Islam, Humanity and Equality for Women

[Yosemite]

Man you have gone overbord with this. I m surrounded by feminist I am feminist and I don't see any of thempreaching those things you say.

sto themen tht cnnot live because their ex wives take all their money. That most certainy is nto what I see. What I see is exactly the opposite. Men who dissppear and leave women with mortgages, children and without a job. When change model when they get tired of their wife and then leave their former family in need nd odge as much as they can the rights of their children and to the mother of the children who looks after them and pays for them.

As to women taking money out of the pocket of men. Surely if you were a follower of the Qur'an your women would not need todo that since it is God himselfwho orders men to maintain women.

Get angry with God and do not go after some feminist straw womenn for your furustrations.

As to the money paart in fact many feminists are in agreemnt with men tha women should contribute equally to everything. That is their equality of certain kinds of feminists.

Salaam

i hope you understand that the claims i made are backed up by empirical studies conducted by reputable research centres with a history of excellence in their respective fields

feminism in the west is not an example to follow, i invite you to read books that is critical of feminism, instead of just going with the idea that feminism is for "women's liberation" or whatever, without ever questioning what is done in its name only because you were told what feminism is supposed to be

personally, i reserve myself the right to not be part of any sect, cult or group, that includes feminism, and if i say i am not a feminist, that doesn't mean i hate women

too many times have i been told that i hated women because i merely reserve myself the right to not be part of any cult, sect or group that exist out there

i have this right and i make it known, and it's only feminists that get mad at this idea
not even the salafist i met got mad at this idea, salafists
i use this test to see if an individual is willing to talk or not

what you're describing in your post is the system that was setup by feminists themselves the sexual "revolution"

in it, it says men and women can have as much sex as they want, and these men that leave if the woman gets pregnant? guess what they did they followed the feminist's idea of a sexual "revolution"

all the things feminist complain about today? it is often due to the ideas that were spread by the "sexual revolution" in the 60's

[Man_of_Faith]

One should always look on both sides of the coin.

[huruf]

i hope you understand that the claims i made are backed up by empirical studies conducted by reputable research centres with a history of excellence in their respective fields

feminism in the west is not an example to follow, i invite you to read books that is critical of feminism, instead of just going with the idea that feminism is for "women's liberation" or whatever, without ever questioning what is done in its name only because you were told what feminism is supposed to be

personally, i reserve myself the right to not be part of any sect, cult or group, that includes feminism, and if i say i am not a feminist, that doesn't mean i hate women

too many times have i been told that i hated women because i merely reserve myself the right to not be part of any cult, sect or group that exist out there

i have this right and i make it known, and it's only feminists that get mad at this idea
not even the salafist i met got mad at this idea, salafists
i use this test to see if an individual is willing to talk or not

what you're describing in your post is the system that was setup by feminists themselves the sexual "revolution"

in it, it says men and women can have as much sex as they want, and these men that leave if the woman gets pregnant? guess what they did they followed the feminist's idea of a sexual "revolution"

all the things feminist complain about today? it is often due to the ideas that were spread by the "sexual revolution" in the 60's

You may have your problems nd your history, but please refrain from making that the universal history.

Men hstorically have always had that sexual freedm you are pained about. Some men used it wrongly nd others used it rightly. It was their choice. Some chose to be pigs, because they could and nothing happened to them because of that, and some men were virtuous and did not do that.

Now what happened inthe last century was that the exclusive freedom of men men for sexual debauchery was extended to women. As far as I am concerned morally it should have been the other way around, that is, make men as moral as women and not women as inmoral as men. But obviously do you think it was easier to to moral self-discipline as women wereforced to be or that it ws easier to make the other way around,.

And now you come with it wbecause of women's freedom. Whom are you trying to kid?

It is a moral teaching that we learn as kids that if you put rotten apples in a bsket with good apples, all of them will rot.

You are blind to the very facts thaat women hve been oppressed and not treated with justice as such women and tht doay continues to be so for maany, too many women.

Nobody is saying all men have been evil and are evil. You like to assume that those who do not aggree with you say that. I have muscle ache in my mouth from saying the opposite. There are virtuous men, thank God. But all men are far from virtuous aand they are enabled and have been enabled historically to let loose their lack of morals on everybody but particularly on women.

If you deny that, thenit is you business, but do not expect sympathy.

Again you cannot have rotten apples and mix them with sane apples and then expect that all will not rot.

Yes there are good men nd there are bad women, but that is a moral question. Socially, women have been abused as such and are still in some ways. Things have got better, much better than in the last trhree centuries. In someother ways what has been given with one hand has been withdrawn with the other.

It is shameless to pretend now that all is the faault of women, or feminists. What do you call a feminist. The word is not yours to mani0ulate s you like.

Is it your new version of witches?

Do you remember witches? Yes women when they are not absolutely powerless are evil. The only good Indian is the dead Indian, and so on.

Salaam

[Yosemite]

You may have your problems nd your history, but please refrain from making that the universal history.

Men hstorically have always had that sexual freedm you are pained about.

this is blatantly wrong
men had the duty to marry a woman and stay with her, and take care of the family

all this was thrown out of the window with the so called "sexual revolution"

Some men used it wrongly nd others used it rightly. It was their choice. Some chose to be pigs, because they could and nothing happened to them because of that, and some men were virtuous and did not do that.

how is it a choice?
society tells girls to become sluts, and boys to become sharks
the music bombards kids with sexual messages and cues, and kids follow what they see, without understanding
we live in a society that hypersexualises kids, and here you are talking about choices
how can it be a choice, or a freedom, if the people who are targeted are the most easily influenced?
you can not talk about freedom without mentioning responsibility, and people who are easily influenced are not free, they are at the mercy of people who can easily influence
i'm looking at reality, while you are talking about hypothetical situations
yes, there exists men who are virtuous and yadda yadda, there also exists such women, but in the west, a world run by feminists, these two types of people are becoming extinct
for a fact 1 in 4 teenagers in the US has a STD, and this number is growing
other research of interest on this
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2496932/
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16882784
this is what the "sexual revolution" of feminists has brought on societies

Now what happened inthe last century was that the exclusive freedom of men men for sexual debauchery was extended to women. As far as I am concerned morally it should have been the other way around, that is, make men as moral as women and not women as inmoral as men. But obviously do you think it was easier to to moral self-discipline as women wereforced to be or that it ws easier to make the other way around,.

this has yet to be proven
and again, you're making a generalisation, where you say MEN enjoyed this "freedom", and that MEN engage in sexual debauchery
you talk like a collectivist, as if ALL MEN were responsible for the actions of other individuals

what does the quran say? that i am not responsible for the actions of others
feminist theory is based on the idea that MEN, ALL MEN, are guilty of some crime

And now you come with it wbecause of women's freedom. Whom are you trying to kid?

you're making statements based on the idea that ALL MEN have to be held guilty of something

It is a moral teaching that we learn as kids that if you put rotten apples in a bsket with good apples, all of them will rot.

You are blind to the very facts thaat women hve been oppressed and not treated with justice as such women and tht doay continues to be so for maany, too many women.

it's obvious you haven't studied history, because groups women, even before the whole sexual "revolution", the feminism and what not, exerted a tremendous amount of power over men, for a fact the white feather movement in world war 1, where women would shame men who refused to engage in this useless world war
once again, you talk like a collectivist, you blame ALL MEN, when clearly the quran says i am not responsible for the actions of others, and you also say ALL WOMEN were "oppressed", without giving specific examples
who was behind the alcohol ban in the USA? groups of women

i on the other hand can give you examples of how groups women had tremendous influence over men

Nobody is saying all men have been evil and are evil. You like to assume that those who do not aggree with you say that. I have muscle ache in my mouth from saying the opposite. There are virtuous men, thank God. But all men are far from virtuous aand they are enabled and have been enabled historically to let loose their lack of morals on everybody but particularly on women.
If you deny that, thenit is you business, but do not expect sympathy.

i'm not saying this because you disagree with me, i'm saying this because it's what you said
"Now what happened inthe last century was that the exclusive freedom of men men for sexual debauchery"
"Men hstorically have always had that sexual freedm you are pained about."

Yes there are good men nd there are bad women, but that is a moral question. Socially, women have been abused as such and are still in some ways. Things have got better, much better than in the last trhree centuries. In someother ways what has been given with one hand has been withdrawn with the other.

explain how the happiness of women has been declining ever since feminism grew then
http//isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic457678.files/WomensHappiness.pdf
this is an empirical study, carried out by serious people, who have a history of rigorous work
unlike you, i look at the precedents, i look at what the feminists, as a group, have done in the past, and are doing right now

you're offended over the fact that i am not blindly agreeing with anything a "feminist" has to say, that i am being critical of feminism, and i don't understand why

there's literally nothing wrong criticizing feminism, many scholars do it, like christina hoff sommers and many others i don't recall their names yet

It is shameless to pretend now that all is the faault of women, or feminists. What do you call a feminist. The word is not yours to mani0ulate s you like.

Is it your new version of witches?
Do you remember witches? Yes women when they are not absolutely powerless are evil. The only good Indian is the dead Indian, and so on.

Salaam

i specifically talk about feminists, then you say i talk about all women
can you not read what i write? i never did any generalisations like you

[huruf]

You make your own world, and your own history. I m nnot going to disturb your bubble.

Salaam

[Yosemite]

You make your own world, and your own history. I m nnot going to disturb your bubble.

Salaam

notice i cited real life examples and precedents, while you provide nothing to back up your claims

in the quran, it says clearly that you must verify the information yourself

i show you counter examples proving your blatant generalizations false, but you keep going on like a mule with your feminism

if you're critically minded, then you would have read books critical of feminism already

YOU live in the feminist bubble, completely oblivious of the world around you, whereas i do not hesitate challenge my own beliefs whenever necessary

i used to be a feminist like you, then i did my research

[huruf]

Yosemite, my debte with you is ended. I consider it not onlyuseless but impossible. You seem to have very strong psycological fixations with sex and a hate of women. I repeat, for you the only good woman is the powerless woman like for others the only good Indian was de dead Indian and you even deny that God Himself is the one who orders men to maintain women with their money (of the men) whereas you attirbute that to women's covetousness.

I like generous men, real human males, not complexed beings that dwell endlessly on what the are owed or how bad women are and all that crap. Therefore since the debate is useless and I don't even enkkjoy it, have it your way and hat women as much as you want. God will deal with it. Certainly not me.

Salaam

[Man_of_Faith]

Hello,

I do not see anything in what Yosemite is saying which implies that this person does hate women?

I am against Feminism in general, the community movement, because it does go overboard, but I can support in within a justifiable context when the women do not act like animals. Certainly if a woman does work for profit she ought to receive a payment equal to that of man for the equal proportion of work.

The male of this species is designed to be a hunter/scavenger, but also a labor worker for heavy duty although the advancement of the human society's technology has allowed women to more easily get involved in such work as their strength does not have to be as high as in the past. Obviously by nature a woman on average is much weaker physically than a man, if both have been involved in the same level of exercise. There are anatomical differences. The female's agility and lighter Body may make her much more mobile if both genders go all out on perfecting their gender's strengths to their full potential. I have seen research that a female is better at targeting with projectile weapons. The male due to the strength may be better at swinging a heavy sword. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and they complement each other and to thrive in full they should be mixed together. This is the reason for the ancient saying "Man and woman created He them, they should cleave unto each other and become as one flesh", not 75% male and 25% female or vice versa. Obviously this also includes the work life, but the lack of certain qualities in either of them may make the other less proficient within a profession.

Women and men should not waste their energy saying how bad each gender is because both have areas where they are bad compared to the other gender. Instead they should learn and utilize from each other's strengths and weaknesses. If a person can distance themselves from the instinctive drive of their gender then this is better, much better.

If you study psychology and the behavioral patterns of a Homo Sapiens primate then you realize how primitive it actually is in the guise of an advanced life form. Due to that people more often than not are following their instinct it is easy with psychology to predict what a person would do within a setting. I can just say one thing "Get more Spiritual and stop being a mindless animal within a lifeless sphere".

When a human gets within a social context then instincts are showing pretty well, they seek consensus by group identity and rarely drift outside the box. They are often very trusting when a recognized person within the society says something, so it may matter little of what they say but just that is they who say something. An example is when it comes to Quran and Islam; just because some recognized person says something and by scholars claims, then it is accepted and that is why everything looks so pathetic. Just look at the mainstream interpretation of Quran and any person who have given sufficient contemplation to it and stopped listening to their tendency to be sheep before lost shepherds would laugh and wonder how anyone can take it seriously. This is when people rather than abandoning the scripture should look at whether people have actually interpreted that old text properly and keeping an open mind towards every indication and source material, and also think "everything is possible nothing is impossible", e.g. one group of people once upon a time sat down and utterly just imagined what this scripture said without it having any basis with reality and energetically worked hard to fit their bogus doctrine into it within a language they did not understand.

When you role play in this World within this Body you have to fulfill the expectations of the species and genders however without succumbing to the pleasure of being it.

Be safe
Amenuel

[Yosemite]

Yosemite, my debte with you is ended. I consider it not onlyuseless but impossible. You seem to have very strong psycological fixations with sex and a hate of women. I repeat, for you the only good woman is the powerless woman like for others the only good Indian was de dead Indian and you even deny that God Himself is the one who orders men to maintain women with their money (of the men) whereas you attirbute that to women's covetousness.

I like generous men, real human males, not complexed beings that dwell endlessly on what the are owed or how bad women are and all that crap. Therefore since the debate is useless and I don't even enkkjoy it, have it your way and hat women as much as you want. God will deal with it. Certainly not me.

Salaam

once again i'm talking about feminists, you say i talk about women

stop misrepresenting my argument, this is disingenuous

the only way you can misrepresent my argument in such a way is if you believe in the silly notion that everyone is born a feminist, and that women can not refuse being feminists