72 Comments

Very interesting and provocative idea. It's clear that some women prefer the current state of affairs in cultural Islam. My read of the situation is that, while living in an inherently patriarchal society (here I'm referring to laws of inheritance that favor males and cultural norms and practices along those lines, etc.), some muslim women have done what they can to subvert that using less than explicit means while generally staying within the bounds of sharia. Quite effectively, as you've pointed out.

Expand full comment

Yes, exactly. The power of a woman is letting a man think he’s got the power when indirectly, and in every way that matters, she is the one that actually has the power. Consider how a woman is her man’s greatest expense. That alone should ring alarm bells.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your comment. Yes, indeed, things aren’t black and white. If the tone of the article implied that, it’s not the intention. Rather, it’s to stress this particular perspective. The cartoon you shared sure does provide perspective

Expand full comment

Sorry I think my comment could have been a little clearer.

No the tone of the article didn't imply things weren't black and white. I guess what I was trying to say was that even if not all Muslim woman were operating the way described by you, I reckon there is in any event a large amount of it going on because the arguments you have put forward makes a lot of sense.

Expand full comment

Yes, this is what I thought you meant. I think I was the one that should have commented clearer. :)

Expand full comment

Freedom is difficult and most don’t know how to function with freedom; they would rather be told what to do……it can seem easier. But I knew someone that was a contractor over in Afghanistan, he told me about a scene he had to investigate…….a teenage girl in a shallow grave, her born child still attached to her by the umbilical cord…….her crime…….being raped by her uncle, became pregnant and was killed to maintain the honor of the family………I wonder why some Eastern men feel it’s ok to diddle little girls…..oh, that’s right…….their prophet married a child and had sex with her when she was 9.

Expand full comment

Accurate comment

Expand full comment

I think you touched upon something deep and profound with this. If you have ever seen the sharia modesty police (which are women) beating the living crap out of teenagers who are not wearing an abaya properly, then you know they enjoy doing this, then you know how evil these bitches really are. Just like the rainbow flag waving, purple haired feminazis of western leftist movements. They revel in ugliness, mediocrity and are devoid of any skill or talent or charisma that would make them any kind of force to be reckoned with in the free market place of ideas and creativity. May the lot of them drown in pools of their own excrement, a fate befitting the vileness of these harpies.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your contributing comment. This is exactly what I wanted to convey. I’m glad more and more people are catching up to it

Expand full comment

What an astounding insight into the psychological background that keeps Islam firmly in place.

It makes sense in so many ways. And in the era you spoke of where there were 4 women to one man, (any references for that?) the jealousy and competition for men would have been off the charts. I recall an opinion about why there was so many beautiful women in Russia being explained by an imbalance in the ratio of men to women, and the competition for men ensuring only the most beautiful women were procreating and so the percentage of great looking women increased. Food for thought.

Expand full comment

Hi, thank you for your comment, and for your insight. In nature, you'll find that, at least in advanced mammals, females consistently outnumber males. Male infant mortality, male infighting and hazardous male occupations tend to make sure of that. Perhaps it's not natural for human societies for roughly one female to correspond to one male. I theorize that this is the problem with modern society that has largely solved male infant mortality, and has made wars less fatal. A 1:1 sexual marketplace ratio means that most men will be outcompeted. We see how easy men settle for a woman, and how all women compete for only the best of the best males. The 80-20 rule could not be better applied: 1 male takes 4 women. What are your thoughts?

Expand full comment

You raised some really interesting points that I haven't thought much about before this. It's interesting that advanced mammals have a higher ratio. I have found myself in the past thinking about polygamy, and then I read that polygamous societies are often extremely violent due to the lack of women available as they go to those with the greatest resources! The argument was that the rule of 1 for 1 makes modern society more equitable and therefore less likely to be as violent.

Expand full comment

Indeed, the 1:1 ration does pacify societies but it also feminizes males. Good for thought…

Expand full comment

What do you think is the ideal? Do you think we should have polygamy, as practiced through the majority of history, especially by the 1% - Where I live, Thailand, it's common as. Still. What works for society?

On another front, because you're a great thinker, I've come to the conclusion we need a major shift in the focus of humanity, and to borrow from the 1%, and reapply it for the benefit of the majority I think we need the following:

1. New philosophy - The Humanitarian Manifesto

2. New Religion - one that helps people to be their best mind, body and soul, in this lifetime not the next

3. New institutions of every type.

4. New communities model - self-sufficiency communities combining the best of the Amish, the Kibbutz (Israel) and Oriania (South Africa.)

Any thoughts?

Expand full comment

Thank you for honouring me as a great thinker! I’m more of a great over-thinker.

I think the ideal ratio for men and women was given to us by nature, definitely much fewer men as compared to women (male infant mortality made sure of that). We also see how women are geared to only consider the top 10% of men, and then settle passive-aggressively for the runner ups, but will never ever consider the lower casts. Maybe this means that women adapted to only what the top men because throughout history there were much fewer men to go around? Maybe the men’s scarcity made them more valuable in the eyes of women? Now too many men compete for the same top50% women. All men, regardless of value, pursue women, but not all women are int he game. The lowest casts of women stay out of the sexual market place. So in reality we have more men competing for fewer women. Of course women will feel entitled and sick of too much male attention.

I am against any social engineering efforts. Let life be. It wasn’t natural for humans to live beyond 50 but here we are. It doesn’t always have to be about what is natural for our species. Technology isn’t natural. Or you may philosophise and say that, if we naturally made it, then it’s natural.

Expand full comment

Your welcome -it is your habit of being an "over-thinker" that makes you a great thinker! I'd classify myself with your phrase as well.

I agree with your point being 'against any social engineering efforts. Let life be."

Actually everything about the political power systems of the Crown Monarchy Imperial which has ruled us from the last x,000 years, is all about social engineering. So called 'civilization' is simply the domestication of man along with the animals into organized societies that extract value from the majority, the land, and the resources, and transfer it up to the ruling elites.

From what I understand about the average lifespan I think it is normal enough to live long beyond 50 years, but the average age when infant mortality was so high was low, but it was just the average. If you survived into adulthood you have a good chance of living a long life, presuming you were not cannon fodder, which lowers expected lifespans as well.

How do you define 'technology.' I think that what sets humans apart is our ability to create tools. We are prone to the trap of thinking that it is technology that ruins the planet - and while it is true it is engaged, I think the real cause of the destruction created by technology is the monopolization of technology - patents, and the monopolization of political power and the Money Monopoly put the power in the hands of the few who use it to rape, pillage, and plunder the world.

A world free of patents is a much fairer world and a lot harder for people to use the monopolization of technology to create large fortunes and the power that goes with it that distorts the economy, society and creates so much poverty.

Just look at the insane distortions crated by the fake climate change narratives, and the distortions of the use of capital to manufacture Green Energy - solar panels, electric cars, and wind turbines - all driven by the international bankers and their partners in the CCP and their billionaire puppets. Do you know who owns 40% of BYD the "Chinese" EV maker? Warren Buffets company. Next 10% BlackRock. Who owns Tesla. Same crowd.

It's global Monopoly Capitalism that is the distorting evil.

And then there is the 1951 Inventions Secrecy Act that allows the Federal Govt in the USA TO STEAL AMERICANS PROPERTY - it's been used for the last 75 years to shut down all dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency and energy efficiency or free energy. This is the abuse of monopoly power.

And who look at the damage that Silicon Valley is doing with AI, to increase their profits!!! It goes on and on and on.

I think technology is a force for good. But not under monopoly systems.

We all have the natural right to copy.

There should be no patents. No monopolies.

Expand full comment

I remember watching the Stacey Dooley program about FGM and being shocked that it was inflicted by woman on young girls, the men involved seemed to be accomplices rather than protagonists. When Stacey was explaining the procedure to young men of that culture they were horrified.

Expand full comment

This is a perfect example of what I am asserting in this post. Thank you for adding it here.

Expand full comment

Um… that is sensational

Expand full comment

Islime is cancer

Expand full comment

A mental affliction

Expand full comment

Interesting read. I agree, Muslim women are complicit in Islamic oppression of women, but that is how patriarchy is expressed everywhere. That doesn’t make this brutal patriarchy into matriarchy. The equaliser concept is a great motive for being complicit-but this again is a patriarchal construct. The one thing I find missing is the time element. The prophetical prescriptions were for a bygone age, and has no relevance to modern society.

Expand full comment

So long as her hair is covered, all is fine

Expand full comment

They seem to be doing better than most in western countries. They have strong support systems, tight knit family, morals, faithful and loyal. Idk but no matter who is behind this, why would all want to give up traditional values to “fit in” with others views of what some women should want for themselves.

They have more freedom than American women, in some ways, people just don’t like to consider other perspectives.

Expand full comment

True, in many ways, you could make an argument that many Eastern or Muslim women are happier than many western Christian or non-religious women

Expand full comment

The other thing I’ve noticed or seems to be true is a kinship between those sharing the same beliefs and especially so for those who come from same country. They (some) may be receiving biz grants and services from gov now, but quickly build wealth, security and businesses realizing the American “dream” unlike those (majority) born on US soil.

Expand full comment

I don’t think the “Christian” part is relevant or accurate in this sense. Western, yes. Feminist, likely. Those without faith, likely. Makes me wonder why Muslim women are moving in droves to my area (PA) with families, why would they want to raise children in US? No idea. They don’t assimilate so fascinating to watch them covered head to toe playing pickleball or at water park. Im not judging; to each their own. More fascinating as most I’ve talked to weren’t forced to partake in med trials past few years either, only have come across 1-2 that took it and far more that didn’t.

Expand full comment

I was replying to Michelle Ess but okay I’ll reply to you. Your individual assessment is basically your opinion. And Ess’s assessment that women in the Middle East are doing better than most women in Western countries, was, in my opinion, ridiculous. I was trying not to use that word ibecause it is judgmental. My point though: Yazidi women are really having it easy right? And those displaced by the fighting in Syria? How about those women jailed and beaten by the Morality police in Iran. Can’t remember anything like this happening in Western countries recently. And to be very clear, I’m talking about women being arrested and jailed because of how they were dressed. So if wanting data to

Expand full comment

Yes, almost everything we all say is our opinion. All we can do is support it as much as we can, and even then we might still be objectively wrong

Expand full comment

Women in the Muslim based countries of the Middle East are doing better than most women in western countries? This is based on what data?

Expand full comment

I’ve lived in the Middle East. Have you? There are no “data” on how well people are. It’s my individual qualitative assessment. If you keep asking for “data” on things that can’t be quantified, you can’t be intellectually honest.

Expand full comment

I didn’t say anything about those in “Middle East” countries. My experience with this population is based on the high numbers who have moved to US and are starting or growing businesses (mult areas) and those in local community of SW PA. My point being and especially to your opinion, is YOU are assuming these women want to dress and act like western women and that’s simply not the case, or at least not for all.

If the majority are “escaping” persecution and/or oppression, wouldn’t assimilating seem the natural move? Instead, they bring their morals, family values, beliefs and clothing to America ultimately building their own cultural and religious communities in U.S. These groups have stronger families, typically no premarital relations and divorce rates are lower than other groups.

I don’t believe msm news from other countries because there’s no way to verify the majority of it. Instead I keep an open mind, respect our differences, ask questions and LISTEN to learn. There is no reason to force others to live by the current norms of the Babylonian states of America. Instead, perhaps we should be asking them for advice on how they achieve such success and what we could do to improve our outcomes in families, business and communities. Acceptance of happy, grateful and/or satisfied people should be key instead of deciding or imposing what we think is best for them!

Expand full comment

Shame is a core etiological element of narcissism

Expand full comment

Interesting…

Expand full comment

If you really want to look further than the Middle East, try out the Minangkabau culture around Bukittinggi, Sumatra. An ancient islamic matriarchy that exists and thrives.

Expand full comment

Very insightful. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Excellent information, thank you.

Expand full comment

Any time

Expand full comment

Excellent thanks

Expand full comment

Glad you like it

Expand full comment

Many original insights in this

My thinking on hijab (in whatever form and insofar as I gave it much thought) used to be that it serves two main psychosocial purposes.

First is its role among women. It protects the fragile vanity of the aged and ugly by levelling differences in appearance among fertile women and making them harder to separate visually from the non-fertile. This lessens (or in cases of full hijab mostly removes) competition for male attention, increasing intergenerational and interaesthetic female solidarity by reducing destructive female gossip-mongering.

Second is its effect on men. It keeps competition for women under control in societies where polygamy is traditional, long predating Islam. In such socieities male competition for the females left over after the Big Man has taken his harem has the potential to result in catastrophic social upheaval. As in the case of women, hijab secures male cohesion.

This piece has, however, made me think again about the function of hijab and other things besides--many thanks.

Expand full comment

And again, thank you for your insightful comment.

Expand full comment

Yes, thank you for noticing. Many of the insights here are original (as far as I know). They are less like statements and more like calls for discussion and consideration.

As you put it, Islam protects the fragile vanity of insecure women. It levels everything, and does not allow free competition. Reminds you of something? It begins with ‘c’ and ends with ‘ommunism’.

I’ve always said that Islam is Marxism.

Expand full comment