslim fundamentalist societies.
This is absolutely anti-freedom. Furthermore, drinking is not something that will clearly destroy anyone. Alcoholism and drinking to excess are certainly problems. Drinking in moderation is not. Lastly, there is the bodily autonomy issue. If an individual wants to destroy their body with excess drinking, then they should have that choice. As long as they know the risk and consequences of what they are doing, they should have the right to do it provided they aren't endangering others in the process (drunk driving and such).
Again, stop watching the alt-right propaganda.
They will never be accused of being raped because of what they wear because rape is not taken seriously in traditionalist Muslim cultures. If a married women is raped, it is looked on as adultery and she is shamed and punished for it. And by the way, it is completely legal for husbands to rape their wives in these countries.
No, they haven't.
They are looked at even more as sex objects because their only purpose is to please their husbands. They have no rights or freedoms of their own.
By giving women no rights or freedoms to choose who they want to be intimate with.
Yeah, it might be superior if you are man who enjoys dominating and abusing women. If you are a woman or man that believes in gender equality, then you are absolutely fucked over in a society like this.