The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Residents Disgusted by Offensive Flyer"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Sheets of paper saying

Islam
Is
RIGHT
About
Women

were found posted at a Unitarian church and the like in the Boston area.

“It’s unclear if this was just a prank or if a law was broken.”

Stylistically, they look like the similarly understated “It’s okay to be white” posters, so I’m guessing these were put up by trolls pointing out an obvious faultline in the Coalition of the Fringes.

What if they said instead?

Islam
Is
RIGHT
About
Christians

Would the Unitarians complain?

As I’ve said before, the maximum paranoiac insanity-increasing troll would be blank white sheets of paper.

Commenter James N. Kennett writes:

If you say

Islam
Is
RIGHT
About
Women

then you are guilty of hate speech. On the other hand, if you say

Islam
Is
WRONG
About
Women

then you are guilty of hate speech.

Go figure.

 
Hide 254 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It’s an easy “Keep politics out of sports” for the Progsnobgensia.

  2. I saw them planning this on 4chan a few hours ago.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It's essentially making real the four-part comic:
    [Darkness]: Women's place is in the home!
    [Raging Trigglypuff]: WHO SAID THAT?
    [Muslim man in dishdasha]: I did.
    [Relaxed Trigglypuff]: Oh, okay.
    , @Barnard
    The left was largely successful at getting "It's ok to be white" considered hate speech. Was the selection of this phrase based on the left not being sure why to consider it offensive?
    , @Olorin
    Femanons to boot, as the ahem cherry on top.

    Unitarians are hecka fun to troll. So digging too philosophically or otherwise into this prank is not only leftishly hyperanalytical, it unitarianly misses the fun.
    , @Indiana Jack
    It looks like some people were planning this a couple of weeks ago:

    http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/225468839/

    , @El Dato

    REASON ONE:

    Directly calls out the left on their contradictory beliefs regarding Islam and womens rights. A conservative is able to look at this image and either say "Hmm Islamic treatment of women is traditional and might not be so bad" or "No, Islam treats women like dogshit and is not right about women" and neither statement logically contradicts the other.

    BUT WHEN A LEFTIST looks at this image, their brain enters retard mode. If they try to say that Islam is not right about women, then they are contradicting their cultural marxist ideas and are therefore being "Islamaphobic", but if they say Islam is right then they are giving a free pass to how Islamic countries treat ladies as 2nd class citizens. The leftist is thus forced to deny reality and claim that Islam is somehow a progressive belief system, despite the fact that anyone who is not retarded can look at countries dominated by Islam and clearly see this is not the case.

    The political TL;DR goal of IIRAW is thus to force the lefts hand and make them either pick a side or make asses of themselves.

    REASON 2:
    It's fucking hilarious. Kek wills it.

     

    https://i.imgur.com/z8bOfCc.jpg
  3. This is kind of like that case of flyers saying “It’s okay to be white” — or worse, putting up blank sheets of white paper.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Followup to that really should have been after the media uproar: "IS it OK to be white?" Would have driven them up the wall.

    As for this one, the Islamic World is a huge place and it is never a good idea to draw too many generalizations: a woman is a lot more likely to get acid thrown in her face for taking a lover against daddy's wishes in Karachi than in Istanbul. I will say, though, a typical blue-collar lay believer in a Muslim country (aka, the kind of guy who would be a badwhite) would probably explain at great length that the breakdown of the family structure in the West among other things, is all the proof you'd ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control. They are aware of how our society works: how can they not be, given American cultural exportation worldwide? Journalists know this, which is why they go out of their way to find educated Westernized types, who more likely than not are closet skeptics or at the very least are relatively liberal, and try to pass them off as normative lest they be attacked as "Islamophobic".

  4. I love one of the womyn there claiming that it spreads misperceptions about Islam. How does she know? Maybe the maker of the sign meant that Islam is right to honor, cherish, and love women? Are we supposed to love Islam but we also can’t say it’s right about something? All very confusing.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I love one of the womyn there claiming that it spreads misperceptions about Islam.

    "Misperceptions" is one of those words like "stereotypes" or "oversimplification" people use to indicate that something politically incorrect is going on but they don't want to be asked to explain exactly what.
    , @istevefan

    Maybe the maker of the sign meant that Islam is right to honor, cherish, and love women?
     
    Because they immediately took offense to this message, it shows they never considered what you wrote above to be the possible meaning. This means that deep down they know islam is wrong about women, at least from their point of view, but cannot admit it.

    It is sort of how liberals automatically assume any reference to an ape, monkey, etc., is a racist gesture. In their minds they equate blacks with those aforementioned animals, and thus reflexively perceive such references in a racist way.

    To discover what liberals find offensive or racist is to learn what prejudices they actually hold. I used to hear people say that the most vocal opponents of homosexuals were closeted homosexuals themselves. Likewise, I believe the most vocal opponents of racism are probably closeted racists themselves.
    , @Realist

    All very confusing.

     

    You expect liberal women to be logical...that has never been the case, nor will it ever be. Of course the same can be said for liberal men. But then liberal men and women are the same, they are interchangeable, when they wake up in the morning they decide what sex they want to be that day.
  5. If you say

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Women

    then you are guilty of hate speech. On the other hand, if you say

    Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women

    then you are guilty of hate speech. Go figure.

    • Agree: istevefan
    • LOL: Hypnotoad666
    • Replies: @Pericles
    I'm wondering if


    Islam
    Is
    NEITHER RIGHT NOR WRONG
    About
    Women

     

    is a hate crime too?
    , @Gordo

    If you say


    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Women

    then you are guilty of hate speech. On the other hand, if you say


    Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women

    then you are guilty of hate speech. Go figure.
     
    Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.

    Or be arrested.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.
    , @Oddsbodkins
    Islam is right about clitoridectomy
  6. Bestest part is the talking head at the end:

    “It’s unclear if this was just a prank or if a law was broken”.

    kek

    • Replies: @istevefan
    Maybe that will be a new excuse one uses after one has been arrested.

    Your honor, "it was just a prank."

    The judge, "OK then. You are free to leave."
    , @Hail

    “It’s unclear if this was just a prank or if a law was broken”.
     
    These kinds of local news reports surface regularly, perhaps as much as multiple times a quarter in a given media market, perhaps adjusting in frequency as needed given changing political conditions.

    The news reports about the latest "posters" or "literature distribution" are boilerplate fare, always saying just about the same thing, and framing it just about the same way. Including this seemingly deliberate ambiguity on whether the posters are "illegal."

    It seems unlikely these kind of segments are anything like centrally controlled by Party HQ in Washington/New York/Tel Aviv, or etc., like Communist talking points of old were said to be. The local media people producing them, second- and third-stringers in the provinces (either geographically or occupationally), are sharp enough to always stay on message, anyway.

    The message is: These posters (etc.) are the acts of heretics/wreckers/Emmanuel Goldstein-backing cells. Beware! The enemy is amongst us. Beware! Many get it, and rally to the colors.

    _____________

    Some political scientist in a distant society (in space and/or time) could make a comprehensive study of these kinds of local news reports and produce a picture of our ruling ideology, if the scholar's research is done with an informed-yet-free hand. It would be a picture of a society in which a hostile elite presides over decline, or even enforces decline.

    Consider, e.g., this: Have you ever seen the extreme anti-white racialist "Black Israelites" profiled in any way in the media? Black Israelite distribution of literature or propaganda in public places? I haven't.

    (The only time I remember seeing anything about them or their activities -- and they are prolific street preachers [if preaching that Whites are satanic is preaching] going back decades -- was during the "White teens surround and harass Nathan Philllips, Native American Elder" affair of early 2019. After pushback, some media reluctantly admitted that a gang of Black Israelites had been harassing all White passersby before the so-called incident.)

  7. As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.

    Their boy Emerson: “”Every great and commanding moment in the annals of the world,” he writes in ‘Man the Reformer’ (1841), “is the triumph of some enthusiasm. The victories of the Arabs after Mahomet, who in a few years, from a small and mean beginning, established a larger empire than that of Rome, is an example.””

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.
     
    Per Wikipedia: "According to Robert Lacey 'the Wahhabis have always disliked the name customarily given to them' and preferred to be called Muwahhidun (Unitarians)."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
    , @Zuck Everlasting
    Unitarians are like Jews except with higher IQs and no enduring sense of unity.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The victories of the Arabs after Mahomet, who in a few years, from a small and mean beginning, established a larger empire than that of Rome, is an example.
     
    As is their constant whining about losing 0.25% of that empire to other shrewd, oily Semites -- and getting the world's ear.
    , @Anon
    "As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances."

    One reason for the popularity of Islam has always been its simpler theology, minus all the nutty (let's face it) stuff about 3 persons in one God, Jesus as both really man and really God, etc. Agnostics and Deists liked it for that reason; a veritable rational religion.
    , @Anon
    "Their boy"; nice way to refer to America's greatest philosopher. A lot of "your boys" liked Islam too, or at least respected it, before it became the new boogy-man. Lothrop Stoddard, for example, wrote a whole book about the Rise of Islam.
  8. Or what if they said

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Slavery

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Homosexuals
  9. The blank pieces of paper is a good idea. Didn’t Steve suggest that awhile back?

    • Replies: @Whitey Whiteman III
    This was the original suggestion on /po/ after the racist OK/White Power sign which led to "It is Okay to be White"
  10. 1:10: “It’s unclear if this was just a prank or if a law was broken . . . ”

    Wow.

  11. I’m sure the British colonial government of Boston was disgusted with fliers posted by the Sons of Liberty… which is why the Crown sent Gen. Gage’s army to declare martial law, rip them down, and arrest at gunpoint the colonists who posted them.

    Somehow I think Boston’s contemporary overlords would be entirely comfortable with today’s army arresting the “deplorables” who dare to print an unpopular view…

  12. Would the Unitarians complain?

    The Unitarians will complain about whatever the hell their Communist pastors instruct them to complain about. Moslems are scary, though, so … no.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
  13. What’s next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Or, even worse, the Jews are right about the blacks.
    , @bored identity
    Freshly germane at that topic...


    ...grab y'all some corn pop and watch Splody Blobstein being torn between Party & Tribe :

    https://youtu.be/ppL3JodkzGc
    , @Colin Wright
    'What’s next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?'

    I like that better. Potentially, far more effective.
  14. anonymous[154] • Disclaimer says:

    Do the Unitarians even qualify as Christians? Don’t think so. My only extended contact with them was back in high school on a three day trip to Paramus New Jersey with the Liberal Religious Youth…not sure they are even still a thing.
    It was basically a nookie circus for the lucky guys among us (not me, sad to say). I’m pretty sure that was all that was accomplished over the three days. I saw no religious expression at all.
    Then I had to hitch hike back to Suffolk County, Long Island. Good times, good times.

  15. High-quality trolling, that.

    I guess the objection is: Islam isn’t all that bad on women, but we know the badwhites want to demonize Muslims.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    The irony here is that people in the Islamic World tend to really, really despise Western progressives who unsolicitedly attempt to explain on their behalf what their faith "really is" . Doubly so if said progressive is Jewish and/or atheist.

    Way they see it, at least the badwhites usually believe in God, or are respectful enough to not intentionally antagonize believers if they don't.

    , @Pat Kittle
    Can't imagine this sign being investigated as a possible "crime":

    ============
    EVEN
    GOODWHITES
    ARE BAD
    ============

    Or this:

    ============
    KILL WHITEY!!
    ============
  16. One hour is pretty short—it doesn’t allow any time to stop at Starbucks after soul cycle.

    • Replies: @dr kill
    Soul Cycle is out, don't you follow Michael Moore on Twitter? Out.
  17. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    This is kind of like that case of flyers saying "It's okay to be white" -- or worse, putting up blank sheets of white paper.

    Followup to that really should have been after the media uproar: “IS it OK to be white?” Would have driven them up the wall.

    As for this one, the Islamic World is a huge place and it is never a good idea to draw too many generalizations: a woman is a lot more likely to get acid thrown in her face for taking a lover against daddy’s wishes in Karachi than in Istanbul. I will say, though, a typical blue-collar lay believer in a Muslim country (aka, the kind of guy who would be a badwhite) would probably explain at great length that the breakdown of the family structure in the West among other things, is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control. They are aware of how our society works: how can they not be, given American cultural exportation worldwide? Journalists know this, which is why they go out of their way to find educated Westernized types, who more likely than not are closet skeptics or at the very least are relatively liberal, and try to pass them off as normative lest they be attacked as “Islamophobic”.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    , @Thea
    Women have a great deal of influence over their sons in Islam. A lot of the veneration of suicide bombers comes from moms. They lack the power western women have over husbands but make up for it in the filial realms.

    And over less modest women. The ISIS modesty police were largely female.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    ...all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I think you mean "under control".

    But the human isn't about controlling women, it's about controlling men. Araby knows her men and their weaknesses. This is not to say every Arab man is a rapist-- more like every other Arab man.
  18. Oh, I love this. Let’s put Muslims in charge of Feminists all across the nation. It should be like the old Visa commercial, Its Moose Limbs Everywhere You Want To Be!

  19. I used to tease my little sister and get her so worked up all I had to do was look at her and raise and eyebrow slightly and she would shriek to our parents that I was looking at her funny. Libs are this way about their holy Restaurant People, the people who finally brought edible food to the benighted West.

    It works with every issue, and it’s how you know the Immigration Question is the most important one for their side, too. Recently, a list of countries that treat our oceans like a big wet garbage can came out. The Save the Planet libs are infuriated by this list. They do not want to know about it.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    So you're saying libs don't like barbecue? We really DO need to get rid of them then, the French and Black hating racist bastards!
  20. @International Jew
    High-quality trolling, that.

    I guess the objection is: Islam isn't all that bad on women, but we know the badwhites want to demonize Muslims.

    The irony here is that people in the Islamic World tend to really, really despise Western progressives who unsolicitedly attempt to explain on their behalf what their faith “really is” . Doubly so if said progressive is Jewish and/or atheist.

    Way they see it, at least the badwhites usually believe in God, or are respectful enough to not intentionally antagonize believers if they don’t.

  21. @Joe Magarac
    I saw them planning this on 4chan a few hours ago.

    It’s essentially making real the four-part comic:
    [Darkness]: Women’s place is in the home!
    [Raging Trigglypuff]: WHO SAID THAT?
    [Muslim man in dishdasha]: I did.
    [Relaxed Trigglypuff]: Oh, okay.

    • Agree: Couch scientist
  22. How would the Democratic Party Voting Bloc react to posters of young White Families with lots of White Children…blond-hair-blue-eyed variety?

    This would be a test of the WHITE GENOCIDE HYPOTHESIS…….

  23. Anon[798] • Disclaimer says:

    “It’s somewhat of a misconception that, like, Islam, I guess, hates women.”

    The sign doesn’t say that. Where did that idea come from? Send that woman to reeducation camp.

    She’s was speaking very fluently until the end, and then she realized she was about to express a “stereotype” and the stuttering starts.

    • Replies: @anon
    She’s was speaking very fluently until the end, and then she realized she was about to express a “stereotype” and the stuttering starts.

    That is when the cognitive dissonance loomed up.
    "Must. Not. Crime. Think!"
  24. • Replies: @bored identity
    bored identity strongly believes that Carlson/Moses* 2024 would be the winning ticket;



    To keep African Americans out, he built the parkway overpasses too low for buses, knowing full well that at the time most African Americans did not own cars.

     




    In 1936, Moses built 11 enormous pools across the city, but had no intention of permitting minorities to use them. He purposely set those built in Harlem to colder temperatures, believing, for whatever reason, that African Americans didn’t like to swim in cold water.

     



    He adorned the wrought-iron trellises in northern Manhattan parks with images of monkeys, while parks in white communities featured curling waves on their trellises.

     

    *Some restrictions may apply.
    , @Jimbo
    They came for him in 1974, when Robert Caro published The Power Broker. He has been a whipping boy ever since. (Great book, BTW - really shows you how municipal politics actually works...)
  25. @nebulafox
    Followup to that really should have been after the media uproar: "IS it OK to be white?" Would have driven them up the wall.

    As for this one, the Islamic World is a huge place and it is never a good idea to draw too many generalizations: a woman is a lot more likely to get acid thrown in her face for taking a lover against daddy's wishes in Karachi than in Istanbul. I will say, though, a typical blue-collar lay believer in a Muslim country (aka, the kind of guy who would be a badwhite) would probably explain at great length that the breakdown of the family structure in the West among other things, is all the proof you'd ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control. They are aware of how our society works: how can they not be, given American cultural exportation worldwide? Journalists know this, which is why they go out of their way to find educated Westernized types, who more likely than not are closet skeptics or at the very least are relatively liberal, and try to pass them off as normative lest they be attacked as "Islamophobic".

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.

    I’m not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I’m not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    • Replies: @Michael S

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
     
    You keep telling yourself that.

    Uppity entryists will be the first to be sold off.
    , @nebulafox
    Roman women (the real ones, those Frankish barbarians don't count, of course) inherited property, too. At any rate, if Arab tradition about the pre-Islamic days is to be taken at face value, women fought, traded, drank, and fornicated as hard as their menfolk. Some of this might be retrospective propaganda about the awfulness of the Jahiliyyah days, but oral tradition usually has some kernel in fact, and Byzantine sources do corroborate the notion of a rough, tribal culture living and being molded into something more recognizable as an organized civilization by the nearby superpower, not too dissimilar from how the Germanic tribes were in the third century.

    Much like Christianity, Islam was a positive influence on how women were treated in some ways (no more female infanticides or forced selling of free girls into prostitution), and in other ways, the "believer" women openly commented that they were treated with fewer rights and more restrictions in the new community. Like any other big historical phenomenon, it's not black and white, all positive or all negative. But I think the introduction of more restrictions for women was a result of the Arabs becoming a more sedentary, civilized people with the conquests more than anything: Islam was mostly created as a response to that.

    >One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    Good for you. A lot of men are opting out of the old contract as well, way things are looking, which means we're in for unprecedented changes in how Western society operates. I'm wondering how the America of the 2020s is going to handle that. My guess is, seeing how we've already done in the 2010s: not well.

    Betting on any kind of political ideology overriding the realities of millennia of human evolution is deeply unwise. I have no clue what sort of social model we are in for in the future, but what we're drifting to has no prospect, if adopted by too many people, at long-term stability. Something's gonna give eventually. I suspect it's going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.

    , @J.Ross
    A huge amount of European land by area was owned and actively administered by women: nuns and convents. That was all wrecked in the Renaissance, which also changed rape from a capital crime.
    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
    Remind me, are we the ones having four wives' worth of kids per family?
    , @MBlanc46
    You will be, Rosie, one way or another.
    , @Anonymousse
    One thing I know for sure is that you actually don’t know anything for sure.
    , @AnotherDad

    If I’m not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.
     
    In contrast to today where nothing married American men produce is actually theirs and they might as well be legal non-persons.
    , @AnotherDad


    I’m not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I’m not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

     

    Rosie, i'm a bit dubious about this. My--very rough--feeling is that women have generally had the best deal in the West. (Generally in Germanic societies.) Not "you go grrl" fantasies, not abortion on demand. But in terms of boring old stuff like chosing your husband, having loving marriages, both of you jointly in command of your separate spheres but united as a couple/household. Semitic cultures, Slavic cultures, Chinese and other East Asian cultures, Indian cultures and obviously African cultures all inferior. (I'm quite ready to be corrected by actual historical data--not PC narratives.)

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them ... alas the norm these days is ... Rosie.


    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
     
    Things evolve they don't really "go back".

    However, i must say women would be smart to stop and think--not whine or emote but actually think--about working for laws and norms to evolve in a way that's way more appreciative of men and conducive to men actually wanting to do any work at all, much less do any work for a "wife". A prospect that female behavior is rendering increasingly less and less appealling to a lot of men.

    Because, for all the "you go grrl" bullshit and their paper pushing "careers", as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work. So i don't think your parthogenic utopia is really going to be the place you imagine it to be.
    , @Gordo

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
     
    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/01/27/15/3C903F5B00000578-4148684-image-a-113_1485529374518.jpg

    Tehran in the 70s
  26. Andrew Jackson
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    banks.

    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
    Old Hickory was right about a great many things.
    , @ziggurat

    Andrew Jackson
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    banks.
     
    Ha, ha. Would someone complain that the sign is anti-Semitic?

    Back in my more wayward days, I used to post at the website Democratic Underground. I wrote a post talking about Andrew Jackson's role in ending the 2nd central bank.

    The moderator permanently banned me for posting something anti-Semitic. I didn't even know that criticizing banks could be considered anti-Semitic. I was totally confused. It turns out the founders of the website are Jewish.
  27. This post made me think of the reaction of the PM of NZ to the mosque shoot up was to don a musselman head covering.

  28. @Otis in Ohio
    As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.

    Their boy Emerson: ""Every great and commanding moment in the annals of the world,” he writes in ‘Man the Reformer’ (1841), “is the triumph of some enthusiasm. The victories of the Arabs after Mahomet, who in a few years, from a small and mean beginning, established a larger empire than that of Rome, is an example.”"

    As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.

    Per Wikipedia: “According to Robert Lacey ‘the Wahhabis have always disliked the name customarily given to them’ and preferred to be called Muwahhidun (Unitarians).”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

    • Replies: @Otis in Ohio
    And Unitarians have always preferred to be considered Christian--but nothin' doin', baby.
  29. @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    You keep telling yourself that.

    Uppity entryists will be the first to be sold off.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Uppity entryists will be the first to be sold off.
     
    Funny you mention entryists. I do hope this guy is finally going to go away.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/09/19/daily-stormer-comes-back-online/
  30. It took a moment for the post to load on my computer- at first, all I could see was “Residents Disgusted by Offensive Flyer” and the outline of a YouTube viewbox. So I entertained the hope that the video would be something historical about people being angry with Charles Lindbergh. Alas…

    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
  31. Anonymous[160] • Disclaimer says:

    What consummate shitlord thought of this?

    Wow.

    Just wow.

    He (presumably a he) is to shitlords what Clem Burke is to drummers. What Bob Hoover was to air show pilots. What Jim Williams was to analog design engineers.

    So elegant. So effective. It’s too bad Ole Bob Whitaker isn’t here to see it.

    I have little faith most days, but I’d like to think that somewhere he got wind of this, and is laughing his ass off.

  32. “It’s O.K. to be an Islamic woman.”

  33. The Unitarian Universalists actually have a stable membership at the moment compared to the Disciples, UCC, Episcopalians etc all of which are in dramatic decline. They’ve experienced a “Trump bump”. There’s a “holiness” spiral of sorts going on though, with the prospect of woke heresy trials

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jun/25/unitarian-universalist-minister-in-spokane-stirs-c/

  34. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    @Isteve, you cant keep showing the 70s pic…

    I mean its in keeping with the contemporary hysteria I guess…

    Did I read a critique on here, nod to Mr. Unz, halo, second guessing the strategy your know for ?

    Seemed to me the data was too broad, lacking geographic depth,

    Its fatuous ..whites less Trumpageness ??

    2020 Power

  35. @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    Roman women (the real ones, those Frankish barbarians don’t count, of course) inherited property, too. At any rate, if Arab tradition about the pre-Islamic days is to be taken at face value, women fought, traded, drank, and fornicated as hard as their menfolk. Some of this might be retrospective propaganda about the awfulness of the Jahiliyyah days, but oral tradition usually has some kernel in fact, and Byzantine sources do corroborate the notion of a rough, tribal culture living and being molded into something more recognizable as an organized civilization by the nearby superpower, not too dissimilar from how the Germanic tribes were in the third century.

    Much like Christianity, Islam was a positive influence on how women were treated in some ways (no more female infanticides or forced selling of free girls into prostitution), and in other ways, the “believer” women openly commented that they were treated with fewer rights and more restrictions in the new community. Like any other big historical phenomenon, it’s not black and white, all positive or all negative. But I think the introduction of more restrictions for women was a result of the Arabs becoming a more sedentary, civilized people with the conquests more than anything: Islam was mostly created as a response to that.

    >One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    Good for you. A lot of men are opting out of the old contract as well, way things are looking, which means we’re in for unprecedented changes in how Western society operates. I’m wondering how the America of the 2020s is going to handle that. My guess is, seeing how we’ve already done in the 2010s: not well.

    Betting on any kind of political ideology overriding the realities of millennia of human evolution is deeply unwise. I have no clue what sort of social model we are in for in the future, but what we’re drifting to has no prospect, if adopted by too many people, at long-term stability. Something’s gonna give eventually. I suspect it’s going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I suspect it’s going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.
     
    What do you think "feminists" ( however you define them) want to have both ways.

    I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just asking for specifics.


    Like any other big historical phenomenon, it’s not black and white, all positive or all negative.
     
    I have come to the conclusion that the chief problem with Islam is it's set-in-stone, or better yet, written-in-fire character. It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that ot can't really change with the times unless you're going to say the Quran is a "living document" or something.
    , @Anonymous
    That was in the latter, decadent stages of Rome:

    https://twitter.com/martpunished/status/1172698042056753152

    https://twitter.com/martpunished/status/1172700197513760773

    , @Anonymousse
    The behavior of muslims in Europe suggests that all the restrictions on women in Islamic countries are culturally developed attempts to protect women from the behavioral patterns of middle eastern men. Without a male relative around and head to toe covering... well... they tend to get real rapey.

    Meanwhile #meetoo is basically the new technological and neoliberal attempt at protecting women from the similar proclivities of that certain other type of middle easterner.

    Race is not a social construct... Society is a racial construct.
  36. @Michael S

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
     
    You keep telling yourself that.

    Uppity entryists will be the first to be sold off.

    Uppity entryists will be the first to be sold off.

    Funny you mention entryists. I do hope this guy is finally going to go away.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/09/19/daily-stormer-comes-back-online/

    • Replies: @Kronos
    I always figured the biggest threat to feminism was from female boomers. That they’ll cash in Roe v. Wade and other political goodies for enhanced retirement/entitlement benefits.

    “Hey, I’m on menopause and never need to worry about getting pregnant! I call my senator to cash in planned parenthood for arthritis medication.”
  37. @nebulafox
    Roman women (the real ones, those Frankish barbarians don't count, of course) inherited property, too. At any rate, if Arab tradition about the pre-Islamic days is to be taken at face value, women fought, traded, drank, and fornicated as hard as their menfolk. Some of this might be retrospective propaganda about the awfulness of the Jahiliyyah days, but oral tradition usually has some kernel in fact, and Byzantine sources do corroborate the notion of a rough, tribal culture living and being molded into something more recognizable as an organized civilization by the nearby superpower, not too dissimilar from how the Germanic tribes were in the third century.

    Much like Christianity, Islam was a positive influence on how women were treated in some ways (no more female infanticides or forced selling of free girls into prostitution), and in other ways, the "believer" women openly commented that they were treated with fewer rights and more restrictions in the new community. Like any other big historical phenomenon, it's not black and white, all positive or all negative. But I think the introduction of more restrictions for women was a result of the Arabs becoming a more sedentary, civilized people with the conquests more than anything: Islam was mostly created as a response to that.

    >One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    Good for you. A lot of men are opting out of the old contract as well, way things are looking, which means we're in for unprecedented changes in how Western society operates. I'm wondering how the America of the 2020s is going to handle that. My guess is, seeing how we've already done in the 2010s: not well.

    Betting on any kind of political ideology overriding the realities of millennia of human evolution is deeply unwise. I have no clue what sort of social model we are in for in the future, but what we're drifting to has no prospect, if adopted by too many people, at long-term stability. Something's gonna give eventually. I suspect it's going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.

    I suspect it’s going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.

    What do you think “feminists” ( however you define them) want to have both ways.

    I’m not saying I disagree. I’m just asking for specifics.

    Like any other big historical phenomenon, it’s not black and white, all positive or all negative.

    I have come to the conclusion that the chief problem with Islam is it’s set-in-stone, or better yet, written-in-fire character. It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that ot can’t really change with the times unless you’re going to say the Quran is a “living document” or something.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >What do you think “feminists” ( however you define them) want to have both ways.

    They want all the old perks that come with being a woman while simultaneously receiving all the new benefits of feminism, while keeping men lock-step with all their traditional duties and insisting on new, often contradicting ones befitting the new age. Not surprisingly, this annoys many men. It does not help that the expectations drastically differ depending on who you are, aka, "Looking Good, Susan". This has always been the underlying reality in relations between the sexes, so that in and of itself isn't a big deal, but the essential hypocrisy has never been so explicitly showcased before.

    >I have come to the conclusion that the chief problem with Islam is it’s set-in-stone, or better yet, written-in-fire character. It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that ot can’t really change with the times unless you’re going to say the Quran is a “living document” or something.

    It's interesting that nobody points out that so many traditions we think of as essentially Islamic come from Persia, or that some of the worst offenders when it comes to treating women (Pakistan) share a cultural connection with some of the worst non-Muslim offenders (India).

    The Qu'ran is, in Islam, the direct intercession between God and humanity. If we have to do a crude comparison between Islam and Christianity, it is basically the equivalent to the figure of Jesus Christ, not the Bible, which while the Word of God, was written by mortal men prone to error or bias according to Christian doctrine. So, no, that's not happening any time soon. Now, I would not so far to say that Islam has never changed with the times and cultures, or that Muslims cannot reconcile their faith to modernity-I've read enough history to know the former, I've seen enough Muslims do just that to know the latter. I will say that Islam is, at its core, a programmatic religion (it is much like orthodox Judaism in a lot of ways, really) in a way that Christianity has long since ceased to be and our elites are deluding themselves by pretending that doesn't make a massive difference in terms of cultural values. Most lay Muslims take their essentials about faith for granted in a way that is only common among fundamentalist Christians in the United States and almost nonexistent in Europe. Even closet atheists or skeptics in the Islamic World still often do that, such is the degree of chrysalis in the faith.

    This is tied into my ultimate view that religion is socially constructed and ultimately subordinate to the local culture, not the other way around. If one doesn't agree with that, then I don't expect views deriving from that POV would sound correct, either.

    , @Moses

    I’m not saying I disagree. I’m just asking for specifics.
     
    You got it. Here's a few.

    Feminists: "I am no shrinking violet! I'm a strong, independent woman! Respect my strength."
    Also feminists: "Men who don't protect strange women on the subway need to be shamed. Will you change this tire for me?"

    Feminists: "Women are just as smart and motivated as men! Nay, smarter!"
    Also feminists: "We need special programs aimed only at women to coddle them and help them be entrepreneurs or coders or whatever."

    Feminists: "#Metoo is real! Men are always abusing their power to take advantage of poor women!"
    Also feminists: "Powerful men not having lunch or closed door meetings with women is more oppression! Women must be free to accuse any many of #Metoo anytime! It's Who We Are."

    Feminists: "Women are equals of men, or better, in everything! I'm proud of being a woman."
    Also feminists: "Using any words that signal female gender, like "actress" ist verboten. The male versions of those words e.g. "actor" are better. We'll use the male words instead."

    I could go on, but you get the idea.
    , @donvonburg

    It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that it can’t really change with the times unless you’re going to say the Quran is a “living document” or something.
     
    As human made world religions go Islam was an improvement on what went before. Before a rich enough man could have unlimited wives, but Islam limited it to four. Before there were no requirements, but Islam created some resemblance to order and law. Islamic rule is worse than any kind of Christian law but it is better than total paganism and much better than no laws whatever.

    The correct Christian response to Islam is, in my opinion, that it has many great errors but still has some ideas that are true, and advocates for some improvement over untrammeled barbarity. Islamic society functions to some extent. Saudi Arabia beats Zimbabwe, with an average population IQ that is only marginally smarter.

    Muslims, in my view, should live in Muslim countries. We are not to force Christianity or Westernism on them or anyone, but their writ does not run in our land. When Islamic doctrine is anti-Western or anti-Christian it must be explicitly rejected in White Western Christian lands.

    Because we are not a theocracy Americans who want to practice Islam should be allowed to have their mosque, and do their stuff, but the Muslims must understand that sharia ends at the mosque door and only starts again when they get off the plane in Riyadh or Islamabad or Tehran.
  38. No big deal. It’s just a case of someone somewhere writing something. Just another flyer swaying in the breeze.

  39. Imagine the fallout if they wrote “Islam is right about homosexuality.” Pete Buttigieg would have found a way to blame Mike Pence.

    • Replies: @anon
    Imagine the fallout if they wrote “Islam is right about homosexuality.”

    Wouldn't work in Winchester. No tall buildings to throw the flyers off of.
  40. who is more cancerous for our society anyway? Muslims or unitarians?

  41. @nebulafox
    Roman women (the real ones, those Frankish barbarians don't count, of course) inherited property, too. At any rate, if Arab tradition about the pre-Islamic days is to be taken at face value, women fought, traded, drank, and fornicated as hard as their menfolk. Some of this might be retrospective propaganda about the awfulness of the Jahiliyyah days, but oral tradition usually has some kernel in fact, and Byzantine sources do corroborate the notion of a rough, tribal culture living and being molded into something more recognizable as an organized civilization by the nearby superpower, not too dissimilar from how the Germanic tribes were in the third century.

    Much like Christianity, Islam was a positive influence on how women were treated in some ways (no more female infanticides or forced selling of free girls into prostitution), and in other ways, the "believer" women openly commented that they were treated with fewer rights and more restrictions in the new community. Like any other big historical phenomenon, it's not black and white, all positive or all negative. But I think the introduction of more restrictions for women was a result of the Arabs becoming a more sedentary, civilized people with the conquests more than anything: Islam was mostly created as a response to that.

    >One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    Good for you. A lot of men are opting out of the old contract as well, way things are looking, which means we're in for unprecedented changes in how Western society operates. I'm wondering how the America of the 2020s is going to handle that. My guess is, seeing how we've already done in the 2010s: not well.

    Betting on any kind of political ideology overriding the realities of millennia of human evolution is deeply unwise. I have no clue what sort of social model we are in for in the future, but what we're drifting to has no prospect, if adopted by too many people, at long-term stability. Something's gonna give eventually. I suspect it's going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.

    That was in the latter, decadent stages of Rome:

  42. @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    A huge amount of European land by area was owned and actively administered by women: nuns and convents. That was all wrecked in the Renaissance, which also changed rape from a capital crime.
    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
    Remind me, are we the ones having four wives’ worth of kids per family?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Nuns take vows of obedience and poverty. Obedience to their superiors in the convent and to the hierarchy of the Church i.e. to the Pope and Bishops, who are men. The vow of poverty means they don't own the land, and generally avoid having property and possessions in general.
    , @Rosie

    Remind me, are we the ones having four wives’ worth of kids per family?
     
    Stop pretending not to understand basic mathematics. You know that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women. Therefore, if every family had four wives, you'd have a fourth as many families.
  43. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/25/17782572/john-mccain-barack-obama-statement-2008-video

    “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him, and he’s not, um, he’s an Arab,” a woman said to McCain at a town hall meeting in Lakeville, Minnesota in October 2008.

    McCain grabbed the microphone from her, cutting her off. “No, ma’am,” he said. “He’s a decent family man [and] citizen that just I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what the campaign’s all about. He’s not [an Arab].”

  44. @RH
    I love one of the womyn there claiming that it spreads misperceptions about Islam. How does she know? Maybe the maker of the sign meant that Islam is right to honor, cherish, and love women? Are we supposed to love Islam but we also can't say it's right about something? All very confusing.

    I love one of the womyn there claiming that it spreads misperceptions about Islam.

    “Misperceptions” is one of those words like “stereotypes” or “oversimplification” people use to indicate that something politically incorrect is going on but they don’t want to be asked to explain exactly what.

  45. @Joe Magarac
    I saw them planning this on 4chan a few hours ago.

    The left was largely successful at getting “It’s ok to be white” considered hate speech. Was the selection of this phrase based on the left not being sure why to consider it offensive?

    • Replies: @Jack Henson
    Was it really a success?

    Yes their bugman were programmed with the new patch update, but I know a lot of normies that took it as a mugging and it woke them up.
  46. Taylor Swift has had it with White men. We are all apparently White Supremacist and she and fellow celebs like that Swinging guy from the Verizon commercial will get rid of Trump. So she says.

    Elizabeth Warren has had it with White men especially George Washington. She’s drawing huge crowds of women.

    Prohibition all over again.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Taylor Swift has given a very mild denunciation of white supremacy because her core audience of young women has aged into political awareness. The lady is a businesswoman first and foremost, and quite a savvy one.

    Just wait until her fanbase gets to motherhood. ;)
  47. If we would just quit letting Mohammedans immigrate to the U.S. we wouldn’t be having these problems. Let them ruin Canada and Western Europe instead. Better yet, let them fester in their own corrupt, clannish cesspools.

  48. Islam is right about “goo holes”.

  49. This is reminiscent of the “Diversity is White Genocide” messages left around Cambridge, MA a year or two ago. That caused quite a kerfluffle with the local news too.

    Aside, wouldn’t the logical first step towards preventing (anthropogenic) “CLIMATE CHANGE” be to limit the size of the U.S. population? Of course, the simplest legal way to do so would be to ban all immigration to the U.S. Unfortunately, that would limit the genocidal diversification plans of the megaphone holders.

  50. What is really offensive about these signs is that they are not attacking white men.

  51. The woman doesn’t know what they’ve accomplished. They’ve accomplished getting their prank noticed on iSteve and before the eyeballs and inquiring minds of his thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of readers.

  52. @anon
    Bestest part is the talking head at the end:

    "It's unclear if this was just a prank or if a law was broken".

    kek

    Maybe that will be a new excuse one uses after one has been arrested.

    Your honor, “it was just a prank.”

    The judge, “OK then. You are free to leave.”

  53. @simple_pseudonymic_handle
    Andrew Jackson
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    banks.

    Old Hickory was right about a great many things.

  54. @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    You will be, Rosie, one way or another.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You will be, Rosie, one way or another.
     
    Over my dead body.
  55. @Crawfurdmuir

    As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.
     
    Per Wikipedia: "According to Robert Lacey 'the Wahhabis have always disliked the name customarily given to them' and preferred to be called Muwahhidun (Unitarians)."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

    And Unitarians have always preferred to be considered Christian–but nothin’ doin’, baby.

  56. @Otis in Ohio
    As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.

    Their boy Emerson: ""Every great and commanding moment in the annals of the world,” he writes in ‘Man the Reformer’ (1841), “is the triumph of some enthusiasm. The victories of the Arabs after Mahomet, who in a few years, from a small and mean beginning, established a larger empire than that of Rome, is an example.”"

    Unitarians are like Jews except with higher IQs and no enduring sense of unity.

    • Replies: @Oddsbodkins
    I used to be one. Definitely lower IQ.
  57. @nebulafox
    Followup to that really should have been after the media uproar: "IS it OK to be white?" Would have driven them up the wall.

    As for this one, the Islamic World is a huge place and it is never a good idea to draw too many generalizations: a woman is a lot more likely to get acid thrown in her face for taking a lover against daddy's wishes in Karachi than in Istanbul. I will say, though, a typical blue-collar lay believer in a Muslim country (aka, the kind of guy who would be a badwhite) would probably explain at great length that the breakdown of the family structure in the West among other things, is all the proof you'd ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control. They are aware of how our society works: how can they not be, given American cultural exportation worldwide? Journalists know this, which is why they go out of their way to find educated Westernized types, who more likely than not are closet skeptics or at the very least are relatively liberal, and try to pass them off as normative lest they be attacked as "Islamophobic".

    Women have a great deal of influence over their sons in Islam. A lot of the veneration of suicide bombers comes from moms. They lack the power western women have over husbands but make up for it in the filial realms.

    And over less modest women. The ISIS modesty police were largely female.

  58. @RH
    I love one of the womyn there claiming that it spreads misperceptions about Islam. How does she know? Maybe the maker of the sign meant that Islam is right to honor, cherish, and love women? Are we supposed to love Islam but we also can't say it's right about something? All very confusing.

    Maybe the maker of the sign meant that Islam is right to honor, cherish, and love women?

    Because they immediately took offense to this message, it shows they never considered what you wrote above to be the possible meaning. This means that deep down they know islam is wrong about women, at least from their point of view, but cannot admit it.

    It is sort of how liberals automatically assume any reference to an ape, monkey, etc., is a racist gesture. In their minds they equate blacks with those aforementioned animals, and thus reflexively perceive such references in a racist way.

    To discover what liberals find offensive or racist is to learn what prejudices they actually hold. I used to hear people say that the most vocal opponents of homosexuals were closeted homosexuals themselves. Likewise, I believe the most vocal opponents of racism are probably closeted racists themselves.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    cf:

    Doublethink.

    Crimestop.
    , @Forbes

    To discover what liberals find offensive or racist is to learn what prejudices they actually hold.
     
    To your point, to discover what prog-lefties find offensive or racist, find whom they protect from being criticized or condemned.

    Prog-lefties treat blacks and other minority identities as coddled house pets who are only to be slobbered over with high praise, and are never expected to act responsibly or with agency. It is verboten to ever scrutinize their conduct.
  59. In chess, this move is known as a fork. Well played.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    There are so many great trolling signs possible--how about:

    Women are right about horses. ;-)
  60. @Hypnotoad666
    What's next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?

    Or, even worse, the Jews are right about the blacks.

  61. Pray tell, Stevesie: what if someone met the mob where it’s purportedly “at” by writing:

    You
    Are
    WRONG
    About
    Islam! –

    There
    Is
    No
    ONE
    Islam!

    How long then ’till another disgruntled, ISIS-lovin’ airline employee hacks into some fancypants modern jet’s computer system and navigates it straight into the chapel during an LGBTQ+ commitment ceremony? The answer: we’re not sure, but you may have broken a law by even satirically proposing such a scenario.

  62. @Rosie

    I suspect it’s going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.
     
    What do you think "feminists" ( however you define them) want to have both ways.

    I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just asking for specifics.


    Like any other big historical phenomenon, it’s not black and white, all positive or all negative.
     
    I have come to the conclusion that the chief problem with Islam is it's set-in-stone, or better yet, written-in-fire character. It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that ot can't really change with the times unless you're going to say the Quran is a "living document" or something.

    >What do you think “feminists” ( however you define them) want to have both ways.

    They want all the old perks that come with being a woman while simultaneously receiving all the new benefits of feminism, while keeping men lock-step with all their traditional duties and insisting on new, often contradicting ones befitting the new age. Not surprisingly, this annoys many men. It does not help that the expectations drastically differ depending on who you are, aka, “Looking Good, Susan”. This has always been the underlying reality in relations between the sexes, so that in and of itself isn’t a big deal, but the essential hypocrisy has never been so explicitly showcased before.

    >I have come to the conclusion that the chief problem with Islam is it’s set-in-stone, or better yet, written-in-fire character. It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that ot can’t really change with the times unless you’re going to say the Quran is a “living document” or something.

    It’s interesting that nobody points out that so many traditions we think of as essentially Islamic come from Persia, or that some of the worst offenders when it comes to treating women (Pakistan) share a cultural connection with some of the worst non-Muslim offenders (India).

    The Qu’ran is, in Islam, the direct intercession between God and humanity. If we have to do a crude comparison between Islam and Christianity, it is basically the equivalent to the figure of Jesus Christ, not the Bible, which while the Word of God, was written by mortal men prone to error or bias according to Christian doctrine. So, no, that’s not happening any time soon. Now, I would not so far to say that Islam has never changed with the times and cultures, or that Muslims cannot reconcile their faith to modernity-I’ve read enough history to know the former, I’ve seen enough Muslims do just that to know the latter. I will say that Islam is, at its core, a programmatic religion (it is much like orthodox Judaism in a lot of ways, really) in a way that Christianity has long since ceased to be and our elites are deluding themselves by pretending that doesn’t make a massive difference in terms of cultural values. Most lay Muslims take their essentials about faith for granted in a way that is only common among fundamentalist Christians in the United States and almost nonexistent in Europe. Even closet atheists or skeptics in the Islamic World still often do that, such is the degree of chrysalis in the faith.

    This is tied into my ultimate view that religion is socially constructed and ultimately subordinate to the local culture, not the other way around. If one doesn’t agree with that, then I don’t expect views deriving from that POV would sound correct, either.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...This is tied into my ultimate view that religion is socially constructed and ultimately subordinate to the local culture, not the other way around. If one doesn’t agree with that, then I don’t expect views deriving from that POV would sound correct, either.'

    I don't agree completely -- but on the whole, a good post.

    I think Islam has evolved, and changed through the centuries, and I see little evidence of this 'chrysalis' you perceive.

    Today, a movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood, or a state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, while perhaps failures, represent attempts to move forward. Perhaps what you object to isn't Islam's refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.

    We are entering an era where not just Islam but also states such as Russia and China are definitely beginning to find their way forward. However, we're going to be sorely disappointed if we expect them to find their way 'forward' to societies that will meet with our complete approval.

    Earning our complete approval is ceasing to be their goal.
  63. @Hypnotoad666
    What's next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?

    Freshly germane at that topic…

    …grab y’all some corn pop and watch Splody Blobstein being torn between Party & Tribe :

    • Replies: @Realist
    Gaetz is great, he is an expert at screwing over the shitlibs...but that is rather easy, since most are brain dead. This is what you get with democracy...trillions of dollars of waste in all areas of government from dumbasses.
    , @International Jew
    Very entertaining, thanks. Sharpton is no dummy. I still don't like him, but I am impressed with his quick thinking.
  64. Hitler
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    vegetables

    • Replies: @bored identity
    Vegetable
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    Hitler
    , @Hail
    Would it be better

    with

    WRONG there instead of RIGHT --?
  65. “Islam is Right About the Jews”
    Would make Liberal Heads Explode

  66. This is the best one so far. The righteous indignation displayed on TV – especially that first lady with the Australian accent – gave me a good laugh.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    They're very upset...just not sure why.
    , @sb
    Yeah her Australian accent stood out

    I recall being in the US a couple of decades ago and being stopped in the street for a media vox pop about something or other .
    I quickly said that I wasn't a US citizen and the reporter just thanked me and quickly moved on to find someone else .
    Guess that wouldn't happen now . In the modern world there are no foreigners
  67. “Not really sure what point they were trying to make but either way it’s terrible.”

    Perfectly sums up our time.

  68. @Rosie

    Uppity entryists will be the first to be sold off.
     
    Funny you mention entryists. I do hope this guy is finally going to go away.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/09/19/daily-stormer-comes-back-online/

    I always figured the biggest threat to feminism was from female boomers. That they’ll cash in Roe v. Wade and other political goodies for enhanced retirement/entitlement benefits.

    “Hey, I’m on menopause and never need to worry about getting pregnant! I call my senator to cash in planned parenthood for arthritis medication.”

  69. @Anon
    "It's somewhat of a misconception that, like, Islam, I guess, hates women."

    The sign doesn't say that. Where did that idea come from? Send that woman to reeducation camp.

    She's was speaking very fluently until the end, and then she realized she was about to express a "stereotype" and the stuttering starts.

    She’s was speaking very fluently until the end, and then she realized she was about to express a “stereotype” and the stuttering starts.

    That is when the cognitive dissonance loomed up.
    “Must. Not. Crime. Think!”

  70. @Rosie

    I suspect it’s going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.
     
    What do you think "feminists" ( however you define them) want to have both ways.

    I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just asking for specifics.


    Like any other big historical phenomenon, it’s not black and white, all positive or all negative.
     
    I have come to the conclusion that the chief problem with Islam is it's set-in-stone, or better yet, written-in-fire character. It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that ot can't really change with the times unless you're going to say the Quran is a "living document" or something.

    I’m not saying I disagree. I’m just asking for specifics.

    You got it. Here’s a few.

    Feminists: “I am no shrinking violet! I’m a strong, independent woman! Respect my strength.”
    Also feminists: “Men who don’t protect strange women on the subway need to be shamed. Will you change this tire for me?”

    Feminists: “Women are just as smart and motivated as men! Nay, smarter!”
    Also feminists: “We need special programs aimed only at women to coddle them and help them be entrepreneurs or coders or whatever.”

    Feminists: “#Metoo is real! Men are always abusing their power to take advantage of poor women!”
    Also feminists: “Powerful men not having lunch or closed door meetings with women is more oppression! Women must be free to accuse any many of #Metoo anytime! It’s Who We Are.”

    Feminists: “Women are equals of men, or better, in everything! I’m proud of being a woman.”
    Also feminists: “Using any words that signal female gender, like “actress” ist verboten. The male versions of those words e.g. “actor” are better. We’ll use the male words instead.”

    I could go on, but you get the idea.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    1. How does not liking to change tires make a woman not strong and independent? Also, do men who don't like to change tires stop being strong and independent on that account? Mr. Rosie calls Truple A.

    2. The feminist position is precisely that recruitment of women should be a priority because they are just as smart and motivated as men, even when it comes to STEM. I don't happen to think that theory fits the data, but there is nothing hypocritical about it on its face.

    3. Sorry, but I don't think any feminists are demanding closed-door meetings with one dirty old man and nobody else. That said, this is a genuine dilemma and feminists can legitimately disagree about how to deal with it.

    4. I hadn't heard about the feminine noun issue. I doubt anyone really cares.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Well thought-out list!
  71. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    Pew Research has got some alarming new research up on its website:

    Population growth in Africa is projected to remain strong throughout this century
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/ft_19-06-17_worldpopulation_populiation-growth-africa-projected-remain-strong/

    I think Steve should look into this. It’s seems really important.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    Afrika Strong!
  72. New outrage:

    Plastic Straws

    Are

    Ok

  73. Former US president Jimmy Carter, for the win…

    “First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God.”

    It’s not religion itself, it’s those in positions of religious authority.

    Of course, a number of the fine posters here are seemingly ignorant of the Muslim faith. For example, the Koran cautions women “to draw their outer garments close around themselves” to not inspire sexual desire in men other than their husbands. However, Muslim head coverings differ widely in the Muslim world. In Saudi Arabia, women typically wear a niqab, a full-body garment with a veil that obscures the face. In Indonesia, head coverings are optional and are seen as a fashion statement. In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public, with French President Nicholas Sarkozy referring to it as “not a sign of religion, [but] a sign of subservience.”

    Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males ought to reestablish the patriarchy in the United States and keep our (white) women folk under wraps. After all, (Western) females ruin everything.

    Paging Whiskey…

    • Replies: @anon
    we alpha males

    Thanks for the laugh!
    , @Buzz Mohawk

    Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males...
     
    ROTFLMAO
    , @Colin Wright
    'In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public'

    That's certainly not true in Turkey -- at least not when I was there in 2015.

    In fact, Turkey may offer more authentic freedom of choice to women when it comes to dress than any other country I have been in. They can wear revealing Western clothes, the indigenous caftan and scarf rig, or a full-on burqa. Where ever I went, one commonly saw all three outfits in public: the proportions varied according to where one was: burqa-wearers were a small minority in Istanbul, while Western clothes weren't the usual choice in Konya. However, all three were apparently always acceptable.

    This would be as opposed to societies such as, say, France -- and if a woman wants to wear a burqa in much of the US, I'd give her a medal.
    , @S. M. Coulton
    Everybody who responds negatively to Corvinus is a bulldyke and/or a faggoty man.
    , @nebulafox
    >“First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God.”

    Misinterpretation, nothing. Judaism was the product of a Homeric-era tribal society. Christianity came out during the Pax Romana. Islam was a product of late antiquity. Of course they were secondary.

    > In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public, with French President Nicholas Sarkozy referring to it as “not a sign of religion, [but] a sign of subservience.”

    I'll let someone else talk about France, but that's certainly not true in Turkey, especially as you head east toward the Anatolian hinterland and the heartland of support for the AKP. Burqas are still uncommon compared to the more ghetto/redneck parts of the Islamic World, but they aren't unheard of, and hijabs are omnipresent.

    >In Indonesia, head coverings are optional and are seen as a fashion statement.

    Indonesia is interesting because hijabs were relatively rare before 1979, but now are omnipresent. Indonesia is a secular state not least thanks to the presence of economically influential non-Muslim minorities, but there's tons of social pressure on Muslim women to be appropriately dressed nowadays that their grandmothers probably didn't encounter. Globalization and the rise of a new middle class is more responsible than anything for the rise of a more orthodox, mainstream form of Islam, with the usual nods to Saudi money, of course. Urbanization, too: the syncretic forms of faith you see in places like rural Java are necessarily tied in with a kampung setting. Remove the peasants to the city, and that's gone.

    (Same dynamic in Malaysia and with ethnic Malays in Singapore-I've seen burqas on Singapore's MRT. It's rare, but it does happen. In the former, there's a major difference with Indonesia: Islamic law does apply to ethnic Malays and corporal punishment does happen, though the level of enforcement does depend on where you are. Ethnic Chinese owned hotels in the cities are used for romantic encounters between young Malays without any incident whatsoever: but trying that in a Malay owned hotel in a more rural area is not a wise move! Interestingly enough, if young Malay women choose not to wear hijabs in Singapore, people assume they are Filipinas, a testament to how ingrained the association has become.)

    >Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males ought to reestablish the patriarchy in the United States and keep our (white) women folk under wraps. After all, (Western) females ruin everything.

    Ah, you, Whiskey, and Vox Day. Quite the alpha male dream team. I expect their ovaries to rattle.

  74. @Otis in Ohio
    As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.

    Their boy Emerson: ""Every great and commanding moment in the annals of the world,” he writes in ‘Man the Reformer’ (1841), “is the triumph of some enthusiasm. The victories of the Arabs after Mahomet, who in a few years, from a small and mean beginning, established a larger empire than that of Rome, is an example.”"

    The victories of the Arabs after Mahomet, who in a few years, from a small and mean beginning, established a larger empire than that of Rome, is an example.

    As is their constant whining about losing 0.25% of that empire to other shrewd, oily Semites — and getting the world’s ear.

    • Disagree: Colin Wright
  75. Anon[249] • Disclaimer says:

    When members of my family moved to Texas they discovered that inquiries about church attendance and denomination (or megachurch brand) come up very early in a conversation with new acquaintances. You need an answer, and “We don’t attend church” is not an acceptable answer. This is where the Unitarian Church comes into play. Texans know it’s a bullshit church, but at least it keeps you from being cancelled and shunned. You get the sideeye, but if you are otherwise personable they cut you some slack.

    In addition, antireligion skeptic types who have kids start to understand the child care and counselling component of religion, especially if they are not in the best school district. Even a fake religion is better than wild adolescents on the run.

  76. @Hypnotoad666
    What's next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?

    ‘What’s next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?’

    I like that better. Potentially, far more effective.

    • Replies: @Anon

    ‘What’s next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?’

    I like that better. Potentially, far more effective.
     
    A subtle point, but “the blacks” should be changed to “blacks.” “The Blacks” has a vaguely Boomer, othering, anthropological vibe to it that is out of style. On the other hand, “the Jews” is good. Normally “He’s Jewish” is less potentially offensive than “He’s a Jew,” but here the noun version is justified for scansion and sloganeering rhythmical reasons, over “the Jewish people.”

    Making these cryptodicta as innocent, inoffensive, and unprejudiced as possible, on the surface, is the key to their ability to create head-exploding cognitive dissonance.
  77. That is the most brilliant satirical act of the year.

    Everyone should print these out and post them everywhere.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "Everyone should print these out and post them everywhere."

    But not on a laser printer.

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170607-why-printers-add-secret-tracking-dots

    On 3 June, FBI agents arrived at the house of government contractor Reality Leigh Winner in Augusta, Georgia. They had spent the last two days investigating a top secret classified document that had allegedly been leaked to the press. In order to track down Winner, agents claim they had carefully studied copies of the document provided by online news site The Intercept and noticed creases suggesting that the pages had been printed and “hand-carried out of a secured space”.

    In an affidavit, the FBI alleges that Winner admitted printing the National Security Agency (NSA) report and sending it to The Intercept. Shortly after a story about the leak was published, charges against Winner were made public.

    At that point, experts began taking a closer look at the document, now publicly available on the web. They discovered something else of interest: yellow dots in a roughly rectangular pattern repeated throughout the page. They were barely visible to the naked eye, but formed a coded design. After some quick analysis, they seemed to reveal the exact date and time that the pages in question were printed: 06:20 on 9 May, 2017 – at least, this is likely to be the time on the printer’s internal clock at that moment. The dots also encode a serial number for the printer.

    These “microdots” are well known to security researchers and civil liberties campaigners. Many colour printers add them to documents without people ever knowing they’re there.
     

    Unless you do this

    https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/06/27/app-masks-printers-tracking-dots/

  78. @nebulafox
    Followup to that really should have been after the media uproar: "IS it OK to be white?" Would have driven them up the wall.

    As for this one, the Islamic World is a huge place and it is never a good idea to draw too many generalizations: a woman is a lot more likely to get acid thrown in her face for taking a lover against daddy's wishes in Karachi than in Istanbul. I will say, though, a typical blue-collar lay believer in a Muslim country (aka, the kind of guy who would be a badwhite) would probably explain at great length that the breakdown of the family structure in the West among other things, is all the proof you'd ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control. They are aware of how our society works: how can they not be, given American cultural exportation worldwide? Journalists know this, which is why they go out of their way to find educated Westernized types, who more likely than not are closet skeptics or at the very least are relatively liberal, and try to pass them off as normative lest they be attacked as "Islamophobic".

    …all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.

    I think you mean “under control”.

    But the human isn’t about controlling women, it’s about controlling men. Araby knows her men and their weaknesses. This is not to say every Arab man is a rapist– more like every other Arab man.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...But the human isn’t about controlling women, it’s about controlling men. Araby knows her men and their weaknesses. This is not to say every Arab man is a rapist– more like every other Arab man.'

    Ah. This kind of goes with that defense of Israel you slipped in, doesn't it?
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Jeff Besos wins again. Don't remember if I wrote "the rule", "the Koran", "Islam", or whatever, but it sure wasn't "the human", which doesn't make any sense.

    Which may be the goal of Kindle's autocorrect. Sabotage comments on badsites.

    Sneaky bastard.
  79. @simple_pseudonymic_handle
    Andrew Jackson
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    banks.

    Andrew Jackson
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    banks.

    Ha, ha. Would someone complain that the sign is anti-Semitic?

    Back in my more wayward days, I used to post at the website Democratic Underground. I wrote a post talking about Andrew Jackson’s role in ending the 2nd central bank.

    The moderator permanently banned me for posting something anti-Semitic. I didn’t even know that criticizing banks could be considered anti-Semitic. I was totally confused. It turns out the founders of the website are Jewish.

    • Replies: @Pericles

    It turns out the founders of the website are Jewish.
     
    Lol, what a twist! Though perhaps there's a better word for it, since it's sort of an anti-twist?
  80. @Corvinus
    Former US president Jimmy Carter, for the win...

    "First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God."

    It's not religion itself, it's those in positions of religious authority.

    Of course, a number of the fine posters here are seemingly ignorant of the Muslim faith. For example, the Koran cautions women "to draw their outer garments close around themselves" to not inspire sexual desire in men other than their husbands. However, Muslim head coverings differ widely in the Muslim world. In Saudi Arabia, women typically wear a niqab, a full-body garment with a veil that obscures the face. In Indonesia, head coverings are optional and are seen as a fashion statement. In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public, with French President Nicholas Sarkozy referring to it as "not a sign of religion, [but] a sign of subservience."

    Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males ought to reestablish the patriarchy in the United States and keep our (white) women folk under wraps. After all, (Western) females ruin everything.

    Paging Whiskey...

    we alpha males

    Thanks for the laugh!

  81. @nebulafox
    >What do you think “feminists” ( however you define them) want to have both ways.

    They want all the old perks that come with being a woman while simultaneously receiving all the new benefits of feminism, while keeping men lock-step with all their traditional duties and insisting on new, often contradicting ones befitting the new age. Not surprisingly, this annoys many men. It does not help that the expectations drastically differ depending on who you are, aka, "Looking Good, Susan". This has always been the underlying reality in relations between the sexes, so that in and of itself isn't a big deal, but the essential hypocrisy has never been so explicitly showcased before.

    >I have come to the conclusion that the chief problem with Islam is it’s set-in-stone, or better yet, written-in-fire character. It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that ot can’t really change with the times unless you’re going to say the Quran is a “living document” or something.

    It's interesting that nobody points out that so many traditions we think of as essentially Islamic come from Persia, or that some of the worst offenders when it comes to treating women (Pakistan) share a cultural connection with some of the worst non-Muslim offenders (India).

    The Qu'ran is, in Islam, the direct intercession between God and humanity. If we have to do a crude comparison between Islam and Christianity, it is basically the equivalent to the figure of Jesus Christ, not the Bible, which while the Word of God, was written by mortal men prone to error or bias according to Christian doctrine. So, no, that's not happening any time soon. Now, I would not so far to say that Islam has never changed with the times and cultures, or that Muslims cannot reconcile their faith to modernity-I've read enough history to know the former, I've seen enough Muslims do just that to know the latter. I will say that Islam is, at its core, a programmatic religion (it is much like orthodox Judaism in a lot of ways, really) in a way that Christianity has long since ceased to be and our elites are deluding themselves by pretending that doesn't make a massive difference in terms of cultural values. Most lay Muslims take their essentials about faith for granted in a way that is only common among fundamentalist Christians in the United States and almost nonexistent in Europe. Even closet atheists or skeptics in the Islamic World still often do that, such is the degree of chrysalis in the faith.

    This is tied into my ultimate view that religion is socially constructed and ultimately subordinate to the local culture, not the other way around. If one doesn't agree with that, then I don't expect views deriving from that POV would sound correct, either.

    ‘…This is tied into my ultimate view that religion is socially constructed and ultimately subordinate to the local culture, not the other way around. If one doesn’t agree with that, then I don’t expect views deriving from that POV would sound correct, either.’

    I don’t agree completely — but on the whole, a good post.

    I think Islam has evolved, and changed through the centuries, and I see little evidence of this ‘chrysalis’ you perceive.

    Today, a movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood, or a state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, while perhaps failures, represent attempts to move forward. Perhaps what you object to isn’t Islam’s refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.

    We are entering an era where not just Islam but also states such as Russia and China are definitely beginning to find their way forward. However, we’re going to be sorely disappointed if we expect them to find their way ‘forward’ to societies that will meet with our complete approval.

    Earning our complete approval is ceasing to be their goal.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Today, a movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood, or a state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, while perhaps failures, represent attempts to move forward. Perhaps what you object to isn’t Islam’s refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.
     
    A very good point.
    , @nebulafox
    >I think Islam has evolved, and changed through the centuries, and I see little evidence of this ‘chrysalis’ you perceive.

    I did mention that it has changed throughout its history: in early 9th century Baghdad, official government ideology declared that the Qu'ran was not created alongside God. Theory and practice can be different, if you look at the status, of say, an atheist in court life during the age of the gunpowder empires: yes, parading your disbelief would likely lead to very negative consequences for you, but there was a surprising degree of "down-low" toleration. It's not that different from today, if you think about it.

    What has not changed is the programmatic nature of the faith, the general permeation of religious ritual in political society, or the degree of intertwining of spiritual and temporal authority. Here, though, the West is the outlier, not the Islamic World (just look at Russia's history), and for the first two, for most of Western history we had those features. It's only been relatively recently that we've broken off.

    > Perhaps what you object to isn’t Islam’s refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.

    I neither approve or disapprove of whatever the Islamic World (and again: we're talking about 1.3 billion people spread out over often vastly different cultures and races) does internally: that's their concern. It's a matter of indifference to me. It's not my culture, therefore it's not my position to say what is right or wrong for them. I take the same view towards Russia, China, India, and everyone else. It's fun to talk about academically, but ultimately, unlike my rulers, I do not particularly care that other nations duly adopt American norms on politics and culture. If we must speak of personal opinions, I view it as somewhat distasteful, TBH: what make the world an interesting place to go explore is the fact that different places are different.

    External behavior toward the United States is, in the end, the only thing the American government should be concerned with. But good luck convincing the Baby Boomers of that.

  82. @Corvinus
    Former US president Jimmy Carter, for the win...

    "First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God."

    It's not religion itself, it's those in positions of religious authority.

    Of course, a number of the fine posters here are seemingly ignorant of the Muslim faith. For example, the Koran cautions women "to draw their outer garments close around themselves" to not inspire sexual desire in men other than their husbands. However, Muslim head coverings differ widely in the Muslim world. In Saudi Arabia, women typically wear a niqab, a full-body garment with a veil that obscures the face. In Indonesia, head coverings are optional and are seen as a fashion statement. In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public, with French President Nicholas Sarkozy referring to it as "not a sign of religion, [but] a sign of subservience."

    Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males ought to reestablish the patriarchy in the United States and keep our (white) women folk under wraps. After all, (Western) females ruin everything.

    Paging Whiskey...

    Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males…

    ROTFLMAO

  83. @Reg Cæsar

    ...all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I think you mean "under control".

    But the human isn't about controlling women, it's about controlling men. Araby knows her men and their weaknesses. This is not to say every Arab man is a rapist-- more like every other Arab man.

    ‘…But the human isn’t about controlling women, it’s about controlling men. Araby knows her men and their weaknesses. This is not to say every Arab man is a rapist– more like every other Arab man.’

    Ah. This kind of goes with that defense of Israel you slipped in, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I'm an equal opportunity anti-Semite. When Mo's boys return their conquests to Christendom is when I'll consider lending sympathy. Not a sand-grain before. ⏳

    "Chesterbelloc" was hardly any friend-of-Hymie, but still clear-eyed toward "the Orient":

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47917/lepanto

    https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/metabook/heresies.html
  84. @Reg Cæsar

    ...all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I think you mean "under control".

    But the human isn't about controlling women, it's about controlling men. Araby knows her men and their weaknesses. This is not to say every Arab man is a rapist-- more like every other Arab man.

    Jeff Besos wins again. Don’t remember if I wrote “the rule”, “the Koran”, “Islam”, or whatever, but it sure wasn’t “the human”, which doesn’t make any sense.

    Which may be the goal of Kindle’s autocorrect. Sabotage comments on badsites.

    Sneaky bastard.

  85. Felicity Tuttle. What a sweetheart.

  86. @Bill P
    This is the best one so far. The righteous indignation displayed on TV - especially that first lady with the Australian accent - gave me a good laugh.

    They’re very upset…just not sure why.

  87. @Corvinus
    Former US president Jimmy Carter, for the win...

    "First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God."

    It's not religion itself, it's those in positions of religious authority.

    Of course, a number of the fine posters here are seemingly ignorant of the Muslim faith. For example, the Koran cautions women "to draw their outer garments close around themselves" to not inspire sexual desire in men other than their husbands. However, Muslim head coverings differ widely in the Muslim world. In Saudi Arabia, women typically wear a niqab, a full-body garment with a veil that obscures the face. In Indonesia, head coverings are optional and are seen as a fashion statement. In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public, with French President Nicholas Sarkozy referring to it as "not a sign of religion, [but] a sign of subservience."

    Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males ought to reestablish the patriarchy in the United States and keep our (white) women folk under wraps. After all, (Western) females ruin everything.

    Paging Whiskey...

    ‘In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public’

    That’s certainly not true in Turkey — at least not when I was there in 2015.

    In fact, Turkey may offer more authentic freedom of choice to women when it comes to dress than any other country I have been in. They can wear revealing Western clothes, the indigenous caftan and scarf rig, or a full-on burqa. Where ever I went, one commonly saw all three outfits in public: the proportions varied according to where one was: burqa-wearers were a small minority in Istanbul, while Western clothes weren’t the usual choice in Konya. However, all three were apparently always acceptable.

    This would be as opposed to societies such as, say, France — and if a woman wants to wear a burqa in much of the US, I’d give her a medal.

    • Replies: @Pericles

    In fact, Turkey may offer more authentic freedom of choice to women when it comes to dress than any other country I have been in. They can wear revealing Western clothes, the indigenous caftan and scarf rig, or a full-on burqa.

     

    Yeah? Sounds like Sweden.

    if a woman wants to wear a burqa in much of the US, I’d give her a medal.

     

    SJW alert.

    By the beard of the prophet, this neo-nazi touched my sacred burqa, I swear it! Death to the infidels!
    , @Anon
    Can say the same about Malaysia. I've seen it all here from the all encompassing burqa to the teeny weeny skirts.

    Most women prefer a modest pant suit with a scarf though
  88. @Joe Magarac
    I saw them planning this on 4chan a few hours ago.

    Femanons to boot, as the ahem cherry on top.

    Unitarians are hecka fun to troll. So digging too philosophically or otherwise into this prank is not only leftishly hyperanalytical, it unitarianly misses the fun.

  89. @Colin Wright
    '...But the human isn’t about controlling women, it’s about controlling men. Araby knows her men and their weaknesses. This is not to say every Arab man is a rapist– more like every other Arab man.'

    Ah. This kind of goes with that defense of Israel you slipped in, doesn't it?

    I’m an equal opportunity anti-Semite. When Mo’s boys return their conquests to Christendom is when I’ll consider lending sympathy. Not a sand-grain before. ⏳

    “Chesterbelloc” was hardly any friend-of-Hymie, but still clear-eyed toward “the Orient”:

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47917/lepanto

    https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/metabook/heresies.html

  90. @Joe Magarac
    I saw them planning this on 4chan a few hours ago.

    It looks like some people were planning this a couple of weeks ago:

    http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/225468839/

  91. @Corvinus
    Former US president Jimmy Carter, for the win...

    "First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God."

    It's not religion itself, it's those in positions of religious authority.

    Of course, a number of the fine posters here are seemingly ignorant of the Muslim faith. For example, the Koran cautions women "to draw their outer garments close around themselves" to not inspire sexual desire in men other than their husbands. However, Muslim head coverings differ widely in the Muslim world. In Saudi Arabia, women typically wear a niqab, a full-body garment with a veil that obscures the face. In Indonesia, head coverings are optional and are seen as a fashion statement. In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public, with French President Nicholas Sarkozy referring to it as "not a sign of religion, [but] a sign of subservience."

    Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males ought to reestablish the patriarchy in the United States and keep our (white) women folk under wraps. After all, (Western) females ruin everything.

    Paging Whiskey...

    Everybody who responds negatively to Corvinus is a bulldyke and/or a faggoty man.

  92. ‘I’m an equal opportunity anti-Semite. When Mo’s boys return their conquests to Christendom is when I’ll consider lending sympathy.’

    Oh please. Where do you live, and who took it from whom when?

    If we look at who has actually driven out large populations of Muslims versus who has actually driven out large populations of Christians, we’ll find massive displacement of Muslims from Spain, southern Italy and Sicily, much of the Balkans and Aegean, and much of the Caucasus. In most cases, Islam was totally eradicated. The Muslims of Andalusia, of Sicily, of Serbia and Crete, the Circassians, all these and no doubt more are gone.

    Conversely, the only instance I can think of Christians being removed wholesale would be the Armenian genocide and the population exchange Ataturk arranged with Greece after he defeated their attempt to destroy the nascent Turkish Republic. To this day, substantial populations of Christians remain in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. What Christian states can make the same claim? Where is a Christian state that still has an indigenous Muslim minority? I think Bulgaria does — but that may be it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    we’ll find massive displacement of Muslims from Spain, southern Italy and Sicily, much of the Balkans and Aegean, and much of the Caucasus.
     
    Analogous to the displacement of Britons from India and French from West Africa. For much the same reason.

    It's called reconquista.
    , @More R1b, Less H1B

    If we look at who has actually driven out large populations of Muslims versus who has actually driven out large populations of Christians, we’ll find massive displacement of Muslims from Spain, southern Italy and Sicily, much of the Balkans and Aegean, and much of the Caucasus. In most cases, Islam was totally eradicated. The Muslims of Andalusia, of Sicily, of Serbia and Crete, the Circassians, all these and no doubt more are gone.
     
    LOL, "much" and "most" are doing a lot of work here! You'll find the Muslims of Serbia in a lesser-known region called Bosnia. You'll find the Muslims of the Caucasus in Svaneti, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Chechnya, etc. etc.: all places conspicuously icon-and-incense free. Totally eradicated! Eradicated to the point where the airports have dedicated Hajj terminals.

    Where is a Christian state that still has an indigenous Muslim minority?
     
    The histories of the aforementioned Bosnia, as well as Albania and the outer Albanias scattered across the Balkan peninsula such as Kosovo and northern Montenegro, would seem to suggest that an overwhelming indigenous Muslim majority is often the final end of a Christian state that has an indigenous Muslim minority. If you're right about their country, Bulgarians would be wise to take heed.
  93. @MBlanc46
    You will be, Rosie, one way or another.

    You will be, Rosie, one way or another.

    Over my dead body.

    • Replies: @WHAT
    Lol no, a little beating will do the trick.
    , @Apex Predator

    Over my dead body.
     
    That was precisely his point, way to miss it.

    Your 'bad old days' like most unhinged leftist and feminist fantasy were not even close to your hot & bothered fever dreams you imagine them to be. But history, logic, and rationality are the trifecta of feminine weakness so The Big Lie shall go on.
  94. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    A huge amount of European land by area was owned and actively administered by women: nuns and convents. That was all wrecked in the Renaissance, which also changed rape from a capital crime.
    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
    Remind me, are we the ones having four wives' worth of kids per family?

    Nuns take vows of obedience and poverty. Obedience to their superiors in the convent and to the hierarchy of the Church i.e. to the Pope and Bishops, who are men. The vow of poverty means they don’t own the land, and generally avoid having property and possessions in general.

  95. @J.Ross
    A huge amount of European land by area was owned and actively administered by women: nuns and convents. That was all wrecked in the Renaissance, which also changed rape from a capital crime.
    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
    Remind me, are we the ones having four wives' worth of kids per family?

    Remind me, are we the ones having four wives’ worth of kids per family?

    Stop pretending not to understand basic mathematics. You know that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women. Therefore, if every family had four wives, you’d have a fourth as many families.

  96. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I used to tease my little sister and get her so worked up all I had to do was look at her and raise and eyebrow slightly and she would shriek to our parents that I was looking at her funny. Libs are this way about their holy Restaurant People, the people who finally brought edible food to the benighted West.

    It works with every issue, and it's how you know the Immigration Question is the most important one for their side, too. Recently, a list of countries that treat our oceans like a big wet garbage can came out. The Save the Planet libs are infuriated by this list. They do not want to know about it.

    So you’re saying libs don’t like barbecue? We really DO need to get rid of them then, the French and Black hating racist bastards!

  97. @JohnnyD
    Imagine the fallout if they wrote "Islam is right about homosexuality." Pete Buttigieg would have found a way to blame Mike Pence.

    Imagine the fallout if they wrote “Islam is right about homosexuality.”

    Wouldn’t work in Winchester. No tall buildings to throw the flyers off of.

  98. @Moses

    I’m not saying I disagree. I’m just asking for specifics.
     
    You got it. Here's a few.

    Feminists: "I am no shrinking violet! I'm a strong, independent woman! Respect my strength."
    Also feminists: "Men who don't protect strange women on the subway need to be shamed. Will you change this tire for me?"

    Feminists: "Women are just as smart and motivated as men! Nay, smarter!"
    Also feminists: "We need special programs aimed only at women to coddle them and help them be entrepreneurs or coders or whatever."

    Feminists: "#Metoo is real! Men are always abusing their power to take advantage of poor women!"
    Also feminists: "Powerful men not having lunch or closed door meetings with women is more oppression! Women must be free to accuse any many of #Metoo anytime! It's Who We Are."

    Feminists: "Women are equals of men, or better, in everything! I'm proud of being a woman."
    Also feminists: "Using any words that signal female gender, like "actress" ist verboten. The male versions of those words e.g. "actor" are better. We'll use the male words instead."

    I could go on, but you get the idea.

    1. How does not liking to change tires make a woman not strong and independent? Also, do men who don’t like to change tires stop being strong and independent on that account? Mr. Rosie calls Truple A.

    2. The feminist position is precisely that recruitment of women should be a priority because they are just as smart and motivated as men, even when it comes to STEM. I don’t happen to think that theory fits the data, but there is nothing hypocritical about it on its face.

    3. Sorry, but I don’t think any feminists are demanding closed-door meetings with one dirty old man and nobody else. That said, this is a genuine dilemma and feminists can legitimately disagree about how to deal with it.

    4. I hadn’t heard about the feminine noun issue. I doubt anyone really cares.

    • Replies: @jim jones
    Women are a protected class precisely because they are inferior to men:

    http://magaimg.net/img/908c.jpg
    , @Moses
    You prove my point for me. Thank you dearie.
  99. @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    One thing I know for sure is that you actually don’t know anything for sure.

  100. The most utterly outrageous, make-their-heads-explode thing would be a plain, white sheet of paper with just one simple word printed on it:

    Jews.

    Nothing else, that’s all. No slurs, no accusations, just “Jews.” Watch in amazement as the crimestop lurches into overdrive, and the official investigations crank up to 11. If you work for gubmint LEO and you want to rack up some seriously sweet overtime, you know what to do.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    That may well be a work of genius sir!
  101. @istevefan

    Maybe the maker of the sign meant that Islam is right to honor, cherish, and love women?
     
    Because they immediately took offense to this message, it shows they never considered what you wrote above to be the possible meaning. This means that deep down they know islam is wrong about women, at least from their point of view, but cannot admit it.

    It is sort of how liberals automatically assume any reference to an ape, monkey, etc., is a racist gesture. In their minds they equate blacks with those aforementioned animals, and thus reflexively perceive such references in a racist way.

    To discover what liberals find offensive or racist is to learn what prejudices they actually hold. I used to hear people say that the most vocal opponents of homosexuals were closeted homosexuals themselves. Likewise, I believe the most vocal opponents of racism are probably closeted racists themselves.

    cf:

    Doublethink.

    Crimestop.

  102. @nebulafox
    Roman women (the real ones, those Frankish barbarians don't count, of course) inherited property, too. At any rate, if Arab tradition about the pre-Islamic days is to be taken at face value, women fought, traded, drank, and fornicated as hard as their menfolk. Some of this might be retrospective propaganda about the awfulness of the Jahiliyyah days, but oral tradition usually has some kernel in fact, and Byzantine sources do corroborate the notion of a rough, tribal culture living and being molded into something more recognizable as an organized civilization by the nearby superpower, not too dissimilar from how the Germanic tribes were in the third century.

    Much like Christianity, Islam was a positive influence on how women were treated in some ways (no more female infanticides or forced selling of free girls into prostitution), and in other ways, the "believer" women openly commented that they were treated with fewer rights and more restrictions in the new community. Like any other big historical phenomenon, it's not black and white, all positive or all negative. But I think the introduction of more restrictions for women was a result of the Arabs becoming a more sedentary, civilized people with the conquests more than anything: Islam was mostly created as a response to that.

    >One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    Good for you. A lot of men are opting out of the old contract as well, way things are looking, which means we're in for unprecedented changes in how Western society operates. I'm wondering how the America of the 2020s is going to handle that. My guess is, seeing how we've already done in the 2010s: not well.

    Betting on any kind of political ideology overriding the realities of millennia of human evolution is deeply unwise. I have no clue what sort of social model we are in for in the future, but what we're drifting to has no prospect, if adopted by too many people, at long-term stability. Something's gonna give eventually. I suspect it's going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.

    The behavior of muslims in Europe suggests that all the restrictions on women in Islamic countries are culturally developed attempts to protect women from the behavioral patterns of middle eastern men. Without a male relative around and head to toe covering… well… they tend to get real rapey.

    Meanwhile #meetoo is basically the new technological and neoliberal attempt at protecting women from the similar proclivities of that certain other type of middle easterner.

    Race is not a social construct… Society is a racial construct.

  103. “She ripped them down, took them to police, and alerted social media”

    It was like a small 9/11.

    • Replies: @jim jones
    How many women ran to their certain deaths on 9/11?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPCt2BBqR2k

  104. @Zuck Everlasting
    Unitarians are like Jews except with higher IQs and no enduring sense of unity.

    I used to be one. Definitely lower IQ.

    • Replies: @Zuck Everlasting
    Herr Seiler may disagree: http://www.unz.com/isteve/episcopalians-v-jews-on-iq/
  105. @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    If I’m not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    In contrast to today where nothing married American men produce is actually theirs and they might as well be legal non-persons.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Rosie

    In contrast to today where nothing married American men produce is actually theirs and they might as well be legal non-persons.
     
    Aw, boo hoo. Still whining about having to share with your wife, I see.

    As usual with these woe-is-me tales, you're wrong. Inherited wealth belongs to the spouseqho inherited it, man or woman. Only earned assets are marital property, because marriage is a partnership.

    In Islam, both spouses retain more rights to their own earnings than in Western marriage.
  106. @anon
    Or what if they said

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Slavery

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Homosexuals

  107. @Joe Magarac
    I saw them planning this on 4chan a few hours ago.

    REASON ONE:

    Directly calls out the left on their contradictory beliefs regarding Islam and womens rights. A conservative is able to look at this image and either say “Hmm Islamic treatment of women is traditional and might not be so bad” or “No, Islam treats women like dogshit and is not right about women” and neither statement logically contradicts the other.

    BUT WHEN A LEFTIST looks at this image, their brain enters retard mode. If they try to say that Islam is not right about women, then they are contradicting their cultural marxist ideas and are therefore being “Islamaphobic”, but if they say Islam is right then they are giving a free pass to how Islamic countries treat ladies as 2nd class citizens. The leftist is thus forced to deny reality and claim that Islam is somehow a progressive belief system, despite the fact that anyone who is not retarded can look at countries dominated by Islam and clearly see this is not the case.

    The political TL;DR goal of IIRAW is thus to force the lefts hand and make them either pick a side or make asses of themselves.

    REASON 2:
    It’s fucking hilarious. Kek wills it.

    • Replies: @Realist

    BUT WHEN A LEFTIST looks at this image, their brain enters retard mode.
     
    The left's brain is always in retard mode.
  108. @Rosie

    You will be, Rosie, one way or another.
     
    Over my dead body.

    Lol no, a little beating will do the trick.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Lol no, a little beating will do the trick.
     
    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2002340,00.html
  109. @James N. Kennett
    If you say

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Women

     

    then you are guilty of hate speech. On the other hand, if you say

    Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women

     

    then you are guilty of hate speech. Go figure.

    I’m wondering if

    Islam
    Is
    NEITHER RIGHT NOR WRONG
    About
    Women

    is a hate crime too?

    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Someone, somewhere should post all three versions, in order, and then see what are the results. Now that's the kind of social science that needs doing. If it's done in many places then we'd really have some data we could work with.
    , @anon
    is a hate crime too?

    Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
  110. Actually, the likeliest perpetrator of this awful crime is a certain Tiny Duck. Don’t you recognize the style?

  111. “OCEANIA has the correct political attitude regarding ESTASIA.”

  112. @Colin Wright
    'I’m an equal opportunity anti-Semite. When Mo’s boys return their conquests to Christendom is when I’ll consider lending sympathy.'

    Oh please. Where do you live, and who took it from whom when?

    If we look at who has actually driven out large populations of Muslims versus who has actually driven out large populations of Christians, we'll find massive displacement of Muslims from Spain, southern Italy and Sicily, much of the Balkans and Aegean, and much of the Caucasus. In most cases, Islam was totally eradicated. The Muslims of Andalusia, of Sicily, of Serbia and Crete, the Circassians, all these and no doubt more are gone.

    Conversely, the only instance I can think of Christians being removed wholesale would be the Armenian genocide and the population exchange Ataturk arranged with Greece after he defeated their attempt to destroy the nascent Turkish Republic. To this day, substantial populations of Christians remain in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. What Christian states can make the same claim? Where is a Christian state that still has an indigenous Muslim minority? I think Bulgaria does -- but that may be it.

    we’ll find massive displacement of Muslims from Spain, southern Italy and Sicily, much of the Balkans and Aegean, and much of the Caucasus.

    Analogous to the displacement of Britons from India and French from West Africa. For much the same reason.

    It’s called reconquista.

    • Agree: sayless
  113. @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    I’m not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I’m not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    Rosie, i’m a bit dubious about this. My–very rough–feeling is that women have generally had the best deal in the West. (Generally in Germanic societies.) Not “you go grrl” fantasies, not abortion on demand. But in terms of boring old stuff like chosing your husband, having loving marriages, both of you jointly in command of your separate spheres but united as a couple/household. Semitic cultures, Slavic cultures, Chinese and other East Asian cultures, Indian cultures and obviously African cultures all inferior. (I’m quite ready to be corrected by actual historical data–not PC narratives.)

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them … alas the norm these days is … Rosie.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    Things evolve they don’t really “go back”.

    However, i must say women would be smart to stop and think–not whine or emote but actually think–about working for laws and norms to evolve in a way that’s way more appreciative of men and conducive to men actually wanting to do any work at all, much less do any work for a “wife”. A prospect that female behavior is rendering increasingly less and less appealling to a lot of men.

    Because, for all the “you go grrl” bullshit and their paper pushing “careers”, as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work. So i don’t think your parthogenic utopia is really going to be the place you imagine it to be.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Rosie

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them … alas the norm these days is … Rosie.
     
    I'm getting tired of this kiss-my-ass attitude among you people.

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.

    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?

    Because, for all the “you go grrl” bullshit and their paper pushing “careers”, as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work.
     
    And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people's behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    The thing that really chaps my hide about this male chauvinism is that many women are generally rather content to do a lot of the dirty work, in obscurity. What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.
  114. @Rosie

    You will be, Rosie, one way or another.
     
    Over my dead body.

    Over my dead body.

    That was precisely his point, way to miss it.

    Your ‘bad old days’ like most unhinged leftist and feminist fantasy were not even close to your hot & bothered fever dreams you imagine them to be. But history, logic, and rationality are the trifecta of feminine weakness so The Big Lie shall go on.

  115. @ziggurat

    Andrew Jackson
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    banks.
     
    Ha, ha. Would someone complain that the sign is anti-Semitic?

    Back in my more wayward days, I used to post at the website Democratic Underground. I wrote a post talking about Andrew Jackson's role in ending the 2nd central bank.

    The moderator permanently banned me for posting something anti-Semitic. I didn't even know that criticizing banks could be considered anti-Semitic. I was totally confused. It turns out the founders of the website are Jewish.

    It turns out the founders of the website are Jewish.

    Lol, what a twist! Though perhaps there’s a better word for it, since it’s sort of an anti-twist?

  116. @anon
    Bestest part is the talking head at the end:

    "It's unclear if this was just a prank or if a law was broken".

    kek

    “It’s unclear if this was just a prank or if a law was broken”.

    These kinds of local news reports surface regularly, perhaps as much as multiple times a quarter in a given media market, perhaps adjusting in frequency as needed given changing political conditions.

    The news reports about the latest “posters” or “literature distribution” are boilerplate fare, always saying just about the same thing, and framing it just about the same way. Including this seemingly deliberate ambiguity on whether the posters are “illegal.”

    It seems unlikely these kind of segments are anything like centrally controlled by Party HQ in Washington/New York/Tel Aviv, or etc., like Communist talking points of old were said to be. The local media people producing them, second- and third-stringers in the provinces (either geographically or occupationally), are sharp enough to always stay on message, anyway.

    The message is: These posters (etc.) are the acts of heretics/wreckers/Emmanuel Goldstein-backing cells. Beware! The enemy is amongst us. Beware! Many get it, and rally to the colors.

    _____________

    Some political scientist in a distant society (in space and/or time) could make a comprehensive study of these kinds of local news reports and produce a picture of our ruling ideology, if the scholar’s research is done with an informed-yet-free hand. It would be a picture of a society in which a hostile elite presides over decline, or even enforces decline.

    Consider, e.g., this: Have you ever seen the extreme anti-white racialist “Black Israelites” profiled in any way in the media? Black Israelite distribution of literature or propaganda in public places? I haven’t.

    (The only time I remember seeing anything about them or their activities — and they are prolific street preachers [if preaching that Whites are satanic is preaching] going back decades — was during the “White teens surround and harass Nathan Philllips, Native American Elder” affair of early 2019. After pushback, some media reluctantly admitted that a gang of Black Israelites had been harassing all White passersby before the so-called incident.)

  117. @Colin Wright
    'In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public'

    That's certainly not true in Turkey -- at least not when I was there in 2015.

    In fact, Turkey may offer more authentic freedom of choice to women when it comes to dress than any other country I have been in. They can wear revealing Western clothes, the indigenous caftan and scarf rig, or a full-on burqa. Where ever I went, one commonly saw all three outfits in public: the proportions varied according to where one was: burqa-wearers were a small minority in Istanbul, while Western clothes weren't the usual choice in Konya. However, all three were apparently always acceptable.

    This would be as opposed to societies such as, say, France -- and if a woman wants to wear a burqa in much of the US, I'd give her a medal.

    In fact, Turkey may offer more authentic freedom of choice to women when it comes to dress than any other country I have been in. They can wear revealing Western clothes, the indigenous caftan and scarf rig, or a full-on burqa.

    Yeah? Sounds like Sweden.

    if a woman wants to wear a burqa in much of the US, I’d give her a medal.

    SJW alert.

    By the beard of the prophet, this neo-nazi touched my sacred burqa, I swear it! Death to the infidels!

  118. @Hhsiii
    OT: and then they came for Robert Moses.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-robert-moses-name-should-be-mud-20190915-6d2wqjeiqjbbzikni3tfzagyqm-story.html

    bored identity strongly believes that Carlson/Moses* 2024 would be the winning ticket;

    To keep African Americans out, he built the parkway overpasses too low for buses, knowing full well that at the time most African Americans did not own cars.

    In 1936, Moses built 11 enormous pools across the city, but had no intention of permitting minorities to use them. He purposely set those built in Harlem to colder temperatures, believing, for whatever reason, that African Americans didn’t like to swim in cold water.

    He adorned the wrought-iron trellises in northern Manhattan parks with images of monkeys, while parks in white communities featured curling waves on their trellises.

    *Some restrictions may apply.

  119. When everything is hate speech, then nothing is hate speech.

  120. @Gunner
    Hitler
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    vegetables

    Vegetable
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    Hitler

  121. Residents Disgusted by Offensive Flyers Books

    https://twitter.com/melissa_lbi/status/1174706171128795136

    • Replies: @eah
    I wonder if they threw out Brave New World?

    https://twitter.com/LivesMorgoth/status/1174940339771080709
  122. @Rosie
    1. How does not liking to change tires make a woman not strong and independent? Also, do men who don't like to change tires stop being strong and independent on that account? Mr. Rosie calls Truple A.

    2. The feminist position is precisely that recruitment of women should be a priority because they are just as smart and motivated as men, even when it comes to STEM. I don't happen to think that theory fits the data, but there is nothing hypocritical about it on its face.

    3. Sorry, but I don't think any feminists are demanding closed-door meetings with one dirty old man and nobody else. That said, this is a genuine dilemma and feminists can legitimately disagree about how to deal with it.

    4. I hadn't heard about the feminine noun issue. I doubt anyone really cares.

    Women are a protected class precisely because they are inferior to men:

  123. @Gunner
    Hitler
    was
    RIGHT
    about
    vegetables

    Would it be better

    with

    WRONG there instead of RIGHT –?

  124. @Apu Apu
    That is the most brilliant satirical act of the year.

    Everyone should print these out and post them everywhere.

    “Everyone should print these out and post them everywhere.”

    But not on a laser printer.

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170607-why-printers-add-secret-tracking-dots

    On 3 June, FBI agents arrived at the house of government contractor Reality Leigh Winner in Augusta, Georgia. They had spent the last two days investigating a top secret classified document that had allegedly been leaked to the press. In order to track down Winner, agents claim they had carefully studied copies of the document provided by online news site The Intercept and noticed creases suggesting that the pages had been printed and “hand-carried out of a secured space”.

    In an affidavit, the FBI alleges that Winner admitted printing the National Security Agency (NSA) report and sending it to The Intercept. Shortly after a story about the leak was published, charges against Winner were made public.

    At that point, experts began taking a closer look at the document, now publicly available on the web. They discovered something else of interest: yellow dots in a roughly rectangular pattern repeated throughout the page. They were barely visible to the naked eye, but formed a coded design. After some quick analysis, they seemed to reveal the exact date and time that the pages in question were printed: 06:20 on 9 May, 2017 – at least, this is likely to be the time on the printer’s internal clock at that moment. The dots also encode a serial number for the printer.

    These “microdots” are well known to security researchers and civil liberties campaigners. Many colour printers add them to documents without people ever knowing they’re there.

    Unless you do this

    https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/06/27/app-masks-printers-tracking-dots/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Only open source firmware with independently reviewed source code can be trusted.

    Good luck getting any modern printer going with that.
    , @Anonymous
    Or just get a black and white laser printer. Who needs color printouts anyway?
  125. @James N. Kennett
    If you say

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Women

     

    then you are guilty of hate speech. On the other hand, if you say

    Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women

     

    then you are guilty of hate speech. Go figure.

    If you say

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Women

    then you are guilty of hate speech. On the other hand, if you say

    Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women

    then you are guilty of hate speech. Go figure.

    Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.

    Or be arrested.

  126. @Rosie

    I suspect it’s going to give modern feminists an ugly shock when they realize that attempting to have everything both ways is untenable.
     
    What do you think "feminists" ( however you define them) want to have both ways.

    I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just asking for specifics.


    Like any other big historical phenomenon, it’s not black and white, all positive or all negative.
     
    I have come to the conclusion that the chief problem with Islam is it's set-in-stone, or better yet, written-in-fire character. It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that ot can't really change with the times unless you're going to say the Quran is a "living document" or something.

    It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that it can’t really change with the times unless you’re going to say the Quran is a “living document” or something.

    As human made world religions go Islam was an improvement on what went before. Before a rich enough man could have unlimited wives, but Islam limited it to four. Before there were no requirements, but Islam created some resemblance to order and law. Islamic rule is worse than any kind of Christian law but it is better than total paganism and much better than no laws whatever.

    The correct Christian response to Islam is, in my opinion, that it has many great errors but still has some ideas that are true, and advocates for some improvement over untrammeled barbarity. Islamic society functions to some extent. Saudi Arabia beats Zimbabwe, with an average population IQ that is only marginally smarter.

    Muslims, in my view, should live in Muslim countries. We are not to force Christianity or Westernism on them or anyone, but their writ does not run in our land. When Islamic doctrine is anti-Western or anti-Christian it must be explicitly rejected in White Western Christian lands.

    Because we are not a theocracy Americans who want to practice Islam should be allowed to have their mosque, and do their stuff, but the Muslims must understand that sharia ends at the mosque door and only starts again when they get off the plane in Riyadh or Islamabad or Tehran.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Islamic rule is worse than any kind of Christian law but it is better than total paganism...
     
    No, you should say Islamic rule is better for Arabs than their previous paganism (although I don't really know that's true either). There are various paganisms throughout the world, and it is not clear that Islam is better than they.
  127. Anon[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright
    'What’s next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?'

    I like that better. Potentially, far more effective.

    ‘What’s next: The Blacks are right about the Jews?’

    I like that better. Potentially, far more effective.

    A subtle point, but “the blacks” should be changed to “blacks.” “The Blacks” has a vaguely Boomer, othering, anthropological vibe to it that is out of style. On the other hand, “the Jews” is good. Normally “He’s Jewish” is less potentially offensive than “He’s a Jew,” but here the noun version is justified for scansion and sloganeering rhythmical reasons, over “the Jewish people.”

    Making these cryptodicta as innocent, inoffensive, and unprejudiced as possible, on the surface, is the key to their ability to create head-exploding cognitive dissonance.

  128. The humorous side of this is that we are accustomed to religious evangelists making wild claims about the good things their religion brings or the bad things it will help you avoid. The statement here is simple and worded as modestly as possible. I think what creeps people out is that it undermines their pretense of being “open” to all religions, tolerant, nonjudgmental, what have you, while in reality they really don’t want any part of Islam anywhere near them. “Jesus Saves” is so common that it disturbs very few people, but “Mohammed Saves” or “A Head Scarf Is Good for You” is unsettling. The ladies interviewed should trust their instincts on this one, I’d say, but I don’t care to know about Islam’s virtues — I just don’t want it near me.

  129. @Rosie

    is all the proof you’d ever need that Islam is indeed right on the need to keep women in control.
     
    I'm not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I'm not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.

    Tehran in the 70s

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Touche.

    Still, I note for the record that numerous "men" on this site salivate at the prospect of enslaving women. That is reason enough right there to resist any attempt to roll back women's rights in any respect whatsoever.
  130. X
    is
    RIGHT,
    LEFT
    and
    BEHIND

  131. @James N. Kennett
    If you say

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Women

     

    then you are guilty of hate speech. On the other hand, if you say

    Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women

     

    then you are guilty of hate speech. Go figure.

    Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.

  132. @donvonburg

    It was progressive for its time, and the worst abuses in the Islamic world are not really Islamic, but rather cultural traditions whose adherents claim are religious when in fact they are not. The problem is that it can’t really change with the times unless you’re going to say the Quran is a “living document” or something.
     
    As human made world religions go Islam was an improvement on what went before. Before a rich enough man could have unlimited wives, but Islam limited it to four. Before there were no requirements, but Islam created some resemblance to order and law. Islamic rule is worse than any kind of Christian law but it is better than total paganism and much better than no laws whatever.

    The correct Christian response to Islam is, in my opinion, that it has many great errors but still has some ideas that are true, and advocates for some improvement over untrammeled barbarity. Islamic society functions to some extent. Saudi Arabia beats Zimbabwe, with an average population IQ that is only marginally smarter.

    Muslims, in my view, should live in Muslim countries. We are not to force Christianity or Westernism on them or anyone, but their writ does not run in our land. When Islamic doctrine is anti-Western or anti-Christian it must be explicitly rejected in White Western Christian lands.

    Because we are not a theocracy Americans who want to practice Islam should be allowed to have their mosque, and do their stuff, but the Muslims must understand that sharia ends at the mosque door and only starts again when they get off the plane in Riyadh or Islamabad or Tehran.

    Islamic rule is worse than any kind of Christian law but it is better than total paganism…

    No, you should say Islamic rule is better for Arabs than their previous paganism (although I don’t really know that’s true either). There are various paganisms throughout the world, and it is not clear that Islam is better than they.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Monotheism was not foreign to Arabia prior to Islam. Much like their Germanic counterparts in the West, contact with the Romans meant that Christianity was easily found among the Arabs in late antiquity. Judaism, too, was extremely common, and it is not hard to find Jewish millenniarian elements in the early Believers movement: the Arabs were, after all, descendants of Abraham too, with the claim on the Holy Land that this bestows. The old pagan cults were in decline for the same reason that they'd declined elsewhere in previous centuries: they were not near as fitting for the age of interconnected empire as the new monotheist faiths. They just didn't fit the zeitgeist of a world that was moving beyond tribal loyalties or the city-state, nor did they fit a world that was beginning to recognize rudimentary forms of human rights.

    The thing I find truly interested in that Arabia became a safe haven for all the syncretic Jewish-Christian or Gnostic or whatever dissident sects you like. Imperial agents couldn't get them there. "Nasara"... Nazorean. Those are the Christians Muhammad would have known, not the orthodox mainstream in Constantinople. Some of them probably would have been acceptable members in his burgeoning new movement, others are denouncing in the Qu'ran in bloodcurdling terms for doing things like associating the Holy Spirit as being female or transforming al-Uzza into an angel.

  133. The most important doctrine of the Unitarian Church is their belief in at most one God.

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  134. The flyer could have been posted by a devout Islamist. The people objecting seem to have Islamophobia.

  135. @YetAnotherAnon
    "Everyone should print these out and post them everywhere."

    But not on a laser printer.

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170607-why-printers-add-secret-tracking-dots

    On 3 June, FBI agents arrived at the house of government contractor Reality Leigh Winner in Augusta, Georgia. They had spent the last two days investigating a top secret classified document that had allegedly been leaked to the press. In order to track down Winner, agents claim they had carefully studied copies of the document provided by online news site The Intercept and noticed creases suggesting that the pages had been printed and “hand-carried out of a secured space”.

    In an affidavit, the FBI alleges that Winner admitted printing the National Security Agency (NSA) report and sending it to The Intercept. Shortly after a story about the leak was published, charges against Winner were made public.

    At that point, experts began taking a closer look at the document, now publicly available on the web. They discovered something else of interest: yellow dots in a roughly rectangular pattern repeated throughout the page. They were barely visible to the naked eye, but formed a coded design. After some quick analysis, they seemed to reveal the exact date and time that the pages in question were printed: 06:20 on 9 May, 2017 – at least, this is likely to be the time on the printer’s internal clock at that moment. The dots also encode a serial number for the printer.

    These “microdots” are well known to security researchers and civil liberties campaigners. Many colour printers add them to documents without people ever knowing they’re there.
     

    Unless you do this

    https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/06/27/app-masks-printers-tracking-dots/

    Only open source firmware with independently reviewed source code can be trusted.

    Good luck getting any modern printer going with that.

  136. Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women

    Prankster, if you’re listening, this clearly has to be the follow up.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    Good ones and sorry for the late reply.

    I wonder how a Jew would react if he see a flyer saying "Jews are white"?
  137. You can come up with one for ANY of this cognitive dissonancy stuff.

    Feminism is right about stay-at-home moms.

  138. @AnotherDad

    If I’m not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.
     
    In contrast to today where nothing married American men produce is actually theirs and they might as well be legal non-persons.

    In contrast to today where nothing married American men produce is actually theirs and they might as well be legal non-persons.

    Aw, boo hoo. Still whining about having to share with your wife, I see.

    As usual with these woe-is-me tales, you’re wrong. Inherited wealth belongs to the spouseqho inherited it, man or woman. Only earned assets are marital property, because marriage is a partnership.

    In Islam, both spouses retain more rights to their own earnings than in Western marriage.

    • Replies: @Jimbo
    There are ways around that, Rosie. When your husband gets his inheritance, make sure he deposits it in an account that is jointly owned by both of you. Then, hey presto! Commingled property. If he refuses, pout and ask him why he doesn't love you.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    In Islam, blah, blah, blah...
     
    Fine, we'll do this the Islamic way then:

    I IGNORE THEE,
    I IGNORE THEE,
    I IGNORE THEE.

    So, let it be written, so let it be done.

    ;-}

    , @AnotherDad

    Still whining about having to share with your wife, I see.
     
    Not me Rosie, because i didn't marry someone like you! (Not everything is personal for us guys. We quite often have opinions based on analysis of what we see going on and understanding of how things work.)

    I'm perfectly happy sharing what i worked for with AnotherMom because she was/is a good wife and mother and we're a team. But i know several guys who made the mistake of marrying more average women, had their wives blow up the marriage and are still stuck paying for their--supposedly ex--wife's house, forking over a big chunk of their paychecks to their--supposedly ex--wife and having limited time with their kids.

    And as a result--with of course the crappy appearance and behavior of so many young women--i know lots of decently earning young men who aren't very motivated to get married. Who can blame them. And the marriage statistics seem to bear that out. Under your regime of gimmedat whiny feminism neither men nor women seem to have much use for each other.

    None which bodes well for the West.
  139. @Gordo

    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
     
    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/01/27/15/3C903F5B00000578-4148684-image-a-113_1485529374518.jpg

    Tehran in the 70s

    Touche.

    Still, I note for the record that numerous “men” on this site salivate at the prospect of enslaving women. That is reason enough right there to resist any attempt to roll back women’s rights in any respect whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Gordo
    It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.
    , @Colin Wright
    'Still, I note for the record that numerous “men” on this site salivate at the prospect of enslaving women. That is reason enough right there to resist any attempt to roll back women’s rights in any respect whatsoever.'

    I'd question the logic there.

    If, say, we could establish that factory owners really wanted to outlaw unions and make failing to show up for work on time a criminal offense, would it follow that we should go over to socialism?

    Certainly quite a few men have quite a few extreme fantasies (he said, remaining carefully impersonal). However, it doesn't follow that it is therefore desirable to go to the opposite extreme.

    Actually, what I've noticed, both here and more markedly, at such venues as the Guardian, is a kind of bitter misogyny among some men that seems to be more a reaction to the more extreme demands of feminists than anything else. Some moderation and compromise would probably do more good than harm. A husband shouldn't beat his wife nightly, but men and women aren't perfectly equal. In fact, socially and intellectually, they function in completely different ways. It's very noticeable. What follows from that is the possibility that equality -- however we may have been taught that is the ideal -- may not in fact be the best possible arrangement.

    Really, I hate to sound like I escaped from a Berenstein Bears book, but we should like each other. The ideal social arrangement is not the one that most closely hews to some ideological ideal, but the one that makes that harmony most attainable.
  140. @Barnard
    The left was largely successful at getting "It's ok to be white" considered hate speech. Was the selection of this phrase based on the left not being sure why to consider it offensive?

    Was it really a success?

    Yes their bugman were programmed with the new patch update, but I know a lot of normies that took it as a mugging and it woke them up.

    • Agree: bigdicknick
  141. Turning culturejamming back on the globalists, one flier at a time.

  142. Even better:

    BILL CLINTON

    HAS

    THE

    RIGHT

    IDEA ABOUT WOMEN…

    THAT’S WHY I VOTED FOR HILLARY!!!!

  143. @AnotherDad


    I’m not at all sure that is really the Muslim position on women. If I’m not mistaken, married Muslim women were inheriting property in their own right while married European women were legal nonpersons.

     

    Rosie, i'm a bit dubious about this. My--very rough--feeling is that women have generally had the best deal in the West. (Generally in Germanic societies.) Not "you go grrl" fantasies, not abortion on demand. But in terms of boring old stuff like chosing your husband, having loving marriages, both of you jointly in command of your separate spheres but united as a couple/household. Semitic cultures, Slavic cultures, Chinese and other East Asian cultures, Indian cultures and obviously African cultures all inferior. (I'm quite ready to be corrected by actual historical data--not PC narratives.)

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them ... alas the norm these days is ... Rosie.


    One thing I do know for sure: we are NEVER going back to the bad old days.
     
    Things evolve they don't really "go back".

    However, i must say women would be smart to stop and think--not whine or emote but actually think--about working for laws and norms to evolve in a way that's way more appreciative of men and conducive to men actually wanting to do any work at all, much less do any work for a "wife". A prospect that female behavior is rendering increasingly less and less appealling to a lot of men.

    Because, for all the "you go grrl" bullshit and their paper pushing "careers", as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work. So i don't think your parthogenic utopia is really going to be the place you imagine it to be.

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them … alas the norm these days is … Rosie.

    I’m getting tired of this kiss-my-ass attitude among you people.

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.

    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?

    Because, for all the “you go grrl” bullshit and their paper pushing “careers”, as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work.

    And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people’s behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    The thing that really chaps my hide about this male chauvinism is that many women are generally rather content to do a lot of the dirty work, in obscurity. What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people’s behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    If women were eager to have sex with men who have pink-collar jobs, I'm sure you'd see male attitudes change overnight. Hell, you'd see fights over cleaning opportunities.

    Unfortunately, it's pretty well-documented that women usually do not sexually want men with women's jobs, and to a slightly lesser extent, any job that is lower-paying/social status than hers. Men know this all too well. And no amount of social conditioning is going to get most men to prefer ideological applause to women spreading their legs.

    , @Anonymous
    The traditional custom was not that women were subjected to men in general or all men as a class, but rather to the male authority figures in their lives, such as fathers and husbands:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBRbkv7GhZw
    , @AnotherDad
    Blah, blah ... mad ... blah, blah ... angry ... blah, blah ... chaps hide ... blah, blah, blah ...

    American women are the most privileged and coddled people in the history of the world ... and yet they manage to whine, whine, whine ... about their "oppression".

    Here's the nut, Rosie: Men are not the one's who have blown up the social order of the West.

    Like all feminists your basic ideology boils down to sexual socialism: "Men must provide for and give stuff to women regardless of whether you do anything for men or not."

    The whole 2nd wave "we just want to be free" story--which i'm for, not interested in coercing people--turned out to be ... utter b.s. Women actually can not do, or do as well, or do not want to do or do as intensively a whole passel of jobs that men do, including almost all material productive external labor. So when inequality still--quite rightfully-- exists, feminists demand everything be reordered (more totalitarian state power) so that anything--of course only what's high status/highly remunerative--be redistributed so women get a "fair share". And apply more coercive state power, so women can blow up their marriages and continue to suck from men. And apply more coercive state power to extract from productive men generally and redistribute to women.

    In essence sexual socialism: Whatever men produce ... belongs to women. Women don't have to--shouldn't have to--give men anything for their labors. Feminists are Orwell's pigs.


    In contrast, in civilization there is an evolved and time tested mechanism for women to enjoy the fruits of the labor of men--marriage. Behave in a way such that men actually *want* to share the fruit of their labor with you. But to feminists having to behave in such a fashion is "oppression". Using state power to make men give obnoxious, unpleasant women stuff is "liberation".
    , @AnotherDad


    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?
     


    No. Not if you are a feminist. No credit for the past if you do not understand and appreciate the past.​ And are not following through in like fashion. (Likewise men who are layabouts do not get credit for male achievement and productive labors.)

    Even your narrative demonstrates the skewed feminist mentality:

    Bearing children is the entirely normal activity of all mamilian females. Women weren't "put upon" by this activity ... it's normal biology. (The West actually had some cultural practices--later marriage--which suppressed the amount of it.) And yes some died from it. Most did not. And men worked--and fought for territory (more biology)--and a bunch died from that. And everyone was dying from disease and accidents at much higher rates than today. Life was harder. I honor all my ancestors--men and women alike--for pushing through and building the West.

    And ironically, child birth happens to be an area where, again white men by boring old "figuring stuff out" made life quite a bit safer and more comfortable for women. What was the feminist response. "The patriarchy invading the preserve of women; trying to control what women have done naturally for millions of years .... blah, blah, blah." Which is true. Childbirth is natural. And 90% of the time, there are no issues--midwife, home, etc. etc.--perfectly adequate. But in that 10% of the time when there are some problems, the work "the patriarchy" did to understand what was going on, made things much safer. ​
    , @AnotherDad

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.
     


    Correct. For feminist white women being "passive beneficiaries" would be a huge upgrade! ​

    Feminists are actual active agents continually working to destroy the structures of Western civilization that allows productive men to provide this munificence. The West totters on largely because of white guy inertia: a lot of white guys go out everyday and standing on the built up labor and genius of past generations of white keep the wheels turning and the lights on ... even while the coalition of the fringes, critically aided by white women "feminists" has stacked the system against them.

    What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.
     
    Rosie, we've now done the experiment. We gave women the vote and ...
    and it turns out that civilization is pretty much the doing of men alone.

    Huge numbers of white women who have been given so much freedom and opportunity and material prosperity precisely through the "figuring it out" insights of white guys down through the ages and are living lives of unparallelled luxury ... yet have swallowed the Jewish minoritarian narrative of "oppression"--ladling on their own littany of whiny complaints--and actively work against Western civilization.

    So "insufferable" or not, it's true. Evidence suggests civilization is in fact something that men alone build and "empowered" women are destructive to it.
  144. @WHAT
    Lol no, a little beating will do the trick.

    Lol no, a little beating will do the trick.

    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2002340,00.html

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    Come on Rosie, you know that once we "go back", women won't be allowed to play with matches.
  145. @Anonymous
    The blank pieces of paper is a good idea. Didn’t Steve suggest that awhile back?

    This was the original suggestion on /po/ after the racist OK/White Power sign which led to “It is Okay to be White”

  146. Oh, there was a law broken…the one against free speech.

  147. @RH
    I love one of the womyn there claiming that it spreads misperceptions about Islam. How does she know? Maybe the maker of the sign meant that Islam is right to honor, cherish, and love women? Are we supposed to love Islam but we also can't say it's right about something? All very confusing.

    All very confusing.

    You expect liberal women to be logical…that has never been the case, nor will it ever be. Of course the same can be said for liberal men. But then liberal men and women are the same, they are interchangeable, when they wake up in the morning they decide what sex they want to be that day.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    "Honey, who takes the pill today?"
  148. @Hhsiii
    OT: and then they came for Robert Moses.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-robert-moses-name-should-be-mud-20190915-6d2wqjeiqjbbzikni3tfzagyqm-story.html

    They came for him in 1974, when Robert Caro published The Power Broker. He has been a whipping boy ever since. (Great book, BTW – really shows you how municipal politics actually works…)

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Jimbo:

    One underlying reason for anti-Moses hostility was the fact that his first wife was Protestant and as a widower he married a Catholic. His memorial/burial service was hybid Protestant/Catholic.
  149. @El Dato

    REASON ONE:

    Directly calls out the left on their contradictory beliefs regarding Islam and womens rights. A conservative is able to look at this image and either say "Hmm Islamic treatment of women is traditional and might not be so bad" or "No, Islam treats women like dogshit and is not right about women" and neither statement logically contradicts the other.

    BUT WHEN A LEFTIST looks at this image, their brain enters retard mode. If they try to say that Islam is not right about women, then they are contradicting their cultural marxist ideas and are therefore being "Islamaphobic", but if they say Islam is right then they are giving a free pass to how Islamic countries treat ladies as 2nd class citizens. The leftist is thus forced to deny reality and claim that Islam is somehow a progressive belief system, despite the fact that anyone who is not retarded can look at countries dominated by Islam and clearly see this is not the case.

    The political TL;DR goal of IIRAW is thus to force the lefts hand and make them either pick a side or make asses of themselves.

    REASON 2:
    It's fucking hilarious. Kek wills it.

     

    https://i.imgur.com/z8bOfCc.jpg

    BUT WHEN A LEFTIST looks at this image, their brain enters retard mode.

    The left’s brain is always in retard mode.

  150. @Rosie

    In contrast to today where nothing married American men produce is actually theirs and they might as well be legal non-persons.
     
    Aw, boo hoo. Still whining about having to share with your wife, I see.

    As usual with these woe-is-me tales, you're wrong. Inherited wealth belongs to the spouseqho inherited it, man or woman. Only earned assets are marital property, because marriage is a partnership.

    In Islam, both spouses retain more rights to their own earnings than in Western marriage.

    There are ways around that, Rosie. When your husband gets his inheritance, make sure he deposits it in an account that is jointly owned by both of you. Then, hey presto! Commingled property. If he refuses, pout and ask him why he doesn’t love you.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    There are ways around that, Rosie. When your husband gets his inheritance, make sure he deposits it in an account that is jointly owned by both of you. Then, hey presto! Commingled property. If he refuses, pout and ask him why he doesn’t love you.
     
    Quite right. Personally, I would be very offended if my husband inherited property and made it a point to exclude me from joint ownership. Of course, it would be wrong for me to do likewise to him.
  151. @El Dato
    "She ripped them down, took them to police, and alerted social media"

    It was like a small 9/11.

    How many women ran to their certain deaths on 9/11?

  152. @bored identity
    Freshly germane at that topic...


    ...grab y'all some corn pop and watch Splody Blobstein being torn between Party & Tribe :

    https://youtu.be/ppL3JodkzGc

    Gaetz is great, he is an expert at screwing over the shitlibs…but that is rather easy, since most are brain dead. This is what you get with democracy…trillions of dollars of waste in all areas of government from dumbasses.

  153. @Anon
    OT

    Pew Research has got some alarming new research up on its website:

    Population growth in Africa is projected to remain strong throughout this century
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/ft_19-06-17_worldpopulation_populiation-growth-africa-projected-remain-strong/

    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.06.17_WorldPopulation_Populiation-growth-Africa-projected-remain-strong.png

    I think Steve should look into this. It’s seems really important.

    Afrika Strong!

  154. If someone writes Islam is right about women, in cursive, would it have the same effect? Any effect at all?

    • Replies: @anon
    Any effect at all?

    Most people don't read cursive.
  155. Islam
    Is
    Right
    About
    Jews

  156. White Supremacy: The Phantom Menace.

  157. @Bill P
    This is the best one so far. The righteous indignation displayed on TV - especially that first lady with the Australian accent - gave me a good laugh.

    Yeah her Australian accent stood out

    I recall being in the US a couple of decades ago and being stopped in the street for a media vox pop about something or other .
    I quickly said that I wasn’t a US citizen and the reporter just thanked me and quickly moved on to find someone else .
    Guess that wouldn’t happen now . In the modern world there are no foreigners

  158. @Pericles
    I'm wondering if


    Islam
    Is
    NEITHER RIGHT NOR WRONG
    About
    Women

     

    is a hate crime too?

    Someone, somewhere should post all three versions, in order, and then see what are the results. Now that’s the kind of social science that needs doing. If it’s done in many places then we’d really have some data we could work with.

  159. @Colin Wright
    '...This is tied into my ultimate view that religion is socially constructed and ultimately subordinate to the local culture, not the other way around. If one doesn’t agree with that, then I don’t expect views deriving from that POV would sound correct, either.'

    I don't agree completely -- but on the whole, a good post.

    I think Islam has evolved, and changed through the centuries, and I see little evidence of this 'chrysalis' you perceive.

    Today, a movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood, or a state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, while perhaps failures, represent attempts to move forward. Perhaps what you object to isn't Islam's refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.

    We are entering an era where not just Islam but also states such as Russia and China are definitely beginning to find their way forward. However, we're going to be sorely disappointed if we expect them to find their way 'forward' to societies that will meet with our complete approval.

    Earning our complete approval is ceasing to be their goal.

    Today, a movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood, or a state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, while perhaps failures, represent attempts to move forward. Perhaps what you object to isn’t Islam’s refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.

    A very good point.

  160. @Rosie

    In contrast to today where nothing married American men produce is actually theirs and they might as well be legal non-persons.
     
    Aw, boo hoo. Still whining about having to share with your wife, I see.

    As usual with these woe-is-me tales, you're wrong. Inherited wealth belongs to the spouseqho inherited it, man or woman. Only earned assets are marital property, because marriage is a partnership.

    In Islam, both spouses retain more rights to their own earnings than in Western marriage.

    In Islam, blah, blah, blah…

    Fine, we’ll do this the Islamic way then:

    I IGNORE THEE,
    I IGNORE THEE,
    I IGNORE THEE.

    So, let it be written, so let it be done.

    ;-}

  161. @Moses

    I’m not saying I disagree. I’m just asking for specifics.
     
    You got it. Here's a few.

    Feminists: "I am no shrinking violet! I'm a strong, independent woman! Respect my strength."
    Also feminists: "Men who don't protect strange women on the subway need to be shamed. Will you change this tire for me?"

    Feminists: "Women are just as smart and motivated as men! Nay, smarter!"
    Also feminists: "We need special programs aimed only at women to coddle them and help them be entrepreneurs or coders or whatever."

    Feminists: "#Metoo is real! Men are always abusing their power to take advantage of poor women!"
    Also feminists: "Powerful men not having lunch or closed door meetings with women is more oppression! Women must be free to accuse any many of #Metoo anytime! It's Who We Are."

    Feminists: "Women are equals of men, or better, in everything! I'm proud of being a woman."
    Also feminists: "Using any words that signal female gender, like "actress" ist verboten. The male versions of those words e.g. "actor" are better. We'll use the male words instead."

    I could go on, but you get the idea.

    Well thought-out list!

    • Replies: @Moses
    Shucks, just off the top of my head.

    Silly feminists know not what they do.
  162. Liberal female support for Islam is the road to doom

    • Agree: jim jones
  163. @James N. Kennett
    If you say

    Islam
    Is
    RIGHT
    About
    Women

     

    then you are guilty of hate speech. On the other hand, if you say

    Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women

     

    then you are guilty of hate speech. Go figure.

    Islam is right about clitoridectomy

  164. @Rosie

    Lol no, a little beating will do the trick.
     
    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2002340,00.html

    Come on Rosie, you know that once we “go back”, women won’t be allowed to play with matches.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Come on Rosie, you know that once we “go back”, women won’t be allowed to play with matches.
     
    I guess you'll be cooking your own damned dinner, then.
  165. @Colin Wright
    '...This is tied into my ultimate view that religion is socially constructed and ultimately subordinate to the local culture, not the other way around. If one doesn’t agree with that, then I don’t expect views deriving from that POV would sound correct, either.'

    I don't agree completely -- but on the whole, a good post.

    I think Islam has evolved, and changed through the centuries, and I see little evidence of this 'chrysalis' you perceive.

    Today, a movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood, or a state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, while perhaps failures, represent attempts to move forward. Perhaps what you object to isn't Islam's refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.

    We are entering an era where not just Islam but also states such as Russia and China are definitely beginning to find their way forward. However, we're going to be sorely disappointed if we expect them to find their way 'forward' to societies that will meet with our complete approval.

    Earning our complete approval is ceasing to be their goal.

    >I think Islam has evolved, and changed through the centuries, and I see little evidence of this ‘chrysalis’ you perceive.

    I did mention that it has changed throughout its history: in early 9th century Baghdad, official government ideology declared that the Qu’ran was not created alongside God. Theory and practice can be different, if you look at the status, of say, an atheist in court life during the age of the gunpowder empires: yes, parading your disbelief would likely lead to very negative consequences for you, but there was a surprising degree of “down-low” toleration. It’s not that different from today, if you think about it.

    What has not changed is the programmatic nature of the faith, the general permeation of religious ritual in political society, or the degree of intertwining of spiritual and temporal authority. Here, though, the West is the outlier, not the Islamic World (just look at Russia’s history), and for the first two, for most of Western history we had those features. It’s only been relatively recently that we’ve broken off.

    > Perhaps what you object to isn’t Islam’s refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.

    I neither approve or disapprove of whatever the Islamic World (and again: we’re talking about 1.3 billion people spread out over often vastly different cultures and races) does internally: that’s their concern. It’s a matter of indifference to me. It’s not my culture, therefore it’s not my position to say what is right or wrong for them. I take the same view towards Russia, China, India, and everyone else. It’s fun to talk about academically, but ultimately, unlike my rulers, I do not particularly care that other nations duly adopt American norms on politics and culture. If we must speak of personal opinions, I view it as somewhat distasteful, TBH: what make the world an interesting place to go explore is the fact that different places are different.

    External behavior toward the United States is, in the end, the only thing the American government should be concerned with. But good luck convincing the Baby Boomers of that.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...Theory and practice can be different, if you look at the status, of say, an atheist in court life during the age of the gunpowder empires: yes, parading your disbelief would likely lead to very negative consequences for you, but there was a surprising degree of “down-low” toleration. It’s not that different from today, if you think about it...'

    You may enjoy this. Things got so 'enlightened' in eighteenth century France that Louis XV (I think) once withheld a religious post from some candidate, remarking that he thought a bishop really shouldn't be professing to not believe in God.

    '...What has not changed is the programmatic nature of the faith, the general permeation of religious ritual in political society, or the degree of intertwining of spiritual and temporal authority. Here, though, the West is the outlier, not the Islamic World...'

    I'm unconvinced that the West has become all that 'flexible' or even that it should. Isn't Christianity still pretty programmatic for people who take it seriously in the first place? There's the Reformation, of course, and the rejection of Replacement Theology, but otherwise? After all, Islam too has had its schisms, divisions, and innovations -- right up to the present day. The Shi'as, Sufiism, the Wahhabis, the Mahdi cult, the Muslim Brotherhood -- all these seem to me to represent a religion as 'flexible' as Christianity.

    Most of what I take it you mean by 'flexibility' in Christianity just strikes me as a doomed attempt to pander to the ideological demands of the modern age. That's not 'flexibility' so much as a dying whimper. Those 'Christians' won't be around for long.

    ...I should note I don't believe in God in the first place. For me, all this is of mostly academic interest.
  166. @Rosie

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them … alas the norm these days is … Rosie.
     
    I'm getting tired of this kiss-my-ass attitude among you people.

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.

    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?

    Because, for all the “you go grrl” bullshit and their paper pushing “careers”, as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work.
     
    And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people's behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    The thing that really chaps my hide about this male chauvinism is that many women are generally rather content to do a lot of the dirty work, in obscurity. What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.

    >And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people’s behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    If women were eager to have sex with men who have pink-collar jobs, I’m sure you’d see male attitudes change overnight. Hell, you’d see fights over cleaning opportunities.

    Unfortunately, it’s pretty well-documented that women usually do not sexually want men with women’s jobs, and to a slightly lesser extent, any job that is lower-paying/social status than hers. Men know this all too well. And no amount of social conditioning is going to get most men to prefer ideological applause to women spreading their legs.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Unfortunately, it’s pretty well-documented that women usually do not sexually want men with women’s jobs, and to a slightly lesser extent, any job that is lower-paying/social status than hers. Men know this all too well. And no amount of social conditioning is going to get most men to prefer ideological applause to women spreading their legs.
     
    Ackshully,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/10/the-college-majors-that-are-most-likely-to-marry-each-other/

    In any event, what you say is totally f'ing irrelevant. The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don't do any real work that needs doing. We may not be interested in learning about the inner workings of indoor plumbing systems, but here's what your toilets would like without us:

    http://greatidea.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/how-to-clean-a-very-dirty-toilet-filthy-toilet.jpg
  167. OT: Here we go again.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/world/middleeast/trump-sanctions-iran.html

    What could be more #AmericaFirst than being at the service of a Saudi prince?

    Joking aside, I don’t think sanctions are going to work here anymore than they are with Russia, the regime is just going to sell the straitened circumstances as a nationalistic duty to the people. Freezing illicit IRGC bank accounts (the stick) with actively making clear that we are uninterested in regime change and that the Israelis/Saudis are on their own (the carrot) might work better. Might. Even if they don’t, lot less risky for us. But the former would annoy certain people on Wall Street, the latter would mean Jared and Ivanka can’t sit at the cool kid’s table at the Israeli embassy anymore, so expect sanctions to continue…

  168. @William Badwhite
    Come on Rosie, you know that once we "go back", women won't be allowed to play with matches.

    Come on Rosie, you know that once we “go back”, women won’t be allowed to play with matches.

    I guess you’ll be cooking your own damned dinner, then.

    • LOL: jim jones
  169. @bored identity
    Freshly germane at that topic...


    ...grab y'all some corn pop and watch Splody Blobstein being torn between Party & Tribe :

    https://youtu.be/ppL3JodkzGc

    Very entertaining, thanks. Sharpton is no dummy. I still don’t like him, but I am impressed with his quick thinking.

  170. @nebulafox
    >And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people’s behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    If women were eager to have sex with men who have pink-collar jobs, I'm sure you'd see male attitudes change overnight. Hell, you'd see fights over cleaning opportunities.

    Unfortunately, it's pretty well-documented that women usually do not sexually want men with women's jobs, and to a slightly lesser extent, any job that is lower-paying/social status than hers. Men know this all too well. And no amount of social conditioning is going to get most men to prefer ideological applause to women spreading their legs.

    Unfortunately, it’s pretty well-documented that women usually do not sexually want men with women’s jobs, and to a slightly lesser extent, any job that is lower-paying/social status than hers. Men know this all too well. And no amount of social conditioning is going to get most men to prefer ideological applause to women spreading their legs.

    Ackshully,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/10/the-college-majors-that-are-most-likely-to-marry-each-other/

    In any event, what you say is totally f’ing irrelevant. The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don’t do any real work that needs doing. We may not be interested in learning about the inner workings of indoor plumbing systems, but here’s what your toilets would like without us:

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/10/the-college-majors-that-are-most-likely-to-marry-each-other/

    Most pink-collar jobs do not require a college degree, and despite the massive explosion of credentialism, the majority of Americans still do not succeed in obtaining one. We're not Taiwan, our rates of attrition get pretty high after 1-2 years at university.

    >The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don’t do any real work that needs doing.

    You know, you don't have so many people willing to genuinely engage with you on this website anymore that you can afford to put words into the mouths of those who do.

    , @J.Ross
    Standards and practices, please put something like that under a "more" line.
    also
    >women clean toilets
    I'll believe that if I ever come across it.
    , @Colin Wright
    'The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don’t do any real work that needs doing.'

    That's true -- but whenever I find myself doing something that is truly unpleasant, dangerous, or outside, I can't help noticing that this is a traditionally male occupation -- and one still performed overwhelmingly by males.

    Yes -- women clean the toilet. Men deal with the broken sewer pipe.
  171. @eah
    Residents Disgusted by Offensive Flyers Books

    https://twitter.com/melissa_lbi/status/1174706171128795136

    I wonder if they threw out Brave New World?

  172. @Colin Wright
    'In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public'

    That's certainly not true in Turkey -- at least not when I was there in 2015.

    In fact, Turkey may offer more authentic freedom of choice to women when it comes to dress than any other country I have been in. They can wear revealing Western clothes, the indigenous caftan and scarf rig, or a full-on burqa. Where ever I went, one commonly saw all three outfits in public: the proportions varied according to where one was: burqa-wearers were a small minority in Istanbul, while Western clothes weren't the usual choice in Konya. However, all three were apparently always acceptable.

    This would be as opposed to societies such as, say, France -- and if a woman wants to wear a burqa in much of the US, I'd give her a medal.

    Can say the same about Malaysia. I’ve seen it all here from the all encompassing burqa to the teeny weeny skirts.

    Most women prefer a modest pant suit with a scarf though

  173. @Rosie

    Unfortunately, it’s pretty well-documented that women usually do not sexually want men with women’s jobs, and to a slightly lesser extent, any job that is lower-paying/social status than hers. Men know this all too well. And no amount of social conditioning is going to get most men to prefer ideological applause to women spreading their legs.
     
    Ackshully,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/10/the-college-majors-that-are-most-likely-to-marry-each-other/

    In any event, what you say is totally f'ing irrelevant. The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don't do any real work that needs doing. We may not be interested in learning about the inner workings of indoor plumbing systems, but here's what your toilets would like without us:

    http://greatidea.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/how-to-clean-a-very-dirty-toilet-filthy-toilet.jpg

    >https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/10/the-college-majors-that-are-most-likely-to-marry-each-other/

    Most pink-collar jobs do not require a college degree, and despite the massive explosion of credentialism, the majority of Americans still do not succeed in obtaining one. We’re not Taiwan, our rates of attrition get pretty high after 1-2 years at university.

    >The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don’t do any real work that needs doing.

    You know, you don’t have so many people willing to genuinely engage with you on this website anymore that you can afford to put words into the mouths of those who do.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Most pink-collar jobs do not require a college degree, and despite the massive explosion of credentialism, the majority of Americans still do not succeed in obtaining one. We’re not Taiwan, our rates of attrition get pretty high after 1-2 years at university
     
    What does this have to do with anything? According to this article, 43% of male nursing majors marry nurses, so it's not true that women aren't interested in men who have traditional women's jobs.


    You know, you don’t have so many people willing to genuinely engage with you on this website anymore that you can afford to put words into the mouths of those who do
     
    Pardon me. It gets confusing trying to parse just which particular insult came from which poster, so I do occasionally falsely accuse people. Perhaps you ought to be a little bit more understanding, given that you are well aware of the misogynist climate here.

    FWIW, I couldn't care who is or is not willing to "genuinely engage" with me on this site. They are not my intended audience.
  174. @Pericles
    I'm wondering if


    Islam
    Is
    NEITHER RIGHT NOR WRONG
    About
    Women

     

    is a hate crime too?

    is a hate crime too?

    Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

  175. @Chrisnonymous

    Islamic rule is worse than any kind of Christian law but it is better than total paganism...
     
    No, you should say Islamic rule is better for Arabs than their previous paganism (although I don't really know that's true either). There are various paganisms throughout the world, and it is not clear that Islam is better than they.

    Monotheism was not foreign to Arabia prior to Islam. Much like their Germanic counterparts in the West, contact with the Romans meant that Christianity was easily found among the Arabs in late antiquity. Judaism, too, was extremely common, and it is not hard to find Jewish millenniarian elements in the early Believers movement: the Arabs were, after all, descendants of Abraham too, with the claim on the Holy Land that this bestows. The old pagan cults were in decline for the same reason that they’d declined elsewhere in previous centuries: they were not near as fitting for the age of interconnected empire as the new monotheist faiths. They just didn’t fit the zeitgeist of a world that was moving beyond tribal loyalties or the city-state, nor did they fit a world that was beginning to recognize rudimentary forms of human rights.

    The thing I find truly interested in that Arabia became a safe haven for all the syncretic Jewish-Christian or Gnostic or whatever dissident sects you like. Imperial agents couldn’t get them there. “Nasara”… Nazorean. Those are the Christians Muhammad would have known, not the orthodox mainstream in Constantinople. Some of them probably would have been acceptable members in his burgeoning new movement, others are denouncing in the Qu’ran in bloodcurdling terms for doing things like associating the Holy Spirit as being female or transforming al-Uzza into an angel.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...The thing I find truly interested in that Arabia became a safe haven for all the syncretic Jewish-Christian or Gnostic or whatever dissident sects you like. Imperial agents couldn’t get them there. “Nasara”… Nazorean. Those are the Christians Muhammad would have known, not the orthodox mainstream in Constantinople. Some of them probably would have been acceptable members in his burgeoning new movement, others are denouncing in the Qu’ran in bloodcurdling terms for doing things like associating the Holy Spirit as being female or transforming al-Uzza into an angel.'

    This fits with what I've speculated about Muhammed -- that he lived in an Arabia infested with multiple and mutually contradictory versions of Christianity and Judaism. So his religion is exactly what it professes to be -- and attempt to get rid of all the obvious corruptions and return to what God really told Abraham and the successive prophets, including Jesus. And 'I'm the last of them -- but no more.' Hence Mohammed's title as the 'the seal of the prophets.'

    Do you have a source for your claim? I'd like to read more on this.
  176. @nebulafox
    >I think Islam has evolved, and changed through the centuries, and I see little evidence of this ‘chrysalis’ you perceive.

    I did mention that it has changed throughout its history: in early 9th century Baghdad, official government ideology declared that the Qu'ran was not created alongside God. Theory and practice can be different, if you look at the status, of say, an atheist in court life during the age of the gunpowder empires: yes, parading your disbelief would likely lead to very negative consequences for you, but there was a surprising degree of "down-low" toleration. It's not that different from today, if you think about it.

    What has not changed is the programmatic nature of the faith, the general permeation of religious ritual in political society, or the degree of intertwining of spiritual and temporal authority. Here, though, the West is the outlier, not the Islamic World (just look at Russia's history), and for the first two, for most of Western history we had those features. It's only been relatively recently that we've broken off.

    > Perhaps what you object to isn’t Islam’s refusal to change so much as its refusal to change in ways you would approve of.

    I neither approve or disapprove of whatever the Islamic World (and again: we're talking about 1.3 billion people spread out over often vastly different cultures and races) does internally: that's their concern. It's a matter of indifference to me. It's not my culture, therefore it's not my position to say what is right or wrong for them. I take the same view towards Russia, China, India, and everyone else. It's fun to talk about academically, but ultimately, unlike my rulers, I do not particularly care that other nations duly adopt American norms on politics and culture. If we must speak of personal opinions, I view it as somewhat distasteful, TBH: what make the world an interesting place to go explore is the fact that different places are different.

    External behavior toward the United States is, in the end, the only thing the American government should be concerned with. But good luck convincing the Baby Boomers of that.

    ‘…Theory and practice can be different, if you look at the status, of say, an atheist in court life during the age of the gunpowder empires: yes, parading your disbelief would likely lead to very negative consequences for you, but there was a surprising degree of “down-low” toleration. It’s not that different from today, if you think about it…’

    You may enjoy this. Things got so ‘enlightened’ in eighteenth century France that Louis XV (I think) once withheld a religious post from some candidate, remarking that he thought a bishop really shouldn’t be professing to not believe in God.

    ‘…What has not changed is the programmatic nature of the faith, the general permeation of religious ritual in political society, or the degree of intertwining of spiritual and temporal authority. Here, though, the West is the outlier, not the Islamic World…’

    I’m unconvinced that the West has become all that ‘flexible’ or even that it should. Isn’t Christianity still pretty programmatic for people who take it seriously in the first place? There’s the Reformation, of course, and the rejection of Replacement Theology, but otherwise? After all, Islam too has had its schisms, divisions, and innovations — right up to the present day. The Shi’as, Sufiism, the Wahhabis, the Mahdi cult, the Muslim Brotherhood — all these seem to me to represent a religion as ‘flexible’ as Christianity.

    Most of what I take it you mean by ‘flexibility’ in Christianity just strikes me as a doomed attempt to pander to the ideological demands of the modern age. That’s not ‘flexibility’ so much as a dying whimper. Those ‘Christians’ won’t be around for long.

    …I should note I don’t believe in God in the first place. For me, all this is of mostly academic interest.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >Things got so ‘enlightened’ in eighteenth century France that Louis XV (I think) once withheld a religious post from some candidate, remarking that he thought a bishop really shouldn’t be professing to not believe in God.

    The thing that people miss about the age of the Enlightenment is that the philosophes were not representative of the populace as a whole. Secularization on a lay level came later. So, I could add onto that: not so different from the Western World until 50 years ago, in many regards. ;)

    (This led to fundamental miscalculations during the French Revolution and to an extent, the Napoleonic era. Turns out the masses of the Spanish and Russian peasants rather liked their monarchs, their churches, and their traditions, and didn't appreciate a foreign army coming in to change that... and they made up the majority of the nation, not the bourgeois Enlightened intellectuals in the towns.)

    >Isn’t Christianity still pretty programmatic for people who take it seriously in the first place?

    Well, I'm a social constructionist on religion, so to me, what a religion "is" is what a given society makes of it. If the majority of the populace doesn't take the programmatic aspects seriously, it isn't programmatic anymore. The United States resisted secularization a lot longer than Europe did, but over the last decade, that's changed drastically. The shift from Bush II to Trump is good evidence of that.

    Put another way, if someone identifies as a Sunni Muslim while being flamboyantly homosexual, or, say, doing haram things like drinking alcohol (as I saw tons of young Malay dudes doing in Johor), I'm not going to argue with their identification as a Muslim. But I know that the majority of lay Muslims in the Islamic World would not blithely accept that in a way that only has an analogue in certain parts of the US anymore. Interestingly enough, it always seems to be the women who take religious faith more seriously, no matter what culture you are in.

    >Most of what I take it you mean by ‘flexibility’ in Christianity just strikes me as a doomed attempt to pander to the ideological demands of the modern age. That’s not ‘flexibility’ so much as a dying whimper. Those ‘Christians’ won’t be around for long.

    I don't view the fundamental, if theoretical gap between temporal and spiritual authority in Western Christianity as flexibility, per se: I think the vicious religious persecutions of the Wars of Reformation are evidence of that! But if we're talking about modern times, I actually agree with you. A religion that demands nothing of its followers except a vague sense of niceness and a demand to fit with the times is doomed to long-term irrelevance. It's nothing more than a social club, church in most of the USA nowadays. There is a reason that secularization has been taking off with younger Americans. This has vast implications for the future of right-wing ideology in the United States as younger men reject an increasingly effete religion that offers them nothing.

    And properly viewed, wokeism is nothing more than throwback evangelical Christianity without God. It's ironic that for all their open hatred of the latter, believers in the former are so steeped in their cultural milieu that they end up creating an imitation of it.

    >…I should note I don’t believe in God in the first place. For me, all this is of mostly academic interest.

    Fair enough. I couldn't figure out whether you were a Muslim or an atheist, TBH. I won't pry if you are uncomfortable talking about it.

    For myself, I lack the crusading zeal of the professional atheist (I've noticed those types tend to simply be aggrieved at bad childhood memories) to point out the usual little hypocrisies and mental leaps of logic that everybody-of any faith-engages in. Niggling intellectual consistency just isn't what most humans are focused on in life. The world is probably better off for that.

  177. @nebulafox
    Monotheism was not foreign to Arabia prior to Islam. Much like their Germanic counterparts in the West, contact with the Romans meant that Christianity was easily found among the Arabs in late antiquity. Judaism, too, was extremely common, and it is not hard to find Jewish millenniarian elements in the early Believers movement: the Arabs were, after all, descendants of Abraham too, with the claim on the Holy Land that this bestows. The old pagan cults were in decline for the same reason that they'd declined elsewhere in previous centuries: they were not near as fitting for the age of interconnected empire as the new monotheist faiths. They just didn't fit the zeitgeist of a world that was moving beyond tribal loyalties or the city-state, nor did they fit a world that was beginning to recognize rudimentary forms of human rights.

    The thing I find truly interested in that Arabia became a safe haven for all the syncretic Jewish-Christian or Gnostic or whatever dissident sects you like. Imperial agents couldn't get them there. "Nasara"... Nazorean. Those are the Christians Muhammad would have known, not the orthodox mainstream in Constantinople. Some of them probably would have been acceptable members in his burgeoning new movement, others are denouncing in the Qu'ran in bloodcurdling terms for doing things like associating the Holy Spirit as being female or transforming al-Uzza into an angel.

    ‘…The thing I find truly interested in that Arabia became a safe haven for all the syncretic Jewish-Christian or Gnostic or whatever dissident sects you like. Imperial agents couldn’t get them there. “Nasara”… Nazorean. Those are the Christians Muhammad would have known, not the orthodox mainstream in Constantinople. Some of them probably would have been acceptable members in his burgeoning new movement, others are denouncing in the Qu’ran in bloodcurdling terms for doing things like associating the Holy Spirit as being female or transforming al-Uzza into an angel.’

    This fits with what I’ve speculated about Muhammed — that he lived in an Arabia infested with multiple and mutually contradictory versions of Christianity and Judaism. So his religion is exactly what it professes to be — and attempt to get rid of all the obvious corruptions and return to what God really told Abraham and the successive prophets, including Jesus. And ‘I’m the last of them — but no more.’ Hence Mohammed’s title as the ‘the seal of the prophets.’

    Do you have a source for your claim? I’d like to read more on this.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I think if you read the Qu'ran literally, without all the comments and clarifications that later generations inserted on it, you get a much clearer vision of what Islam was in the 7th Century. The religion of "Abraham the True"...

    >Do you have a source for your claim? I’d like to read more on this.

    Well, you'll have to be patient with me, because I'm still learning and spewing psuedo-intellectualism here is a bad habit of mine-my life used to be a mess and it's only been recently that I've started to seriously read again. But Fred Donner, Robert Hoyland, and Neal Robinson all have some good introductory books covering the early "Believers" movement, the conquests themselves, and the structure of the Qu'ran and what that can tell us, respectively. Robert Hoyland has another book on the pre-Islamic history of Arabia, which I think you might be interested in. Hugh Kennedy's book, from what I've heard, is a good account that goes according more to the traditional Islamic narrative. There's still a lot I vaguely know about (Sunni identity becoming consolidated during the Abbasid caliphate, for example) but that I have yet to delve into further beyond a high level of abstraction.

    As I mentioned, the Qu'ran itself is also a good resource because, unlike the hadiths, it does seem to date from Muhammad's lifetime. You just need to remember to take what it is saying at face-value and not assume that, say, that mushrik is a classic pagan. You also need to remember the context of the region at the time, ravaged by bubonic plague, economic depression, and cataclysmic wars between Rome and Persia. Bad times. The times that bring out a collapse in the social structure and give rise to new types of leaders. In the case of Arabia, the tribe-previous civilizations like Himyar aside-gave way to an umma based on religious belief.

  178. @Rosie

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them … alas the norm these days is … Rosie.
     
    I'm getting tired of this kiss-my-ass attitude among you people.

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.

    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?

    Because, for all the “you go grrl” bullshit and their paper pushing “careers”, as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work.
     
    And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people's behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    The thing that really chaps my hide about this male chauvinism is that many women are generally rather content to do a lot of the dirty work, in obscurity. What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.

    The traditional custom was not that women were subjected to men in general or all men as a class, but rather to the male authority figures in their lives, such as fathers and husbands:

  179. @istevefan

    Maybe the maker of the sign meant that Islam is right to honor, cherish, and love women?
     
    Because they immediately took offense to this message, it shows they never considered what you wrote above to be the possible meaning. This means that deep down they know islam is wrong about women, at least from their point of view, but cannot admit it.

    It is sort of how liberals automatically assume any reference to an ape, monkey, etc., is a racist gesture. In their minds they equate blacks with those aforementioned animals, and thus reflexively perceive such references in a racist way.

    To discover what liberals find offensive or racist is to learn what prejudices they actually hold. I used to hear people say that the most vocal opponents of homosexuals were closeted homosexuals themselves. Likewise, I believe the most vocal opponents of racism are probably closeted racists themselves.

    To discover what liberals find offensive or racist is to learn what prejudices they actually hold.

    To your point, to discover what prog-lefties find offensive or racist, find whom they protect from being criticized or condemned.

    Prog-lefties treat blacks and other minority identities as coddled house pets who are only to be slobbered over with high praise, and are never expected to act responsibly or with agency. It is verboten to ever scrutinize their conduct.

  180. @Couch scientist
    In chess, this move is known as a fork. Well played.

    There are so many great trolling signs possible–how about:

    Women are right about horses. 😉

  181. @International Jew
    High-quality trolling, that.

    I guess the objection is: Islam isn't all that bad on women, but we know the badwhites want to demonize Muslims.

    Can’t imagine this sign being investigated as a possible “crime”:

    ============
    EVEN
    GOODWHITES
    ARE BAD
    ============

    Or this:

    ============
    KILL WHITEY!!
    ============

  182. “As I’ve said before, the maximum paranoiac insanity-increasing troll would be blank white sheets of paper.”

    Steve, this is pure @[email protected]#$ genius (I always underestimate marketing guys).

    I’m going to go put up some this weekend.

  183. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The most utterly outrageous, make-their-heads-explode thing would be a plain, white sheet of paper with just one simple word printed on it:

    Jews.

    Nothing else, that's all. No slurs, no accusations, just "Jews." Watch in amazement as the crimestop lurches into overdrive, and the official investigations crank up to 11. If you work for gubmint LEO and you want to rack up some seriously sweet overtime, you know what to do.

    That may well be a work of genius sir!

  184. Imagine how much anxiety you could generate with a dozen of these, strategically placed.

    “OMG, ‘It’s OK’ to be WHAT?! CALL 911!

    “Let’s just get the Goo Gone…”

    “NOOO! Leave it there for the TV cameras!! And there may be fingerprints. This must NOT STAND! It’s NOOOOTTTTTT OK!!!”

    https://www.redbubble.com/people/maddisonegreen/works/28800727-its-ok?cat_context=all-stickers&grid_pos=19&p=sticker&rbs=804a00f9-550f-436f-aac7-15e93b683f6f&ref=shop_grid&searchTerm=its%20okay

  185. Islam is right about women, and wrong about most everything else:

    https://blog.jim.com/war/the-solution-we-do-not-want/

  186. The enemy is amongst us. Beware!

    The message in these stories often seems to be that outsiders have invaded our multicultural nirvana.

  187. @Rosie
    Touche.

    Still, I note for the record that numerous "men" on this site salivate at the prospect of enslaving women. That is reason enough right there to resist any attempt to roll back women's rights in any respect whatsoever.

    It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.'

    Yeah. It's ironic that of all the world's cultures, European Christian gentile culture accords women the most exalted status -- yet it is precisely that culture that feminists most vociferously target.

    Maybe deep down inside they realize that the average Asian or African would simply laugh at them if they tried on their feminist equality schtick with them. After all, in Hasidic Jewish belief, for example, pious women will get to serve their husbands as footstools in heaven, and an African wife considers herself fortunate if she has a husband who takes care not to break any bones when he beats her. Say what you want about the Virgin Mary cult and sexual double standards, but it's all a decided improvement over the alternative.
    , @Rosie

    It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.
     
    There is no grassroots feminist discontent with White men on the part of White women. It's all in the media matrix.

    I have been asked before how I think the dissident right can appeal to young women. I have given answers to this here and there. For myself, I can say that I had a lot of White males as professors in college, and literally none of them fit the stereotype I was being sold in the contemporary culture. It occurs to me that the TPTB must be aware of the fact that professors who respect their women juniors are bad for their narrative, and accordingly be that much more resolute about getting rid of them.
  188. @Colin Wright
    '...Theory and practice can be different, if you look at the status, of say, an atheist in court life during the age of the gunpowder empires: yes, parading your disbelief would likely lead to very negative consequences for you, but there was a surprising degree of “down-low” toleration. It’s not that different from today, if you think about it...'

    You may enjoy this. Things got so 'enlightened' in eighteenth century France that Louis XV (I think) once withheld a religious post from some candidate, remarking that he thought a bishop really shouldn't be professing to not believe in God.

    '...What has not changed is the programmatic nature of the faith, the general permeation of religious ritual in political society, or the degree of intertwining of spiritual and temporal authority. Here, though, the West is the outlier, not the Islamic World...'

    I'm unconvinced that the West has become all that 'flexible' or even that it should. Isn't Christianity still pretty programmatic for people who take it seriously in the first place? There's the Reformation, of course, and the rejection of Replacement Theology, but otherwise? After all, Islam too has had its schisms, divisions, and innovations -- right up to the present day. The Shi'as, Sufiism, the Wahhabis, the Mahdi cult, the Muslim Brotherhood -- all these seem to me to represent a religion as 'flexible' as Christianity.

    Most of what I take it you mean by 'flexibility' in Christianity just strikes me as a doomed attempt to pander to the ideological demands of the modern age. That's not 'flexibility' so much as a dying whimper. Those 'Christians' won't be around for long.

    ...I should note I don't believe in God in the first place. For me, all this is of mostly academic interest.

    >Things got so ‘enlightened’ in eighteenth century France that Louis XV (I think) once withheld a religious post from some candidate, remarking that he thought a bishop really shouldn’t be professing to not believe in God.

    The thing that people miss about the age of the Enlightenment is that the philosophes were not representative of the populace as a whole. Secularization on a lay level came later. So, I could add onto that: not so different from the Western World until 50 years ago, in many regards. 😉

    (This led to fundamental miscalculations during the French Revolution and to an extent, the Napoleonic era. Turns out the masses of the Spanish and Russian peasants rather liked their monarchs, their churches, and their traditions, and didn’t appreciate a foreign army coming in to change that… and they made up the majority of the nation, not the bourgeois Enlightened intellectuals in the towns.)

    >Isn’t Christianity still pretty programmatic for people who take it seriously in the first place?

    Well, I’m a social constructionist on religion, so to me, what a religion “is” is what a given society makes of it. If the majority of the populace doesn’t take the programmatic aspects seriously, it isn’t programmatic anymore. The United States resisted secularization a lot longer than Europe did, but over the last decade, that’s changed drastically. The shift from Bush II to Trump is good evidence of that.

    Put another way, if someone identifies as a Sunni Muslim while being flamboyantly homosexual, or, say, doing haram things like drinking alcohol (as I saw tons of young Malay dudes doing in Johor), I’m not going to argue with their identification as a Muslim. But I know that the majority of lay Muslims in the Islamic World would not blithely accept that in a way that only has an analogue in certain parts of the US anymore. Interestingly enough, it always seems to be the women who take religious faith more seriously, no matter what culture you are in.

    >Most of what I take it you mean by ‘flexibility’ in Christianity just strikes me as a doomed attempt to pander to the ideological demands of the modern age. That’s not ‘flexibility’ so much as a dying whimper. Those ‘Christians’ won’t be around for long.

    I don’t view the fundamental, if theoretical gap between temporal and spiritual authority in Western Christianity as flexibility, per se: I think the vicious religious persecutions of the Wars of Reformation are evidence of that! But if we’re talking about modern times, I actually agree with you. A religion that demands nothing of its followers except a vague sense of niceness and a demand to fit with the times is doomed to long-term irrelevance. It’s nothing more than a social club, church in most of the USA nowadays. There is a reason that secularization has been taking off with younger Americans. This has vast implications for the future of right-wing ideology in the United States as younger men reject an increasingly effete religion that offers them nothing.

    And properly viewed, wokeism is nothing more than throwback evangelical Christianity without God. It’s ironic that for all their open hatred of the latter, believers in the former are so steeped in their cultural milieu that they end up creating an imitation of it.

    >…I should note I don’t believe in God in the first place. For me, all this is of mostly academic interest.

    Fair enough. I couldn’t figure out whether you were a Muslim or an atheist, TBH. I won’t pry if you are uncomfortable talking about it.

    For myself, I lack the crusading zeal of the professional atheist (I’ve noticed those types tend to simply be aggrieved at bad childhood memories) to point out the usual little hypocrisies and mental leaps of logic that everybody-of any faith-engages in. Niggling intellectual consistency just isn’t what most humans are focused on in life. The world is probably better off for that.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...For myself, I lack the crusading zeal of the professional atheist (I’ve noticed those types tend to simply be aggrieved at bad childhood memories) to point out the usual little hypocrisies and mental leaps of logic that everybody-of any faith-engages in. Niggling intellectual consistency just isn’t what most humans are focused on in life, and the world is probably better off for that.'

    Ditto. I find people who are aggressively atheist exasperating. I merely don't see any reason to think God is there -- if someone else thinks he is, fine. Otherwise, I think religion tends to be more of a good thing than a bad thing -- there are several examples of things getting worse rather than better when religion was taken out of the equation. It's just that I don't buy into the underlying principle.
  189. @Colin Wright
    '...The thing I find truly interested in that Arabia became a safe haven for all the syncretic Jewish-Christian or Gnostic or whatever dissident sects you like. Imperial agents couldn’t get them there. “Nasara”… Nazorean. Those are the Christians Muhammad would have known, not the orthodox mainstream in Constantinople. Some of them probably would have been acceptable members in his burgeoning new movement, others are denouncing in the Qu’ran in bloodcurdling terms for doing things like associating the Holy Spirit as being female or transforming al-Uzza into an angel.'

    This fits with what I've speculated about Muhammed -- that he lived in an Arabia infested with multiple and mutually contradictory versions of Christianity and Judaism. So his religion is exactly what it professes to be -- and attempt to get rid of all the obvious corruptions and return to what God really told Abraham and the successive prophets, including Jesus. And 'I'm the last of them -- but no more.' Hence Mohammed's title as the 'the seal of the prophets.'

    Do you have a source for your claim? I'd like to read more on this.

    I think if you read the Qu’ran literally, without all the comments and clarifications that later generations inserted on it, you get a much clearer vision of what Islam was in the 7th Century. The religion of “Abraham the True”…

    >Do you have a source for your claim? I’d like to read more on this.

    Well, you’ll have to be patient with me, because I’m still learning and spewing psuedo-intellectualism here is a bad habit of mine-my life used to be a mess and it’s only been recently that I’ve started to seriously read again. But Fred Donner, Robert Hoyland, and Neal Robinson all have some good introductory books covering the early “Believers” movement, the conquests themselves, and the structure of the Qu’ran and what that can tell us, respectively. Robert Hoyland has another book on the pre-Islamic history of Arabia, which I think you might be interested in. Hugh Kennedy’s book, from what I’ve heard, is a good account that goes according more to the traditional Islamic narrative. There’s still a lot I vaguely know about (Sunni identity becoming consolidated during the Abbasid caliphate, for example) but that I have yet to delve into further beyond a high level of abstraction.

    As I mentioned, the Qu’ran itself is also a good resource because, unlike the hadiths, it does seem to date from Muhammad’s lifetime. You just need to remember to take what it is saying at face-value and not assume that, say, that mushrik is a classic pagan. You also need to remember the context of the region at the time, ravaged by bubonic plague, economic depression, and cataclysmic wars between Rome and Persia. Bad times. The times that bring out a collapse in the social structure and give rise to new types of leaders. In the case of Arabia, the tribe-previous civilizations like Himyar aside-gave way to an umma based on religious belief.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    It would be nice if Master Unz added an "Interesting" Tag to the "Agree/Disagree/Etc." enum value.
  190. @nebulafox
    >Things got so ‘enlightened’ in eighteenth century France that Louis XV (I think) once withheld a religious post from some candidate, remarking that he thought a bishop really shouldn’t be professing to not believe in God.

    The thing that people miss about the age of the Enlightenment is that the philosophes were not representative of the populace as a whole. Secularization on a lay level came later. So, I could add onto that: not so different from the Western World until 50 years ago, in many regards. ;)

    (This led to fundamental miscalculations during the French Revolution and to an extent, the Napoleonic era. Turns out the masses of the Spanish and Russian peasants rather liked their monarchs, their churches, and their traditions, and didn't appreciate a foreign army coming in to change that... and they made up the majority of the nation, not the bourgeois Enlightened intellectuals in the towns.)

    >Isn’t Christianity still pretty programmatic for people who take it seriously in the first place?

    Well, I'm a social constructionist on religion, so to me, what a religion "is" is what a given society makes of it. If the majority of the populace doesn't take the programmatic aspects seriously, it isn't programmatic anymore. The United States resisted secularization a lot longer than Europe did, but over the last decade, that's changed drastically. The shift from Bush II to Trump is good evidence of that.

    Put another way, if someone identifies as a Sunni Muslim while being flamboyantly homosexual, or, say, doing haram things like drinking alcohol (as I saw tons of young Malay dudes doing in Johor), I'm not going to argue with their identification as a Muslim. But I know that the majority of lay Muslims in the Islamic World would not blithely accept that in a way that only has an analogue in certain parts of the US anymore. Interestingly enough, it always seems to be the women who take religious faith more seriously, no matter what culture you are in.

    >Most of what I take it you mean by ‘flexibility’ in Christianity just strikes me as a doomed attempt to pander to the ideological demands of the modern age. That’s not ‘flexibility’ so much as a dying whimper. Those ‘Christians’ won’t be around for long.

    I don't view the fundamental, if theoretical gap between temporal and spiritual authority in Western Christianity as flexibility, per se: I think the vicious religious persecutions of the Wars of Reformation are evidence of that! But if we're talking about modern times, I actually agree with you. A religion that demands nothing of its followers except a vague sense of niceness and a demand to fit with the times is doomed to long-term irrelevance. It's nothing more than a social club, church in most of the USA nowadays. There is a reason that secularization has been taking off with younger Americans. This has vast implications for the future of right-wing ideology in the United States as younger men reject an increasingly effete religion that offers them nothing.

    And properly viewed, wokeism is nothing more than throwback evangelical Christianity without God. It's ironic that for all their open hatred of the latter, believers in the former are so steeped in their cultural milieu that they end up creating an imitation of it.

    >…I should note I don’t believe in God in the first place. For me, all this is of mostly academic interest.

    Fair enough. I couldn't figure out whether you were a Muslim or an atheist, TBH. I won't pry if you are uncomfortable talking about it.

    For myself, I lack the crusading zeal of the professional atheist (I've noticed those types tend to simply be aggrieved at bad childhood memories) to point out the usual little hypocrisies and mental leaps of logic that everybody-of any faith-engages in. Niggling intellectual consistency just isn't what most humans are focused on in life. The world is probably better off for that.

    ‘…For myself, I lack the crusading zeal of the professional atheist (I’ve noticed those types tend to simply be aggrieved at bad childhood memories) to point out the usual little hypocrisies and mental leaps of logic that everybody-of any faith-engages in. Niggling intellectual consistency just isn’t what most humans are focused on in life, and the world is probably better off for that.’

    Ditto. I find people who are aggressively atheist exasperating. I merely don’t see any reason to think God is there — if someone else thinks he is, fine. Otherwise, I think religion tends to be more of a good thing than a bad thing — there are several examples of things getting worse rather than better when religion was taken out of the equation. It’s just that I don’t buy into the underlying principle.

  191. @Anon
    If someone writes Islam is right about women, in cursive, would it have the same effect? Any effect at all?

    Any effect at all?

    Most people don’t read cursive.

  192. @Rosie
    Touche.

    Still, I note for the record that numerous "men" on this site salivate at the prospect of enslaving women. That is reason enough right there to resist any attempt to roll back women's rights in any respect whatsoever.

    ‘Still, I note for the record that numerous “men” on this site salivate at the prospect of enslaving women. That is reason enough right there to resist any attempt to roll back women’s rights in any respect whatsoever.’

    I’d question the logic there.

    If, say, we could establish that factory owners really wanted to outlaw unions and make failing to show up for work on time a criminal offense, would it follow that we should go over to socialism?

    Certainly quite a few men have quite a few extreme fantasies (he said, remaining carefully impersonal). However, it doesn’t follow that it is therefore desirable to go to the opposite extreme.

    Actually, what I’ve noticed, both here and more markedly, at such venues as the Guardian, is a kind of bitter misogyny among some men that seems to be more a reaction to the more extreme demands of feminists than anything else. Some moderation and compromise would probably do more good than harm. A husband shouldn’t beat his wife nightly, but men and women aren’t perfectly equal. In fact, socially and intellectually, they function in completely different ways. It’s very noticeable. What follows from that is the possibility that equality — however we may have been taught that is the ideal — may not in fact be the best possible arrangement.

    Really, I hate to sound like I escaped from a Berenstein Bears book, but we should like each other. The ideal social arrangement is not the one that most closely hews to some ideological ideal, but the one that makes that harmony most attainable.

  193. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Otis in Ohio
    As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.

    Their boy Emerson: ""Every great and commanding moment in the annals of the world,” he writes in ‘Man the Reformer’ (1841), “is the triumph of some enthusiasm. The victories of the Arabs after Mahomet, who in a few years, from a small and mean beginning, established a larger empire than that of Rome, is an example.”"

    “As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.”

    One reason for the popularity of Islam has always been its simpler theology, minus all the nutty (let’s face it) stuff about 3 persons in one God, Jesus as both really man and really God, etc. Agnostics and Deists liked it for that reason; a veritable rational religion.

  194. @Gordo
    It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.

    ‘It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.’

    Yeah. It’s ironic that of all the world’s cultures, European Christian gentile culture accords women the most exalted status — yet it is precisely that culture that feminists most vociferously target.

    Maybe deep down inside they realize that the average Asian or African would simply laugh at them if they tried on their feminist equality schtick with them. After all, in Hasidic Jewish belief, for example, pious women will get to serve their husbands as footstools in heaven, and an African wife considers herself fortunate if she has a husband who takes care not to break any bones when he beats her. Say what you want about the Virgin Mary cult and sexual double standards, but it’s all a decided improvement over the alternative.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Say what you want about the Virgin Mary cult and sexual double standards, but it’s all a decided improvement over the alternative.
     
    Except that there isn't only one alternative.

    Yeah. It’s ironic that of all the world’s cultures, European Christian gentile culture accords women the most exalted status — yet it is precisely that culture that feminists most vociferously target.
     
    As I have explained before, that is because feminism has been Gelbaumed.

    https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/tsc_24_4_walker.shtml

    What you think is feminist ire is really Jewish antagonism.
  195. @Otis in Ohio
    As its non-Trinitarian name implies, Unitarianism is basically Islam without the easily remembered rules or justified contemporary geopolitical grievances.

    Their boy Emerson: ""Every great and commanding moment in the annals of the world,” he writes in ‘Man the Reformer’ (1841), “is the triumph of some enthusiasm. The victories of the Arabs after Mahomet, who in a few years, from a small and mean beginning, established a larger empire than that of Rome, is an example.”"

    “Their boy”; nice way to refer to America’s greatest philosopher. A lot of “your boys” liked Islam too, or at least respected it, before it became the new boogy-man. Lothrop Stoddard, for example, wrote a whole book about the Rise of Islam.

    • Replies: @Otis in Ohio
    You're making a lot of assumptions, Anon, particularly about my views of Islam. But what I find most offensive is your apparent belief that Emerson has anything to offer other than obscurantism and platitudes.
  196. @Realist

    All very confusing.

     

    You expect liberal women to be logical...that has never been the case, nor will it ever be. Of course the same can be said for liberal men. But then liberal men and women are the same, they are interchangeable, when they wake up in the morning they decide what sex they want to be that day.

    “Honey, who takes the pill today?”

    • LOL: Realist
  197. @nebulafox
    I think if you read the Qu'ran literally, without all the comments and clarifications that later generations inserted on it, you get a much clearer vision of what Islam was in the 7th Century. The religion of "Abraham the True"...

    >Do you have a source for your claim? I’d like to read more on this.

    Well, you'll have to be patient with me, because I'm still learning and spewing psuedo-intellectualism here is a bad habit of mine-my life used to be a mess and it's only been recently that I've started to seriously read again. But Fred Donner, Robert Hoyland, and Neal Robinson all have some good introductory books covering the early "Believers" movement, the conquests themselves, and the structure of the Qu'ran and what that can tell us, respectively. Robert Hoyland has another book on the pre-Islamic history of Arabia, which I think you might be interested in. Hugh Kennedy's book, from what I've heard, is a good account that goes according more to the traditional Islamic narrative. There's still a lot I vaguely know about (Sunni identity becoming consolidated during the Abbasid caliphate, for example) but that I have yet to delve into further beyond a high level of abstraction.

    As I mentioned, the Qu'ran itself is also a good resource because, unlike the hadiths, it does seem to date from Muhammad's lifetime. You just need to remember to take what it is saying at face-value and not assume that, say, that mushrik is a classic pagan. You also need to remember the context of the region at the time, ravaged by bubonic plague, economic depression, and cataclysmic wars between Rome and Persia. Bad times. The times that bring out a collapse in the social structure and give rise to new types of leaders. In the case of Arabia, the tribe-previous civilizations like Himyar aside-gave way to an umma based on religious belief.

    It would be nice if Master Unz added an “Interesting” Tag to the “Agree/Disagree/Etc.” enum value.

    • Agree: Colin Wright, Rosie
  198. @Rosie

    Unfortunately, it’s pretty well-documented that women usually do not sexually want men with women’s jobs, and to a slightly lesser extent, any job that is lower-paying/social status than hers. Men know this all too well. And no amount of social conditioning is going to get most men to prefer ideological applause to women spreading their legs.
     
    Ackshully,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/10/the-college-majors-that-are-most-likely-to-marry-each-other/

    In any event, what you say is totally f'ing irrelevant. The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don't do any real work that needs doing. We may not be interested in learning about the inner workings of indoor plumbing systems, but here's what your toilets would like without us:

    http://greatidea.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/how-to-clean-a-very-dirty-toilet-filthy-toilet.jpg

    Standards and practices, please put something like that under a “more” line.
    also
    >women clean toilets
    I’ll believe that if I ever come across it.

  199. @Senor Moose
    One hour is pretty short—it doesn’t allow any time to stop at Starbucks after soul cycle.

    Soul Cycle is out, don’t you follow Michael Moore on Twitter? Out.

  200. @Corvinus
    Former US president Jimmy Carter, for the win...

    "First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God."

    It's not religion itself, it's those in positions of religious authority.

    Of course, a number of the fine posters here are seemingly ignorant of the Muslim faith. For example, the Koran cautions women "to draw their outer garments close around themselves" to not inspire sexual desire in men other than their husbands. However, Muslim head coverings differ widely in the Muslim world. In Saudi Arabia, women typically wear a niqab, a full-body garment with a veil that obscures the face. In Indonesia, head coverings are optional and are seen as a fashion statement. In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public, with French President Nicholas Sarkozy referring to it as "not a sign of religion, [but] a sign of subservience."

    Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males ought to reestablish the patriarchy in the United States and keep our (white) women folk under wraps. After all, (Western) females ruin everything.

    Paging Whiskey...

    >“First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God.”

    Misinterpretation, nothing. Judaism was the product of a Homeric-era tribal society. Christianity came out during the Pax Romana. Islam was a product of late antiquity. Of course they were secondary.

    > In Turkey and France, burqas are banned in public, with French President Nicholas Sarkozy referring to it as “not a sign of religion, [but] a sign of subservience.”

    I’ll let someone else talk about France, but that’s certainly not true in Turkey, especially as you head east toward the Anatolian hinterland and the heartland of support for the AKP. Burqas are still uncommon compared to the more ghetto/redneck parts of the Islamic World, but they aren’t unheard of, and hijabs are omnipresent.

    >In Indonesia, head coverings are optional and are seen as a fashion statement.

    Indonesia is interesting because hijabs were relatively rare before 1979, but now are omnipresent. Indonesia is a secular state not least thanks to the presence of economically influential non-Muslim minorities, but there’s tons of social pressure on Muslim women to be appropriately dressed nowadays that their grandmothers probably didn’t encounter. Globalization and the rise of a new middle class is more responsible than anything for the rise of a more orthodox, mainstream form of Islam, with the usual nods to Saudi money, of course. Urbanization, too: the syncretic forms of faith you see in places like rural Java are necessarily tied in with a kampung setting. Remove the peasants to the city, and that’s gone.

    (Same dynamic in Malaysia and with ethnic Malays in Singapore-I’ve seen burqas on Singapore’s MRT. It’s rare, but it does happen. In the former, there’s a major difference with Indonesia: Islamic law does apply to ethnic Malays and corporal punishment does happen, though the level of enforcement does depend on where you are. Ethnic Chinese owned hotels in the cities are used for romantic encounters between young Malays without any incident whatsoever: but trying that in a Malay owned hotel in a more rural area is not a wise move! Interestingly enough, if young Malay women choose not to wear hijabs in Singapore, people assume they are Filipinas, a testament to how ingrained the association has become.)

    >Although, I cannot help but wonder that we alpha males ought to reestablish the patriarchy in the United States and keep our (white) women folk under wraps. After all, (Western) females ruin everything.

    Ah, you, Whiskey, and Vox Day. Quite the alpha male dream team. I expect their ovaries to rattle.

  201. White
    is
    OK

    Is the color white OK?

    It’s OK
    for Paper
    to be White

    It’s OK
    for Paper, Pepper, or Pebbles
    to be White

  202. @Rosie

    Unfortunately, it’s pretty well-documented that women usually do not sexually want men with women’s jobs, and to a slightly lesser extent, any job that is lower-paying/social status than hers. Men know this all too well. And no amount of social conditioning is going to get most men to prefer ideological applause to women spreading their legs.
     
    Ackshully,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/10/the-college-majors-that-are-most-likely-to-marry-each-other/

    In any event, what you say is totally f'ing irrelevant. The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don't do any real work that needs doing. We may not be interested in learning about the inner workings of indoor plumbing systems, but here's what your toilets would like without us:

    http://greatidea.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/how-to-clean-a-very-dirty-toilet-filthy-toilet.jpg

    ‘The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don’t do any real work that needs doing.’

    That’s true — but whenever I find myself doing something that is truly unpleasant, dangerous, or outside, I can’t help noticing that this is a traditionally male occupation — and one still performed overwhelmingly by males.

    Yes — women clean the toilet. Men deal with the broken sewer pipe.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    That’s true — but whenever I find myself doing something that is truly unpleasant, dangerous, or outside, I can’t help noticing that this is a traditionally male occupation — and one still performed overwhelmingly by males.
     
    That is true. The question is what follows from that. If I am not mistaken, such work pays more, and if women did pursue these jobs, they would no doubt be criticized for that, too. It would be unladylike, trying to be like a man and taking men's roles. One would think men would be grateful that we're not all that interested in directly competing with them for these jobs, but no. There is never a kind word for women. Whatever we do, it is cause for criticism.
  203. @Whiskey
    Taylor Swift has had it with White men. We are all apparently White Supremacist and she and fellow celebs like that Swinging guy from the Verizon commercial will get rid of Trump. So she says.

    Elizabeth Warren has had it with White men especially George Washington. She's drawing huge crowds of women.

    Prohibition all over again.

    Taylor Swift has given a very mild denunciation of white supremacy because her core audience of young women has aged into political awareness. The lady is a businesswoman first and foremost, and quite a savvy one.

    Just wait until her fanbase gets to motherhood. 😉

  204. @Rosie

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them … alas the norm these days is … Rosie.
     
    I'm getting tired of this kiss-my-ass attitude among you people.

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.

    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?

    Because, for all the “you go grrl” bullshit and their paper pushing “careers”, as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work.
     
    And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people's behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    The thing that really chaps my hide about this male chauvinism is that many women are generally rather content to do a lot of the dirty work, in obscurity. What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.

    Blah, blah … mad … blah, blah … angry … blah, blah … chaps hide … blah, blah, blah …

    American women are the most privileged and coddled people in the history of the world … and yet they manage to whine, whine, whine … about their “oppression”.

    Here’s the nut, Rosie: Men are not the one’s who have blown up the social order of the West.

    Like all feminists your basic ideology boils down to sexual socialism: “Men must provide for and give stuff to women regardless of whether you do anything for men or not.”

    The whole 2nd wave “we just want to be free” story–which i’m for, not interested in coercing people–turned out to be … utter b.s. Women actually can not do, or do as well, or do not want to do or do as intensively a whole passel of jobs that men do, including almost all material productive external labor. So when inequality still–quite rightfully– exists, feminists demand everything be reordered (more totalitarian state power) so that anything–of course only what’s high status/highly remunerative–be redistributed so women get a “fair share”. And apply more coercive state power, so women can blow up their marriages and continue to suck from men. And apply more coercive state power to extract from productive men generally and redistribute to women.

    In essence sexual socialism: Whatever men produce … belongs to women. Women don’t have to–shouldn’t have to–give men anything for their labors. Feminists are Orwell’s pigs.

    In contrast, in civilization there is an evolved and time tested mechanism for women to enjoy the fruits of the labor of men–marriage. Behave in a way such that men actually *want* to share the fruit of their labor with you. But to feminists having to behave in such a fashion is “oppression”. Using state power to make men give obnoxious, unpleasant women stuff is “liberation”.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Like all feminists your basic ideology boils down to sexual socialism: “Men must provide for and give stuff to women regardless of whether you do anything for men or not.”
     
    Right, and by that you mean having sex with them, either as prostitutes or wives (on your transactional view of marriage, just another kind of prostitute).

    The problem is that women are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves. It's only when we have the handicap of children that we cannot do without the support of a man. Independence has always been an option for women, in the convent. That is no longer an option for us due to secularization (men's fault, not ours).
    , @dfordoom

    Here’s the nut, Rosie: Men are not the one’s who have blown up the social order of the West.
     
    Actually they are. Most of the problems we face did not magically appear in the 90s or even the 70s. They originated in one bad decision after another, made from 1914 up to the 1960s. By the late 60s the damage was done.

    And those bad decisions were made by white men. White men motivated sometimes by misguided idealism and sometimes by greed and sometimes by cynicism, and always motivated by an ability to comprehend consequences.

    Feminism exists because of idiotic mistakes by white men, such as the introduction of the contraceptive pill at the beginning of the 60s. Feminism exists because greedy white men in the corporate sector encouraged it.

    Consumerism has been one of the major destructive forces and it exists because greedy white men saw a way to increase profits. Secularism exists in large part because men abandoned Christianity. The insanity of environmentalism was started by white men.
  205. @Anon
    "Their boy"; nice way to refer to America's greatest philosopher. A lot of "your boys" liked Islam too, or at least respected it, before it became the new boogy-man. Lothrop Stoddard, for example, wrote a whole book about the Rise of Islam.

    You’re making a lot of assumptions, Anon, particularly about my views of Islam. But what I find most offensive is your apparent belief that Emerson has anything to offer other than obscurantism and platitudes.

  206. @Rosie

    In contrast to today where nothing married American men produce is actually theirs and they might as well be legal non-persons.
     
    Aw, boo hoo. Still whining about having to share with your wife, I see.

    As usual with these woe-is-me tales, you're wrong. Inherited wealth belongs to the spouseqho inherited it, man or woman. Only earned assets are marital property, because marriage is a partnership.

    In Islam, both spouses retain more rights to their own earnings than in Western marriage.

    Still whining about having to share with your wife, I see.

    Not me Rosie, because i didn’t marry someone like you! (Not everything is personal for us guys. We quite often have opinions based on analysis of what we see going on and understanding of how things work.)

    I’m perfectly happy sharing what i worked for with AnotherMom because she was/is a good wife and mother and we’re a team. But i know several guys who made the mistake of marrying more average women, had their wives blow up the marriage and are still stuck paying for their–supposedly ex–wife’s house, forking over a big chunk of their paychecks to their–supposedly ex–wife and having limited time with their kids.

    And as a result–with of course the crappy appearance and behavior of so many young women–i know lots of decently earning young men who aren’t very motivated to get married. Who can blame them. And the marriage statistics seem to bear that out. Under your regime of gimmedat whiny feminism neither men nor women seem to have much use for each other.

    None which bodes well for the West.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    i know lots of decently earning young men who aren’t very motivated to get married.
     
    The truth comes out.


    I’m perfectly happy sharing what i worked for with AnotherMom because she was/is a good wife and mother and we’re a team.
     
    Hmmm.

    "I'm perfectly happy sharing what I worked for with AnotherMom because... we're a team."

    Which is it?


    But i know several guys who made the mistake of marrying more average women, had their wives blow up the marriage and are still stuck paying for their–supposedly ex–wife’s house, forking over a big chunk of their paychecks to their–supposedly ex–wife and having limited time with their kids.

     

    Muh biased courts giving totally innocent men a hard time for no reason whatsoever.
  207. @AnotherDad

    Still whining about having to share with your wife, I see.
     
    Not me Rosie, because i didn't marry someone like you! (Not everything is personal for us guys. We quite often have opinions based on analysis of what we see going on and understanding of how things work.)

    I'm perfectly happy sharing what i worked for with AnotherMom because she was/is a good wife and mother and we're a team. But i know several guys who made the mistake of marrying more average women, had their wives blow up the marriage and are still stuck paying for their--supposedly ex--wife's house, forking over a big chunk of their paychecks to their--supposedly ex--wife and having limited time with their kids.

    And as a result--with of course the crappy appearance and behavior of so many young women--i know lots of decently earning young men who aren't very motivated to get married. Who can blame them. And the marriage statistics seem to bear that out. Under your regime of gimmedat whiny feminism neither men nor women seem to have much use for each other.

    None which bodes well for the West.

    i know lots of decently earning young men who aren’t very motivated to get married.

    The truth comes out.

    I’m perfectly happy sharing what i worked for with AnotherMom because she was/is a good wife and mother and we’re a team.

    Hmmm.

    “I’m perfectly happy sharing what I worked for with AnotherMom because… we’re a team.”

    Which is it?

    But i know several guys who made the mistake of marrying more average women, had their wives blow up the marriage and are still stuck paying for their–supposedly ex–wife’s house, forking over a big chunk of their paychecks to their–supposedly ex–wife and having limited time with their kids.

    Muh biased courts giving totally innocent men a hard time for no reason whatsoever.

  208. @Colin Wright
    'The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don’t do any real work that needs doing.'

    That's true -- but whenever I find myself doing something that is truly unpleasant, dangerous, or outside, I can't help noticing that this is a traditionally male occupation -- and one still performed overwhelmingly by males.

    Yes -- women clean the toilet. Men deal with the broken sewer pipe.

    That’s true — but whenever I find myself doing something that is truly unpleasant, dangerous, or outside, I can’t help noticing that this is a traditionally male occupation — and one still performed overwhelmingly by males.

    That is true. The question is what follows from that. If I am not mistaken, such work pays more, and if women did pursue these jobs, they would no doubt be criticized for that, too. It would be unladylike, trying to be like a man and taking men’s roles. One would think men would be grateful that we’re not all that interested in directly competing with them for these jobs, but no. There is never a kind word for women. Whatever we do, it is cause for criticism.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...There is never a kind word for women. Whatever we do, it is cause for criticism.'

    Meh. I didn't actually say women should fix broken sewer pipes, etc -- although I won't fret unduly about it if they do.

    You started all this by pointing out that it is women that clean the toilet, etc -- at least that's what you were saying when I picked up on the conversation. I merely pointed out that the jobs that are even worse tend to be left to men.
  209. @Colin Wright
    'It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.'

    Yeah. It's ironic that of all the world's cultures, European Christian gentile culture accords women the most exalted status -- yet it is precisely that culture that feminists most vociferously target.

    Maybe deep down inside they realize that the average Asian or African would simply laugh at them if they tried on their feminist equality schtick with them. After all, in Hasidic Jewish belief, for example, pious women will get to serve their husbands as footstools in heaven, and an African wife considers herself fortunate if she has a husband who takes care not to break any bones when he beats her. Say what you want about the Virgin Mary cult and sexual double standards, but it's all a decided improvement over the alternative.

    Say what you want about the Virgin Mary cult and sexual double standards, but it’s all a decided improvement over the alternative.

    Except that there isn’t only one alternative.

    Yeah. It’s ironic that of all the world’s cultures, European Christian gentile culture accords women the most exalted status — yet it is precisely that culture that feminists most vociferously target.

    As I have explained before, that is because feminism has been Gelbaumed.

    https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/tsc_24_4_walker.shtml

    What you think is feminist ire is really Jewish antagonism.

  210. @Rosie

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them … alas the norm these days is … Rosie.
     
    I'm getting tired of this kiss-my-ass attitude among you people.

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.

    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?

    Because, for all the “you go grrl” bullshit and their paper pushing “careers”, as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work.
     
    And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people's behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    The thing that really chaps my hide about this male chauvinism is that many women are generally rather content to do a lot of the dirty work, in obscurity. What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.


    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?



    No. Not if you are a feminist. No credit for the past if you do not understand and appreciate the past.​ And are not following through in like fashion. (Likewise men who are layabouts do not get credit for male achievement and productive labors.)

    Even your narrative demonstrates the skewed feminist mentality:

    Bearing children is the entirely normal activity of all mamilian females. Women weren’t “put upon” by this activity … it’s normal biology. (The West actually had some cultural practices–later marriage–which suppressed the amount of it.) And yes some died from it. Most did not. And men worked–and fought for territory (more biology)–and a bunch died from that. And everyone was dying from disease and accidents at much higher rates than today. Life was harder. I honor all my ancestors–men and women alike–for pushing through and building the West.

    And ironically, child birth happens to be an area where, again white men by boring old “figuring stuff out” made life quite a bit safer and more comfortable for women. What was the feminist response. “The patriarchy invading the preserve of women; trying to control what women have done naturally for millions of years …. blah, blah, blah.” Which is true. Childbirth is natural. And 90% of the time, there are no issues–midwife, home, etc. etc.–perfectly adequate. But in that 10% of the time when there are some problems, the work “the patriarchy” did to understand what was going on, made things much safer. ​

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    And ironically, child birth happens to be an area where, again white men by boring old “figuring stuff out” made life quite a bit safer and more comfortable for women. What was the feminist response. “The patriarchy invading the preserve of women; trying to control what women have done naturally for millions of years …. blah, blah, blah.” Which is true. Childbirth is natural. And 90% of the time, there are no issues–midwife, home, etc. etc.–perfectly adequate. But in that 10% of the time when there are some problems, the work “the patriarchy” did to understand what was going on, made things much safer. ​
     
    The majority of women do better birthing at home, no anesthetics, no perineal slicing, but the few that need intervention would be in bad shape. So improved birthworthiness detection would be a good thing, as would deterring women with too small a pelvic opening or whatever issue is present that would necessitiate high tech intervention from having many kids, or maybe any at all.
  211. @Gordo
    It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.

    It is White men who have the least interest in rolling back women’s rights and yet seem to attract almost all feminist ire.

    There is no grassroots feminist discontent with White men on the part of White women. It’s all in the media matrix.

    I have been asked before how I think the dissident right can appeal to young women. I have given answers to this here and there. For myself, I can say that I had a lot of White males as professors in college, and literally none of them fit the stereotype I was being sold in the contemporary culture. It occurs to me that the TPTB must be aware of the fact that professors who respect their women juniors are bad for their narrative, and accordingly be that much more resolute about getting rid of them.

    • Agree: Gordo
  212. @Rosie

    But whatever the details, white women *ought* to be incredibly appreciative for what white men have done for them … alas the norm these days is … Rosie.
     
    I'm getting tired of this kiss-my-ass attitude among you people.

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.

    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?

    Because, for all the “you go grrl” bullshit and their paper pushing “careers”, as far as i can tell women remain steadfastly uninterested in doing any of the materially productive work that makes the lights go on, the hot water appear, the toilet flush, the car run or even their precious cell phones work.
     
    And men remain steadfastly uninterested in changing diapers, scrubbing toilets, wiping old people's behinds when they go to the bathroom, wiping noses, doing dishes, folding laundry, etc.

    The thing that really chaps my hide about this male chauvinism is that many women are generally rather content to do a lot of the dirty work, in obscurity. What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.

    We are not passive beneficiaries of your munificence.



    Correct. For feminist white women being “passive beneficiaries” would be a huge upgrade! ​

    Feminists are actual active agents continually working to destroy the structures of Western civilization that allows productive men to provide this munificence. The West totters on largely because of white guy inertia: a lot of white guys go out everyday and standing on the built up labor and genius of past generations of white keep the wheels turning and the lights on … even while the coalition of the fringes, critically aided by white women “feminists” has stacked the system against them.

    What is insufferable is when you use that against us and claim that civilization is your doing alone.

    Rosie, we’ve now done the experiment. We gave women the vote and …
    and it turns out that civilization is pretty much the doing of men alone.

    Huge numbers of white women who have been given so much freedom and opportunity and material prosperity precisely through the “figuring it out” insights of white guys down through the ages and are living lives of unparallelled luxury … yet have swallowed the Jewish minoritarian narrative of “oppression”–ladling on their own littany of whiny complaints–and actively work against Western civilization.

    So “insufferable” or not, it’s true. Evidence suggests civilization is in fact something that men alone build and “empowered” women are destructive to it.

  213. . I honor all my ancestors–men and women alike–for pushing through and building the West.

    Very gracious of you. That is all I ask.

    And ironically, child birth happens to be an area where, again white men by boring old “figuring stuff out” made life quite a bit safer and more comfortable for women. What was the feminist response. “The patriarchy invading the preserve of women; trying to control what women have done naturally for millions of years …. blah, blah, blah.” Which is true. Childbirth is natural. And 90% of the time, there are no issues–midwife, home, etc. etc.–perfectly adequate. But in that 10% of the time when there are some problems, the work “the patriarchy” did to understand what was going on, made things much safer.

    Personally, I have availed myself of all the modern conveniences, and I do not subscribe to that nonsense, so don’t impute to me views that I don’t hold.

    This is the problem with hurling deliberately vague epithets (feminist!) at people.

  214. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad


    Do I get credit for the sacrifices of millennia of women who bore children until they fell over dead from it?
     


    No. Not if you are a feminist. No credit for the past if you do not understand and appreciate the past.​ And are not following through in like fashion. (Likewise men who are layabouts do not get credit for male achievement and productive labors.)

    Even your narrative demonstrates the skewed feminist mentality:

    Bearing children is the entirely normal activity of all mamilian females. Women weren't "put upon" by this activity ... it's normal biology. (The West actually had some cultural practices--later marriage--which suppressed the amount of it.) And yes some died from it. Most did not. And men worked--and fought for territory (more biology)--and a bunch died from that. And everyone was dying from disease and accidents at much higher rates than today. Life was harder. I honor all my ancestors--men and women alike--for pushing through and building the West.

    And ironically, child birth happens to be an area where, again white men by boring old "figuring stuff out" made life quite a bit safer and more comfortable for women. What was the feminist response. "The patriarchy invading the preserve of women; trying to control what women have done naturally for millions of years .... blah, blah, blah." Which is true. Childbirth is natural. And 90% of the time, there are no issues--midwife, home, etc. etc.--perfectly adequate. But in that 10% of the time when there are some problems, the work "the patriarchy" did to understand what was going on, made things much safer. ​

    And ironically, child birth happens to be an area where, again white men by boring old “figuring stuff out” made life quite a bit safer and more comfortable for women. What was the feminist response. “The patriarchy invading the preserve of women; trying to control what women have done naturally for millions of years …. blah, blah, blah.” Which is true. Childbirth is natural. And 90% of the time, there are no issues–midwife, home, etc. etc.–perfectly adequate. But in that 10% of the time when there are some problems, the work “the patriarchy” did to understand what was going on, made things much safer. ​

    The majority of women do better birthing at home, no anesthetics, no perineal slicing, but the few that need intervention would be in bad shape. So improved birthworthiness detection would be a good thing, as would deterring women with too small a pelvic opening or whatever issue is present that would necessitiate high tech intervention from having many kids, or maybe any at all.

  215. @nebulafox
    >https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/10/the-college-majors-that-are-most-likely-to-marry-each-other/

    Most pink-collar jobs do not require a college degree, and despite the massive explosion of credentialism, the majority of Americans still do not succeed in obtaining one. We're not Taiwan, our rates of attrition get pretty high after 1-2 years at university.

    >The point is simply that you are out of line in claiming that women don’t do any real work that needs doing.

    You know, you don't have so many people willing to genuinely engage with you on this website anymore that you can afford to put words into the mouths of those who do.

    Most pink-collar jobs do not require a college degree, and despite the massive explosion of credentialism, the majority of Americans still do not succeed in obtaining one. We’re not Taiwan, our rates of attrition get pretty high after 1-2 years at university

    What does this have to do with anything? According to this article, 43% of male nursing majors marry nurses, so it’s not true that women aren’t interested in men who have traditional women’s jobs.

    You know, you don’t have so many people willing to genuinely engage with you on this website anymore that you can afford to put words into the mouths of those who do

    Pardon me. It gets confusing trying to parse just which particular insult came from which poster, so I do occasionally falsely accuse people. Perhaps you ought to be a little bit more understanding, given that you are well aware of the misogynist climate here.

    FWIW, I couldn’t care who is or is not willing to “genuinely engage” with me on this site. They are not my intended audience.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >According to this article, 43% of male nursing majors marry nurses, so it’s not true that women aren’t interested in men who have traditional women’s jobs.

    Because that's not the majority of America, especially among the lower classes where the family structure has imploded? It's illogical to assume that because nearly half of one major marries another that there isn't a general bias against men with women's jobs on the dating market, presuming they don't have other traits that can offset that: and even this doesn't prove that second part false.

    Furthermore, how many male nursing majors are there in the first place. How many actually go on to work as nurses? How many of them are handsome vs. ugly, how many of them are fun vs. boring, things that can overcome not having a higher status career? I did physics in college and work in software now: women in both fields have their pick of the men due to simple numbers. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a similar dynamic in nursing in college. Some people meet their partners in college for all the reasons you'd expect. But once you leave college, you have a much wider variety of people to choose from-and women are the ones who get to choose.

    Of course there will be some women who marry men with pink-collar jobs. People are individuals and make individual choices and value individual things. But on average, women date up more because they can, and this preference will get sharper when we are talking about "domestic helper" rather than "nurse".

    > Perhaps you ought to be a little bit more understanding, given that you are well aware of the misogynist climate here.

    I don't bother talking to people who claim women should have the legal status of chattel for the same reason that I don't bother talking to people who claim that Jews mix the blood of Christian children into their matzoh. But just as talking frankly about the negative impact AIPAC has on US foreign policy is not anti-Semitism, talking about the general dating preferences of women and why that might be contributing to why men choose the life paths they do, as opposed to "patriarchy", isn't sexism.

  216. @AnotherDad
    Blah, blah ... mad ... blah, blah ... angry ... blah, blah ... chaps hide ... blah, blah, blah ...

    American women are the most privileged and coddled people in the history of the world ... and yet they manage to whine, whine, whine ... about their "oppression".

    Here's the nut, Rosie: Men are not the one's who have blown up the social order of the West.

    Like all feminists your basic ideology boils down to sexual socialism: "Men must provide for and give stuff to women regardless of whether you do anything for men or not."

    The whole 2nd wave "we just want to be free" story--which i'm for, not interested in coercing people--turned out to be ... utter b.s. Women actually can not do, or do as well, or do not want to do or do as intensively a whole passel of jobs that men do, including almost all material productive external labor. So when inequality still--quite rightfully-- exists, feminists demand everything be reordered (more totalitarian state power) so that anything--of course only what's high status/highly remunerative--be redistributed so women get a "fair share". And apply more coercive state power, so women can blow up their marriages and continue to suck from men. And apply more coercive state power to extract from productive men generally and redistribute to women.

    In essence sexual socialism: Whatever men produce ... belongs to women. Women don't have to--shouldn't have to--give men anything for their labors. Feminists are Orwell's pigs.


    In contrast, in civilization there is an evolved and time tested mechanism for women to enjoy the fruits of the labor of men--marriage. Behave in a way such that men actually *want* to share the fruit of their labor with you. But to feminists having to behave in such a fashion is "oppression". Using state power to make men give obnoxious, unpleasant women stuff is "liberation".

    Like all feminists your basic ideology boils down to sexual socialism: “Men must provide for and give stuff to women regardless of whether you do anything for men or not.”

    Right, and by that you mean having sex with them, either as prostitutes or wives (on your transactional view of marriage, just another kind of prostitute).

    The problem is that women are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves. It’s only when we have the handicap of children that we cannot do without the support of a man. Independence has always been an option for women, in the convent. That is no longer an option for us due to secularization (men’s fault, not ours).

  217. @Colin Wright
    'I’m an equal opportunity anti-Semite. When Mo’s boys return their conquests to Christendom is when I’ll consider lending sympathy.'

    Oh please. Where do you live, and who took it from whom when?

    If we look at who has actually driven out large populations of Muslims versus who has actually driven out large populations of Christians, we'll find massive displacement of Muslims from Spain, southern Italy and Sicily, much of the Balkans and Aegean, and much of the Caucasus. In most cases, Islam was totally eradicated. The Muslims of Andalusia, of Sicily, of Serbia and Crete, the Circassians, all these and no doubt more are gone.

    Conversely, the only instance I can think of Christians being removed wholesale would be the Armenian genocide and the population exchange Ataturk arranged with Greece after he defeated their attempt to destroy the nascent Turkish Republic. To this day, substantial populations of Christians remain in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. What Christian states can make the same claim? Where is a Christian state that still has an indigenous Muslim minority? I think Bulgaria does -- but that may be it.

    If we look at who has actually driven out large populations of Muslims versus who has actually driven out large populations of Christians, we’ll find massive displacement of Muslims from Spain, southern Italy and Sicily, much of the Balkans and Aegean, and much of the Caucasus. In most cases, Islam was totally eradicated. The Muslims of Andalusia, of Sicily, of Serbia and Crete, the Circassians, all these and no doubt more are gone.

    LOL, “much” and “most” are doing a lot of work here! You’ll find the Muslims of Serbia in a lesser-known region called Bosnia. You’ll find the Muslims of the Caucasus in Svaneti, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Chechnya, etc. etc.: all places conspicuously icon-and-incense free. Totally eradicated! Eradicated to the point where the airports have dedicated Hajj terminals.

    Where is a Christian state that still has an indigenous Muslim minority?

    The histories of the aforementioned Bosnia, as well as Albania and the outer Albanias scattered across the Balkan peninsula such as Kosovo and northern Montenegro, would seem to suggest that an overwhelming indigenous Muslim majority is often the final end of a Christian state that has an indigenous Muslim minority. If you’re right about their country, Bulgarians would be wise to take heed.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    Largely, all you've done is parade your ignorance and poor reading comprehension.
  218. @More R1b, Less H1B

    If we look at who has actually driven out large populations of Muslims versus who has actually driven out large populations of Christians, we’ll find massive displacement of Muslims from Spain, southern Italy and Sicily, much of the Balkans and Aegean, and much of the Caucasus. In most cases, Islam was totally eradicated. The Muslims of Andalusia, of Sicily, of Serbia and Crete, the Circassians, all these and no doubt more are gone.
     
    LOL, "much" and "most" are doing a lot of work here! You'll find the Muslims of Serbia in a lesser-known region called Bosnia. You'll find the Muslims of the Caucasus in Svaneti, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Chechnya, etc. etc.: all places conspicuously icon-and-incense free. Totally eradicated! Eradicated to the point where the airports have dedicated Hajj terminals.

    Where is a Christian state that still has an indigenous Muslim minority?
     
    The histories of the aforementioned Bosnia, as well as Albania and the outer Albanias scattered across the Balkan peninsula such as Kosovo and northern Montenegro, would seem to suggest that an overwhelming indigenous Muslim majority is often the final end of a Christian state that has an indigenous Muslim minority. If you're right about their country, Bulgarians would be wise to take heed.

    Largely, all you’ve done is parade your ignorance and poor reading comprehension.

  219. What’s next? GEEEEENOOOOCIIIIIDEEEE?

  220. @Rosie

    That’s true — but whenever I find myself doing something that is truly unpleasant, dangerous, or outside, I can’t help noticing that this is a traditionally male occupation — and one still performed overwhelmingly by males.
     
    That is true. The question is what follows from that. If I am not mistaken, such work pays more, and if women did pursue these jobs, they would no doubt be criticized for that, too. It would be unladylike, trying to be like a man and taking men's roles. One would think men would be grateful that we're not all that interested in directly competing with them for these jobs, but no. There is never a kind word for women. Whatever we do, it is cause for criticism.

    ‘…There is never a kind word for women. Whatever we do, it is cause for criticism.’

    Meh. I didn’t actually say women should fix broken sewer pipes, etc — although I won’t fret unduly about it if they do.

    You started all this by pointing out that it is women that clean the toilet, etc — at least that’s what you were saying when I picked up on the conversation. I merely pointed out that the jobs that are even worse tend to be left to men.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Meh. I didn’t actually say women should fix broken sewer pipes, etc — although I won’t fret unduly about it if they do.
     
    My comment wasn't really about you.


    You started all this by pointing out that it is women that clean the toilet, etc
     
    No, I didn't "start this." AnotherDad was doing his usual routine of minimizing women's contributions to society and their families.
  221. @Colin Wright
    '...There is never a kind word for women. Whatever we do, it is cause for criticism.'

    Meh. I didn't actually say women should fix broken sewer pipes, etc -- although I won't fret unduly about it if they do.

    You started all this by pointing out that it is women that clean the toilet, etc -- at least that's what you were saying when I picked up on the conversation. I merely pointed out that the jobs that are even worse tend to be left to men.

    Meh. I didn’t actually say women should fix broken sewer pipes, etc — although I won’t fret unduly about it if they do.

    My comment wasn’t really about you.

    You started all this by pointing out that it is women that clean the toilet, etc

    No, I didn’t “start this.” AnotherDad was doing his usual routine of minimizing women’s contributions to society and their families.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'My comment wasn’t really about you...

    You did quote me and then respond. It seems to me my assumption that you were responding to me was reasonable.
  222. @Jimbo
    There are ways around that, Rosie. When your husband gets his inheritance, make sure he deposits it in an account that is jointly owned by both of you. Then, hey presto! Commingled property. If he refuses, pout and ask him why he doesn't love you.

    There are ways around that, Rosie. When your husband gets his inheritance, make sure he deposits it in an account that is jointly owned by both of you. Then, hey presto! Commingled property. If he refuses, pout and ask him why he doesn’t love you.

    Quite right. Personally, I would be very offended if my husband inherited property and made it a point to exclude me from joint ownership. Of course, it would be wrong for me to do likewise to him.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    It bears nothing here that the need for exclusive control of an inheritance is more important in Islam than in Christian marriage. If men had access to women's inheritance, they could spend it on another wife!
  223. @Rosie

    There are ways around that, Rosie. When your husband gets his inheritance, make sure he deposits it in an account that is jointly owned by both of you. Then, hey presto! Commingled property. If he refuses, pout and ask him why he doesn’t love you.
     
    Quite right. Personally, I would be very offended if my husband inherited property and made it a point to exclude me from joint ownership. Of course, it would be wrong for me to do likewise to him.

    It bears nothing here that the need for exclusive control of an inheritance is more important in Islam than in Christian marriage. If men had access to women’s inheritance, they could spend it on another wife!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Primogeniture, male inheritance and succession, were historically the norms in Christian Europe. In rare cases where a sister or daughter inherited, typically her husband would assume the title and property.

    Note that these cultural artifacts such as inheritance, surnames, dynasticism, family prestige, etc., all derive from and are extensions of male competition with other males and are male reproductive strategies to perpetuate paternal lineages. They are forms of intergenerational male competition and paternal investment. Female inheritance defeats the purpose, and these artifacts and customs would not exist if female, rather than male, inheritance were the norm. A lord wins his estate and title due to bravery, service, and success in battle, but if there's female inheritance, the lord's honor, title, and estate go to the competing paternal lineage of whichever man his female heiress marries.
  224. @Jimbo
    They came for him in 1974, when Robert Caro published The Power Broker. He has been a whipping boy ever since. (Great book, BTW - really shows you how municipal politics actually works...)

    Jimbo:

    One underlying reason for anti-Moses hostility was the fact that his first wife was Protestant and as a widower he married a Catholic. His memorial/burial service was hybid Protestant/Catholic.

  225. @YetAnotherAnon
    "Everyone should print these out and post them everywhere."

    But not on a laser printer.

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170607-why-printers-add-secret-tracking-dots

    On 3 June, FBI agents arrived at the house of government contractor Reality Leigh Winner in Augusta, Georgia. They had spent the last two days investigating a top secret classified document that had allegedly been leaked to the press. In order to track down Winner, agents claim they had carefully studied copies of the document provided by online news site The Intercept and noticed creases suggesting that the pages had been printed and “hand-carried out of a secured space”.

    In an affidavit, the FBI alleges that Winner admitted printing the National Security Agency (NSA) report and sending it to The Intercept. Shortly after a story about the leak was published, charges against Winner were made public.

    At that point, experts began taking a closer look at the document, now publicly available on the web. They discovered something else of interest: yellow dots in a roughly rectangular pattern repeated throughout the page. They were barely visible to the naked eye, but formed a coded design. After some quick analysis, they seemed to reveal the exact date and time that the pages in question were printed: 06:20 on 9 May, 2017 – at least, this is likely to be the time on the printer’s internal clock at that moment. The dots also encode a serial number for the printer.

    These “microdots” are well known to security researchers and civil liberties campaigners. Many colour printers add them to documents without people ever knowing they’re there.
     

    Unless you do this

    https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/06/27/app-masks-printers-tracking-dots/

    Or just get a black and white laser printer. Who needs color printouts anyway?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Black and white printers also have rat out features. With the old ones you have a shot at dumping the ROMs and finding and patching them, but modern ones all use ASIC silicon that only a high level physical attack is even going to give you access.
  226. @Rosie

    Meh. I didn’t actually say women should fix broken sewer pipes, etc — although I won’t fret unduly about it if they do.
     
    My comment wasn't really about you.


    You started all this by pointing out that it is women that clean the toilet, etc
     
    No, I didn't "start this." AnotherDad was doing his usual routine of minimizing women's contributions to society and their families.

    ‘My comment wasn’t really about you…

    You did quote me and then respond. It seems to me my assumption that you were responding to me was reasonable.

    • Replies: @anon
    "Attention" is to "troll" as:

    1. Blood is to tick.
    2. Food is to tapeworm.
    3. Front lawn is to toadstool.
    4. Garbage dumpster is to rat.
    , @Rosie

    You did quote me and then respond. It seems to me my assumption that you were responding to me was reasonable.
     
    I was responding to you, so your assumption was correc. I meant to say that I was talking to you, not about you. When people are civil to me, as you have been, I try to make it a point to remember and not lump them in with the deranged woman-haters around here.
  227. @Colin Wright
    'My comment wasn’t really about you...

    You did quote me and then respond. It seems to me my assumption that you were responding to me was reasonable.

    “Attention” is to “troll” as:

    1. Blood is to tick.
    2. Food is to tapeworm.
    3. Front lawn is to toadstool.
    4. Garbage dumpster is to rat.

  228. @Anonymous
    Or just get a black and white laser printer. Who needs color printouts anyway?

    Black and white printers also have rat out features. With the old ones you have a shot at dumping the ROMs and finding and patching them, but modern ones all use ASIC silicon that only a high level physical attack is even going to give you access.

  229. @Rosie

    Most pink-collar jobs do not require a college degree, and despite the massive explosion of credentialism, the majority of Americans still do not succeed in obtaining one. We’re not Taiwan, our rates of attrition get pretty high after 1-2 years at university
     
    What does this have to do with anything? According to this article, 43% of male nursing majors marry nurses, so it's not true that women aren't interested in men who have traditional women's jobs.


    You know, you don’t have so many people willing to genuinely engage with you on this website anymore that you can afford to put words into the mouths of those who do
     
    Pardon me. It gets confusing trying to parse just which particular insult came from which poster, so I do occasionally falsely accuse people. Perhaps you ought to be a little bit more understanding, given that you are well aware of the misogynist climate here.

    FWIW, I couldn't care who is or is not willing to "genuinely engage" with me on this site. They are not my intended audience.

    >According to this article, 43% of male nursing majors marry nurses, so it’s not true that women aren’t interested in men who have traditional women’s jobs.

    Because that’s not the majority of America, especially among the lower classes where the family structure has imploded? It’s illogical to assume that because nearly half of one major marries another that there isn’t a general bias against men with women’s jobs on the dating market, presuming they don’t have other traits that can offset that: and even this doesn’t prove that second part false.

    Furthermore, how many male nursing majors are there in the first place. How many actually go on to work as nurses? How many of them are handsome vs. ugly, how many of them are fun vs. boring, things that can overcome not having a higher status career? I did physics in college and work in software now: women in both fields have their pick of the men due to simple numbers. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a similar dynamic in nursing in college. Some people meet their partners in college for all the reasons you’d expect. But once you leave college, you have a much wider variety of people to choose from-and women are the ones who get to choose.

    Of course there will be some women who marry men with pink-collar jobs. People are individuals and make individual choices and value individual things. But on average, women date up more because they can, and this preference will get sharper when we are talking about “domestic helper” rather than “nurse”.

    > Perhaps you ought to be a little bit more understanding, given that you are well aware of the misogynist climate here.

    I don’t bother talking to people who claim women should have the legal status of chattel for the same reason that I don’t bother talking to people who claim that Jews mix the blood of Christian children into their matzoh. But just as talking frankly about the negative impact AIPAC has on US foreign policy is not anti-Semitism, talking about the general dating preferences of women and why that might be contributing to why men choose the life paths they do, as opposed to “patriarchy”, isn’t sexism.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    But just as talking frankly about the negative impact AIPAC has on US foreign policy is not anti-Semitism, talking about the general dating preferences of women and why that might be contributing to why men choose the life paths they do, as opposed to “patriarchy”, isn’t sexism.
     
    First of all, I don't like the word "sexism." It is a cultural marxists term that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is morally suspect.

    I rather use the terms male chauvinist (AnotherDad) or, worse, misogynist (L Woods, Whiskey, Anon375). The former are a dime a dozen around here. Of the latter, there are only a handful.

    Now, what about people who criticize women but aren't "misogynists"?

    I get really annoyed when these types carry on making assumptions about women's attitudes and behaviors that are not supported by the evidence, or at best are not the whole truth. Eventually one begins to suspect that it's not really about truth, but that there is in fact an irrational hatred simmering beneath the surface. The whole female hypergamy hoax is, to be charitable, not well-supported by the evidence.

    If I were tech-savvy, I would make over Tina Turner's classic and dedicate it to the manosphere:

    What's truth got to do, got to do with it?
    What's truth, but a sweet old-fashioned notion?

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=RDsmGG7L_JjSM

  230. @Colin Wright
    'My comment wasn’t really about you...

    You did quote me and then respond. It seems to me my assumption that you were responding to me was reasonable.

    You did quote me and then respond. It seems to me my assumption that you were responding to me was reasonable.

    I was responding to you, so your assumption was correc. I meant to say that I was talking to you, not about you. When people are civil to me, as you have been, I try to make it a point to remember and not lump them in with the deranged woman-haters around here.

  231. @nebulafox
    >According to this article, 43% of male nursing majors marry nurses, so it’s not true that women aren’t interested in men who have traditional women’s jobs.

    Because that's not the majority of America, especially among the lower classes where the family structure has imploded? It's illogical to assume that because nearly half of one major marries another that there isn't a general bias against men with women's jobs on the dating market, presuming they don't have other traits that can offset that: and even this doesn't prove that second part false.

    Furthermore, how many male nursing majors are there in the first place. How many actually go on to work as nurses? How many of them are handsome vs. ugly, how many of them are fun vs. boring, things that can overcome not having a higher status career? I did physics in college and work in software now: women in both fields have their pick of the men due to simple numbers. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a similar dynamic in nursing in college. Some people meet their partners in college for all the reasons you'd expect. But once you leave college, you have a much wider variety of people to choose from-and women are the ones who get to choose.

    Of course there will be some women who marry men with pink-collar jobs. People are individuals and make individual choices and value individual things. But on average, women date up more because they can, and this preference will get sharper when we are talking about "domestic helper" rather than "nurse".

    > Perhaps you ought to be a little bit more understanding, given that you are well aware of the misogynist climate here.

    I don't bother talking to people who claim women should have the legal status of chattel for the same reason that I don't bother talking to people who claim that Jews mix the blood of Christian children into their matzoh. But just as talking frankly about the negative impact AIPAC has on US foreign policy is not anti-Semitism, talking about the general dating preferences of women and why that might be contributing to why men choose the life paths they do, as opposed to "patriarchy", isn't sexism.

    But just as talking frankly about the negative impact AIPAC has on US foreign policy is not anti-Semitism, talking about the general dating preferences of women and why that might be contributing to why men choose the life paths they do, as opposed to “patriarchy”, isn’t sexism.

    First of all, I don’t like the word “sexism.” It is a cultural marxists term that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is morally suspect.

    I rather use the terms male chauvinist (AnotherDad) or, worse, misogynist (L Woods, Whiskey, Anon375). The former are a dime a dozen around here. Of the latter, there are only a handful.

    Now, what about people who criticize women but aren’t “misogynists”?

    I get really annoyed when these types carry on making assumptions about women’s attitudes and behaviors that are not supported by the evidence, or at best are not the whole truth. Eventually one begins to suspect that it’s not really about truth, but that there is in fact an irrational hatred simmering beneath the surface. The whole female hypergamy hoax is, to be charitable, not well-supported by the evidence.

    If I were tech-savvy, I would make over Tina Turner’s classic and dedicate it to the manosphere:

    What’s truth got to do, got to do with it?
    What’s truth, but a sweet old-fashioned notion?

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=RDsmGG7L_JjSM

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The whole female hypergamy hoax is, to be charitable, not well-supported by the evidence.
     
    In 1960, 80% of couples were similarly educated. To me, that suggests that women behave like most people most of the time. That is, they are homogamous. They prefer someone similar to themselves.

    Now, more women than ever are marrying "down" educationally.

    https://time.com/7442/wives-are-now-more-educated-than-husbands/
    , @Colin Wright
    '...I get really annoyed when these types carry on making assumptions about women’s attitudes and behaviors that are not supported by the evidence, or at best are not the whole truth. Eventually one begins to suspect that it’s not really about truth, but that there is in fact an irrational hatred simmering beneath the surface...'

    I think what's also true -- and this is a general human tendency -- is that we're all attracted to trying to come up with some formula that explains it all.

    Well, when that's a matter of general relativity, it's laudable, and valid, but at its worst, it's just a device to avoid thought, to escape having to consider each case on its merits.

    As Einstein said, 'Everything should be made as simple as possible -- but not simpler' (or something like that).
  232. @Rosie

    But just as talking frankly about the negative impact AIPAC has on US foreign policy is not anti-Semitism, talking about the general dating preferences of women and why that might be contributing to why men choose the life paths they do, as opposed to “patriarchy”, isn’t sexism.
     
    First of all, I don't like the word "sexism." It is a cultural marxists term that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is morally suspect.

    I rather use the terms male chauvinist (AnotherDad) or, worse, misogynist (L Woods, Whiskey, Anon375). The former are a dime a dozen around here. Of the latter, there are only a handful.

    Now, what about people who criticize women but aren't "misogynists"?

    I get really annoyed when these types carry on making assumptions about women's attitudes and behaviors that are not supported by the evidence, or at best are not the whole truth. Eventually one begins to suspect that it's not really about truth, but that there is in fact an irrational hatred simmering beneath the surface. The whole female hypergamy hoax is, to be charitable, not well-supported by the evidence.

    If I were tech-savvy, I would make over Tina Turner's classic and dedicate it to the manosphere:

    What's truth got to do, got to do with it?
    What's truth, but a sweet old-fashioned notion?

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=RDsmGG7L_JjSM

    The whole female hypergamy hoax is, to be charitable, not well-supported by the evidence.

    In 1960, 80% of couples were similarly educated. To me, that suggests that women behave like most people most of the time. That is, they are homogamous. They prefer someone similar to themselves.

    Now, more women than ever are marrying “down” educationally.

    https://time.com/7442/wives-are-now-more-educated-than-husbands/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In 1960, about 10% of men had college degrees, and about 5% of women did. There weren't enough college educated men to go around for women, and the vast majority of men and women didn't have college degrees and were thus "similarly educated".

    Today, the percentage of women with college degrees is slightly higher than men with college degrees. And now, more woman than ever aren't even marrying at all, let alone marrying "down":

    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2015/05/17/u.s.-marriage-rate-nears-record-low-as-millennials-wait-to-wed
  233. @Rosie

    But just as talking frankly about the negative impact AIPAC has on US foreign policy is not anti-Semitism, talking about the general dating preferences of women and why that might be contributing to why men choose the life paths they do, as opposed to “patriarchy”, isn’t sexism.
     
    First of all, I don't like the word "sexism." It is a cultural marxists term that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is morally suspect.

    I rather use the terms male chauvinist (AnotherDad) or, worse, misogynist (L Woods, Whiskey, Anon375). The former are a dime a dozen around here. Of the latter, there are only a handful.

    Now, what about people who criticize women but aren't "misogynists"?

    I get really annoyed when these types carry on making assumptions about women's attitudes and behaviors that are not supported by the evidence, or at best are not the whole truth. Eventually one begins to suspect that it's not really about truth, but that there is in fact an irrational hatred simmering beneath the surface. The whole female hypergamy hoax is, to be charitable, not well-supported by the evidence.

    If I were tech-savvy, I would make over Tina Turner's classic and dedicate it to the manosphere:

    What's truth got to do, got to do with it?
    What's truth, but a sweet old-fashioned notion?

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=RDsmGG7L_JjSM

    ‘…I get really annoyed when these types carry on making assumptions about women’s attitudes and behaviors that are not supported by the evidence, or at best are not the whole truth. Eventually one begins to suspect that it’s not really about truth, but that there is in fact an irrational hatred simmering beneath the surface…’

    I think what’s also true — and this is a general human tendency — is that we’re all attracted to trying to come up with some formula that explains it all.

    Well, when that’s a matter of general relativity, it’s laudable, and valid, but at its worst, it’s just a device to avoid thought, to escape having to consider each case on its merits.

    As Einstein said, ‘Everything should be made as simple as possible — but not simpler’ (or something like that).

  234. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The whole female hypergamy hoax is, to be charitable, not well-supported by the evidence.
     
    In 1960, 80% of couples were similarly educated. To me, that suggests that women behave like most people most of the time. That is, they are homogamous. They prefer someone similar to themselves.

    Now, more women than ever are marrying "down" educationally.

    https://time.com/7442/wives-are-now-more-educated-than-husbands/

    In 1960, about 10% of men had college degrees, and about 5% of women did. There weren’t enough college educated men to go around for women, and the vast majority of men and women didn’t have college degrees and were thus “similarly educated”.

    Today, the percentage of women with college degrees is slightly higher than men with college degrees. And now, more woman than ever aren’t even marrying at all, let alone marrying “down”:

    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2015/05/17/u.s.-marriage-rate-nears-record-low-as-millennials-wait-to-wed

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Today, the percentage of women with college degrees is slightly higher than men with college degrees. And now, more woman than ever aren’t even marrying at all, let alone marrying “down”:
     
    Still waiting to see evidence that this is women's fault.

    https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2372-man-shortage-men-drives-women-careers.html

  235. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    It bears nothing here that the need for exclusive control of an inheritance is more important in Islam than in Christian marriage. If men had access to women's inheritance, they could spend it on another wife!

    Primogeniture, male inheritance and succession, were historically the norms in Christian Europe. In rare cases where a sister or daughter inherited, typically her husband would assume the title and property.

    Note that these cultural artifacts such as inheritance, surnames, dynasticism, family prestige, etc., all derive from and are extensions of male competition with other males and are male reproductive strategies to perpetuate paternal lineages. They are forms of intergenerational male competition and paternal investment. Female inheritance defeats the purpose, and these artifacts and customs would not exist if female, rather than male, inheritance were the norm. A lord wins his estate and title due to bravery, service, and success in battle, but if there’s female inheritance, the lord’s honor, title, and estate go to the competing paternal lineage of whichever man his female heiress marries.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In rare cases where a sister or daughter inherited, typically her husband would assume the title and property.
     
    And fair-minded White judges and fathers decided the unjust and changed it. You lose. Go away.
  236. @Anonymous
    Primogeniture, male inheritance and succession, were historically the norms in Christian Europe. In rare cases where a sister or daughter inherited, typically her husband would assume the title and property.

    Note that these cultural artifacts such as inheritance, surnames, dynasticism, family prestige, etc., all derive from and are extensions of male competition with other males and are male reproductive strategies to perpetuate paternal lineages. They are forms of intergenerational male competition and paternal investment. Female inheritance defeats the purpose, and these artifacts and customs would not exist if female, rather than male, inheritance were the norm. A lord wins his estate and title due to bravery, service, and success in battle, but if there's female inheritance, the lord's honor, title, and estate go to the competing paternal lineage of whichever man his female heiress marries.

    In rare cases where a sister or daughter inherited, typically her husband would assume the title and property.

    And fair-minded White judges and fathers decided the unjust and changed it. You lose. Go away.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    How close is Anon375 to advocating female infanticide?

    "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor's garden."

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/watering-your-neighbors-g_b_520327


    A lord wins his estate and title due to bravery, service, and success in battle, but if there’s female inheritance, the lord’s honor, title, and estate go to the competing paternal lineage of whichever man his female heiress marries.
     
    , @Anonymous
    That's not how it happened. The average man had no say in the matter. Primogeniture is still the custom in England.

    Traditionally, the aristocracy and gentry were the primary people who had much to pass on and bequeath to heirs, so attacking inheritance laws was an indirect method of attacking the aristocracy as an institution and the aristocracy and gentry as classes of people.

    More recently, Marxist, socialist, and feminist ideologues have attacked and altered inheritance customs for reasons quite different from what ordinary men and women think.
  237. @Anonymous
    In 1960, about 10% of men had college degrees, and about 5% of women did. There weren't enough college educated men to go around for women, and the vast majority of men and women didn't have college degrees and were thus "similarly educated".

    Today, the percentage of women with college degrees is slightly higher than men with college degrees. And now, more woman than ever aren't even marrying at all, let alone marrying "down":

    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2015/05/17/u.s.-marriage-rate-nears-record-low-as-millennials-wait-to-wed

    Today, the percentage of women with college degrees is slightly higher than men with college degrees. And now, more woman than ever aren’t even marrying at all, let alone marrying “down”:

    Still waiting to see evidence that this is women’s fault.

    https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2372-man-shortage-men-drives-women-careers.html

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The article you linked to promotes the female hypergamy view that you've been attacking:

    The research highlights a sexual paradox associated with women's economic and educational advancement, according to Durante.

    "As women pursue more education and more lucrative careers when they can't find a husband, the ironic effect is that it will only get harder to find a husband as women become more educated and earn higher salaries," Durante said. "This is because a woman's mating standards keep increasing as she becomes more educated and wealthy, which further decreases the number of suitable mates.”
     
  238. @Rosie

    In rare cases where a sister or daughter inherited, typically her husband would assume the title and property.
     
    And fair-minded White judges and fathers decided the unjust and changed it. You lose. Go away.

    How close is Anon375 to advocating female infanticide?

    “Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor’s garden.”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/watering-your-neighbors-g_b_520327

    A lord wins his estate and title due to bravery, service, and success in battle, but if there’s female inheritance, the lord’s honor, title, and estate go to the competing paternal lineage of whichever man his female heiress marries.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm simply describing why these traditional customs - inheritance, succession, family surnames, dynasticism, etc. - exist in the first place. They exist because they are extensions of male competition with other men and paternal investment. A knight risks his life in battle fighting other men to acquire a title and estate, a man slaves away in business competing against other businessmen to build a fortune. These titles, estates, fortunes are bequeathed to male heirs so they benefit the paternal lineage that gave rise to them in the first place. With female inheritance, whichever man who succeeds in seducing the heiress ultimately benefits from the success of the male ancestor. You have a system that disincentivizes paternal investment. A man risking his life in service or slaving away at work becomes a sucker's game. Seducing women becomes the better strategy.

    A good example of this is Doris Duke, who was the heiress to the Duke tobacco fortune and the richest woman in the world. She married Porfirio Rubirosa, a famous Dominican playboy who was known for his large penis and sleeping with women all over Europe and the US. Duke did not end up having any children anyway, but this demonstrates the different selective pressures that obtain with female inheritance. With female inheritance, selective pressures move away from the male qualities that developed things like the Duke fortune in the first place towards male qualities exemplified by a man like Rubirosa. Why would a man risk his life and slave away like a sucker if his patrimony isn't going to go to his paternal lineage but to some sleazeball whose main talent is getting into women's pants? BTW, Rubirosa didn't just marry Duke, he also married Barbara Hutton, heiress to the Woolworth fortune.
  239. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Today, the percentage of women with college degrees is slightly higher than men with college degrees. And now, more woman than ever aren’t even marrying at all, let alone marrying “down”:
     
    Still waiting to see evidence that this is women's fault.

    https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2372-man-shortage-men-drives-women-careers.html

    The article you linked to promotes the female hypergamy view that you’ve been attacking:

    The research highlights a sexual paradox associated with women’s economic and educational advancement, according to Durante.

    “As women pursue more education and more lucrative careers when they can’t find a husband, the ironic effect is that it will only get harder to find a husband as women become more educated and earn higher salaries,” Durante said. “This is because a woman’s mating standards keep increasing as she becomes more educated and wealthy, which further decreases the number of suitable mates.”

  240. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    In rare cases where a sister or daughter inherited, typically her husband would assume the title and property.
     
    And fair-minded White judges and fathers decided the unjust and changed it. You lose. Go away.

    That’s not how it happened. The average man had no say in the matter. Primogeniture is still the custom in England.

    Traditionally, the aristocracy and gentry were the primary people who had much to pass on and bequeath to heirs, so attacking inheritance laws was an indirect method of attacking the aristocracy as an institution and the aristocracy and gentry as classes of people.

    More recently, Marxist, socialist, and feminist ideologues have attacked and altered inheritance customs for reasons quite different from what ordinary men and women think.

  241. Make it a question:

    Is

    Islam

    Right

    About

    Women?

    * * * * *
    Is

    Islam

    Right

    About

    Gays?

    * * * * *
    Is

    Islam

    Right

    About

    Slavery?

    * * * * *

    Heighten the contradictions.

  242. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    How close is Anon375 to advocating female infanticide?

    "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor's garden."

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/watering-your-neighbors-g_b_520327


    A lord wins his estate and title due to bravery, service, and success in battle, but if there’s female inheritance, the lord’s honor, title, and estate go to the competing paternal lineage of whichever man his female heiress marries.
     

    I’m simply describing why these traditional customs – inheritance, succession, family surnames, dynasticism, etc. – exist in the first place. They exist because they are extensions of male competition with other men and paternal investment. A knight risks his life in battle fighting other men to acquire a title and estate, a man slaves away in business competing against other businessmen to build a fortune. These titles, estates, fortunes are bequeathed to male heirs so they benefit the paternal lineage that gave rise to them in the first place. With female inheritance, whichever man who succeeds in seducing the heiress ultimately benefits from the success of the male ancestor. You have a system that disincentivizes paternal investment. A man risking his life in service or slaving away at work becomes a sucker’s game. Seducing women becomes the better strategy.

    A good example of this is Doris Duke, who was the heiress to the Duke tobacco fortune and the richest woman in the world. She married Porfirio Rubirosa, a famous Dominican playboy who was known for his large penis and sleeping with women all over Europe and the US. Duke did not end up having any children anyway, but this demonstrates the different selective pressures that obtain with female inheritance. With female inheritance, selective pressures move away from the male qualities that developed things like the Duke fortune in the first place towards male qualities exemplified by a man like Rubirosa. Why would a man risk his life and slave away like a sucker if his patrimony isn’t going to go to his paternal lineage but to some sleazeball whose main talent is getting into women’s pants? BTW, Rubirosa didn’t just marry Duke, he also married Barbara Hutton, heiress to the Woolworth fortune.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Why would a man risk his life and slave away like a sucker if his patrimony isn’t going to go to his paternal lineage but to some sleazeball whose main talent is getting into women’s pants?
     
    Oh vey, now you want to talk about merit. What if your son is a sleazeball, Mr. Dispassionate Academic?

    In any event, your logic is precisely the same as the logic that leads to female infanticide. Why raise daughters when all they're going to do is produce more enemies for you? Each family has an interest in raising sons and letting someone else raise daughters to be their wives someday. Of course, this all ends in a shitshow of dysfunction and constant strife.
  243. @AnotherDad
    Blah, blah ... mad ... blah, blah ... angry ... blah, blah ... chaps hide ... blah, blah, blah ...

    American women are the most privileged and coddled people in the history of the world ... and yet they manage to whine, whine, whine ... about their "oppression".

    Here's the nut, Rosie: Men are not the one's who have blown up the social order of the West.

    Like all feminists your basic ideology boils down to sexual socialism: "Men must provide for and give stuff to women regardless of whether you do anything for men or not."

    The whole 2nd wave "we just want to be free" story--which i'm for, not interested in coercing people--turned out to be ... utter b.s. Women actually can not do, or do as well, or do not want to do or do as intensively a whole passel of jobs that men do, including almost all material productive external labor. So when inequality still--quite rightfully-- exists, feminists demand everything be reordered (more totalitarian state power) so that anything--of course only what's high status/highly remunerative--be redistributed so women get a "fair share". And apply more coercive state power, so women can blow up their marriages and continue to suck from men. And apply more coercive state power to extract from productive men generally and redistribute to women.

    In essence sexual socialism: Whatever men produce ... belongs to women. Women don't have to--shouldn't have to--give men anything for their labors. Feminists are Orwell's pigs.


    In contrast, in civilization there is an evolved and time tested mechanism for women to enjoy the fruits of the labor of men--marriage. Behave in a way such that men actually *want* to share the fruit of their labor with you. But to feminists having to behave in such a fashion is "oppression". Using state power to make men give obnoxious, unpleasant women stuff is "liberation".

    Here’s the nut, Rosie: Men are not the one’s who have blown up the social order of the West.

    Actually they are. Most of the problems we face did not magically appear in the 90s or even the 70s. They originated in one bad decision after another, made from 1914 up to the 1960s. By the late 60s the damage was done.

    And those bad decisions were made by white men. White men motivated sometimes by misguided idealism and sometimes by greed and sometimes by cynicism, and always motivated by an ability to comprehend consequences.

    Feminism exists because of idiotic mistakes by white men, such as the introduction of the contraceptive pill at the beginning of the 60s. Feminism exists because greedy white men in the corporate sector encouraged it.

    Consumerism has been one of the major destructive forces and it exists because greedy white men saw a way to increase profits. Secularism exists in large part because men abandoned Christianity. The insanity of environmentalism was started by white men.

  244. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    A good example of this is Doris Duke, who was the heiress to the Duke tobacco fortune and the richest woman in the world. She married Porfirio Rubirosa, a famous Dominican playboy who was known for his large penis and sleeping with women all over Europe and the US. Duke did not end up having any children anyway, but this demonstrates the different selective pressures that obtain with female inheritance. With female inheritance, selective pressures move away from the male qualities that developed things like the Duke fortune in the first place towards male qualities exemplified by a man like Rubirosa. Why would a man risk his life and slave away like a sucker if his patrimony isn’t going to go to his paternal lineage but to some sleazeball whose main talent is getting into women’s pants? BTW, Rubirosa didn’t just marry Duke, he also married Barbara Hutton, heiress to the Woolworth fortune.

    In addition to having a very large and perpetually semi-erect peen, Porfy was shooting blanks. He never fathered any children because he could not.

    This combination is not rare in the Dominican Republic. Dominican men seem to be very often very large and sometimes the biggest guys are in a perpetual state of semiturgidity.

    But at any rate, Porfy was not a common phenomenon in the US, he was pretty unique in the celebrity history of the US show business and rich-heiress circles of his time. There were always playboys, but usually they were no genetically worse than the founding stock they mixed with and sometimes an improvement. Often they wound up single and childless or married off to the rich but homely heiress who wasn’t all that bright and the finances at least enabled the somewhat smarter kids to go to decent schools and enjoy life, though few were high achievers.

  245. @Anonymous
    I'm simply describing why these traditional customs - inheritance, succession, family surnames, dynasticism, etc. - exist in the first place. They exist because they are extensions of male competition with other men and paternal investment. A knight risks his life in battle fighting other men to acquire a title and estate, a man slaves away in business competing against other businessmen to build a fortune. These titles, estates, fortunes are bequeathed to male heirs so they benefit the paternal lineage that gave rise to them in the first place. With female inheritance, whichever man who succeeds in seducing the heiress ultimately benefits from the success of the male ancestor. You have a system that disincentivizes paternal investment. A man risking his life in service or slaving away at work becomes a sucker's game. Seducing women becomes the better strategy.

    A good example of this is Doris Duke, who was the heiress to the Duke tobacco fortune and the richest woman in the world. She married Porfirio Rubirosa, a famous Dominican playboy who was known for his large penis and sleeping with women all over Europe and the US. Duke did not end up having any children anyway, but this demonstrates the different selective pressures that obtain with female inheritance. With female inheritance, selective pressures move away from the male qualities that developed things like the Duke fortune in the first place towards male qualities exemplified by a man like Rubirosa. Why would a man risk his life and slave away like a sucker if his patrimony isn't going to go to his paternal lineage but to some sleazeball whose main talent is getting into women's pants? BTW, Rubirosa didn't just marry Duke, he also married Barbara Hutton, heiress to the Woolworth fortune.

    Why would a man risk his life and slave away like a sucker if his patrimony isn’t going to go to his paternal lineage but to some sleazeball whose main talent is getting into women’s pants?

    Oh vey, now you want to talk about merit. What if your son is a sleazeball, Mr. Dispassionate Academic?

    In any event, your logic is precisely the same as the logic that leads to female infanticide. Why raise daughters when all they’re going to do is produce more enemies for you? Each family has an interest in raising sons and letting someone else raise daughters to be their wives someday. Of course, this all ends in a shitshow of dysfunction and constant strife.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If your son is a sleazeball, he's still your son.

    Male inheritance is not the same thing as oppressing women. The daughters of a noble family still have high status even if they inherit nothing. Furthermore, in cases of primogeniture, younger sons don't inherit either. Also women, regardless of station, who become the wives of noble men acquire noble title and status, and thus it's more egalitarian for women. Women are able to raise their status by marrying well.

    Each family does not necessarily have an interest in raising sons exclusively simply because of male inheritance because most families have little to nothing to pass on. Moreover, it's generally easier for women to get married and have kids than it is for men, who generally need more economic status.

    Finally, it's not the case that there's no constant strife and competition with female inheritance. You still have strife and competition, just in, uh, different dimensions as Doris Duke herself suggested:

    https://observer.com/2005/09/rubirosa-man-of-pleasure-elegant-charming-worldly-big/

    The only real question is what exactly he had that drew all these ladies to him. A hit Cuban song of the 50’s put it this way: “¿Que Es Lo Tuyo, Rubirosa?” (“What Have You Got, Rubirosa?”) And if you know only one thing about “Porfy,” you already know the answer, though it takes Mr. Levy 125 pages to get to it: “There is no way around saying it out loud: The man was well-hung, hung, indeed, legendarily, his superhuman endowment a calling card that recommended him to circles into which he might otherwise never have gained admittance. Women heard about it, wondered about it, whispered about it, had to see it, hold it, have it—and who was he to deny them?”

    And who are we to doubt? The evidence is ironclad. Society photographer Jerome Zerbe, “on a dare, followed Rubi into the men’s room. He skittered out gleefully, the story went, with the intelligence, ‘It looks like Yul Brynner in a black turtleneck!’” Even more persuasive: Doris Duke reported to her godson, “It was the most magnificent penis that I had ever seen … six inches in circumference … much like the last foot of a Louisville Slugger baseball bat with the consistency of a not completely inflated volleyball.”
     
    , @Anonymous
    I have a wealthy friend who was second of five kids, the first son. two boys three girls.

    When the parents died the cash and most assets were divided five ways but the ancestral house and land they own in New York, went to him, the oldest male. because he was.

    It's a mixed blessing because of New York real estate taxes. He would not reside in the State of New York for all of Bill Gates' money. He's a gun nut and that's one main reason why he lives in Kansas. The small estate he rents out via an agency to Wall Streeters and entertainment types. It generates cash flow, but not an immense amount. Taxes and maintenance ad fees eat a lot. He uses some of the money to host a big shindig for the family and a few friends every year in some exotic place. He was kind enough to invite me last year, but I was too sick to go. The rest he divides out and pays to the other four kids, voluntarily, as his dad did with his brothers and sisters.

    The family has owned the property since, well, long enough ago the original parchment deed is in Dutch. The house dates to just after the Revolutionary War. It's all stone and replaced a wood one that burned down, but not because of the war. It's in a covenant or deed restriction that the house is to pass down to the oldest male heir alive in the chain, or be sold and the money all donated to some religious group that died out in the 1800s. Market value now is in the several million range.

    So, tell me, is this in your view a sexist pig practice or just common sense? I think that under any other agreement the house would be long gone from the family. Also, the male recipient has big incentive to have at least one son survive him. If he has no kids or only girls the property has to be sold.
  246. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Why would a man risk his life and slave away like a sucker if his patrimony isn’t going to go to his paternal lineage but to some sleazeball whose main talent is getting into women’s pants?
     
    Oh vey, now you want to talk about merit. What if your son is a sleazeball, Mr. Dispassionate Academic?

    In any event, your logic is precisely the same as the logic that leads to female infanticide. Why raise daughters when all they're going to do is produce more enemies for you? Each family has an interest in raising sons and letting someone else raise daughters to be their wives someday. Of course, this all ends in a shitshow of dysfunction and constant strife.

    If your son is a sleazeball, he’s still your son.

    Male inheritance is not the same thing as oppressing women. The daughters of a noble family still have high status even if they inherit nothing. Furthermore, in cases of primogeniture, younger sons don’t inherit either. Also women, regardless of station, who become the wives of noble men acquire noble title and status, and thus it’s more egalitarian for women. Women are able to raise their status by marrying well.

    Each family does not necessarily have an interest in raising sons exclusively simply because of male inheritance because most families have little to nothing to pass on. Moreover, it’s generally easier for women to get married and have kids than it is for men, who generally need more economic status.

    Finally, it’s not the case that there’s no constant strife and competition with female inheritance. You still have strife and competition, just in, uh, different dimensions as Doris Duke herself suggested:

    https://observer.com/2005/09/rubirosa-man-of-pleasure-elegant-charming-worldly-big/

    The only real question is what exactly he had that drew all these ladies to him. A hit Cuban song of the 50’s put it this way: “¿Que Es Lo Tuyo, Rubirosa?” (“What Have You Got, Rubirosa?”) And if you know only one thing about “Porfy,” you already know the answer, though it takes Mr. Levy 125 pages to get to it: “There is no way around saying it out loud: The man was well-hung, hung, indeed, legendarily, his superhuman endowment a calling card that recommended him to circles into which he might otherwise never have gained admittance. Women heard about it, wondered about it, whispered about it, had to see it, hold it, have it—and who was he to deny them?”

    And who are we to doubt? The evidence is ironclad. Society photographer Jerome Zerbe, “on a dare, followed Rubi into the men’s room. He skittered out gleefully, the story went, with the intelligence, ‘It looks like Yul Brynner in a black turtleneck!’” Even more persuasive: Doris Duke reported to her godson, “It was the most magnificent penis that I had ever seen … six inches in circumference … much like the last foot of a Louisville Slugger baseball bat with the consistency of a not completely inflated volleyball.”

  247. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Why would a man risk his life and slave away like a sucker if his patrimony isn’t going to go to his paternal lineage but to some sleazeball whose main talent is getting into women’s pants?
     
    Oh vey, now you want to talk about merit. What if your son is a sleazeball, Mr. Dispassionate Academic?

    In any event, your logic is precisely the same as the logic that leads to female infanticide. Why raise daughters when all they're going to do is produce more enemies for you? Each family has an interest in raising sons and letting someone else raise daughters to be their wives someday. Of course, this all ends in a shitshow of dysfunction and constant strife.

    I have a wealthy friend who was second of five kids, the first son. two boys three girls.

    When the parents died the cash and most assets were divided five ways but the ancestral house and land they own in New York, went to him, the oldest male. because he was.

    It’s a mixed blessing because of New York real estate taxes. He would not reside in the State of New York for all of Bill Gates’ money. He’s a gun nut and that’s one main reason why he lives in Kansas. The small estate he rents out via an agency to Wall Streeters and entertainment types. It generates cash flow, but not an immense amount. Taxes and maintenance ad fees eat a lot. He uses some of the money to host a big shindig for the family and a few friends every year in some exotic place. He was kind enough to invite me last year, but I was too sick to go. The rest he divides out and pays to the other four kids, voluntarily, as his dad did with his brothers and sisters.

    The family has owned the property since, well, long enough ago the original parchment deed is in Dutch. The house dates to just after the Revolutionary War. It’s all stone and replaced a wood one that burned down, but not because of the war. It’s in a covenant or deed restriction that the house is to pass down to the oldest male heir alive in the chain, or be sold and the money all donated to some religious group that died out in the 1800s. Market value now is in the several million range.

    So, tell me, is this in your view a sexist pig practice or just common sense? I think that under any other agreement the house would be long gone from the family. Also, the male recipient has big incentive to have at least one son survive him. If he has no kids or only girls the property has to be sold.

  248. @Malcolm X-Lax

    Islam
    Is
    WRONG
    About
    Women
     
    Prankster, if you're listening, this clearly has to be the follow up.

    Good ones and sorry for the late reply.

    I wonder how a Jew would react if he see a flyer saying “Jews are white”?

  249. @Rosie
    1. How does not liking to change tires make a woman not strong and independent? Also, do men who don't like to change tires stop being strong and independent on that account? Mr. Rosie calls Truple A.

    2. The feminist position is precisely that recruitment of women should be a priority because they are just as smart and motivated as men, even when it comes to STEM. I don't happen to think that theory fits the data, but there is nothing hypocritical about it on its face.

    3. Sorry, but I don't think any feminists are demanding closed-door meetings with one dirty old man and nobody else. That said, this is a genuine dilemma and feminists can legitimately disagree about how to deal with it.

    4. I hadn't heard about the feminine noun issue. I doubt anyone really cares.

    You prove my point for me. Thank you dearie.

  250. @Harry Baldwin
    Well thought-out list!

    Shucks, just off the top of my head.

    Silly feminists know not what they do.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS