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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
I think you made some very persuasive points in this article - definitely food for thought. I don't know enough to say how correct you are but I imagine no one will say you are way off the mark. Things are normally not black and white anyways.
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
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.
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.
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.
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’.
This text is too long (I must translate it to understand) to comment in detail your theory, I will be brief.
I share some of the text, but I would have been more nuanced, you omitted the conditioning from childhood, an important component in an analysis of this kind. Having lived some time in the middle of this culture (and religion), I can say that not all women are feminists, nor jealous of the beauty of others. Indeed, some use strategies related to Islam for less glorious interests, and mothers have an important role in the transfer of its interests. However, depending on the personality, it is not too difficult to get rid of conditioning that does not suit us. So there is an abuse of power by men over women, but your presentation is valid as well.
Jealousy exists everywhere, strategies are different, separations more numerous in other cultures.
I absolutely do not share feminism, differences exist, and are wonderful, rights on the other hand, must be defended at all and for all. I find your theory too categorical, Let us do justice to the women of all nations, not using these schemes to mask the beauty of women, and not wishing their psychological imprisonment. Liberation, goodness etc. often first passes through outbursts of all kinds, and even more if one has been restricted in physical or intellectual expression. So if communism there is, it is not generalized, to the point of almost condemning all women in Islam or its environment.
Apart from that, I appreciated welle your presentation, well written but lacking a little objectivity.
only thing I would like to argue is that I have noticed some patterns of resistance from some muslims to the word dictatorship/reserve currency elite logistics
gulf wars, terrorist imposed stigma, and some deaths of politicians are some of these patterns
I have the impression that they are a little bit smarter than the westerners for this reason
Bla bla bla. This piece is a load of garbage. So a few lesser females fee jealous and that warrants everyone covering themselves and letting go of their rights as humans? Fellow Lebanese over here. Islam treats women and humans like dogs. In Islam non-Muslims are considered garbage. Fodder to manipulate and be lied to. Muslims have no regard for anyone else. Even moderate Muslims are fucking lying- they’d stand up and fight non-Muslims in a heartbeat if they thought they could win. This is the biggest load of shit article I’ve ever read on substack. I’m very traditional and definitely not a feminist but this is the stupidest shit I’ve ever read. Islam is not about women wearing veils so that they won’t be jealous of each other and they can control their men lol wtf? Are you retarded? Islam means being obedient to god, and by extension, to the men in your life, especially your husband. Islam is obedience. Submission. It’s got nothing to do with petty jealousy of fat ugly women vs hot women. And it’s definitely not matriarchal in any sense of the word. Did you go to university? This sounds like the stupid kind of crap my professors would have applauded.
Stupidity has no borders…if I wasn’t myself used to be a devoted Muslim I could see how ppl fall for this nonsense. Just be ashamed. I’m speechless that you dare to call this anti human anti life form of mysticism feminist!
"Be ashamed!" the Eastern-style feminine shaming tactic that doesn't work on me. Thank you for proving my point that you come from a matriarchal female-centric culture.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Indeed, the 1:1 ration does pacify societies but it also feminizes males. Good for thought…
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?
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.
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.
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.
This is a perfect example of what I am asserting in this post. Thank you for adding it here.
Um… that is sensational
I think you made some very persuasive points in this article - definitely food for thought. I don't know enough to say how correct you are but I imagine no one will say you are way off the mark. Things are normally not black and white anyways.
Sidenote :your article made me think of this cartoon (sorry if I clean up link it doesn't work, not sure why) - https://www.open.edu/openlearn/cc/ef/ccefa439e94572f403068eb563ee3455ddce7c9f?response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22a332_ol_f4.jpg%22&response-content-type=image%2Fjpeg&Expires=1722264480&Signature=Qcns4e2J5O6c957bQL9Eos9gM3txP8B-XXiUyah7YIwMYO~8zqVI3ESE154JYag774393HgL~sWdgXuFqHOWAFKBt9jKd0CLqppwF7PcbAlY0Iw-n1poP97jOBEpmQQSXa1dhLitbs3NsHk-qmyXjm7oLY7ofjAmBjDw9jqa-RWGWlbZoAdJlVUjzQ4wklnkn2zJcKa9CYq2sp7S13nqHkDOw0DrCzMdVty5jOYGuOmsGSY4xRJUe4bxZ3WJT2oK9hSQpXeXzCnJSDXxvnr3udjspt5Hmsq9hHRuqaxCaSlwnMT38pZ6YpEmZI-q9mlCEmgN4LsLphimntkGn2lUsg__&Key-Pair-Id=K87HJKWMK329B
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
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.
Yes, this is what I thought you meant. I think I was the one that should have commented clearer. :)
Shame is a core etiological element of narcissism
Interesting…
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.
Very insightful. Thank you.
Excellent information, thank you.
Any time
Excellent thanks
Glad you like it
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.
And again, thank you for your insightful 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.
This text is too long (I must translate it to understand) to comment in detail your theory, I will be brief.
I share some of the text, but I would have been more nuanced, you omitted the conditioning from childhood, an important component in an analysis of this kind. Having lived some time in the middle of this culture (and religion), I can say that not all women are feminists, nor jealous of the beauty of others. Indeed, some use strategies related to Islam for less glorious interests, and mothers have an important role in the transfer of its interests. However, depending on the personality, it is not too difficult to get rid of conditioning that does not suit us. So there is an abuse of power by men over women, but your presentation is valid as well.
Jealousy exists everywhere, strategies are different, separations more numerous in other cultures.
I absolutely do not share feminism, differences exist, and are wonderful, rights on the other hand, must be defended at all and for all. I find your theory too categorical, Let us do justice to the women of all nations, not using these schemes to mask the beauty of women, and not wishing their psychological imprisonment. Liberation, goodness etc. often first passes through outbursts of all kinds, and even more if one has been restricted in physical or intellectual expression. So if communism there is, it is not generalized, to the point of almost condemning all women in Islam or its environment.
Apart from that, I appreciated welle your presentation, well written but lacking a little objectivity.
I really like the way you write
are you my fav substacker? I don't know lol
only thing I would like to argue is that I have noticed some patterns of resistance from some muslims to the word dictatorship/reserve currency elite logistics
gulf wars, terrorist imposed stigma, and some deaths of politicians are some of these patterns
I have the impression that they are a little bit smarter than the westerners for this reason
Yes, indeed, the average Middle-Easterner has a much better geopolitical understanding than the average Westerner. But neither better than me;)
I don't say the average Muslim, because some Muslims (from Pakistan and Indonesia for example) don't seem to exhibit the same situational awareness.
Thank you for your awesome words!
Bla bla bla. This piece is a load of garbage. So a few lesser females fee jealous and that warrants everyone covering themselves and letting go of their rights as humans? Fellow Lebanese over here. Islam treats women and humans like dogs. In Islam non-Muslims are considered garbage. Fodder to manipulate and be lied to. Muslims have no regard for anyone else. Even moderate Muslims are fucking lying- they’d stand up and fight non-Muslims in a heartbeat if they thought they could win. This is the biggest load of shit article I’ve ever read on substack. I’m very traditional and definitely not a feminist but this is the stupidest shit I’ve ever read. Islam is not about women wearing veils so that they won’t be jealous of each other and they can control their men lol wtf? Are you retarded? Islam means being obedient to god, and by extension, to the men in your life, especially your husband. Islam is obedience. Submission. It’s got nothing to do with petty jealousy of fat ugly women vs hot women. And it’s definitely not matriarchal in any sense of the word. Did you go to university? This sounds like the stupid kind of crap my professors would have applauded.
Stupidity has no borders…if I wasn’t myself used to be a devoted Muslim I could see how ppl fall for this nonsense. Just be ashamed. I’m speechless that you dare to call this anti human anti life form of mysticism feminist!
"Be ashamed!" the Eastern-style feminine shaming tactic that doesn't work on me. Thank you for proving my point that you come from a matriarchal female-centric culture.
Hijab and cleavage, uh-huh, sure. Orientalism at its most obvious.
Now THAT’S my kinda Feminism!