Women are the problem in society
-
Found it.
He refers to Chapter NameAl-Emran Verse No14
-
Hello everyone I'm new to the forum and would like some opinions. So I live in the uk and as you may well know we have a drink culture and modesty is somewhat reducing. There is a high divorce rate and infidelity and pre marital sexual relations.
So in my understanding both men and women have the responsibility to behave modestly.
The debate I'm having is that I have been told that if women don't give it away then men won't take it, I agree with this however I don't think it gives men the excuse of oh she dressed like that so I looked which means it's not their fault, no sin on them basically. This argument is backed up by the fact that god created men to lust after women and have no control over their desires, this video is in support of this idea.
https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Po9UBrIxAc
Please share your views
I do not agree to that,
There is a advantage of modesty, It increases curiosity and so respect and value, Its psychology. But its true for men too -
Reading the verse I can't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that it's in men's nature to lust after women. I think to fix society both need to show some self respect. Plus it would contradict the "reduce your gaze" as how could god expect men to do that when he has created them naturally to lust after women?
-
Instincts, our fleshly desires. Women also have these which cause them to make a display of themselves despite no apparent logical reason. It is among the desires of this world. We are not disallowed to follow desires to a modest degree though, only that our focus should be on the spiritual wholeness of our souls.
I disagree that the word that allegedly speak of "gaze" really does so. It is just another misconception. It refers back to the general subject of being humble and modest, much like modest intention.
Be of one with God
-
Two months ago I was in southern Germany in one of their shoping centers and there I saw something that really made me think. I saw a muslim women with her daughter. Women was probably in her late 40s, she had hijab and long dress, in one word she was properly dressed. Next to her was her daughter, 16 - 20 years of age, she was dressed, well, I can only say, I could see her vagina, sad but true. Every single male that was there was looking at her and she was happy about it.
I dont know who is to blame here, young women, her parents, mass media brainwashing or something else. Only thing I can say, other 95% of young girls are or trying to be like her, thats "modern" and "popular", "Do what thou wilt" as Alistair Crowley said.
-
Each person morals are his or her own untransferable responsibility.
That young woman in fact is young. Probably she has sucumbed to the environment aboslutely disgusting which attempts to sexualize even children younger than ten. She has some excuse in her youth, other people who are older msy not have that excuse. But that girl's morality is her responsibility, depending on are, and any other people's morality at his or hers, not somebody else's. If we have not learnt that there is no point in discussing Qur'an God and whatnot.
We have to have patience with the young people, the atmosphere, that is created by the media, everything that sorrounds us is based on exciting everybodies depedency on attracting attention or bein appreciated NOW. In sha Allah with patience they will grow up and learn other values than immdiate attention (which they may confuse with appreciation.) crying over how awful and this and that will not make things better. Give the best example of behaviour and have patience. people do grow up.
Salaam
-
I'm confused how are women the problem in society?
Both men and women desire. Also wearing the hijab does not stop desires and everyone has the ability to control their actions in relation to their desires.
Can you summarise the main argument because I don't understand what you're trying to argue.
-
Umm, its logically incorrect to say women are the problem of the society. What you are talking about is a part of agenda called disintegration of family. The formula goes something like this
Early sexulization of children and teens--->promiscuous society---->newly born children out of wedlock---->no one to support them emotionally---->Future weak and lonely slaves---->Profitable for the elite society.
Credit PlatoCan't deny that its the best of all tactics in getting dumb slaves ;D. Met several kids from broken families. Honestly speaking, you can pretty much do whatever you want with them like testing on them new HIV drugs, making them work for hours at some fast food restaurant, sell illegal drugs to them (CIA business), and so on. They don't get the meaning of what is right and wrong. They have no role model at home for which you can mold them into anything you want. When you don't need them you can fully exterminate them without getting arrested because there wont be parents to stand up against you voodoo
By the way, it is also possible to destroy family by bombarding everyone with advantages of divorce. Other methods include misguiding boys into thinking that sleeping around makes them studs and reassuring women that they need to be sex objects. The cheapest tool for this is of course the media. Feminism is another great tool. For years, it has taught women the need to take in every bad side of men. It also gives them the full right to blame all men for every negative consequence such as no one marrying them because of their children born out of wedlock.
-
Can't deny that its the best of all tactics in getting dumb slaves ;D. Met several kids from broken families. Honestly speaking, you can pretty much do whatever you want with them like testing on them new HIV drugs, making them work for hours at some fast food restaurant, sell illegal drugs to them (CIA business), and so on. They don't get the meaning of what is right and wrong. They have no role model at home for which you can mold them into anything you want. When you don't need them you can fully exterminate them without getting arrested because there wont be parents to stand up against you voodoo
What absolute stupidity. I take particular exception to what you wrote above. I come from what you have described as a "broken family" and, thankfully, do not recognise any of what you describe in myself or my family.
Ignorants like yourself give my mother's life's toil, and the exceptional manner and values which she had instilled in her children, a bad name.
-
The argument is that men were created so it is in their nature to look at/ lust after women and so it is up to women to change damaged societies. men will look at half naked women and it's the woman's fault as man was created that way so there is no sin on his part if he looks.
-
The argument is that men were created so it is in their nature to look at/ lust after women and so it is up to women to change damaged societies. men will look at half naked women and it's the woman's fault as man was created that way so there is no sin on his part if he looks.
That may be the convenient deceit that is put forward as opular"wisdom" but that is outright condemned in the Qur'an. And speaking evil of women and slandering them is also condemned and those who do it are cursed in this life and the next and there awaits an horrendous punishment. That is all the understanding that the Qur'an has for that crap.
If anybody, male or female that expects and alibi or ppatting on the back for their lusts and their defaming or slandering are at the wrong adress with the Qur'an and God. God curses them. So they better keep to popular "wisdom" and run away from the Qur'an and God. They cannot have it both ways.
Not once does de Qur'an depict a man tempted and misled by a woman into indecency, but it does depict a man who was tempted and was not misled because he was moral and believer. And vice versa those women who went after that man clearly were tempted by him, not deliberately, but they certainly were.
So the case of women who tempt by their mere appearance is not supported by the Qur'an, and when they tempted by being outright agressive they did not deserve any rebuke from God apart from exposing the truth. They were not cursed, they did bot get a page of sermons or anything.
Men who behave like that thinking they have an excuse are going to get a great shock when they meet their Judge.
Salaam
-
The argument is that men were created so it is in their nature to look at/ lust after women and so it is up to women to change damaged societies. men will look at half naked women and it's the woman's fault as man was created that way so there is no sin on his part if he looks.
I think maybe the question is why is it a sin to look? people look at me with my headgear on. I can't read their minds to know if they're lusting or conjuring up crap. Be it good or bad thoughts.
I think the sin would be to act upon a certain desire without any consent or actively going out to seek/look at nakedness for self pleasure or whatever.
Dress code won't stop men from looking. Looking isn't damaging societies. Every man is responsible for their own actions. Take the Prophet Youssef for example, a women was lusting for him yet he controlled himself. Why can Youssef do it? yet today it seems to be socially acceptable to say men are weak and it's women's fault.
One could argue women were created and it's in their nature to lust for a companion so it's men's fault for being so attractive or whatever.
We all have urges but we also have self restraint.
-
What absolute stupidity. I take particular exception to what you wrote above. I come from what you have described as a "broken family" and, thankfully, do not recognise any of what you describe in myself or my family.
Ignorants like yourself give my mother's life's toil, and the exceptional manner and values which she had instilled in her children, a bad name.
You can call it stupidity, but this is what Plato said and this is how the elite class thinks.
Proof right from the republic of Plato
1.
All these women shall be wives in common to all the men, and not one of them shall live privately with any man; the children too should be held in common so that no parent shall know which is his own offspring, and no child shall know his parent-
Both the community of property and the community of families, as I am saying, tend to make them more truly guardians; they will not tear the city in pieces by differing about 'mine' and 'not mine;' each man dragging any acquisition which he has made into a separate house of his own, where he has a separate wife and children and private pleasures and pains; but all will be affected as far as may be by the same pleasures and pains because they are all of one opinion about what is near and dear to them, and therefore they all tend towards a common end.
The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all on his own initiative; neither out of zeal, nor even playfully. But in war and in the midst of peace ? to his leader he shall direct his eye and follow him faithfully. And even in the smallest matter he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals? only if he has been told to do so. In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become utterly incapable of it.
Source http//classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.6.v.html
Destruction of family is brought to you by Rockefeller foundation
An additional purpose is the destruction of the nuclear family, opening the door for greater social intervention and manipulation. Although it is dangerous to point out in this era of Ellen-degenerated "sexual liberation," the forces that have sought to limit our real freedoms have historically been the first wave of assault for the destruction of traditional values regarding sex. This approach was exemplified by the Nazis, for whom, according to author Pearl Buck, "Love was old-fashioned, sex was modern. it was the Nazis who restored the 'right to love' in their propaganda."
Source Jim Keith whom they killed http//www.gnosticliberationfront.com/Satanism-Sex%20Crimes%20and%20Consequences.htm
Same thing was mentioned by director Aaron Russo http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBJgJ34QHNw
====================================================================================
Lets go to research and news now.
NIH Tested AIDS Drugs on Foster Children
Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that researchers at the National Institutes of Health had tested AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children in the late 1980s and '90s. In many instances, allegedly, the drugs were given without having independent monitors assigned to the children. Source http//www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4669470From Daily Mail Broken home children are 'five times more likely to suffer mental troubles'
Children from broken families are nearly five times more likely to suffer damaging mental troubles than those whose parents stay together, Government research has found. It also showed that two parents are much better than one if children are to avoid slipping into emotional distress and anti-social behaviour. The findings say that children?s family backgrounds are as important - if not more so - than whether their home is poor, workless, has bad health, or has no one with any educational qualifications.The research adds to a wealth of data that shows children suffer badly from divorce or parental break-up, and that those brought up by a single parent are more likely to do badly at school, suffer poor health, and fall into crime, addiction and poverty as adults. The report, funded by the Department of Health and published by the Office for National Statistics, investigated emotional disorders - ranked as those which cause considerable distress and interference with the way in which children perform at school and during play. It also looked at conduct disorders which result in aggressive, violent or anti-social behaviour. Source http//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079510/Children-broken-homes-times-likely-suffer-mental-troubles-says-Government-study.html
The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation
In 1991, Bruce Keith and I published the first meta-analysis dealing with the effects of divorce on children.5 Our analysis summarized the results of ninety-three studies published in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and confirmed that children with divorced parents are worse off than those with continuously married parents on measures of academic success (school grades, scores on standardized achievement tests), conduct (behavior problems, aggression), psychological well-being (depression, distress symptoms), self-esteem (positive feelings about oneself, perceptions of self-efficacy), and peer relations (number of close friends, social support from peers), on average. Moreover, children in divorced families tend to have weaker emotional bonds with mothers and fathers than do their peers in two-parent families. These results supported the conclusion that the rise in divorce had lowered the average level of child well-being.Other studies have shown that the differences in well-being between children with divorced and children with continuously married parents persist well into adulthood. For example, adults who experience parental divorce as a child have lower socioeconomic attainment, an increased risk of having a nonmarital birth, weaker bonds with parents, lower psychological well-being, poorer marital quality, and an elevated risk of seeing their own marriage end in divorce. Overall, the evidence is consistent that parental divorce during childhood is linked with a wide range of problems in adulthood.
Children born outside marriage have been studied less frequently than have children of divorce. Nevertheless, like children with divorced parents, children who grow up with a single parent because they were born out of wedlock are more likely than children living with continuously married parents to experience a variety of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems. Specifically, compared with children who grow up in stable, two-parent families, children born outside marriage reach adulthood with less education, earn less income, have lower occupational status, are more likely to be idle (that is, not employed and not in school), are more likely to have a nonmarital birth (among daughters), have more troubled marriages, experience higher rates of divorce, and report more symptoms of depression
Source http//futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=107§ionid=691
One Sign of Cognitive disorder
Those with low self esteem unwittingly make up stories in their minds about the behavior, motivation, and intent of others?what others are thinking, what others are feeling, what is really meant by the behavior of others, what is really meant by the words of others, without first checking out their perceptions. These stories are always negative-based so that the LSE sufferer feels that people are taking advantage of them, taking them for granted, or mistreating them when it isn?t actually so. In this way, they take things personally and believe their emotional reaction to be accurate. This process is a cognitive distortion (irrational or distorted thinking)
Source http//www.getesteem.com/lse-symptoms/cognitive.htmlIts difficult to have good discussion when we try to judge everything by standing in the center of the universe. Sure I come from a nuclear family, but my parents do not represent the entire group of nuclear families. For something to be held true, observation must be carried on a number of subjects instead of one. Otherwise, it becomes pseudo generalization. I went to four high schools. Studied in a class where 98% of the students came broken families, dated one man who was born out of wedlock, wrote research papers on families and children and of course, read tons of kabbalah books to know what satanic stuff I was to avoid. All of them helped me design a few of the conclusions given in my first post above.
-
-
Can't deny that its the best of all tactics in getting dumb slaves ;D. Met several kids from broken families. Honestly speaking, you can pretty much do whatever you want with them like testing on them new HIV drugs, making them work for hours at some fast food restaurant, sell illegal drugs to them (CIA business), and so on. They don't get the meaning of what is right and wrong. They have no role model at home for which you can mold them into anything you want. When you don't need them you can fully exterminate them without getting arrested because there wont be parents to stand up against you voodoo
Salaam,
You are just stereotyping kids from broken families. May be it is true or not, but it can not be always the case. Kids from other families can be as well. It is sad for any kid to happen though. Anyway, none of what you are saying happened to me. God is always with me and will be. No need to get too excited.
-
Thank you all for your input and responses. I do agree that both men and women do have to practice self restraint, I particularly like the reference to Yousef.
I think we are all responsible for our own actions.
-
You are just stereotyping kids from broken families. May be it is true or not, but it can not be always the case. Kids from other families can be as well. It is sad for any kid to happen though. Anyway, none of what you are saying happened to me. God is always with me and will be. No need to get too excited.
The point is that no kid deserves unhappiness. People are too brainwashed by the media and feminism. They have turned into narcissists for which they care less about those who suffer. I don't see it much different from terrorism. Terrorists kill people with one blow and majority of the single parents give a child slow torturous death. US has plenty of children from broken homes. Yet the society does not see it as normal and frowns upon such kids. Its not gonna change. Unfortunately, this is unhealthy for kids. They are forced to fruitlessly chase after approval. They told me of indecisions because they can't decide what is right and wrong. They told me of the pain associated with dating people whose parents often frown upon their broken homes. They see father figure in school counselors who unfortunately are there to provide only temporary assistance. My 3rd high school didnt have bus and that's why my parents told me to come home with two of our neighbors' sons. They introduced me to their drug dealer friends. From conversation I came to know that they saw target consumers in kids who came from broken homes because it lessened their risk of getting caught. They were also sure that even if they did get caught a single mother or father was too busy to get them arrested. The least they did was to put a bit of restriction on their own kids. That's all. I have high school employees in my masters class. They discussed once how female children from broken homes dreamed to be in hip hop music videos as dancers and strippers. Some actually take the step. According to those employees, skimpy clothed women that come in those videos do come from broken homes. Btw, this is in California. Plenty of videos are shot here. Since majority of the dance troupes and extras are hired from here, its not difficult for Californian audiences to recognize those they saw in high school.
That is just fulfillment of Rockefeller's dream of family destruction. I wish more and more people stand up against it.
-
I am a bit sick of this blsnaket salndering of feminism. If there is feminism it is precisely because there is womanhood oppression. The fact that for women to have ffamily means to waive many other rights which are hers should be enough proof that there is a need for femenism.
The fact that there ares spurious "feminisms" that pose as feminism is precisely countermeasure of the powerful to blind the fact that a new just world, if it is to be real must tsake women as full humsan beings and not sas an "exception" in humandkind which basically is taken to be the men.
There really is a need to right a lot of unbalances in humand societies, all of them. I)gnoring the feminine leads nowhere, that is, leads exactly where we are, a place inw hich the thirst for power has brought destruction and usffering to many countries and threatens to bring down all of them may be into stone age.
Blamign feminism is the peak of hypocrisy and a blind to look into real source of trouble. Besides it is plain, plump slandering, just one more kind of women slandering. The usual, too preditable thing.
Salaam
-
True, but feminism is not the completely solution to the world's problems, involving both men and women but takes a concentrated on one part of the problem among many.
Humanism and to teach our fellow humans to care about each other no matter gender is a stronger solution than the one-edged feminism. The main problem is not the females faring bad but rather the whole perception on life.
That not to say it is not worth to react on misogynist ideas and to struggle for the woman's equal status in society however, but the concept must be widened not to just focus on women when the essence of the problem is how people perceive the world.
I am not not saying femism as a struggle to make things more fair for women is wrong, but I feel that this subject is brought forth in society while humans are completely oblivious of the overall coldness is rampaging and it is strongest survive mentality and people hoard money for themselves and there is little empathy or compassion for other fellow citizens. Big corporations hunt for money and wish to squeeze out every dime in profit not caring about the health of others. People's obsession with money and chase for profit is what hurts our societies far more than the problem of feminism. But it seems we are blind to this problem when we involve ourselves in politics, in voting for example. It is democracy, but sometimes I shrug shoulders. This kind of viewing people like dollar bills rather than humans worry me far more than the feminism question, at least in Western societies where women have a decent standard.
Where women are mistreated the most is either in uneducated locales of Western countries or in undeveloped countries with the stereotype of indulging in sectarian religion. The women get paid less is the overall phenomenon of seeing people as dollar bills and women tend to elbow less around them in greed and be regarded as weaker so they get the worst but it is a unigender problem and not on merely one gendee. Greed is the biggest problem.
Women have often traditionally tended to be employed in public sectors where pay may be lower too and that depends on which kind of government is has and also if funds were split more equally in society the problem would not arise.
Be of one with God
-
The argument is that men were created so it is in their nature to look at/ lust after women and so it is up to women to change damaged societies. men will look at half naked women and it's the woman's fault as man was created that way so there is no sin on his part if he looks.
The argument is faulty. Both males and females are responsible equally. If someone lusts after or if someone make a display inviting lust - let's separate these then. Both are at fault. Neither the tempter nor the tempted is free from blame.
Let me give a clue - if the shaytaan/shayateen tempt and because "the human was created weak" and is hasty by nature and is tempted easily, it does not remove sin/blame from it if it gives in.
We don't control our hormones, we can't control our thoughts (separating the whispers) but we can control our actions, what we look at and what we do.
Other than that God is forgiver to whom God's Majesty Pleases.
Neither men nor women are society's problems, just the mischievous ones.
-
That man of faith is ignoring women. When it comes to real problems problems are not globas they are the problems of the people to have them and many men, those men tht use power, precisely those, have very well proved that there are problems which suffer the women and only the women and not the men, and that fact is the very reason why there men who are feminists.
THERE ARE MEN WHO ARE FEMINISTS, beause they realise that fact that men must change, not women. The error made in the struggle for the emancipation and the rights of women was not of the women but of the men, those men that profit from women discrimination Good men do not profit, at least voluntarily form women disccrimation and persecution. But not all men are good men, and bad men always get a pass for their abuses of power and the whole world set up is based on the abuse of power, on the satanisation of power and of a good chunk of malehood. If they can get away with it they would be idiots if they didn't do it right? that is the (in)moral set up we have which may not be upheld by all people or by the majority but which is noneceless enforced on all, sand most directly damingnly on women.
Moraly it is more damaging to males, but since that dammaga is not mmediately visible whereas for women it is visible immediately and matrerially, for men they think they are on to of it, because they suffer no apparent damage because moral dammage is not considered as such, and because of abusing power, particularly power over women has not apparent direct damaging consequences for them, far from that it seems to fabour them and their depredatory penchan
So yes, feminism is very necessary, only women, and at that, only women who care know what goes on and what it does. Men, even sincerely minded men do not realise it till they do not take the trouble of really taking the whole picture or have the back luck of having a woman they love very much, like a daughter, be the subject of the kind of humilliation and abuse or injustice which can fall on a women.
That gender idiocy doens't wash with me, there are two sexes, ans one is systematically ignored. As soon as something does not revolve around the real human being, the male, we are in trouble. And that you, Mof even if you are nos conscious of it, react that way.
The fact is that women live the same kind of experiences as men to let us say 98%, but that men doot lieve the same kind of experiences as women let was say up to may be 80%. Male experiences, unless they really get involved in supporting women to the core, as compared to women have a flat line of experience.
That globalism for all that you ppropose, Man ofF is what has been maintained through the ages, that is ignore owmen life experience and let the come to grips with it, as long as the world continues turning around what do we care?
We do not need more of that, like at Maryam's birth in 3.36
"the male is not like the female".
Therefore do not push down our throats more of the same stuff where the femine, tha femal experience is conveniently submerged in the "general humanity" which of course annot be exedted to be looking all the time at particularities, and obviously the female is a particularity.
Had the configuration been the other way around, femle as the basis, nobody would have suffered, because all experiences or almost of both sexes are part of the females too, like intellect, every kind of work , sport, are within reach of males and females, but all that is not within the reach of males, has been ignored as if grew automatically off the trees and need not taken into acount for the world to function. It is taken for granted, but ony the women pay for it with their own beings.
So that global thing, very good very well, but as far as women are concerned is the same fare that has been served over and over let us get the libaration of all and then we will look into it. Some of us, men and women feminists, know better than that.
Salaam
So, yes, feminism is an absolute need if we are going to get anywhere.