Why Is Patriarchy Seen As A Bad Thing?

[Robert]

You are okay with people doing drugs and sleeping around.

It's going to happen whatever the state does so we might as well legalise it. Criminalising booze brought about the biggest crime wave in US history.

Are you sure you are a retired person? You sound like you are in your teenage years.

I am sure I am not a retired person. In my teenage years, I thought like you do now.

[Champ_Pal]

I compare benevolent patriarchy to nutritious vegetables (may not taste good initially but good for health).

Similarly, I compare everything else to meth; can make you euphoric but damages you in the long run.

Benevolent Patriarchy is like giving a napkin to cover the nose in a room filled with Ammonia.

May be there should be benevolent Matriarchy too counter the Patriarchy.

[Champ_Pal]

Religious folks bringing up sex, prostitution and incest should look in the mirror before bringing them up to bash the liberals.

Religious books in all religions have men having sex with children and there are cousin marriages which is incest. This is not just to point at Muslims. Some Hindus in South India also do that. Must be strongly criticized and discouraged.

Religious folks raped, pillaged and enslaved the conquered territories and there are many examples of it available. So before brining up these moral issues, they need to have a look at their own history.

At least the UN charter of human rights treats war prisoners with respect and punishes any leader or country for violating the rules.

[sweep_shot]

Religious folks bringing up sex, prostitution and incest should look in the mirror before bringing them up to bash the liberals.

Religious books in all religions have men having sex with children and there are cousin marriages which is incest. This is not just to point at Muslims. Some Hindus in South India also do that. Must be strongly criticized and discouraged.

Religious folks raped, pillaged and enslaved the conquered territories and there are many examples of it available. So before brining up these moral issues, they need to have a look at their own history.

At least the UN charter of human rights treats war prisoners with respect and punishes any leader or country for violating the rules.

You can deflect all you want. We can see through you.

You are simply making excuses for premarital sex and women wearing bikinis. Knock it off.

We are human beings. We are not animals. We should follow laws and show decency.

[Robert]

You can deflect all you want. We can see through you.

You are simply making excuses for premarital sex and women wearing bikinis. Knock it off.

We are human beings. We are not animals. We should follow laws and show decency.

There's no need for excuses - this is normal behaviour for Western women. You've gone full incel now sadly. Clearly female sexuality terrifies you. Be honest about it.

[Junaids]

You are simply making excuses for premarital sex and women wearing bikinis. Knock it off.

Frankly I would be shocked and worried if my daughter did not do either of those things. They are both normal and healthy.

[Champ_Pal]

You can deflect all you want. We can see through you.

You are simply making excuses for premarital sex and women wearing bikinis. Knock it off.

We are human beings. We are not animals. We should follow laws and show decency.

Morals vary from one religion to another. Which religious morals should we follow?

Premarital sex is fine with me as long as the adults involved are consenting. You cannot tie up young people like animals and not let them explore their sexuality. Total ban of interaction between sexes will lead to perverts and incels.

I totally agree that we are humans and not animals. We should let adults explore their interests and not supress one sex because they have female reproductive parts. Teach the women to be strong, independent and educated. The rest will follow as mature humans do.

[Junaids]

The woman who doesn't perform her duties as a wife when she has no valid reason to avoid them, of which sexual duties are an important part, she will be cursed by the angels.

She entered a marriage contract knowing her duties well. No man wants to be married to a woman who he cannot have sex with.

That's like living in the same house with a friend. In fact, most divorces happen due to sex-less marriages.

This post basically destroys any claim for patriarchy being protective of women.

It is nothing more and nothing less than a charter for rape.

My wife married me for multiple reasons, not just for sex. Neither party can demand anything at random times all of the time.

If you want sex with your wife, spoil her. Give her a present. Listen to her. Let her live her dreams. Get yourself a good haircut and nice clothes and get fit, and make her more likely to be attracted to you. And pick the moment for when she feels in the mood, not just you.

I really worry about what terrible lovers people with traditional religious lifestyles must be.

Those of us with western lifestyles and normal amounts of experience are well aware that only around 25% of women can climax from penetrative sex, and the etiquette for the other 75% of couples is that the man gives the woman pleasure with what she enjoys, and then is rewarded for his consideration by being extended the same courtesy.

This was not the case before the pill liberated women sexually. In those pre-1970 days of religious sexual values, most women never had an orgasm in their life and sex was a form of hell that they had to put up with as a form of religious prostitution - a man would support his wife financially but she had to give him sex on tap in return.

Multiple posters here have said that they expect their wife to have never had sex with anybody else. I was trained by my early partners, and my later partners got a partner who was competent in the bedroom and who could adapt what he did to meet their likes and needs.

That didn't used to happen in the old days in the west. And women generally put up with sex that they didn't enjoy, whereas their daughters and granddaughters like it and choose to do it.

I'm getting a terrible feeling in this thread that patriarchy creates marital rape and ruins what should be a lovely experience for both parties.

[sweep_shot]

This post basically destroys any claim for patriarchy being protective of women.

It is nothing more and nothing less than a charter for rape.

My wife married me for multiple reasons, not just for sex. Neither party can demand anything at random times all of the time.

If you want sex with your wife, spoil her. Give her a present. Listen to her. Let her live her dreams. Get yourself a good haircut and nice clothes and get fit, and make her more likely to be attracted to you. And pick the moment for when she feels in the mood, not just you.

I really worry about what terrible lovers people with traditional religious lifestyles must be.

Those of us with western lifestyles and normal amounts of experience are well aware that only around 25% of women can climax from penetrative sex, and the etiquette for the other 75% of couples is that the man gives the woman pleasure with what she enjoys, and then is rewarded for his consideration by being extended the same courtesy.

This was not the case before the pill liberated women sexually. In those pre-1970 days of religious sexual values, most women never had an orgasm in their life and sex was a form of hell that they had to put up with as a form of religious prostitution - a man would support his wife financially but she had to give him sex on tap in return.

Multiple posters here have said that they expect their wife to have never had sex with anybody else. I was trained by my early partners, and my later partners got a partner who was competent in the bedroom and who could adapt what he did to meet their likes and needs.

That didn't used to happen in the old days in the west. And women generally put up with sex that they didn't enjoy, whereas their daughters and granddaughters like it and choose to do it.

I'm getting a terrible feeling in this thread that patriarchy creates marital rape and ruins what should be a lovely experience for both parties.

You want people to live like animals. We do not.

We believe in law and order. We believe in checks and balances. We believe in decency.

[sweep_shot]

Morals vary from one religion to another. Which religious morals should we follow?

Premarital sex is fine with me as long as the adults involved are consenting. You cannot tie up young people like animals and not let them explore their sexuality. Total ban of interaction between sexes will lead to perverts and incels.

I totally agree that we are humans and not animals. We should let adults explore their interests and not supress one sex because they have female reproductive parts. Teach the women to be strong, independent and educated. The rest will follow as mature humans do.

A woman can be strong, independent, and educated without behaving like a used chewing gum.

[Dr_Bassim]

I made this thread to discuss merit of patriarchy on its own (independent from religious rulings). I believe benevolent patriarchy is the best system in the long run. Everything else can result in chaos.

As a Muslim, I believe in whatever Islam says. No debate about it. But, I didn't make this thread with religion in mind. I simply wanted to see what radical liberals think about this topic.

Okay I'll bite against by better judgment.

So "patriarchy" without religion.

I am going to assume that if I can "prove without doubt" that patriarchy itself is "bad for generations" you will not run to religion to get your cover?

The onus is on you.

If I can "prove to you" that patriarchy is the "root cause of many of the social problems we have in the society today", what will you do?


Will you agree that "patriarchy" during times of Prophet Muhammad was a necessary evil, but it is not valid in the current day and age, when the situation is much different to what was 1400 years ago and change your opinion? (If I can prove).

Or will you hide behind the "facade of religion" and refuse to indulge anymore?

Thanks.

[sweep_shot]

Okay I'll bite against by better judgment.

So "patriarchy" without religion.

I am going to assume that if I can "prove without doubt" that patriarchy itself is "bad for generations" you will not run to religion to get your cover?

The onus is on you.

If I can "prove to you" that patriarchy is the "root cause of many of the social problems we have in the society today", what will you do?


Will you agree that "patriarchy" during times of Prophet Muhammad was a necessary evil, but it is not valid in the current day and age, when the situation is much different to what was 1400 years ago and change your opinion? (If I can prove).

Or will you hide behind the "facade of religion" and refuse to indulge anymore?

Thanks.

My belief is unlikely to change. I believe what I believe. My belief is rock solid.

I don't think you can prove that "patriarchy is the root cause of many of the social problems". We may have to agree to disagree.

But, I welcome you to give me your reasoning. That's why I made this thread (to listen to the other side).

[Junaids]

You are the first father I have encountered who is okay with his daughter having premarital sex.

This is not normal at all.

I think you need to start associating more with the people in whose country you have chosen to live.

In each of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK over 93% of females have sex before marriage, and when you remove first and second degree immigrants it rises to over 98%. And in all four countries the average number of dates a couple goes on before they have sex is 3. It is literally called "the three date rule".

So to say that pre-marital sex is "not normal" is a literal inversion of the facts.

I have known of two white Australian women over the age of 20 who were still virgins.

One was a devout Christian who found that by the age of 21 all men judged her by her virginity - they either wanted to take it as a trophy or they ran a mile rather than have what is viewed as an abnormal (non-sexual) relationship. She was never able to have a normal relationship because her religious practices had made her abnormal.

The other was not the world's most attractive woman, and didn't lose her virginity until she was 25. Her lack of normal relationships led to her recently - at 31 - becoming a single mum.

It's actually very brave for people in western societies to choose to abstain from pre-marital sex. And it tends to mean you end up married to a loser like Peggy-Lou in the earlier example, who will never know a life beyond her home town and her fanatical faith.

[sweep_shot]

I think you need to start associating more with the people in whose country you have chosen to live.

In each of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK over 93% of females have sex before marriage, and when you remove first and second degree immigrants it rises to over 98%. And in all four countries the average number of dates a couple goes on before they have sex is 3. It is literally called "the three date rule".

So to say that pre-marital sex is "not normal" is a literal inversion of the facts.

I have known of two white Australian women over the age of 20 who were still virgins.

One was a devout Christian who found that by the age of 21 all men judged her by her virginity - they either wanted to take it as a trophy or they ran a mile rather than have what is viewed as an abnormal (non-sexual) relationship. She was never able to have a normal relationship because her religious practices had made her abnormal.

The other was not the world's most attractive woman, and didn't lose her virginity until she was 25. Her lack of normal relationships led to her recently - at 31 - becoming a single mum.

It's actually very brave for people in western societies to choose to abstain from pre-marital sex. And it tends to mean you end up married to a loser like Peggy-Lou in the earlier example, who will never know a life beyond her home town and her fanatical faith.

Where did you get that 93% figure? Can you provide a source or did you just make it up?

Peggy-Lou is an honorable woman. Rachel is a cheap woman.

[Junaids]

A woman can be strong, independent, and educated without behaving like a used chewing gum.

Judging by that horrific "cursed by angels" line, it could be argued that it is Muslim (or born-again Christian) wives who are more like "used chewing gum" than single western women.

A western woman gets to choose who she has sex with and when.

In contrast, @Madplayer says that a Muslim wife must open her legs whenever her husband feels like it, and that she signed up to that when she married him.

I fully accept that most Muslim men are decent and honorable people.

But it is outrageous for you to attack our women in the west for the legitimate and perfectly decent choices that they exercise their right to make.,

[sweep_shot]

I think you need to start associating more with the people in whose country you have chosen to live.

You do not tell me what to do.

Canada is a melting pot of different cultures.

There are about 5000 Amish in Canada. Are you saying Amish are not Canadians?

[Junaids]

Where did you get that 93% figure? Can you provide a source or did you just make it up?

Peggy-Lou is an honorable woman. Rachel is a cheap woman.

I didn't list the USA, but it was already 95% there 16 years ago.

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...s-been-decades

[sweep_shot]

But it is outrageous for you to attack our women in the west for the legitimate and perfectly decent choices that they exercise their right to make.,

This thread is not just about west.

This thread is about all cultures. East and west. North and south.

[sweep_shot]

I didn't list the USA, but it was already 95% there 16 years ago.

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...s-been-decades

OK. Who cares about America? They are not a role model for the world to follow.

America is the land of mass shooting and crazy rednecks.

[Junaids]

You do not tell me what to do.

Canada is a melting pot of different cultures.

There are about 5000 Amish in Canada. Are you saying Amish are not Canadians?

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that you have contempt for the values and actions of the vast majority of Canadians, yet you choose to live there.

I can't reasonably go to live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because I do not respect their society and values. But you seem to be happy to live in a country in which you judge 95 out of every 100 women as being sexually degenerate.

[sweep_shot]

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that you have contempt for the values and actions of the vast majority of Canadians, yet you choose to live there.

I can't reasonably go to live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because I do not respect their society and values. But you seem to be happy to live in a country in which you judge 95 out of every 100 women as being sexually degenerate.

First of all, I didn't apply to be in Canada. I came here as a kid. My parents brought me here.

Secondly, like I said, Canada is now a melting pot. You have all sorts of cultures here. White population is less than 70% now. It is no longer same old Canada you are referring to.

Most Asian parents in Canada are conservative. I am not just talking about brown ones but also Chinese ones.

So, I don't buy that 93% data. It can be true among white Canadians but not all Canadians.

[Junaids]

OK. Who cares about America? They are not a role model for the world to follow.

America is the land of mass shooting and crazy rednecks.

Across western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand the practices are the same.

People do not hop from bed to bed. Most people lose their virginity around the age of 16 or 17, so everyone you will ever date after you leave school has automatically had sex before.

Most people have 2 or 3 long-term relationships before they marry. When they are single, they average around 2 sexual partners per year, and get much LESS sex than when they are in a relationship.

The average marriage age now is around 30, except for very religious people (which is again because they marry to be able to have sex).

So a typical person's sex life before marriage looks something like this:

16 - 1 partner
17 - 1 partner
18 - 2 partners
19 - long-term partner 1
20 - long-term partner 1
21 - long-term partner 1
22 - 2 partners
23 - 2 partners
24 - long-term partner 2
25 - long-term partner 2
26 - 1 partner
27 - 1 partner
28 - 1 partner
29 - long-term partner 3 (future spouse).

I don't see any promiscuity there. By the age of 30 this man or woman has had far less sex than a Christian or Muslim who married at 18. They have just done what they have done with more people.

[sweep_shot]

Across western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand the practices are the same.

People do not hop from bed to bed. Most people lose their virginity around the age of 16 or 17, so everyone you will ever date after you leave school has automatically had sex before.

Most people have 2 or 3 long-term relationships before they marry. When they are single, they average around 2 sexual partners per year, and get much LESS sex than when they are in a relationship.

The average marriage age now is around 30, except for very religious people (which is again because they marry to be able to have sex).

So a typical person's sex life before marriage looks something like this:

16 - 1 partner
17 - 1 partner
18 - 2 partners
19 - long-term partner 1
20 - long-term partner 1
21 - long-term partner 1
22 - 2 partners
23 - 2 partners
24 - long-term partner 2
25 - long-term partner 2
26 - 1 partner
27 - 1 partner
28 - 1 partner
29 - long-term partner 3 (future spouse).

I don't see any promiscuity there. By the age of 30 this man or woman has had far less sex than a Christian or Muslim who married at 18. They have just done what they have done with more people.

These are probably true among white people. But, it is no longer about white people. Countries like Canada, USA, Australia etc. are now melting pots. There is no one culture anymore.

Canada's native white population is now below 73%. In 50 years, it may go below 60%. Are you saying 93% from the remaining 27% engage in premarital sex? Get a grip.

Also, it is hilarious how you are bragging about premarital sex like it is some type of achievement. Anyone who has premarital sex clearly doesn't have discipline.

[Junaids]

These are probably true among white people. But, it is no longer about white people. Countries like Canada, USA, Australia etc. are now melting pots. There is no one culture anymore.

Canada's native white population is now below 73%. In 50 years, it may go below 60%. Are you saying 93% from the remaining 27% engage in premarital sex? Get a grip.

Also, it is hilarious how you are bragging about premarital sex like it is some type of achievement. Anyone who has premarital sex clearly doesn't have discipline.

I'm not seeing any bragging there.

I showed you how things work in western countries. I neither praised it nor criticised it.

Back to demographics.

In Canada, the most numerous demographics are:

Canadian 11.1 million
English 6.3 million
Scottish 4.8 million
French 4.7 million
Irish 4.6 million
German 3.3 million
Chinese 1.8 million
Italian 1.6 million
First Nations 1.5 million
Indian 1.4 million
Ukrainian 1.4 million
Dutch 1.1 million
Polish 1.1 million

The only ones there where premarital sex is not universal are the Indians and Chinese, but actually the Chinese are mainly Hong Kong emigrees in British Colombia who do practise premarital sex, and have for generations.

It's a melting pot. But in terms of their private lives, they are all pretty much the same.

[Junaids]

You can deflect all you want. We can see through you.

You are simply making excuses for premarital sex and women wearing bikinis. Knock it off.

We are human beings. We are not animals. We should follow laws and show decency.

For the record, can you please explain what damage is done by a female wearing a bikini at the beach or swimming pool?

I could understand (although I'd still disagree) if you were objecting to women being topless at the beach.

But I don't actually understand the harm that a bikini can do - please do put me right on that.

[sweep_shot]

I'm not seeing any bragging there.

I showed you how things work in western countries. I neither praised it nor criticised it.

Back to demographics.

In Canada, the most numerous demographics are:

Canadian 11.1 million
English 6.3 million
Scottish 4.8 million
French 4.7 million
Irish 4.6 million
German 3.3 million
Chinese 1.8 million
Italian 1.6 million
First Nations 1.5 million
Indian 1.4 million
Ukrainian 1.4 million
Dutch 1.1 million
Polish 1.1 million

The only ones there where premarital sex is not universal are the Indians and Chinese, but actually the Chinese are mainly Hong Kong emigrees in British Colombia who do practise premarital sex, and have for generations.

It's a melting pot. But in terms of their private lives, they are all pretty much the same.

LOL. Chinese are everywhere in Canada. They are everywhere in Toronto too. Not all are from Hong Kong. I live in Toronto for 17 years.

That 93% thing doesn't add up. I don't think 93% of the 28% non-white population engage in premarital sex.

[sweep_shot]

For the record, can you please explain what damage is done by a female wearing a bikini at the beach or swimming pool?

I could understand (although I'd still disagree) if you were objecting to women being topless at the beach.

But I don't actually understand the harm that a bikini can do - please do put me right on that.

It is uncivilized.

Bikini shouldn't be worn in public (beach or no beach).

We are not animals. We are humans. We should be clothed properly.

[sweep_shot]

The only ones there where premarital sex is not universal are the Indians and Chinese,

Are you saying Africans in general engage in premarital sex?

Apart from white people, rest of the world generally frown upon premarital sex (apart from a few radical liberals and mentally unstable people).

[Junaids]

Are you saying Africans in general engage in premarital sex?

Apart from white people, rest of the world generally frown upon premarital sex (apart from a few radical liberals and mentally unstable people).

Yes, south of the Sahara premarital sex is pretty much universal - sex is why most of the HIV is heterosexually transmitted.

[Junaids]

It is uncivilized.

Bikini shouldn't be worn in public (beach or no beach).

We are not animals. We are humans. We should be clothed properly.

I asked you to justify it.

It’s not a justification to say “people who disagree with me are animals”. That is just throwing intolerant insults at people.

Who is harmed by women wearing a bikini at the beach and what is the harm, and who perpetrates that harm?

[Dr_Bassim]

My belief is unlikely to change. I believe what I believe. My belief is rock solid.

I don't think you can prove that "patriarchy is the root cause of many of the social problems". We may have to agree to disagree.

But, I welcome you to give me your reasoning. That's why I made this thread (to listen to the other side).

Okay now lets leave religion aside as you said.

There are two babies born in a home.

One is a female and the other is a male.

Are the babies equal or not?

[Robert]

You are the first father I have encountered who is okay with his daughter having premarital sex.

This is not normal at all.

I’m the second.

It’s going to happen whatever I say. One of them produced a child out of wedlock. That child is the light of my world, enriching my my life in ways I did not know existed.

[Robert]

It is uncivilized.

Bikini shouldn't be worn in public (beach or no beach).

Let’s be real. You mean, it makes you have sexual thoughts and feelings. These are entirely natural. You don’t like how you can’t control the thoughts and feelings, so you are making that the bikini girl’s fault.

An example of uncivilised behaviour would be sexually harassing said bikini girl.

An example of civilised behaviour would be to control your actions related to your thoughts and feelings on seeing the bikini girl.

[Madplayer]

Drugs are bad for health and prostitution can be exploited by pimps. They should be discouraged.

1) Similarly other things can also be bad for people and society just like drugs and prostitution. Some cause immediate problems, some cause long term problems.

2) If we have to leave everything to individual judgement, even careful and educated use of Drugs for recreation is okay as far as health is concerned. So why not leave it to individuals? If Prostitution can he exploited by pimps, then make laws to protect prostitutes and let adults decide whether they want to engage in it or not. I'm sure even you can see the selective application of your standards and the gaping holes in what you are saying. Essentially it is about advocating what in your mind is right and restricting what in your mind is wrong. There is no consistency when you dig deep.

[Madplayer]

We can call it a civil partnership if we like, which still protects both parties in law. I am married, but there was no religious aspect to the ceremony I attended.

Prostitution - yes, though IMO we should be like Germany and have state-run brothels, to take "the oldest profession" out of the hands of big crime and into regulation.

Pornography - depends on the type. Violent porn is definitely shameful. It depends if the woman is being degraded or not.

Gambling - no, unless it causes financial ruination, but that's a question of addiction not the act of gambling itself.

I think you are advocating a lot of vices and such a society which will soon collapse on its head (and we are seeing it happening). Let's wait and see.

Religious types always bring incest up, in attempt to find hypocrisy.

Nearly all Western people find the idea extremely ick, whereas a large minority (5-10%) of populations have strong gay feelings at some point. Though not for a family member because that would be ick.

We don't allow it under law because of the closeness of DNA within families leading to enhanced risk of genetic abnormality. If you go to some places in UK where cousin marriage used to be common due to the geography, some of the people do look a little odd and there are a lot more abnormalities than the mean. We joke about people in fenlands evolving webbed feet.

Come on Robert. That was not what i was talking about. My question was pin pointed and about morality. I asked if incest is okay if there is no chance of reproduction involved. You replied with references to inbreeding. I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you didnt think it through. Clearly, if your morals depend on science, you should have no problems with incest with mothers and sisters. Stay consistent.

[Madplayer]

This post basically destroys any claim for patriarchy being protective of women.

It is nothing more and nothing less than a charter for rape.

My wife married me for multiple reasons, not just for sex. Neither party can demand anything at random times all of the time.

If you want sex with your wife, spoil her. Give her a present. Listen to her. Let her live her dreams. Get yourself a good haircut and nice clothes and get fit, and make her more likely to be attracted to you. And pick the moment for when she feels in the mood, not just you.

I really worry about what terrible lovers people with traditional religious lifestyles must be.

Those of us with western lifestyles and normal amounts of experience are well aware that only around 25% of women can climax from penetrative sex, and the etiquette for the other 75% of couples is that the man gives the woman pleasure with what she enjoys, and then is rewarded for his consideration by being extended the same courtesy.

This was not the case before the pill liberated women sexually. In those pre-1970 days of religious sexual values, most women never had an orgasm in their life and sex was a form of hell that they had to put up with as a form of religious prostitution - a man would support his wife financially but she had to give him sex on tap in return.

Multiple posters here have said that they expect their wife to have never had sex with anybody else. I was trained by my early partners, and my later partners got a partner who was competent in the bedroom and who could adapt what he did to meet their likes and needs.

That didn't used to happen in the old days in the west. And women generally put up with sex that they didn't enjoy, whereas their daughters and granddaughters like it and choose to do it.

I'm getting a terrible feeling in this thread that patriarchy creates marital rape and ruins what should be a lovely experience for both parties.

This is a straw man and an extremely dishonest way of presenting something that i didnt even say. Writing a book on how proud you are of your sexual degeneracy means nothing if you can't even comprehend what is being said to you.

[Robert]

I think you are advocating a lot of vices and such a society which will soon collapse on its head (and we are seeing it happening). Let's wait and see.

I don't think Western society is collapsing. I think morality evolves.

Come on Robert. That was not what i was talking about. My question was pin pointed and about morality. I asked if incest is okay if there is no chance of reproduction involved. You replied with references to inbreeding. I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you didnt think it through. Clearly, if your morals depend on science, you should have no problems with incest with mothers and sisters. Stay consistent.

Who said my "morals depend on science"?

Incest is illegal precisely because of the inbreeding issue leading to birth defects. The ancients saw this happening in animal husbandry, and prohibited it among humans.

I think you have just proved my point. I have heard it many times. To expose what you consider Western hypocrisy on homosexuality, your religious types cite incest as a wedge argument. For your info I find incest totally ick too.

[sweep_shot]

Yes, south of the Sahara premarital sex is pretty much universal - sex is why most of the HIV is heterosexually transmitted.

So, south of Sahara represents whole of Africa? Do you think people are stupid?

[sweep_shot]

I asked you to justify it.

It’s not a justification to say “people who disagree with me are animals”. That is just throwing intolerant insults at people.

Who is harmed by women wearing a bikini at the beach and what is the harm, and who perpetrates that harm?

Sorry. Previous post was wrong tag.

Anyway. Do I have to tell you why bikini in public is bad? Are you a 5 years old?

Bikini means exposing too much skin. What kind of father supports that kind of behavior?

[Champ_Pal]

1) Similarly other things can also be bad for people and society just like drugs and prostitution. Some cause immediate problems, some cause long term problems.

2) If we have to leave everything to individual judgement, even careful and educated use of Drugs for recreation is okay as far as health is concerned. So why not leave it to individuals? If Prostitution can he exploited by pimps, then make laws to protect prostitutes and let adults decide whether they want to engage in it or not. I'm sure even you can see the selective application of your standards and the gaping holes in what you are saying. Essentially it is about advocating what in your mind is right and restricting what in your mind is wrong. There is no consistency when you dig deep.

Wearing Jeans and pants or going out to work in movies, fashion or banks or becoming doctors or engineers or truck drivers is also not allowed in Patriarchal society.

Most liberal minded people do not support Prostitution or Drugs. But we do support a woman's choice to choose her profession and her clothing. If she is smart and capable, then she should lead the family and country too.

Science tells us that drugs and smoking are bad for health. We have proof to back up that claim. Prostitution is bad as we have enough data to see that the women are exploited in it. You do not need Patriarchy to tell us that all these things are bad.

[Junaids]

It is uncivilized.

Bikini shouldn't be worn in public (beach or no beach).

We are not animals. We are humans. We should be clothed properly.

Sorry. Previous post was wrong tag.

Anyway. Do I have to tell you why bikini in public is bad? Are you a 5 years old?

Bikini means exposing too much skin. What kind of father supports that kind of behavior?

You still haven’t answered the questions. You have just repeated your unsubstantiated insults.

1. What harm is caused?
2. Who suffers that harm?
3. Who perpetrates that harm?

[Junaids]

Premarital sex is degeneracy. Period.

No argument here.

Any family who is okay with premarital sex is not a good family and should be avoided.

Earlier, when you asked me for proof, I cited a study showing that:

1. 95% of women born between 1980 and 2000 in the west had premarital sex.
2. 90% of women born between 1940 and 1955 had premarital sex.

Are we all degenerate? Are we all bad families?

(I spent this afternoon and evening at a wedding. Inspired by you, I asked the presiding Anglican vicar what percentage of couples marrying in Church already live together, sleeping in the same bed. His answer was that he last married a couple who did not already live together in around 1990. Over thirty years ago!)

[sweep_shot]

You still haven’t answered the questions. You have just repeated your unsubstantiated insults.

1. What harm is caused?
2. Who suffers that harm?
3. Who perpetrates that harm?

1. It is disrespectful toward other people. Bikini is not much different than being naked. Are you okay with people walking around naked on the streets?

2. Everyone suffers. It can make people uncomfortable. Children suffer too; they have to watch this indecency.

3. The ones who wear/support bikini in public.

[SalimBhai]

You still haven’t answered the questions. You have just repeated your unsubstantiated insults.

1. What harm is caused?
2. Who suffers that harm?
3. Who perpetrates that harm?

He thinks men cant control themselves if they see a women in a bikini. As we all know that's not the case. The only place they can't control themselves are in " Benevolent Patriarchy" societies. Not here in the west.

[sweep_shot]

Earlier, when you asked me for proof, I cited a study showing that:

1. 95% of women born between 1980 and 2000 in the west had premarital sex.
2. 90% of women born between 1940 and 1955 had premarital sex.

Are we all degenerate? Are we all bad families?

(I spent this afternoon and evening at a wedding. Inspired by you, I asked the presiding Anglican vicar what percentage of couples marrying in Church already live together, sleeping in the same bed. His answer was that he last married a couple who did not already live together in around 1990. Over thirty years ago!)

There are many deviant pastors. Maybe he is one of them.

This is why Christianity is perhaps declining. You guys do not stick to the template. Always following whims and desires.

[Junaids]

It is uncivilized.

Bikini shouldn't be worn in public (beach or no beach).

We are not animals. We are humans. We should be clothed properly.

1. It is disrespectful toward other people. Bikini is not much different than being naked. Are you okay with people walking around naked on the streets?

2. Everyone suffers. It can make people uncomfortable. Children suffer too; they have to watch this indecency.

3. The ones who wear/support bikini in public.

A bikini is literally a swimming costume.

People wear it at the beach or pool, and sometimes they wear the bikini top - not bottoms - in a beach town during the day.

Are you telling me they wear them in the streets of Toronto?

Congratulations by the way on writing the most self-centric post that I have ever seen in terms of a person with extremist views wanting an entire society to change to accommodate his fringe views.

This thread was your defence of patriarchy.

So please advise, what should a western woman wear when going to the beach to get a suntan and to have a swim?

Or should women be banned from those hobbies in Canada?

[sweep_shot]

So please advise, what should a western woman wear when going to the beach to get a suntan and to have a swim?

Or should women be banned from those hobbies in Canada?

I am simply giving my opinion. This is constructive criticism. That's all.

I oppose wearing bikini in public. I just think people should wear something better. How about track pants and t-shirt?

[Technics 1210]

Near 1100 reply summary of this thread:

Western Radical Liberals : Our women, wives, and daughters, are sexual objects and there is pride when parading them public in all glory - and we support the legalisation of prostitution.

The rest : Our women, wives, and daughters, are the salt of the earth, and call for decency and respect.

[SalimBhai]

Near 1100 reply summary of this thread:

Western Radical Liberals : Our women, wives, and daughters, are sexual objects and there is pride when parading them public in all glory - and we support the legalisation of prostitution.

The rest : Our women, wives, and daughters, are the salt of the earth, and call for decency and respect.

Please do tell what the standing is of women according to UN in these societies where you claim women are salt of the earth.

Nobody is saying women are sexual objects. You are objectifying them. To us liberals they are just women living their lives . Also legalization of prostitution helps women. Gives them protection under the law. Have you seen prostitution in Pakistan, Bahrain?

[sweep_shot]

Near 1100 reply summary of this thread:

Western Radical Liberals : Our women, wives, and daughters, are sexual objects and there is pride when parading them public in all glory - and we support the legalisation of prostitution.

The rest : Our women, wives, and daughters, are the salt of the earth, and call for decency and respect.

Yup.

This thread has shown that some of them who oppose benevolent patriarchy are okay with people doing drugs and having premarital sex. Very concerning signs.

[Robert]

He thinks men cant control themselves if they see a women in a bikini. As we all know that's not the case.

I've walked on topless beaches in Spain. None of the men turn a hair because they know the topless women aren't looking for sex. They are looking for an even tan! If a woman gives you the eye in a nightclub, then it's time to approach her. Even if she is clad from neck to ankle. It's nothing to do with clothing. It's all about context.

Of course incels don't know how to interpret female flirting behaviour, so they end up blaming women for their lack of success with women.

The only place they can't control themselves are in " Benevolent Patriarchy" societies. Not here in the west.

At best they are socially inadequate, at worst would-be rapists.

[Robert]

There are many deviant pastors. Maybe he is one of them.

This is why Christianity is perhaps declining. You guys do not stick to the template. Always following whims and desires.

Vicars are allowed to marry. Catholic priests are not. Suppressing the natural sex urge is what causes deviance.

[SalimBhai]

I've walked on topless beaches in Spain. None of the men turn a hair because they know the topless women aren't looking for sex. They are looking for an even tan! If a woman gives you the eye in a nightclub, then it's time to approach her. Even if she is clad from neck to ankle. It's nothing to do with clothing. It's all about context.

Of course incels don't know how to interpret female flirting behaviour, so they end up blaming women for their lack of success with women.





At best they are socially inadequate, at worst would-be rapists.

I agree with you.

[Technics 1210]

Yup.

This thread has shown that some of them who oppose benevolent patriarchy are okay with people doing drugs and having premarital sex. Very concerning signs.

With such beliefs no wonder Western society is in rapid decline, and to top it off, the radical left sugarcoat their beliefs in this thread with morality!

[SalimBhai]

With such beliefs no wonder Western society is in rapid decline, and to top it off, the radical left sugarcoat their beliefs in this thread with morality!

Sir. The societies you idealize are so great that your parents had to leave and move to the societies you despise. And you have no intention of leaving these societies.

[saeedhk]

As I have said before, if you follow Pakistan closely and the news coming out of Pakistan, you would curse patriarchy. Women in this deeply-patriarchal country at the receiving end of violence, cruelty and humiliation.

This year again, Pakistan has ranked the second worst country to be a women due to very high and unmatched level of violence and hate against women with women being killed for simply giving birth to a baby girl, for serving food late, for wanting to marry a man of choice and for asking for a share in inheritance. A man killed his two sisters after they filed for divorce to escape from their abusive husbands.

This is a country where only 4 out of 10 girls can read because women are seen as inferior and being born just to serve and please men. They are kept away education, employment and love because they are seen as being sub-humans and regularly killed for honor and attacked with acid for defying traditions. Sickening!

These are the fruits of patriarchy!

If anybody wants to see why patriarchy is bad, just live in Pakistan to experience it yourself.

[Dr_Bassim]

Okay now lets leave religion aside as you said.

There are two babies born in a home.

One is a female and the other is a male.

Are the babies equal or not?

@sweep_shot

I am still awaiting a reply on this point.

[sweep_shot]

@sweep_shot

I am still awaiting a reply on this point.

They are both equally important. Not sure where you are going with "equality" here.

[Dr_Bassim]

They are both equally important. Not sure where you are going with "equality" here.

I am not asking their "roles" in the society.

They are babies, so you can't use "strawman" the argument into their importance or societal roles.

Babies have no role in the society.

Is the boy superior to the girl baby? Or vice versa?

Its a very simple question.

[Dr_Bassim]

Near 1100 reply summary of this thread:

Western Radical Liberals : Our women, wives, and daughters, are sexual objects and there is pride when parading them public in all glory - and we support the legalisation of prostitution.

The rest : Our women, wives, and daughters, are the salt of the earth, and call for decency and respect.

I respectfully disagree.

Everyone has different standards of "Respect and decency".

Islamic concept of respect is to "shroud them in a black cloth" and mostly hide them "to inculcate their importance".

Western concept of respect is to "let them be their own humans and not shroud them in a cloth".

You can follow one or the other, but you cannot decide that the Western woman is not respected less in the society.

You might spit on her (out of your love for religious doctrine of respect), but the millions of others will not.

Just like the Westerners might consider "our cloth-shrouded females as oppressed" when in reality might be not even close.

[sweep_shot]

I am not asking their "roles" in the society.

They are babies, so you can't use "strawman" the argument into their importance or societal roles.

Babies have no role in the society.

Is the boy superior to the girl baby? Or vice versa?

Its a very simple question.

Baby is baby. Both should be looked after well.

I am not sure where you are going with this.

[Madplayer]

I don't think Western society is collapsing. I think morality evolves.

It is collapsing and the demographics point towards it. We shall see. Morality evolves only if God directs us. But obviously as an atheist you wouldn't believe that. So no point even talking about it. I guess all we could do is wait and watch.

Who said my "morals depend on science"?

What do they depend on then? Would love to know.

Incest is illegal precisely because of the inbreeding issue leading to birth defects. The ancients saw this happening in animal husbandry, and prohibited it among humans.

I think you have just proved my point. I have heard it many times. To expose what you consider Western hypocrisy on homosexuality, your religious types cite incest as a wedge argument. For your info I find incest totally ick too.

Another strawman. You have dodged the question repeatedly I wonder why.

[Dr_Bassim]

Baby is baby. Both should be looked after well.

I am not sure where you are going with this.

I am going to try again.

Is the boy superior to the girl or vice versa?

I don't care "who their mother or father is", what their "importance is", "how they should be looked after" or "what color their eyes are" or any other silly stuff.

I just need a "yes" or a "no".

Don't think where I am going with this.

If you can't manage to answer this question in the 3rd attempt, I think everyone reading this forum will understand why you keep "using strawman" to avoid the question.

[sweep_shot]

I am going to try again.

Is the boy superior to the girl or vice versa?

I don't care "who their mother or father is", what their "importance is", "how they should be looked after" or "what color their eyes are" or any other silly stuff.

I just need a "yes" or a "no".

Don't think where I am going with this.

If you can't manage to answer this question in the 3rd attempt, I think everyone reading this forum will understand why you keep "using strawman" to avoid the question.

Baby boy is not superior to baby girl or vice versa.

So, the answer is no.

But, once they become adults, they have their own roles to fulfill.

Men and women are like apples and oranges. Both are important and both compliment one another. Both have roles to play.

[Dr_Bassim]

Baby boy is not superior to baby girl or vice versa.

So, the answer is no.

But, once they become adults, they have their own roles to fulfill.

Men and women are like apples and oranges. Both are important and both compliment one another. Both have roles to play.

Good.

Baby girl and boy are same.

No difference, as you so aptly agreed with me.

So, as they grow into adults, who creates this difference as you just beautifully explained to me?

How do their roles get assigned?

[sweep_shot]

Good.

Baby girl and boy are same.

No difference, as you so aptly agreed with me.

So, as they grow into adults, who creates this difference as you just beautifully explained to me?

How do their roles get assigned?

Religious texts and cultures may determine what those roles are. I guess it can vary from region to region.

Most cultures used to be similar when it came to assigning roles to males and females. It is only recently radical liberals started to mess around and created confusions.

Again, I am not implying women belong in the kitchen or anything like that. I am just saying men and women can be successful while fulfilling their natural roles.

[Robert]

It is collapsing and the demographics point towards it. We shall see. Morality evolves only if God directs us. But obviously as an atheist you wouldn't believe that. So no point even talking about it. I guess all we could do is wait and watch.

What do you mean by “collapsing”?

What do you mean by “demographics”? The populations of Western countries are increasing.

Religion is s part of culture in the West and culture evolves. Science and philosophy influence culture too and new ideas emerge. So the more liberal churches now have women vicars for instance.

I get that Islam places itself above culture. But that’s why it stalled centuries ago and European states overran the Caliphates.

What do they depend on then? Would love to know.

My morals? On the Golden Rule: treat others how I would like to be treated. Be kind. Forgive, though not forever - if someone continues to hurt you, walk away. People should be free as long as they don’t hurt anybody else.

Another strawman. You have dodged the question repeatedly I wonder why.

I’m being honest. I don’t like the idea of incest for the same reason I don’t like spiders or the thought of eating a dog poo sandwich. It just feels like the wrong thing to do. There must be some evolutionary reason for this feeling, because nearly everyone has it too. I’ve tried to frame it scientifically but you call that a strawman.

[Robert]

Religious texts and cultures may determine what those roles are. I guess it can vary from region to region.

Most cultures used to be similar when it came to assigning roles to males and females. It is only recently radical liberals started to mess around and created confusions.

Again, I am not implying women belong in the kitchen or anything like that. I am just saying men and women can be successful while fulfilling their natural roles.

It’s entirely “natural” for a woman to lead a great power, such as Thatcher and Merkel. Even 2000 years ago we produced the warrior queen Boudicca who sacked London. So much for radical liberalism then.

[Dr_Bassim]

Religious texts and cultures may determine what those roles are. I guess it can vary from region to region.

Most cultures used to be similar when it came to assigning roles to males and females. It is only recently radical liberals started to mess around and created confusions.

Again, I am not implying women belong in the kitchen or anything like that. I am just saying men and women can be successful while fulfilling their natural roles.

You are doing really well.

Now listen very carefully to the "structured argument" and see the holes in your 14 page theories that you have propounded so far.

So, basically, the Creator made 2 babies similar as per you.

They were completely equal.

Suddenly, one become a home maker and the other a bread-earner. One became superior to a degree the other became dependent. One became a "patriarch" and the other became "an obedient lady". One became a "master" the other became "his sacred beauty".

You wonder how it happened? You argued in 14 pages, that scientifically "patriarchy" is an amazing thing and "is natural". It should be the way of life for "everyone".

But you suddenly found the answer, that it is the RELIGION and CULTURE which assigns those roles of "patriarch" and "superiority".

As per scientific law, both the babies were born equal. Even as per Creator, the babies were born equal.
But the Creator laid down certain rules, if you were to follow his religion.

You know what the rules are. Its those rules that assigned "gender" different status in the society. It is those very rules that created a difference in "inheritance" , in males marrying 4 females but vice versa not being possible, in testimony of male being okay but that of a female requiring 2 females" and so on.

You accepted Islam and believed in those rules.

You are a follower of religious rules. You are "bound by them".


Science is not bound by rules of "gender specifc notions". Science simply states "provide evidence or stay put".

Now lets discuss the above.

1. There is no scientific or religious evidence that babies are born superior or inferior to one another based on gender.

2. There is plethora of evidence that gender roles get assigned based on what culture or religion you follow.

3. There is no scientific evidence that ONLY men provide for the family everywhere in the world, yet inheritance should be distributed 2:1 based on "Scientific rules"? So what should a woman who provides for the family do? Pray to Allah to get married again?

4. There is no scientific evidence that ONLY MEN have higher libido than females with many females having higher libido than their man. But men get to have 4 wives to satisfy their lust, but the wives get to keep only one man.

5. There is no scientific evidence that "Men are smarter than woman". Women are becoming engineers, doctors, sportswomen, scientists and everything. Yet "testimony of one man is equal to two because of scientific evidence"?

I could practically go on and on...

There is "literally no scientific evidence" that the rules which "accord men a higher ruling in Islam are logical and inductive and based on reasoning".

But there is aplenty evidence that they are based on religion and culture.

So which one is it?

Do you believe in "Patriarchy" because it is a "scientific" and "natural way" (just been disproved based on everything you have said) or do you believe in "patriarchy" because Islam said so ?

Think about it tonight.

[Madplayer]

Wearing Jeans and pants or going out to work in movies, fashion or banks or becoming doctors or engineers or truck drivers is also not allowed in Patriarchal society.

You can absolutely be a doctor, engineer, teacher etc and a productive member of the society. You just cant become decoration for the businesses of men and to entertain them by appealing to their baser impulses.

Most liberal minded people do not support Prostitution or Drugs. But we do support a woman's choice to choose her profession and her clothing. If she is smart and capable, then she should lead the family and country too.

Science tells us that drugs and smoking are bad for health. We have proof to back up that claim. Prostitution is bad as we have enough data to see that the women are exploited in it. You do not need Patriarchy to tell us that all these things are bad.

That doesnt make any sense. There are many studies that say judicious and educated use of numerous drugs have no significant effect on the health of the individual especially recreational drugs or steroids for body building. So why not leave it to the judgement of adults?

There is enough data to show that women are harrassed and exploited at workplaces. We dont shut down businesses and ask women to stay at home. We put laws in place and catch the guilty. So why not for prostitution if prostitution isnt morally wrong? This is just hypocritical, scratch the surface and the demons come out.

[Madplayer]

What do you mean by “collapsing”?

What do you mean by “demographics”? The populations of Western countries are increasing.

By collapsing i mean you've created social conditions which aren't good for maintaining a population. In other words, your ways don't work and you will find it out soon. The US and EU nation birth rates are at a historic low of around 1.6 and its an aging population.

Religion is s part of culture in the West and culture evolves. Science and philosophy influence culture too and new ideas emerge. So the more liberal churches now have women vicars for instance.

I get that Islam places itself above culture. But that’s why it stalled centuries ago and European states overran the Caliphates.

I think your societies are an aberration on the timeline of history and that humanity will correct it in due course of time. Islam didn't stall, the world isnt coming to an end tomorrow. We have our ways and we will be back in our own way. I agree the European states were able to overrun Caliphates due to them enhancing the art of violence and thievery. But we'll be back.

My morals? On the Golden Rule: treat others how I would like to be treated. Be kind. Forgive, though not forever - if someone continues to hurt you, walk away. People should be free as long as they don’t hurt anybody else.

I agree but it's all about how you define the word "hurt".

I’m being honest. I don’t like the idea of incest for the same reason I don’t like spiders or the thought of eating a dog poo sandwich. It just feels like the wrong thing to do. There must be some evolutionary reason for this feeling, because nearly everyone has it too. I’ve tried to frame it scientifically but you call that a strawman.

Nearly everyone has this feeling because this feeling has been passed down from the religious generations and has been embedded in the psyche of societies.

My question to you for the final time. Is Incest morally okay in a scientific society if there is no reproduction involved? It's not about inbreeding, it's not about YOUR personal likes or dislikes. The question is of morality. Give reasons for your answer.

[Robert]

By collapsing i mean you've created social conditions which aren't good for maintaining a population. In other words, your ways don't work and you will find it out soon. The US and EU nation birth rates are at a historic low of around 1.6 and its an aging population.

So we bring in developing world people to reinflate the base of the pyramid.

Of much greater concern is climate change, which is going to kill billions all over the world.

I think your societies are an aberration on the timeline of history and that humanity will correct it in due course of time. Islam didn't stall, the world isnt coming to an end tomorrow. We have our ways and we will be back in our own way. I agree the European states were able to overrun Caliphates due to them enhancing the art of violence and thievery. But we'll be back.

Due to embracing science in the Enlightenment.

All societies rise and then fall. Egypt, Persia, Rome. Islam was declining by 1200 CE and Europe took over by 1500. It could be that the West is in decline, with the Moon landings as the cultural apogee. China is the coming power now. They will dominate the world by 2100. My advice to kids is learn Mandarin.

I agree but it's all about how you define the word "hurt".

Hurt is when someone takes your power away and damages you in terms of bodily harm, liberty, finance, or steals your joy.

Nearly everyone has this feeling because this feeling has been passed down from the religious generations and has been embedded in the psyche of societies.

My question to you for the final time. Is Incest morally okay in a scientific society if there is no reproduction involved? It's not about inbreeding, it's not about YOUR personal likes or dislikes. The question is of morality. Give reasons for your answer.

Morality is a consensus, part of culture. Most people find incest creepy - and I think for evolutionary reasons a million years older older than scripture. So incest is not currently morally ok in Western culture.

Maybe in another century morality will have evolved further, and there will be lots of Jaimie & Cersei couples, and they will look back on us as cavemen.

[Junaids]

I’m the second.

It’s going to happen whatever I say. One of them produced a child out of wedlock. That child is the light of my world, enriching my my life in ways I did not know existed.

And I bet your grandchild, born to a unwed mother in the UK, gets to live a better life than people in socially conservative societies. He or she will live longer, be healthier, be more highly educated and travel more.

That's the irony of this thread.

We keep pointing out the superb measurable outcomes of a western way of life, especially for women.

But some religious fundamentalists - who have yet to work out that BY DEFINITION social conservatism prevents progress - keep saying "these are wicked people and they will never succeed."

In my earlier example of American conservatism, the woman who was a virgin until her premature marriage failed in life on every measurable indicator. She was less educated, poorer and she never travelled at all. And her family died of preventable medical conditions because they didn't believe in vaccines.

Here in southern Queensland is where the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil was invented. The illness is caused by a sexually transmitted virus.

People with multiple partners don't die of cervical cancer anymore because they are protected by Gardasil. Fundamentalist Christian and Muslim women still die of cervical cancer in large numbers, because their husbands and fathers say that they will never need the protection of the vaccine. And then their husband gives them HPV and they get cervical cancer.

@sweep_shot should probably advise us whether he will have his daughter vaccinated with Gardasil when she is 12 years old. I strongly suspect that the Would-Be Patriarch will say "no, it promotes sin".

By the way @Robert, congratulations Gramps!

[Robert]

By the way @Robert, congratulations Gramps!

[Technics 1210]

Having read some shocking views on women and sex by certain liberals, I think the psychology is clear - they are trying to justify and seek closure on their personal experiences.

[sweep_shot]

Having read some shocking views on women and sex by certain liberals, I think the psychology is clear - they are trying to justify and seek closure on their personal experiences.

Indeed.

I think this thread has shown why radical liberalism needs to be called out and its influence needs to be reversed.

I compare radical liberalism to Nazism of 1939.

[sweep_shot]

There is "literally no scientific evidence" that the rules which "accord men a higher ruling in Islam are logical and inductive and based on reasoning".

But there is aplenty evidence that they are based on religion and culture.

So which one is it?

Do you believe in "Patriarchy" because it is a "scientific" and "natural way" (just been disproved based on everything you have said) or do you believe in "patriarchy" because Islam said so ?

Think about it tonight.

You are assuming science is always 100% correct. But, the truth is, science keeps on changing. Science may tell you one thing today and completely different thing 200 years later.

Why do you think patriarchy is common worldwide? Most countries outside of west are patriarchic. Even west used to be patriarchic. That shows that patriarchy is something that comes naturally.

[Technics 1210]

You are assuming science is always 100% correct. But, the truth is, science keeps on changing. Science may tell you one thing today and completely different thing 200 years later.

Why do you think patriarchy is common worldwide? Most countries outside of west are patriarchic. Even west used to be patriarchic. That shows that patriarchy is something that comes naturally.

It absolutely does.

Males are stronger than females, this is a scientific, biological, and empirical fact. The difference in strength is clearly demonstrated where physical effort is required - sports is a great example. Women’s cricket, the boundaries are shortened. Women’s Tennis, best of 3 sets, instead of 5. Look at records set by athletes, men dominate.

It is this physical advantage that gears up men for hard labour work. We do not have to look far back, in the 50s, the UK had a coal mining industry, men were the workforce. Construction too, go as far as back as the Egyptian empire, it wasn’t women pulling 3 tonne stones, it was men. This is how the term bread-winner evolved, because it was men who had to do the physical work, not women. This of course lead to a dominate male workforce over the centuries.

Fast forward to today, hard physical labour is being replaced by technology, and this has lead to radical liberals complaining about patriarchy, and while the answer stares at us, it’s easier for radical liberals to blame religion than look at the science and biological ramifications in society.

As for babies being born, equal in the eyes of creation, but not equal in the eyes of opportunities. A black and white baby are equal, but society will ensure the black baby has less opportunities and greater struggles in life. That’s nothing to say of privilege, 2 babies of white colour, one is born into a poor family, the other into a rich family. Right from the word go, there are differences.

Women are biologically designed to care, nurture, and of course giving birth - this is why they make better teachers, parents, nurses and so on, while men are designed for strength, better suited for hard and physical work.

It’s all about balance, but if it were up to these radical liberals, they’d have both men and women earning money while their children suffer in the name of liberalism. We are witnessing this now, more and more children are caught up in the law because they have no loving home to go to, cos mum and dad are out earning money.

[Robert]

You are assuming science is always 100% correct. But, the truth is, science keeps on changing. Science may tell you one thing today and completely different thing 200 years later.

Why do you think patriarchy is common worldwide? Most countries outside of west are patriarchic. Even west used to be patriarchic. That shows that patriarchy is something that comes naturally.

It shows that Abrahamism is patriarchal.

The pagan systems which preceded Abrahamism had plenty of goddesses in them. It there are goddesses then the female is equal to the male.

[sweep_shot]

It shows that Abrahamism is patriarchal.

The pagan systems which preceded Abrahamism had plenty of goddesses in them. It there are goddesses then the female is equal to the male.

So, you seem okay with these things:

- Premarital sex.
- Promiscuity.
- Paganism.
- People doing drugs.
- Public display of bikini.

What else is missing?