Tag Archives: Feminism

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

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.

 

/ 1 Comment on Patriarchy in the Quran

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 + 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.