Tag Archives: feminism

Male privilege versus female privilege

The above is a comment from reddit. This is a common mistake among the men’s rights movement, that there is something wrong with women dictating what a “real man” is. The truth is that each gender has its own standards for determining whether a person of the oppose sex is “relationship material” or “marriage material”.

Since from a relationship perspective, a man’s worth is as much about things outside of himself (success, charisma) as it is about innate qualities, women’s standards are going to be extremely fluid and seemingly arbitrary, since what women seek in a man is success, and success can come in all kinds of garbs. In an African tribe, a real man is any man who is successful within that specific environment, who is best capable of defending and providing for himself, his women and his children.

In a Western society, a real man is the same; the man who is most capable of defending and providing for himself, his women and his children. But since the environment is different, the requirements are different.

So there is nothing actually arbitrary about a woman’s standards. She cares about success and uses various heuristics to find out a man’s level of success. If she meets a man who is not very wealthy, but who has great charisma, good manners and sensitivity, then she will consider him a real man. If she finds another man who has $50 million dollars in the bank, but who is somewhat rude and selfish, she will consider him too a real man, even though she wouldn’t accept this type of behavior from the previous (less wealthy) man.

Perhaps 3/4 of a man’s worth depends on his capacity to protect and provide. His looks and other innate qualities (manners, kindness) determine the remaining quarter of his worth.

When it comes to judging whether a woman is a “real woman”, which I will interpret as “marriage material”, men too have their own criteria which may seem arbitrary to females. Men do not care about her wealth and success, these are just the icing on the cake, while when it comes to a man’s worth, his wealth and success is most of the cake.

A woman’s quality is judged based on her beauty, youth and loyalty, the qualities necessary for ensuring successful long-term relationships and healthy, high-quality children.

A man’s quality, too, is judged based on his wealth and success for the same reason, to ensure a successful long-term relationship and healthy, high-quality children.

So, in reality, both genders have the privilege of determining which specimens of the other gender are worthy when it comes to marriage and reproduction and which ones are not. This is called sexual selection, and it is essential for the survival of all sexually-reproducing species. There needs to be a mechanism by which a woman can differentiate between multiple male suitors and choose the best one among them and discard the worst ones, and there needs to be a similar mechanism for men.

I explain in further detail men’s preference for  youth and lack of sexual experience in my essays The Most Desirable Women for Marriage are in their Early Twenties and Sexually Inexperienced and Why do traditional societies care so much about a woman’s virginity?

 

James Watson’s happy ending

After a large alliance of the betrayers of science and Western civilization (who run the West’s media, academia and research foundations) ruined James Watson’s career for mentioning scientifically-verifiable facts, this happened:

James Watson is the co-discoverer of the 3D structure of DNA. I have read his books The Double Helix and Avoid Boring People.

In similar circumstances, the economist Larry Summers mentioned the scientific fact that there are important genetic differences between men and women, which lead to mass feminist hysteria. Summers quickly backtracked and gave $600 million of Harvard money to the feminist priesthood as his sin offering, having learned the valuable lesson that it does not pay to give priority to scientific truths when there are the far more important concerns of keeping his well-paying careers and high positions. Why be a martyr in the name of science when you can be rich and powerful instead? Steve Sailer has a good article on this particular farce:

MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins won much sympathy from the press for fleeing Summers’ talk like a blushing Victorian maiden hearing some uncouth personage use the word “legs” instead of “limbs.” In leaking Summers’ off-the-record talk to the Boston Globe, Hopkins claimed that she had to leave or, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

In reality, Hopkins is a veteran at playing the gender card. Wendy McElroy reported in 2001 on Hopkins’ lucrative conflicts-of-interest:

“The [MIT] Committee was established to investigate complaints of sex discrimination that were leveled by Hopkins herself. Yet she became the Chair, heading an investigation into her own complaints. As a result of her findings, Hopkins received — among other benefits — a 20 percent raise in salary, an endowed chair and increased research funds. Indeed, most of the Committee consisted of women who benefited substantially from the ‘guilty’ verdict. The only evidence of sex discrimination produced was the fact that there are more men than women in the faculty of the School for Science.”

Islam versus Feminism

/ No Comments on Islam versus Feminism

My professor told me that men and women have different purposes, so we can’t protest how men are more “free”. We can’t protest on how wives have to do what the husbands say as long as it’s right. My Mom also told me that if your husband says no, then you don’t do it. However, there are feminists that are rebelling against this, they say that it’s sexist, women rights, equality, etc. What do you think about this? And what do you think about feminism? Sorry if it’s hard to understand.

It is true that men and women have different evolutionary purposes. I describe this in detail in my two essays Man’s Masculine Role and Woman’s Feminine Role in Family and Civilization and Civilization versus Feminism.

There are many types of feminists. Some of them believe in equal rights for women and there is nothing wrong with this. Others believe in women’s moral superiority and think that all men are inherently worthless

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” —Andrea Dworkin

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” —Marilyn French, advisor to Al Gore’s presidential campaign.

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” —Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman.

“The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it.” —Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in “Women and the New Race,” p. 67.

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.” —Elizabeth Cady Stanton

These are feminism’s leaders and intellectuals. They have high-paying jobs as university professors and administrators, pundits and non-profit executives. These are not some crazy outsiders, they are at the center of feminism, and it is people like this who run most women’s studies departments at universities.

As for women who believe in the equal worth of men and women and simply want to promote equal rights and opportunities for women, then there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. So it is quite true that a Muslim woman can be a feminist and make a contribution to society.

There is a big difference between the old humanist feminism of Wollstonecraft and Stanton and the new radical leftist feminism in vogue today. The old one worked to end social injustice against women by demanding equal rights and freedoms for them. This old feminism is in keeping with Islamic principles and can serve a useful function in Islamic societies, ensuring that women’s rights are not neglected and women’s freedoms not limited due to un-Islamic cultural biases that exist in many places.

The new feminism, which is the doctrine of today’s women’s studies departments at universities, has little to do with the old feminism. It teaches that men are inherently evil and worthless, that men’s thinking is invalid, that the world would be a better place if all men ceased to exist. It promotes hatred and anger against men and civilization, teaching women to feel no moral responsibility toward their societies and to see everything from the highly skewed lens of a mythical war between the sexes. This view is highly un-Islamic, because it does not believe in the transcendent value of human life. It teaches that men are sub-human, lesser creatures, almost worthless. It teaches that a woman’s rights and feelings must be of the utmost importance while considering men’s (and boys’) rights and feelings laughable and worthless.

Any feminist Islam, therefore, must be highly sensitive to the differences between these two types of feminism and reject the new one in favor of the old, humanist feminism that truly believed in equality, in giving back to society, in cooperation with men rather than hatred toward them.

The side of the patriarchy that is heretical for a feminist to examine

Like all neo-Marxist victimhood ideologies, it is a crucial part of feminism to have zero empathy for its designated enemy. The designated enemy is always dehumanized; so Nazi soldiers were not humans (post-WWII Jewish identity), capitalists are not humans (Marxist identity), men are not humans (feminist identity), straight white males are not humans (SJW identity). Therefore it is incredibly annoying when a feminist is forced to have some empathy for males in order to answer an intellectual question. For her it almost feels like rape, and like Anita Sarkeesian would agree, anyone who does such a naughty thing should be cut off from the internet and placed under house arrest for life.

Civilization versus Feminism

Prospect of London by Antonio Joli (mid-18th century)

Why should people get married? Why can’t we all just be enlightened, have sex with whoever we want without getting society, the clergy and the government involved?

This page that you are viewing contains the whole of chapter 25 of my book Sex and Purpose, available on Amazon.com as a Kindle ebook and paperback.

The point of marriage is that you cannot have civilization without it. For a society to be sustainable (to have above-replacement birthrates, i.e. to not go extinct due to depopulation), it is necessary that men be forced by society into getting into long-term relationships with women, relationships that they cannot casually get out of.

To see what happens without marriage, do not look at enlightened bachelors and professional single women in big cities who are having a rocking time doing whatever they want without a care in the world. These people generally themselves come from traditional families. Their existence relies on the existence of marriage, but the fact that they have abandoned it does not immediately cause their social circles to implode. It takes generations for this to happen.

Instead, look at America’s ghettos and trailer parks, where many men would gag at the thought of being a family man, settling down and working on creating and building things of long-term value. Instead, men sleep with whoever they have access to, without accepting any responsibility for whatever happens afterwards. A man will generally not stay with any woman for a significant length of time if he find a better one, and he will generally have children with multiple women, not accepting responsibility for any of his offspring, but rather considering it an annoyance, something to be escaped, because it prevents him from living his ghetto glamour lifestyle to be forced to be there for his kids.

His children grow up generally not knowing who their father us. They belong to their mothers. This leads to what is known as a matrilineal society, a society where children identify with their mothers, where the fathers are insignificant satellites without much purpose or function.

Some feminists think that this is how all men are. Their books are full of references to “deadbeat dads”, as if this is what every man wants to be. Ironically, they also fully support the thought of men being insignificant, the thought of children belonging to their mothers rather than their fathers, of matrilineal societies ruled by matriarchs, not realizing that since such societies have no place for fathers, all fathers in such societies are going to be to some degree deadbeat ones.

In general, there are two types of societies in this world. The first are matrilineal ones, where fathers are insignificant and do not care much for their children. Such societies exist among tribes in the Amazon and in Africa, and in America’s ghettos and trailer parks. The most important fact about such societies is that they are not civilizations. Traditional matrilineal societies are all close to the Stone Age technologically. And as for non-traditional societies, those living in technologically advanced societies, they too are entirely technologically incapable, if it wasn’t for the larger civilization supporting them, they too would slowly revert back to the Stone Age, because they are incapable of innovation, of long-term planning, of having hope in the future instead of placing all of one’s focus in short-term gratification.

The lower class whites living in a trailer park are not going to sit down and think of building a wildlife conservation foundation. That is only something done by rich and overeducated weirdoes. It is far more sensible in their opinion to use their money on drink and women.

The other type of society is the patrilineal society. This is a society that, instead of letting men do whatever they like, having sex with whoever they want, it forces them to stay with just one woman (or a few, in polygamous societies). The society holds its men responsible for the wellbeing of their women and children. Through various psychological manipulation tactics, such as shaming its men for not being “real men” if they fail to do what is best for their women and children, men are forced to work day and night to improve their own lot and the lot of their women and children, instead of lying back and just enjoying life like men do in matrilineal societies.

Extremist feminist ideology wants to destroy the “patriarchy”, to prove that men are worthless and insignificant. They think it is a good thing to destroy traditional values that have “forced” women into being men’s companions and supporters, instead of being their own persons. They want children to belong to their mothers, not fathers. They do not realize that what they are, in effect, trying to establish, is a matrilineal society. A matrilineal society, by making men insignificant and worthless, forces its men to be uninvested in the long-term wellbeing and survival of their women, children and society, so that the society always falls into decay.

By destroying patriarchy, by making men insignificant in society, they are made to feel little allegiance to their women and children. They will much rather enjoy themselves than worry about raising a family, and they will do what they can to escape taking responsibility for their children.

A deadbeat dad is not a patriarchal dad. He is a matrilineal dad. African matrilineal tribes are entirely made up of “deadbeat” dads, where no man even knows who his children are, he just knows among the 10 or 20 women he has had sex with, some of the children born to them are his, he doesn’t care which. The same reality is recreated in America’s ghettos and trailer parks, whether they are populated by blacks or whites.

Feminist ideology holds that the law can be used to enforce matriarchy on society on the one hand, and to to force men to be highly invested in their societies and their women on the other hand.

What feminism does is destroy the very societal mechanisms that force men to be invested in their women and children (by destroying marriage, promoting sexual freedom, single motherhood and the idea that men are worthless), and to replace it with a new mechanism, the law, to force men do what women want.

Just like communism1, feminism wants to throw away the traditional societal mechanisms for the survival of civilizations that humanity has developed over the millennia, thinking it knows better, thinking it can destroy it all and use the law to force a new, and better order on humanity.

The result is that neither communism nor feminism work in the long-term. Communism does not work because it is against human nature to not be allowed to keep the fruit of one’s work. Communism is exactly the same as feudalism, where the lord of the manor keeps everyone’s harvest for himself, promising to take care of the peasants himself by distributing resources where he sees fit. All communist states have a massive police state that strikes terror into the hearts of their citizens. This is necessary because human nature rebels against communism. Human nature needs to be beat into shape daily by the communist state to ensure that things continue to function.

What feminism does is more subtle. By creating a culture where men are made to be the bad guys, worthless and stupid2, men are no longer made to feel invested in their societies, instead acting like the men in matrilineal societies, enjoying video games, drinks, sports, movies, pornography and any sex they can have, without wanting to get entangled with marriage.

The result is that birthrates plummet and women find it increasingly difficult to find men who want them for marriage, rather than for a casual sexual relationship. In a traditional society like Egypt, any reasonably attractive woman is guaranteed to have many men wanting to marry her and take care of her for life. In a feminist society, many men will recoil from marriage. They are told for all of their lives that the world would be better without them, that women are morally their superiors, that men are the source of nearly all evil on this earth, and they take this to heart. They stop believing in building and creating, in seeing society thrive, because they do not consider themselves worthy or fit enough to be involved in all that.

Similar to the men in undeveloped matrilineal societies, they spend their lives not as men, but as man-children, never feeling they have a place in society, feeling like unimportant satellites that may occasionally be involved with society, but that do not really belong to it.

The purpose of marriage, which is a patriarchal construct, is to sell men the idea that there is something special about their relationship with a woman, that it is not just about sex or about his or her selfish interests, that it is something more.

For a matrilineal man, a woman is little more than a vagina, something to be used and enjoyed, but ultimately not worth much interest beyond that. This is why hip-hop culture, whether black or white, uses the word “ho” (i.e. whore) as a word for all women. To them a woman is something to be bought and used. Such men will cynically laugh at the idea of cherishing a woman and her children, being in love with her and wanting to take care of her for life. What they believe in is promising a woman the world, showing her one’s money, cars and gold, getting into her pants, enjoying her for as long as she is useful, then moving on once it gets boring.

The patriarchy, where men are made to be women’s servants and protectors, otherwise they wouldn’t be “real men”. Painting by Frederic Leighton.

Similar to the way that the rank of a soldier comes with various duties and functions that are imposed upon him by the military, the rank of a husband comes with various duties and functions that are imposed upon him by patriarchal society. He is not a real man if he simply enjoys life and couldn’t care less what happens to society or to the women he has sex with. He is a real man if he works, if he creates, if he gets himself killed defending his wife and children, if he spends his whole life being a nobody who did nothing more glorious than raising a good enough family, if he spends his entire life in the service of his woman and children.

All of these are heavy duties, and men will refuse to carry them unless they are made to believe that they have a worthy and admirable place in society, unless they are made to believe in the societal fairytale that being a husband is more than just being someone who has regular sex with a particular woman.

What feminism does is destroy that fairytale. By stamping on men’s sense of worth in society day and night, in books, at college lectures, in films and TV shows, it forces men to abandon their sense of allegiance to their society. They are made to think and feel that everything would function just fine without them, so that you have 35-year-old manchildren who still have no idea what they are going to do with their lives, exactly like the men in matrilineal societies.

By destroying the patriarchal fairytale of marriage, the result is plummeting birthrates. In the short-term, this doesn’t mean anything much, which is why many people can say that we already have enough people, so what if the US ends up having 150 million people instead of 325?

But a far-sighted person will see that if birthrates are below replacement, then the society will dwindle until it goes extinct. The US population of 325 million will dwindle to 3 million in 900 years if it ends up having Japan’s depopulation rate of losing 34% of its population every 90 years.

Since we love post-apocalyptic films, the idea of a depopulated US may actually sound attractive. But what actually happens when a population starts to dwindle is that it is taken over by patriarchal sectors of the population who continue to maintain high birthrates.

The US population will not dwindle to zero. It will be replaced by those parts of the population who continued to maintain a patriarchal mode of living, believing in marriage and the importance and worth of men.

Therefore while some men’s rights activists see a dystopian vision of a feminist police state ruling the West decades from now, what actually happens is that once feminism reaches its peak of power, that is when its demise starts, because those who buy the feminist version of reality that is being sold in the media and everywhere else are going to suffer low fertility rates and will be thrown out of the gene pool. Those who remain are those who are intelligent, cultured or religious enough to reject it, so that they maintain a patriarchal mode of living.

When I say “patriarchal”, I do not mean one where sexist men are in charge of everything. I mean a society where both men and women are respected and honored, like in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, but better. Where women are free to pursue careers if they want, and where no one gets away with discriminating against women.

In the type of society I believe in, men and women are considered equally worthy members working for the same enterprise, each serving his or her own evolutionary function in the best way possible. Both men and women are considered humans before they are anything else, and their humanity is respected in all matters. Their sex organs are secondary to this. Men will serve their evolutionary function of creating form, while women will serve their function of being substance, not out of compulsion, but because they like it.

Isn’t it demeaning for a woman to define her function with respect to men, instead of doing whatever she wants? No. It might feel that way for a few, who are free to do as they like. But the majority will be perfectly happy to do what millions of years of evolution have chosen them to do best; being a man’s home, being the thing that a man sacrifices his everything for. Most women would rather marry a king instead of building a kingdom, because most women will not get a kick out of building a kingdom, doing the drudgery, the planning, the hard and boring work necessary to build anything significant, while men are designed to enjoy all of that work. Your ideal man will find that idea of marrying a queen and becoming part of her kingdom somewhat demeaning, because evolution has chosen men to do the opposite.

It is the man who builds and the woman who enters what he has built, not the other way round. Most men will not be proud of becoming part of what a woman has built, and most women will not be happy to build things for a man to become part of. This is the evolutionary rule. There are exceptions, but the exceptions do not nullify the rule. We do not need to destroy our heritage and evolutionary past because some idiot thinks he or she has a better idea.

Most families will function best with the man as the CEO and the woman as the vice president. I respect a woman’s intelligence and courage in ensuring that this arrangement works out in her best interests and the best interests of her children. She will agree to be part of such an arrangement because she likes it, because she knows this is how she can get her money’s worth. If women can easily get a divorce, if there are government agencies and hotlines to protect women’s rights and prosecute abusive husbands, then women can both enjoy their evolutionary role of being emotionally bonded to a man and belonging to his civilization, and being protected from abusive relationships. Intelligent and well-educated women can continue to work as women’s rights activists, ensuring that no injustice is done toward women, without advocating for injustice against men as so often is done by feminists.

There can be a new breed of feminists who, instead of thinking they must carry a man’s burdens to be considered worthy, make full use of the men available to them, enjoy the evolutionary instincts of sexual bonding and belonging, and do whatever else they want with their lives. Such women will have the best mental and physical wellbeing any woman can have, because they will enjoy acting according to their genetics while also having their humanity and freedoms respected. There would be no psychological conflict in their heads between their respect for women’s rights and letting a man impregnate them, between intellectual aspirations and raising children, because their sexual lives, their place in society and their intellectual lives will all be in line.

Masculinism

Feminism rejects all male-defined (or presumably male-defined) ideas regarding female role and function, building a new one that is meant to be entirely woman-made. That it is only a very small cross-section of womanhood that is writing and directing nearly all feminist ideology is irrelevant to them.

Feminism’s male alternative would be masculinism, the male ideology that all woman-defined (or presumably woman-defined) ideas regarding the male role and function should be rejected. Instead of living up to a woman’s expectations, any woman’s, a man does what he wants with his life. Whether it is a traditionalist woman wanting him to be a family man, or a feminist wanting him to be a metrosexual male feminist, he equally rejects both, going his own way instead. The MGTOW (men going their own way) movement is mostly this way, acting as feminism’s counterpart. Unlike feminists, who have billions of dollars in funding, this movement has close to zero funding, therefore few people know about it.

If feminism is destructive to civilization, masculinism is equally destructive. In both cases, the two parts of this two-part organism stupidly and shortsightedly work for their own benefit, rejecting their dependence and relationship with the other part, thinking that this is the way to achieve their true purpose, their true fulfillment in life.

Whether it is men or women ignoring their evolutionary reality (that they are designed to join in sex with a member of the opposite sex, creating a single organism and working for its benefit), the result is the same. Traditional roles and values are discarded, each sex selfishly works for its own good with no concern for how it affects the other sex, and the end result is that neither sex is too invested in their society and civilization, resulting in low birthrates and dysfunctional families.

If there were no feminists, but masculinism was the order of the day the way feminism is today, the result would be the same. We would have men constantly working for their own sex’s benefit and calling the other sex stupid, worthless and inferior, telling her a man needs a woman the way a fish needs a bicycle3, telling her the world would be a better place without her, and that she is responsible for all of the world’s problems.4

Some men think that it is justified to be a masculinist as a response to feminism. That is what feminists say too, that even if they are selfish and misandrist (male-hating), men have had it coming for centuries.

Those of us who are adults can escape these melodramatic and juvenile arguments and act according to evolutionary reality, doing what brings us most fulfillment. I will never be selfish toward the woman I love, I will never treat her like anything less than a man, and I will never blame her for acting the way women are designed to act. And I will never marry a woman who thinks men are inferior to women.

Unlike the people of either camp, I will not consider men and women rivals. I will consider them equal members of the same species and union, each making the other the way it is, both working for the same goal.

Man’s Masculine Role and Woman’s Feminine Role in Family and Civilization

As has already been covered, man’s job in his family is to create the peace and space within which his woman and children can be happy and carefree.

This page that you are viewing contains the whole of chapter 21 of my book Sex and Purpose, available on Amazon.com as a Kindle ebook and paperback.

A human is a two-bodied organism. The male’s job is to reshape and maintain the external environment within which successful procreation can happen. The female’s job is to create the internal environment within which successful procreation can happen.

A man builds the civilization or nest, the woman inhabits it and builds the children inside her. Similar to the way a queen bee takes care of procreation while the rest take care of going out to gather resources,  building the colony and defending her, a woman takes care of procreation while the man takes care of providing for her, building what is needed by their civilization and defending her and it.

Those are the fundamental genetic instincts that drive humans. Since humans are highly complex creatures, they can create various differing arrangements that do not always reflect the form/substance distinction between a man and his woman. But regardless of what civilization it is you are looking at, you will see the above realities operating underneath everything else.

A man’s focus is external, he is always interested in the other, in the environment, in ideas, in machines and structures. A woman’s focus is internal. She is interested in herself and her relationship with the world, in maintaining herself, her children and her relationships with her man, her relatives and everyone else.

Whenever we are looking at a man and woman who have sex regularly, we are looking at a single creature that works for its own good, each body doing what is necessary for the whole.

Man fulfilling his masculine purpose. Boat Builder by John George Brown (c. 1904)

Since a man’s focus is external, he doesn’t care too much about his relationships. He wants to reach a stable, reliable relationship with his woman, something that is achieved best if she is young and he has regular sex with her, so that a deep emotional bond is maintained. Once this is achieved, he wants to be free to do what is necessary to improve his family’s situation in the world. He does not want what he calls relationship drama, because it reflects an inefficiency within the internal structure of his family, which is not his specialty. It is for this reason that men generally do not like romantic novels and films. Men want to find the perfect woman and be bonded with her ever after. It is the “ever after” they are interested in, the things they can accomplish once everything is working. While for a woman, it is not the ever after that is so much her interest as the process of getting there.

She is designed to enjoy working to get there, meaning she enjoys the work of romance, the work of catching the right guy to join his already-built or being-built kingdom.

A man, on the other hand, is designed to enjoy the work of building civilization, rather than the work of getting her, because to him building civilization is getting her. Evolution promises them if they build the right civilization, she will come into it, inhabit it and build his children inside her, end of story.

For a woman, that is the end of her procreative goal. She has acquired her nest, and everything else from there should be plain sailing. For a man, it is just the start. Once he has her impregnated, that’s when his most important task starts, to work to grow and sustain and expanding civilization.

A man doesn’t want to watch a film about how a woman ends up getting the right man to impregnate her. He wants to watch a film that starts from there. He wants to watch a man who already has his seed inside the perfect woman, who then goes about the world doing interesting things, being involved in the action of building, defending and maintaining civilization, whether as a spy, scientific genius or detective.

A man’s job, therefore, is to be a creator, a builder, a protector and a maintainer, who perfects his work and continuously works to increase his status, while ensuring the wellbeing of those who are in his care.

A woman’s job is to ride with him through all of this, providing him with a warm and sweet home he can always come back to, so that he can feel that it is all worth it. A man who knows the perfect woman is lovingly waiting for him at home is going to be highly effective and motivated at whatever he does. He feels appreciated, and he feels like his life is going in the right direction.

Evolutionarily, a woman likes to think of his man as someone who is out there doing cool things for both of them. A man likes to think of his woman as inhabiting his home, that all she has to do. He will most effective at doing his evolutionary job when he knows he can go home to a woman who is ready to complete him. Every man’s dream is to go home after work to a woman who loves him and willingly opens her legs for him. Once he has this in his life, he will feel that he has everything a man could ask for.

There is, therefore, an evolutionary distribution of labor between a man and woman. A man’s labor is outside the home, he is supposed to suffer stress and damage outside and come home to be made whole again. A woman’s labor is inside the home, she is supposed to protect his children inside her and remain safe from the troubles of the world, so that healthy and happy children can be born to the both of them and be raised by them.

In this way, this two-bodied organism reproduces and raises its young.

In the modern world, while we can create complicated artificial arrangements that go against the above, since people mistakenly think it is fairer if both sexes carry exactly the same responsibilities and duties. A man who washes dishes and changes diapers, and a woman who works outside the home, are considered admirable for going against their genetics.

But when a man and woman are not taught otherwise, they always revert to their genetic roles, because it has the momentum of millions of years of evolution behind it. A 50-year-old ideological movement stands zero chance of undoing it or overcoming it. It will forever be like a fish swimming against the current of a river.

While there is nothing wrong with a man helping out in the home, and it is in fact an admirable and worthy thing if he has nothing better to do, it is an incredible waste resources for a woman to make her husband work inside the home if he is a lawyer who could be making $200 an hour doing his job instead.

Men, due to their testosterone and abstract brain, have a higher earning potential, as is admitted even by feminists. Men intentionally choose high-paying fields like mathematics and petroleum engineering when women absolutely hate the very idea of these fields. Women would rather study in low-earning but comfortable fields like English and psychology.

While some people think this is the sign of an intentionally unfair system created by men that should be dismantled, it is actually the sign of an unfair arrangement created by evolution. Men are interested in accomplishment, i.e. in watching the last minute of the romance movie, while women are interested in process, in watching the whole movie.

Intellectual women are more like men, in that they enjoy abstract topics, although generally if it is not to the same creepily obsessive degree as men, spending until 4 AM awake to finish solving some mathematical problem that is not going to earn them any money to solve, or staying awake that long to finish a stage in a video game.

House Builders by Frank Dicksee (1880)

In their families, intellectual women prefer men who treat them like equals intellectually, not just as an inhabitant of their home to be fed and had sex with. They want more from life than just process, than just enjoying life, getting pregnant and raising children. They generally want to be somewhere in the middle between the masculine and the feminine evolutionary roles, enjoying family life, but also doing more.

Like a man, they too want accomplishment. In the Victorian era, they did this by forming clubs, writing novels and travel journals, and being involved with charities. Today they do it by having careers or doing the Victorian things mentioned.

Some of these women become feminists, thinking that this is the right way for all women to be, failing to realize that humans are on a spectrum, the gender role they prefer is somewhere between masculine (accomplishment-oriented) and the feminine (process-oriented). There are women who are perfectly happy to take care of their men’s homes, to have regular sex, get pregnant and raise children, without wanting to do anything more besides these. They want to enjoy the process of life, and there is nothing wrong with this. Such women are not worthless, this is how the majority of women have been throughout history, they must be loved and admired for being an essential part of humanity’s history and survival.

Other women are still in the feminine zone, but closer to the masculine side, so that they want both process and accomplishment.

Others are in the masculine side, tomboys who do not enjoy feminine things but masculine things, and who like to have careers and accomplishments. Unfortunately some of these women are highly misogynistic, and the staunchest feminists are generally among them, because they discard the majority of women and their interests as worthless and stupid. Since they are so masculine themselves, they think that all women should be like them. Like the most sexist men, they think that there is something lowly and disgusting about a woman’s process-centered life, that there is something blameworthy if a woman plays her evolutionarily feminine role too well, the role she is designed to enjoy and do best.

Thus you have career women who think their mothers are worthless and stupid because they failed to “do anything with their lives”, content to be feminine women doing feminine things. There is nothing a feminine woman has to “do with her life” other than being a woman. If she is closer to the feminine end of the spectrum, this is what she enjoys and values. She is process-centric, not accomplishment-centric. To her the greatest accomplishment is to live every moment fully and to see his man and children celebrated, not to have a bunch of meaningless-to-her trophies on her shelf. Her job is to make everyone else’s accomplishment possible, and she takes complete pride in that, knowing that her husband and children’s accomplishments are a job well done…by her.

We must learn to celebrate this type of woman, this woman that many feminists consider worthless and embarrassing for her lack of masculine trophies. It is our job to defend her from the non-stop slander she suffers by domineering feminists. She doesn’t have to do anything to prove herself worthy besides fulfilling her evolutionary role, of being there for her family. That is sufficient honor for her. Feminists can keep their stupid degrees and jobs, she doesn’t want any of that. She wants to enjoy being with her children, seeing them grow and become worthy members of society.

Instead of ignorantly deciding that there is only one right type of woman that should exist, we must instead acknowledge that women are on a spectrum, and each type of woman enjoys a type of life specific to her. It is her job to determine what it means to have a worthy life. It is none of a feminist’s business to tell her. Such a woman is closer to a woman’s feminine function, of being there for her family, than a career woman is. A career woman who has to leave her infant in the care of potentially abusive caretakers is not doing the world any favors. She is subjecting her child to people who have no reason to love him or her, who may grow up feeling abandoned and uncared for, and who may not prosper. This is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn. It is a child’s right to be brought up by their mother. Studies may eventually show that it is nothing short of child abuse to subject one’s child to the unloving care of others.

These women do not need a degree or career to be loved and considered worthy. Mother Love by Walter Langley (early 20th century)

A family woman who has no greater accomplishment than supporting a husband and children who accomplish things is greater and more admirable than a career woman who brings up a psychologically scarred child, and whose husband feels abandoned and ignored. A man and woman together create a single organism. What kind of organism is this? An ineffective one.

At any rate, women should be free what they do with their lives, and they should be considered equally worthy, whether they choose careers or homemaking. I am not against women having careers, I am against subjecting children to daycare. I cannot say what the perfect solution is, or if there is one. A woman could marry early, when is most attractive and most capable of capturing the hearts of the highest quality men, then once her children reach puberty, she could start seeking intellectual accomplishments. Although a woman who really wants to intellectual accomplishment may not enjoy this type of life.

Or perhaps the best way is for a woman to seek intellectual accomplishment until she gives birth, at which point, with the help of her heightened feminine hormones, she can enjoy homemaking for a number of years, and once the children grow up, she can then go on to again do intellectual work.

I am not one to tell what a woman should do with her life, because I firmly believe in her basic humanity, her right to do what she wants with her life. What I am saying here is that there is nothing inherently admirable about having a career, and there is nothing deplorable about a woman being perfectly content with being there for her family. Both of these cases are evolutionarily mediated. It is the height of ignorance and stupidity to make moral judgments on either type of woman, considering one inherently more admirable, when both are the products of their genes and millions of years of evolution. This is discriminating against someone for the way their genes made them, it is exactly the same as discriminating against people for having black skin.

This discussion has its converse. A man may born closer to the feminine side than the masculine side, and may enjoy process more than accomplishment. These men are made fun of for being “nancy boys”. It is equally discriminatory to chide such men for not seeking accomplishments than it is to chide women for seeking accomplishments. In both cases, a person is discriminated against for not seeking their assigned gender roles.

Unlike feminists, I do not believe there is anything wrong with gender roles. They exist not because of an artificial, man-made patriarchy, but due to millions of years of evolution. Most women are feminine, most men are masculine. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that this means most women will be process-oriented, most men accomplishment-oriented. The traditional gender roles come from these facts, and there is nothing wrong with these roles. This is how the majority functions.

What is wrong is when a short-sighted and ignorant society castigates someone for not acting like everyone else. Realizing the unfairness in this is what makes some people mistakenly say that gender roles are artificial constructs. They are not. They are genetic realities. No matter how hard we try to stamp them out, they will always come back, because they are genetically mediated.

If there is nothing wrong with a woman not living up to traditional men’s expectations by refusing to be a homemaker, there is nothing wrong with a man not living up to traditional women’s expectations by refusing to be an accomplished man. Career women abandon traditional gender roles by seeking careers, and what is known as a “nancy boy” can also abandon traditional gender roles by not seeking a career.

While the modern world has moved to a place where there a place for any woman who wants to abandon traditional gender roles, there is no such place for a man (unless he enters a homosexual relationship). Everyone laughs at him for being weak and wimpy, for not being a man, for being needy, for being like a woman. And almost no one sees that there is something wrong with this.

Such men are not the topic of my research, so I cannot say what should be done regarding them or what they should do. I merely want to point out that they are the opposite of a career woman, but what defines them is that they do not want careers. They instead have the process-oriented homemaker instinct, and society has no interest in them or place for them. They are supposed to either “man up” or die. One thing such men can do is to get testosterone injections, since testosterone is an extremely powerful substance that can rewrite their very bone structure and make them feel like an ordinary man. What they can do besides this I cannot say.

Jordan Peterson: Token Rationalist White Male

From Wikipedia:

Peterson believes that postmodern philosophers and sociologists, while typically claiming to reject Marxism, have merely built upon and extended its core tenets, arguing that they “started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name … The people who hold this doctrine — this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount — they’ve got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well.

And:

Peterson argues that postmodern feminists err by seeking to infantilise society. He stated, “There is an essential feminine pathology, just as there is an essential masculine pathology. And the essential feminine pathology Freud mapped out, it’s the Oedipal mother. And the Oedipal mother is the mother who gets too close to her children, and intermingles herself with them to too great a degree. That in her attempts to protect them undermines them, fatally.”

He continues: “It’s so comical watching the feminist postmodernists in particular rattle on about the absence of gender reality and act out the archetypal devouring mother at exactly the same time. For them the world is divided into predators and infants. And the predators are evil and need to be stopped and the infants need to be cared for. Well, that’s what the mother does, but adults are not infants, and all you do is destroy them when you treat them that way.”

And:

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.

This is amazing, feels like David Stove has come back to life. Most high-status white men are either infantile or cowardly (especially those of them in academia), it is a breath of fresh air to see Peterson stand up for rationalism.

Home Office: Are you a woman? Your man is the problem. Are you a man? You are the problem.

Let’s demonize men. Let’s act as if women are infinitely superior to men. Let’s act as if men are utterly worthless and in relationships always guilty until proven innocent. Then let’s act surprised when men do not want to get married, when they have an extremely cynical attitude toward women and relationships, when they feel worthless and unwanted, when they go to Ukraine to find unbrainwashed women to marry, when men men feel zero allegiance toward their societies and civilizations and think it could all go to hell for all they care, when they feel so hated by women that they start to feel only another man’s love is true, when they feel the only way to make it in life is to have a sex change so that they can escape belonging to the West’s most hated species.

The Most Desirable Women for Marriage are in their Early Twenties and Sexually Inexperienced

In reply to my article Will a young Muslim woman miss out on marriage by not dating and having relationships? someone wrote:

No offense but that ask about marriage with 0 dating experience has so many things wrong with it, i don’t even know where to start (& there aren’t enough chars to cover everything). – “Peak of attractiveness” technically is around 30s – That “wife material” part was quite sexist – Getting a random guy u barely know to ur family bc he says “he’s into u” is just unrealistic. I know what Islam says, but that’s unrealistic. How will u get to know the guy even? He’s marrying YOU, not your family.

Regarding peak attractiveness, here is a chart from the dating site OkCupid, which has a large database of statistics regarding dating and relationships. You can say it is unfair, but this is life. In fact according to them the peak is at 21, not even 25:

The wife material part is certainly sexist, if by that you mean treating women differently compared with men, acknowledging the evolutionary differences between them. It is not sexist if by that you mean there is something morally wrong with it. Men have an evolutionary instinct to prefer young, sexually inexperienced women. You are free to dislike this preference of men, but disliking it is not going to change men’s genetic code so that they start to prefer older or sexually experienced women. In the same way, a man may dislike the fact that many women find successful men attractive, while they find romantic men who have no degrees, no jobs, no money and live in their parents’ basement highly unattractive. A man can dislike these things and say it is discrimination against men, why should they be judged by their success instead of their innate qualities? A woman too, can say it is discrimination that she should be judged by her beauty and youth instead of her innate qualities. But in both cases, it is our evolutionary instincts telling us to prefer members of the opposite sex who are most likely to give us successful relationships, families and offspring.

Politics and morality have nothing to do with it. Unless we find a way to perform DNA surgery on men so that they start finding older and sexually experienced women more attractive, they will continue to prefer younger and less experienced women. And unless we perform DNA surgery on women, they will continue to care about a man’s success, or potential for success, before they decide whether they should marry him.

Unlike men, women are not attracted to young and inexperienced men, in a man shyness is weakness, not an attractive thing, and men, when they decide whether they should marry a woman, rarely care about her success or chances of success, because each sex wants different things in the other, thanks to evolutionary specialization.

Since humans are not animals, they can use their brains and free will to overcome their genetic instincts and make choices that go against them. But these genetic instincts will always be present underneath everything else. A woman always wants her husband to be more successful, and this would make her feel more attracted to him (while a man’s attraction for his wife has nothing to do with her career success), despite her religious and ideological beliefs.

One could say that we should change society so that these differences in sexual preferences between the sexes should go away. You, as a free-willed human, are free to do that in your own life. But since these facts have biological drives behind them, they cannot be stamped out. Apart from physical appearance, women are sexually attracted to success, men are sexually attracted to youth, not vice-versa. Trying to erase these facts is similar to communism’s efforts to erase the human desire for private ownership. The law, secret police and the gulag can be used to impose an unnatural arrangement on the population, but once this political force is removed, biological reality will reassert itself. All communist states revert to quasi-capitalist states, and all societies that have gender equality imposed upon them will eventually revert to biological sexual specialization.

Islam and biology both treat the sexes differently, giving each sex different duties and responsibilities (while as Muslims and civilized people we never forget that both are humans and capable of all human things). Modern politics wants to treat the sexes as if they are exactly the same, and as if any mention of differences between the sexes is blasphemy. I prefer Islam and science and couldn’t care less about politics and ideology.

I saw a train that was carrying knowledge and so torrentially it went.
I saw a train that was carrying politics (and so emptily it went.)

~ Sohrab Sepehri (Persian free verse poet)

I did not say she should introduce a random guy she barely knows to her family. The assumption was that she grew up knowing dozens of men, and through college and work, she could know dozens more. If one of these men she already knows well approach her, then instead of engaging in a potentially harmful relationship, she should direct them to her family.

As for someone she barely knows, then there is nothing wrong with getting to know him. From an Islamic point of view, the problem is with trying to enjoy a relationship with someone without marrying them. If the point is knowing a person, then there isn’t an issue with that as long as both sides observe custom and religious boundaries.

Next reply:

Those are OkCupid stats, they show which age range ppl are looking for, to date/meet. Has absolutely nothing to do w peak attractiveness. By sexist, I meant how a hymen is a criteria in marriage. You have every right to prefer islam rather than ideologies. But then again, Khadija (RAA) was neither inexperienced, nor young. The prophet (SAAWS) clearly didn’t follow any of what u said in ur arguments. And he is human, a man, with a dna, hormones and all. It IS VERY important to point out that Islam has asked BOTH men and women to stay virgin til marriage. So the “ unlike men, inexperienced women are biologically more attractive” argument clearly has NOTHING to do with Islam’s teachings. As much as I disagree, you have your opinions and preferences, that I accept. But please, don’t claim they’re what Islam says. Islam didn’t say that you’re less worthy as husbands or wives if you’re not virgin.

You are right that Islam requires both men and women to stay virgin, this goes without saying.

As for young and sexually inexperienced women being more attractive, I did not say this has anything to do with Islam. It has to do with biology. In my answers, I always take the facts of real life into account, and if I can give someone common sense advice along with mentioning related Islamic concepts, then I will do so, as I have done in most of my answers. This is how I would answer a question a friend asks me, and this is how I answer questions here.

I think the OkCupid data is highly relevant, it shows the female age that men find most desirable. Here is another chart from a BusinessInsider article that says the age is 23, sourced from different data:

I pointed to the rest of what you said in my previous answer. Humans have free will and are able to choose differently than their biological drives. For religious reasons, you could choose a less attractive and less wealthy man as a husband who is very religious, rather than less religious but more attractive man.

I have no problem with marrying a 40-year-old woman if she is a good person and we are fit for each other in other ways. But this does not prove biology false.

Humans love the taste of meat, but there are vegetarians who avoid it. Vegetarians will be wrong to say that there is no such thing as a human preference for meat. The preference exists, and the population as a whole follows the preference, but individual humans can go against it.

In the same way, men prefer young and inexperienced women, this is a biological preference. But they can overrule it with other concerns, moral, religious, intellectual, whatever they may be. When you look at the population as a whole, the preference will show up clearly, as the data shows.

Given the choice between three equally religious, intelligent and pretty women, one who is 22, one who is 32 and one who is 42, the majority of men would prefer the one who is 22.

In the same way, given the choice between three equally religious, intelligent and physically attractive men, one who is greatly successful, one who has moderate success, and one who has zero success and zero prospects, the majority of women will choose the most successful man.

Another way to illustrate this is if a man’s wife is 40, and she finds a magic potion to turn her back to 22, then the husband would love her to use it, no matter how much he loves her already.

And if a woman’s husband finds a magic potion that makes him much more successful than he is currently, she would love him to use it.

If there are always exceptions, what is the point of mentioning the general rules? The point is that these rules have significant effects on our lives whether we want them to or not. A woman will find it much easier to get married at 25 than at 45, because most men are not the Prophet, peace be upon him; most men will judge her by their own instincts, not be her spiritual qualities.

In the same way, a man will find it much easier to marry if he is successful, therefore he must try to be successful, doing what makes it more likely for him to marry, instead of saying that he will wait for the right woman who will marry him despite the fact that he has no job or degree.

The rule is that women are attracted to success, therefore a man should make use of this rule and seek to be successful. It is foolishness if he says that the right woman will not care about material things like success.

In the same way, the rule is that men are attracted to youth, therefore a woman should make use of this rule, realizing that it will be easier to get married when she is younger than when she is older. It is foolishness if she waits until she is 40 and says the right man will not care about material things like age.

Personally if I was given the choice of marrying either a 30-year-old or a 22-year-old, if both were equally pretty and religious, I may choose the older just because I would feel guilty to use her age against her, and would worry about her chances of marrying. I would be cognizant of the fact that most men would pass her up, so I wouldn’t.

But, and this is an important but, most men don’t think like that. You cannot rely on men’s kindness, saying they shouldn’t care about age, and you cannot rely on women’s kindness, saying they shouldn’t care about success.

If I were giving advice to a young woman regarding marriage, it is essential that I mention the importance of age. A 50-year-old woman will find it extremely difficult to marry, there will probably be little controversy about this. A 35-year-old woman still has a chance of marrying an attractive and successful man, but nowhere close to the chances of a 22-year-old.

And if I were giving advice to a young man regarding marriage, I would tell him to seek to be successful, because this is essential for him to be considered “marriage material” by women. He can call this sexist and say that he doesn’t care about a woman’s success, why should she care about his success? She does because she is designed to do so, because the survival of the species relies on her choosing someone who can take care of her and her children, and his material success is a very good indicator of his ability toward this (that he has the social skills, intelligence and stamina to take care of a family and ensure its long-term good). If he doesn’t work to be successful, then he has no right to complain if women reject his proposals.

Also note that I am not saying that older women cannot get married. Women of most ages can marry, but the older they get, the pool of men they can choose from gets smaller. A 22-year-old woman has the largest pool of men available to her, wanting to marry her, because she is at the peak of her desirability. At the age of 32, she can still marry, but she will have to settle for less attractive men. At 42 she can still marry, but she will have to settle for even less attractive men, unless a man like the Prophet, peace be upon him, appears and marries her. But most women cannot rely on this happening to them.

If you do not believe these, ask any single 40-year-old woman who wants to get married. The internet is full of stories of such women, who were deluded into delaying marriage until their late 30′s to work on their career, only to find out that almost no man finds them interesting anymore, even though in their 20′s they had dozens of men willing to marry them. It is nothing short of evil to cause this to happen to women, to delude them into letting their most attractive years pass them by just because it is fashionable politically, so that once they do start to want to get married, they run into disappointment after disappointment.

Women should instead be informed that marriage is much easier when you are young. An unmarried 40-year-old woman will not derive much consolation from calling these facts sexist and unfair and calling men “sexist pigs”.

Regardless of how much a man calls women sexist and materialist and says they should love him for who he is instead of loving him for his wallet, they will continue to care about his success, because it is their instinct to care. And regardless of how much a woman calls men sexist and materialist and says they should love her for who she is and not for her beauty and age, they will continue to care, because it is their instinct to care.

Exceptions can be found where people find fulfilling relationships that do not follow these patterns. But these rules exist, and they affect most of us to some degree. There is nothing wrong with mentioning them and taking them into consideration.

When affirmative action benefits (white) men, it has to be scrapped

From a Swedish publication:

The proposed change comes following criticism that men received priority admission to programmes where their gender was underrepresented and where there were a higher number of applicants with top marks than available spots, such as programmes in veterinary medicine, dentistry, medicine, and psychology.

“The education system should open doors – not shut them in the face of young women who are motivated to study,” Krantz wrote in an article published in the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper.

It’s all about equality, until equality starts to benefit men, at which point they start to call it discrimination.

Feminist logic: It’s progress to shut doors at colleges on talented young men so that less talented women can get admission. But shutting doors on talented young women in a similar scenario, so that less talented men can get admission is discrimination.

In feminist thinking, men are so worthless, so contemptible, so unnecessary, that it never crosses their minds that they too might be subject to various forms of discrimination that could justify affirmative action (though I’m against all forms of affirmative action), and even if it crosses their minds, they will enjoy the thought of taking away men’s “privileges”, because they deserve it! They must pay women back for the past 3 million years of evolution in which natural selection made them the dominant sex!

But why not take this further? Why stop at humans? Let’s find ways of establishing justice and equality by finding clever ways of discriminating against the males of the other primate species!

Male gorillas, for one thing, are too privileged in my opinion.

Patriarchy in the Quran

/ 2 Comments on Patriarchy in the Quran

Stick to posting Islamic art and quotes. Otherwise, go learn about the patriarchy and power imbalances before flaunting your misogyny everywhere. May Allah guide you.

Islam is a patriarchal religion, where men get a degree of authority over their women in their households, and with that authority comes the burden of having to provide financially for all of their female relatives, so that in a devout Muslim society no woman will ever have to work, though they can if they want to.

That authority is balanced by the fact that a woman can get a divorce any time she wants, and she is protected by all of her male relatives against any abuses by her husband, so that if her husband abuses his authority in any way, she can always leave him to find a better man. The Quran calls on men to fear God, to be kind, to be just, and to defend the weak (which includes the women and children among them) but it also gives them authority in their households.

So while in Islam we believe in the equal worth of men and women, and in equal opportunities for both, the fact that God has given men a rank over women in their households is in the Quran, and ignoring this and pretending it doesn’t exist is throwing part of the Quran away because it disagrees with your preconceived notions, because you think your inane feminist-inspired moralizing is better than God’s guidance.

The Quran, 2:85: “Is it that you believe in part of the Scripture, and disbelieve in part? What is the reward for those among you who do that but humiliation in this life? And on the Day of Resurrection, they will be assigned to the most severe torment. God is not unaware of what you do.”

The Quran, 2:228: “And women have rights similar to their obligations, according to what is fair. But men have a degree [of authority] over them. “

The Quran, 4:34: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women [qawwamoon, literally “people of authority who watch over and maintain standards…”], as God has given some of them an advantage [in rank] over others, and because they spend out of their wealth.”

If you have a problem with a patriarchal society, you are in the wrong religion.

I encourage you to learn Arabic and read the Quran to discover the wonders of a society where men are not considered worthless and disposable like in the West, but where they are respected as figures of authority, and where a woman enjoys the peace of mind that comes with having multiple God-fearing men dedicated to her welfare, knowing that she could never, ever be homeless or wanting of food and income while a devout Muslim male relative remains to her, knowing that she can marry and divorce whoever she wants, start a business, or do whatever she wants with her life as long as it doesn’t go against God’s commandments, enjoying a peaceful life among men who like her and respect her and will not let anyone abuse her.

You are free to leave patriarchy, which means all sustainable civilized societies (all societies that have an above-replacement fertility rate, i.e. that are not on the path to extinction like Japan and Western Europe), to enjoy life among some Stone Age tribe where matriarchy is the order of the day, or in the ghettos and trailer parks of America where men belong to their mothers and do not know their fathers, where non-existent fathers make a patriarchy a practical impossibility, since patriarchy means rule of the fathers.

 

Feelings, censorship and gender in science: Is it unfair to say that women backbite more than men?

This is a follow-up discussion in regards to what I wrote in Dealing with a porn addiction.

Brother I understand that you answered that question as best you could, no one should be shaming you because you are offering advice that you could have easily ignored. However I would just say that to just mention how women may backbite was insensitive and unnecessary. Imagine all the stigma us sisters face on a daily basis, everyday we have certain brothers telling us what we should and should not be doing whilst they engage in haram activities. (1)

So imagine when someone asks you about porn addiction that has nothing to do with women backbiting, and even then we are bought into it, I’m sure as an understanding brother you can see. Tomorrow if someone has a problem yet I say “Don’t worry it’s less of a sin as millions of Muslims especially men, don’t grow their beards to the proper length, you are no worse than them”, look how insensitive that seems. I hope I have not offended you brother, it is our duty to guide with kindness and openess

Thank you for your kindly phrased message. I understand what you are saying, and I’m sure you are right when you say you have suffered unjust criticism.

I have never considered women a class, like feminists imagine, separate from men. I consider them humans, my equals, and hold them to the same standards. I don’t walk on eggshells when I discuss men’s problems, and I will not start walking on eggshells when discussing women’s problem’s.

I consider you my equal, and that means we both should be free to speak our minds. You shouldn’t be silenced if you have a truth to speak just because it may hurt some men’s feelings, and I shouldn’t be silenced if I have a truth to speak just because it may hurt some women’s feelings.

It is certainly good manners to not bring up negative facts about someone in ordinary daily interactions. You do not call an overweight person fat even if it is true.

But if I’m trying to solve a technical problem, I expect people to put their feelings aside, to sit down like adults and to discuss the problem rationally, and that is what I was doing in my answer.

If I’m doing a scientific study on finding ways to reduce backbiting among women, would you call it insensitive? I’m sure many would, that it is somehow oppressive and unjust to focus on females, that if I discover a method that works well in preventing females from backbiting, I should shove it under the carpet in case some woman’s feelings is hurt, even if it will do them good in the long-term.

We cannot have progress if we are not allowed to speak our minds freely, if we have random no-go zones where we are not allowed to analyse things in case it hurts this group’s feelings, or that group’s, or that group’s. That’s censorship and regression, that’s not progress.

It is like saying I should not talk about the unhealthy effects of being obese because it will hurt obese people’s feelings. Should we just throw out all obesity-related research in case some obese person comes across it and has their feelings hurt?

I was helping put a mostly-male problem into perspective using a mostly-female problem, as an intellectual exercise. I consider women equals, not superiors and not inferiors, but equals, humans to be treated with the same standards, not to be treated like children, but treated equally, like I would treat any man, and I certainly never worry about hurting men’s feelings when I bring up facts that reflect negatively on them.

If men are unjustly criticizing you, I fully support your right to fire back at them and put them in their place. I defend your right to speak your mind. And I defend my right to speak my mind. We are not enemies, and we are not different species. We are both humans, and we can treat each other as such.

We do not achieve equality by enforcing double-standards where a male speaker is not allowed to say certain things in case it hurts women’s feelings. We achieve equality when no one thinks about their own sexual parts but can consider the problem and its solution rationally, like adults. The speaker says men have a problem with ignoring their wives? Fine, I will try to be a better husband. The speaker says that women have a problem with ignoring their husbands? Instead of getting offended that a person of the opposite sex is pointing out a fault, women can choose to benefit from it, “Fine, I will try to be a better wife.”

This is equality, where I am not forced to treat you like a “woman”, but like a human, and where I do not patronize and belittle you by censoring my speech in case it hurts your fragile feelings, but where I can treat you like I treat any man, expecting you to be intelligent and confident enough to accept it and roll with it.

These are my standards when it comes to public speech. In private one-to-one interactions, it is good manners to hide people’s faults, to not criticize, and to make them feel good about themselves. But in public, for example if I’m doing a scientific paper studying women’s psychology, I will not sugarcoat my findings just because it may hurt women’s feelings, in this case telling the truth takes precedence over being nice.

And as a nice person, I will never mock an obese person by calling them fat, and I will not let others do it if I can stop them. But I will happily continue researching the eugenics of obesity (how genes affect obesity, and how obesity affects future genes) like I currently do no matter how many obese people are offended by it.

In the same way, I will continue to be frank and straightforward when writing about women, since in my research writing, truth always takes precedence over being nice. But when dealing with women in my personal life, I will always be as kind, gracious and uncritical as is required by good manners, civility and Islam.

A reply from a reader

I feel you were wrong in saying that women do more backbiting. Not saying it is in itself true or false ( I really dont think they are any reliable studies) but I think it was completely unnecessary to say it the way you did. You could have said simply that many Muslim backbite it would have been enough. No need to drag women into it. Im not attacking you or anything just saying there might have been a better way to go at it.

If I were a woman and jokingly mentioned that fact, I don’t think anyone would be bothered. The only reason that it is “wrong” is that a male said it. And if I had mentioned a fact that reflected negatively on men, not women, I don’t think anyone would be bothered.

I have never bought into the Western nonsense of treating women like children to be pampered to. I like to treat them like my equals, which means that I speak my mind without bothering what type of sexual organs my listeners have. I consider you all the same, we are all humans.

So no, I don’t think I did anything wrong. Having a porn-watching problem is a mainly male problem, and having a backbiting problem is a mainly female problem. I have heard many women agree with both of these facts. Mentioning both problems together is a very useful intellectual exercise to help put the problem of porn-watching into context.

If I had mentioned a positive fact about women, you wouldn’t be upset. You are thinking like a politician, “he said something negative about my interest group without belonging to said group, which makes it automatically wrong.”

What you really want to enforce is that all men should be able to talk about women, as long as they stick to mentioning positive facts, as long as they maintain a parallel-reality of cotton candy and fluffy bunnies where no woman’s feelings can ever get hurt.

I prefer to speak my mind freely, and I prefer to treat women like adults. I never worry about hurting men’s feelings in my research writing / answers, and I will not start worrying about hurting women’s feelings.

If you disagree with this, that’s your right. I, however, will continue to be as I am, focusing on serving God, and having my allegiance only to truth. If people’s feelings get hurt when I mention a fact like how unhealthy obesity is or how Indians can never compete with the Chinese in innovation, at least not for the next 500 years or so, I’m sorry. I will never mock someone or say any truth that may hurt their feelings in private interactions. But on my blog, where I want to teach and guide people, I will speak the truth, and I will not self-censor my speech like a politician.

If this is unacceptable for you, if you’d like me to hire someone to review everything I say in case it may be considered discriminatory to one of a dozen interest groups, then you are in the wrong place. I have always been a free-speech and anti-Political Correctness activist.

You are right that I didn’t have to bring women into the discussion. It was a perfectly voluntary act on my part.

My mother and sister have a sense of humor and the last thing they would do would be to get upset over what I wrote. I think they have got things right. I treat all women like them, intelligent and confident in their femininity. And if I ever say something stupid or unjust, they will not let me get away with it but will correct my mistake, the way a man would do.

Of course, I won’t go around speaking negative things about women saying that they have to deal with it. That’s like calling overweight people fat, it is rude even if it is true. As I said, in private interactions, I do what good manners, civility and Islam require of me. And in my research writing or answers, I write frankly without bothering who gets offended.

I encourage you to open your heart, to see how an innocently made remark done in good faith and with the intention of helping someone should not be criticized just because a person of the wrong sex said it. Stop thinking like a Western politician and more like a fair-minded Muslim with a sense of humor.

You could say that context matters, that in that particular context it was wrong for me to mention women since I have many female followers whose feelings could get hurt. I disagree. It is my personality to be frank in my writing and to treat women the way I treat men, considering them really my equals instead of patronizing them by treating them like a protected minority.

Anita Sarkeesian is Jewish

Below is a screen shot from Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture, a typical book of feminist verbiage intended to be force-fed to college students, by the Jewish writer Rebecca Ann Lind, a member of the Holy Priesthood of Overpaid and Pampered College Bureaucrats, casually quoting a tumblr post that refers to Anita Sarkeesian as a middle class Jew, confirming what many have suspected:

While this cannot be taken as complete proof, it is nearly that. A Jewish person will not lightly allude to another person’s Jewishness unless she was very sure of this fact.1

I know it is nearly illegal for us gentiles to talk about the Jewishness of others (only Jews are allowed this privilege of deciding whether another person’s Jewishness is relevant or not), but if you suffer from low latent inhibition like I do, patterns are hard to ignore.

And in her case, the pattern is clear. First, she is entirely funded and supported by Jews and their organizations. Her laughably stupid nonsense is being taken seriously by Jewish owned-and-operated Reddit, Google (through their YouTube subsidiary), Tumblr and Facebook. Our mostly Jewish-run woolly-science academia treats her words as gospel.

Second, she is allowed the incredible privilege of talking in the name of the entire gaming industry, deciding which game makers get credited as good boys and which ones get a treatment reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition by her vast army of dedicated trolls and bullies, the same way that Jewish feminists like Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and Naomi Wolf are allowed the privilege of talking in the name of all women, and war-mongering Jewish “conservatives” like Ben Shapiro, Bill Kristol and David Frum are given the privilege of talking in the name of all conservatives, and the racism-paranoia-promoting, Jewish founded, owned and operated SPLC is given the privilege of talking in the name of all blacks.

Sarkeesian is yet another incarnation of Gloria “I Get Paid by the CIA” Steinem and American Communist Party member Betty Friedan, aging Jewish biddies supported by Jewish usurers and their organizations and driven by a deep hatred and disgust for whites (and gentiles in general), who can’t get over the fact that we subhuman gentiles enjoy inner lives not entirely under their control.

They want to be the ones with the power to define for us what femininity and justice are, lest we should do it ourselves and come up with something that doesn’t fit their narrow-minded prejudices, and that could possibly take away their purpose in lifehaving something to hate and destroy. They will examine everything within the sphere they’ve decided to conquer and control as carefully as Medieval Catholic blacklist monitors reading the text of a new book in search of heresy. Everything is examined with the utmost suspicion, and the only people who get a free pass are those who slather their entire productions with virtue-signaling dog whistles.

Every day they find something new to throw a tantrum about, something new to justify their own pathetic existence and ensure further donations and grants to subsidize their lives of upper class luxury that most of us could only dream of.

The personal is political. All that is holy and dear to us shall be burned in their cleansing fire, no rules of civility and decorum, no human empathy, is allowed for those of us who refuse to bow down to their holier-than-thou obsession with controlling our lives and thoughts. We need to be beaten into shape, not only shall we all act politically correct, we need to think politically correct. We have to let them invade and rape our minds over and over again until we have lost all sense of culture and identity. History books have to be burned and rewritten to fit their narrative, book contracts have to be destroyed, political speeches have to be violently disrupted, YouTube channels shut down, Twitter accounts suspendeduntil only their One True Speech remains, until their abortion-loving, white-hating, male-shaming ideology becomes our culture and our law. All of our TV shows, books, movies, and now video games, have to be censored by them and then either given “good boy” badges or cast out of the industry. Until we all submit our minds and our souls and our children to the way of life that they define and control.

They want absolute control over us, and they exploit blacks, immigrants and women using their Trojan Horses of justice and equality to defeat all opposition, so that they remain perpetually in charge of the West’s culture. And they want to make sure they continue to live their lives of luxury as feminist writers, editors, pundits and academic bureaucrats, squeezing every cent out of the victimhood narratives they manufacture. And then these same greedy and utterly corrupt people have the audacity to claim that they are the victims. The talentless Anita Sarkeesian and her (Jewish) sister-in-whining Jessica Valenti have built well-paying careers on the narrative that they are somehow victims of online bullying campaigns. And the corrupt and complicit gaming journalism media, supported by the Jewish censors at Reddit, Google, Tumblr and Facebook pretend this is really the case, until a narrative is built that convinces most observers.

But there are a few of us who can see through all of this.

Feminism as a self-eliminating eugenic tool

Every society selects for something. —Greg Cochran

Feminism—and I use this term as a synonym for “female supremacism”, the mainstream ideology of Women’s Studies departments at Western universities—severely restricts the fertility of individuals that subscribe to its tenets. There are, however, communities of individuals that are immune to feminist evangelism and who continue to function as if they are in the sweet English countryside of Queen Victoria’s time, where feminist talking points seem crazy, outlandish and irrelevant.

There is a certain set of genes, when paired with a certain type of culture—thus a gene-culture—that creates immunity to feminism. The necessary feminism-resistance genes probably have the most to do with intelligence. Enough intelligence is required to recognize the good in feminism and then going beyond it, knowing that the right way to create a fair and peaceful world is not through hate and supremacism. On the culture side, conservatism or empiricism are required, meaning that feminism-resistant people are overwhelmingly conservative, but the odd liberal can be found who insists that feminists must produce empirical support for their policies before he or she follows their way of life.

There are folks among anti-feminism activists  who think that feminism will cause the end of humanity through sub-replacement fertility. My optimistic view is that feminist eugenics will continually eliminate feminism-prone gene-cultures across the generations, so that only feminism-resistant gene-cultures remain. Since feminism is an anti-fertility tool, any society that adopts it will engage in an eugenic experiment where feminism-resistant gene-cultures have a much higher fertility rate than feminism-prone ones, meaning that within just a few generations, feminism-proneness can get eliminated from the gene-culture pool.

An example of a group that possesses a feminism-resistant gene-cultures is people who are middle class extremely conservative white Christians who, while appreciating that women’s equality is a good thing, reject the rest of feminism’s outlandish baggage. These people, despite the best efforts of liberals in the media and in college to infuse their minds with feminism and self-hate, and even though they probably lose 22% of each generation to less conservative blocs, rather than giving up on life and shrinking, they continue to grow.

If you see a white feminist girl who comes from an extremely conservative Christian family, it is not a sign that the world is ending for conservative Christians. She is merely a member of the 22% “leaver” minority.

Other feminism-resistant gene-cultures are conservative Muslims, who, while losing a sizable amount of each generation to feminism, rather than shrinking, they continue to grow. Orthodox Jews may also be a feminism-resistant gene-cultures.

An instance of a member of a feminism-prone gene-culture is a white Christian girl who believes in her parents’ conservative ideals, but who goes to college and becomes enamored with feminism and rejects her background. It doesn’t matter whether it was her genes (for example an IQ not high enough to see feminism’s failings) or her culture (a self-contradictory version of Christianity), the result is that the gene-culture becomes infected with feminism and loses its capability to reproduce effectively.

The longer that feminism is active in a society, the more feminism-resistant the society becomes, as feminism eliminates most feminism-prone individuals from the gene pool.

Gene-Culture Drift and the Feminism Cycle

Once feminism has been utterly defeated and consigned to history, its feminism-eliminating eugenic effect will disappear. What happens next is that feminism-prone gene-cultures will acquire higher fertility (as feminism is no longer there to restrict fertility). Segments of society will appear that are less appreciative of conservative ideals and more open to new and interesting ways of life. They will enjoy the high fertility of the feminism-resistant societies they live in. Once the feminism-prone population reaches critical mass, a catalyst such as the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s can give rise to a new wave of feminism, while also turning off the high-fertility switch in the infected population.

It is my view that the generation born after the Millennials (those born after 2005) will be the worst nightmare of feminists. White Millennials have already shown their blasé stance toward feminism and other extreme liberal ideologies by voting more for Donald Trump (48%) than for Hillary Clinton (42%) [according to Bloomberg]. The 2005+ generation is quite likely to go full anti-feminist despite being subjected to fascist-level all-out pro-feminist propaganda in schools and the media. The rise of nationalism in Europe and the United States, quite reminiscent of 1920s Europe, is a harbinger of what’s potentially to come.

However, there is no need to celebrate. Feminism will probably be old and boring news in 2050, but just when it dies, that is when it starts rising again.

One thing that needs to be clarified is the timeline that the feminism rise and fall cycle follows. Is it one human life time (every 80 years, as suggested by mid-1800’s and early 1900’s, and 1970’s feminism), or does it follow a centuries-long timeline with short-term ups and downs and general trends upward and downward?

Another question is whether each feminism cycle, through eliminating pro-feminism gene-cultures, makes its next resurgence more difficult or less. Now that feminism is running completely wild in the West, its anti-fertility effect is also running wild, meaning that it is eliminating pro-feminism gene-cultures with great efficiency. This could mean that the next feminist resurgence will be slower and weaker as a lot of time will be needed for pro-feminism gene-cultures to spread again through gene-culture drift.

The good news is that if feminism selects for one thing, it is feminism-resistance, meaning that feminism can probably never achieve a dystopian level of supremacy, as it always contains the seeds of its own destruction by killing off the offspring of its own supporters.

Another Ray of Hope

In my blog post “The death of false ideologies” I outline another process by which feminism (and other false ideologies) can meet an early demise: The possibility that children born to feminist parents will find the ideology boring and stifling. This is an important reason in my belief that the 2005+ generation is going to be anti-feminist, as many of them will be growing up in a world where feminism reigns supreme. Feminism, similar to communism, looks good from the outside. But once people are actually subjected to its tyranny, they will hate it with an exquisite passion.

Societal infinite loops: The anti-demographic nature of feminism/post-modernism

Feminism, post-modernism and cultural Marxism (here on referred to as “feminism”) depress birth rates in every society they take hold. The systemic effects of F/PM are hard to appreciate for most, therefore below I will lay them out.

Lack of direction, or self-referentiality

A nation that believes in God has direction. It believes it is going somewhere. It does not limit itself to thinking and worrying only about itself and its woes. It always looks forward to something better. And thus we had the United States of the 50’s, a religious nation in love with science on an unstoppable march to conquer the stars.

But then, in 1965 feminism spread. And thus the forward-directional arrow that society had turned into an arrow that pointed to itself, representing an infinite-loop of self-attention and self-worry. A nation of adults bent on creating a better, richer world turned into a nation of directionless children bent on their own personal satisfaction and happiness.

Thus mental illness, depression, out-of-wedlock births and crime went up, while birth rates, happiness and the nation’s pride decreased. The future no longer held promise, but death.

The fading of the family

Feminism diminishes the importance of families. Sexual pleasure can be had outside of one, therefore short-term relationships spread while long-term relationships dedicated to creating families become an exception. Men and women dedicate themselves to their own satisfaction, instead of dedicating their energy to creating the newer generation.

Destruction of wealth and income inequality

The self-refrentiality of feminist society and the fading of the family cause the destruction of wealth. People are more focused on their own pleasure and care less about family-building, thus saving for the future becomes less important. Most wealth is readily consumed on pleasures and is transferred to the rich elite, thus the middle class of the religious period fades, incapable of holding onto wealth. When this happens, family-creation becomes more difficult as buying a home in a good area becomes increasingly difficult. People will have to delay having children in hope of better financial situations that may never materialize.

Women’s work

Feminism spreads the idea that a woman’s success is in how closely she can mimic a man. Maternity is looked down upon, unless it is accompanied by masculine success. A woman is not supposed to marry young and settle for a calm life of rearing children, being called derogatory terms like “soccer mom” by feminists. Instead, she is supposed to gain success and wealth just like a man, and then, after succeeding in doing a man’s job, she then earns the right to maternity.

Needless to say, such a state of affairs reduces birth-rates through women delaying maternity until they achieve some kind of masculine success, which may never happen. Many women toil in their boring jobs year after year, until their fertile period is almost over, then with panic realize that this is not the life they want, and take the difficult leap of settling down with an unattractive male.

Misandry, or the destruction of men

The role of men is diminished and disparaged. Attractive and powerful men get easy access to many attractive females, while less attractive men can only marry older women who have had their share of relationships with attractive men and are now ready to settle. Thus being with less attractive men becomes the sign of failure and desperation for women, and thus they will avoid it for as long as they can, delaying birth and reducing birth rates.

Powerful men readily support feminism because they do not see any direct harm in it to their own selves. The average man, however, has to deal with a court system strongly biased against him, so that his hope and desire in marriage is faded. Women of lesser skill than him are hired, promoted and celebrated over him for the simple reason of having female sexual organs.

Feminism turns man into an object of a woman’s pleasure. A man’s greatest success is portrayed as a woman’s love for him, or the amount of pleasure he is able to give to a woman. A man’s love for another man is laughed at, unless he takes the anti-masculine, anti-patriarchal pledge of homosexuality, in which case he becomes a cute minority to be protected from the big bad world of men.

In this way, men’s productive function to society is greatly diminished. He is meant to either marry a woman who is more interested in her own satisfaction than in her place in society and her long-term work of creating the new generation, or to marry another man in an unproductive union. Some men reject both and live as bachelors, “going their own way”, and again, contributing little demographically to the future of society.

Why men today do not want to get married

The following was posted by someone on Reddit, but the censors there did not like it, therefore I’m posting it here for posterity. It is a good herald of the coming death of feminism/post-modernity. I have made some spelling corrections, but everything else is as it was, with no censorship. I do not like the many swearwords it contains, but it did not feel right to censor them when my purpose for putting it here is to save it from censorship.

The usual answer is “Because I don’t want to get assraped in the inevitable divorce”

But I’m afraid of the bit before that.

I’m afraid that “our ” wedding will be all about you and my role will consist of “Shut up. Pay up. Get yelled at.”

I’m afraid that after you’ve had your dream wedding and you find yourself having to deal with day to day reality, it will end up being my fault that you’re not living happily ever after.

I’m afraid that I will gradually stop being the guy you love and want to spend the rest of your life with and turn into the room-mate you can barely stand but you keep me around for the heavy lifting and helping to pay the rent.

I’m afraid that you will take marriage advice from your mother and her friends, all of whom will tell you that being nice to your husband is fucking stupid and you shouldn’t bother. I’m afraid that you’ll not wonder why your father is so miserable…

I’m afraid that you will “accidentally” slip up on birth control and I’ll end up with children whether I like it or not. ..But when you’re the size of a house and fed up, I’ll be “the bastard that did this to you.”

I’m afraid that the first words my daughter learns will be “Isn’t daddy stupid?”

I’m afraid that you’ll yell at me for not doing enough with the kids – but every time I try, you show up to tell me that I’m doing it wrong and “why are you so useless?”

I’m afraid that once you’ve got the children you wanted, your libido will fall off the edge of a cliff.

I’m afraid that sex will stop being a special moment between us and become something you use to keep me in line, only deployed when I’ve been a good dog.

I’m afraid that “our” home will fill up with your family and your friends, all of whom will treat me like I don’t deserve to be there.

I’m afraid our relationship will consist of me trying to keep you from yelling at me.

I’m afraid that I’ll be continually expected to support you and care for you and prove how committed I am – and in return I’ll get drama, nagging and continual reminders that I’m useless.

I’m afraid that you’ll spend the entire marriage telling me that my opinion is worthless and then bitch when I don’t immediately come up with an answer to whatever drama you’re moaning about.

I’m afraid that any display of insecurity or feeling down will be met with a terse “Oh man up” and subsequently used to beat me over the head for not being a real man.

I’m afraid that every time I’m sick your way of proving how much you care is to make snide comments about man-flu and bitch because I’m lying around doing nothing.

I’m afraid that any time I get time to myself, you’ll be right there with a honey-do list or some little job that needs doing right now, just to make sure I never get chance to relax.

I’m afraid that no matter what I do, there’s always something else that’s making you pissed off.

I’m afraid that I’ll gradually end up losing my hobbies, interests, opinions, friends and as many of my possessions as you can throw away when my back is turned. And you’ll then bitch at me for being “Boring”

I’m afraid that I’ll wake up one day and realize that I’m paying for a house that isn’t my home, full of shit that somebody else wanted, kids that are being raised to treat me with contempt and a life that consists of “work. eat. sleep.” Correction. “Work. Eat. Get moaned at. Sleep.”

And of course there’s always the possibility that after I’ve tried to give you everything you wanted, you’ll decide one day that my services are no longer required and I’ll find myself in a bedsit, piss-poor and wondering what happened to the last ten years of my life.

The Death of False Ideologies

All false ideologies bring about their own destruction. There is no need to worry about feminism, communism, jihadist fundamentalism, and whatever other misguided ism “taking over” the world and becoming the status quo. Each new person subjected to the ideology is also subject to the following equation:

Acceptance of the ideology = coherence of the ideology’s principles with the person’s understanding of the world + the effects of the ideology on the person’s life

False ideologies make at least some arguments, claims and predictions that clash with a person’s understanding of the world. False ideologies also bring about at least some situations in which injustice and evil prevail. And these two serve to distance some people from the ideology, so that they will not take it seriously.

Most false ideologies cannot survive multiple generations of humans. The older generation may have been fertile ground for the growth and practice of the ideology, but the new generation’s response will necessarily be different, if only for the very effects of the ideology itself. The ideology’s success changes the world in which the people live, and thus the new generation grows up in a new world, a world in which the ideology may no longer make sense.

False ideologies spread because of a lack of information, lack of better alternatives, novelty, or geopolitical and economic reasons. But in a world where it is possible to pass down information to the new generation, every day that passes is a new day in which the ideology is challenged by new findings. And in a world ravished by a false ideology, alternatives will necessarily appear better. Geopolitical and economic situations change, and an ideology loses its novelty in a generation or two.

There are those who worry about “true” Islam being lost, among the many misguided sects, and among the many competing ideologies and non-ideologies that abound. Some clever atheists are looking forward to this very thing taking place sooner or later:

They see Islam as an echo of a false and superstitious system and they believe that a day should come when some thing or many things challenge it so hard that it becomes completely impossible to follow the religion with a straight face (as has happened to many Christian sects).

But, assuming for the sake of discussion, that Islam is true (as in everything the Quran says is accurate), it should somehow survive the eternal culling of ideologies. The 20th century was the biggest challenge to Islam, during which it lost many followers and gained many, and the 21st century may be an even bigger challenge (though not necessarily).

If we assume that Islam is true, then the intense challenges it faces are not a bad thing like many preachers and scholars think. They are great news, because it means false versions of Islam will implode sooner or later, and Muslims will slowly, decade by decade, move toward a more unified, more intelligent and more coherent version of Islam. If we bring two different Islamic sects and strip them of their falsehoods, the two may end up as mirrors of each other, and while the older generation may hold on to sectarian divisions, the new generation may see that the two sects are the same for the most part.

An interesting case is that of Shiite Islam in Iran. Iran’s various rulers have used Shiism as a political branding tool to differentiate themselves from the Ottomans and later the Saudis and the Sunni world at large. Shiism shares most of its core with Sunnism, and where it differs, the differences–falsehoods if we assume mainstream Islam is true–were popularized for political branding reasons as mentioned. The modern brand of Shiite Islam achieved supremacy with the 1979 revolution, which is about one generation ago (if we assume a human generation is 28 years), and it is already showing significant signs of weakening and losing heart (hundreds of thousands of people would attend Khumeini’s death anniversaries in Tehran in the past, while now the government has to import attendants from outside the city). One generation has grown up under its supremacy, and many of its members strongly dislike it. Those born to those who dislike the system will also dislike it, since there is little to attract new members to the system, and those born to those who like the system, even if some of them like it, among them many will rise who will dislike it, meaning that about 75% of the second generation may be opposed to the system. The 2020’s will very likely be periods of significant change in Iran.

Apart from religion, another interesting case is feminism, which achieved total political supremacy in the mid-1990’s (of course, feminists will never admit to have achieved supremacy, for the entire ideology is based on the myth of perpetual female victimhood), meaning that 2023 will mark the end of the first generation born and raised under it. Assuming that it is a false ideology, its true test will come after 2023, as the second generation grows up. If it is a false ideology, then it will follow the patterns of the many false ideologies before it, such as Maoism, which achieved supremacy in 1949, and after the end of the first generation in 1977 (the 2023 of feminism and 2007 of Iran’s Shiism), the ideology dissipated and changed so much that it was unrecognizable, and 15 years later (2038 of feminism or 2023 of Iran’s Shiism), China was mostly a capitalist economy with the biggest tenets of the Maoist ideology abandoned.

Back to religion, Christianity started dying hundreds of year ago, though the most significant acceleration of this phenomenon was seen in the 20th century, especially after the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and the rise of feminism. The forces that killed Christianity* are still in effect, so that many children of faithful Christians feel perfectly free to leave the religion. If we call the forces that killed Christianity “modernism” or “post-modernism”, and if we consider modernism’s date of supremacy the same as the date of feminism’s supremacy in the 1990’s, then it should follow the same arc. In 2038 post-modernism may be mostly dead, and its death may enable a new revival of Christianity. However, by then Islam may be a significant player in the West, and it is likely that those who would have gone back to the Christianity of their great-grandfathers will instead embrace Islam, especially if we assume that Islam is true and is an update to Christianity, but even if we don’t.

The new New World Order of 2038 will likely include Islam as the rising star in the West and East above all other ideologies. Christianity and other religions will not necessarily completely die out; there have been Christians, Sabians and Jews living among Muslims in the Middle East for about 15 centuries, and this will likely continue. The version of Islam on that day will not be a Jihadist fundamentalist brainless one, since these ideologies, as false and evil ideologies, cannot survive multiple generations. It will be the version of Islam that has existed for centuries among the devout Muslim middle class everywhere in the world, in Turkey, Egypt, Malaysia and Europe: Just people going about their day doing their best to survive and make the world a better place. They will be doctors, engineers, programmers, writers and singers. Their children will play video games and their women will drive cars and will be respected whether they choose to be housewives or professionals or a bit of both.

But if Islam is a false ideology, the continuing march of science will continue to make it harder to follow with a straight face, and thus it will follow Christianity’s arc of death.

* Though I speak of Christianity’s death, there is a small Christian upper class of intelligent and admirable men who may survive for many centuries to come. “Christianity’s death” refers to the death of its supremacy in the daily affairs of the average man.