Balance between religious extremism and controlling women?

[Pandora]

The Puritans attempted what the Taliban is doing. They enforced strict laws against female sexuality. They knew that uncontrolled hypergamy will ruin the world. I am not in favor of being brutal to women if they act like a whure but is there a balance? If you let it go unchecked you get modern America. If you go Sharia law you get invaded by the West lol.

Even in these Sharia law cultures I suspect homosexuality is high because of sexual repression. So is there a balance? Maybe there is no balance. Or the balance is what we had in the 1980s America? I feel like the 1980s were the perfect balance between the sexes. Women had some sexual liberation but not enough to ruin the world.

 

[Pandora]

So the religious extremist of the Afghans knew in the 1920's that making women equal would lead to bad things. Read this qoute from this article. I will leave the link. Btw this qoute was from around 1921. They even knew this back then!

Certain religious leaders contended that education for women " would lead to the breakdown of the family and sexual anarchy would ultimately degrade women. The honour of the nation would be lost" ( Dupree 1984: 307).


So basically certain monarchs have been trying to push for Afghani liberal feminist policies but religious leaders have been pushing back. I am starting to believe that the demonization of the Afghan religious extremist is a gynocentric plot. The West wanted to implant liberalism in that nation. Luckily it didnt work.

here is the research paper link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/231665...0dedfc8bd36a4fa7&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[AttackFormation]

So the religious extremist of the Afghans knew in the 1920's that making women equal would lead to bad things. Read this qoute from this article. I will leave the link. Btw this qoute was from around 1921. They even knew this back then!

Certain religious leaders contended that education for women " would lead to the breakdown of the family and sexual anarchy would ultimately degrade women. The honour of the nation would be lost" ( Dupree 1984: 307).


So basically certain monarchs have been trying to push for Afghani liberal feminist policies but religious leaders have been pushing back. I am starting to believe that the demonization of the Afghan religious extremist is a gynocentric plot. The West wanted to implant liberalism in that nation. Luckily it didnt work.

here is the research paper link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23166559?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior:87ed134db8921a160dedfc8bd36a4fa7&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

I would rather have liberty for women than totalitarian paternalism over them. Even if it really was a "gynocentric plot", denying education to women is too totalitarian for me. You have to consider what morality you yourself are sacrificing as a means to an end.

Besides that, i think it might make sense for us to more officially move in a polygamous direction as we are doing already, rather than clinging on to a veneer of monogamy. Raise kids in compounds and just be polygamous. Then you can just let go of all the anxiety about monogamy and women, if you cant find another way to let go of the anxiety.

 

[zekko]

There has to be some sort of middle area between complete oppression and disrespect of women, and having the female imperative go completely unchecked. And something I always like to bring up, if men are going to be leaders, they need to be worthy leaders.

 

[AttackFormation]

And something I always like to bring up, if men are going to be leaders, they need to be worthy leaders.

I dont trust the idea of putting "men" in charge of society by default, because it shifts the focus from what morality an individual has to be fit for a leader, to being which gender they are.

You will have pathological personalities dragging themselves into leadership positions by validating the egos of other men, then egging on their undercurrent of pathological traits - anger, narcissism, paranoia, sadism, cruelty - under the facade of paternalism. You will have a hypocritical "hedonism for me, rules for thee" culture where men who try to have casual sex with women will be tolerated, but women who have casual sex with men will be condemned, despite that the man is equally guilty of intentionally "sabotaging" the women and thus the culture's sexual standard.

I dont want a society like that. I want to live in a culture that recognises the tendency to sin in all of us, and doesnt make excuses for hypocrisy or raise anyone above reproach or below credibility just by their gender.

 

[BriBri]

Or the balance is what we had in the 1980s America? I feel like the 1980s were the perfect balance between the sexes. Women had some sexual liberation but not enough to ruin the world.

When I was 'exploring my sexuality' in the 1980s (I was in high school), pre-internet, I found girls to be more fun and open to 'fooling around'. But, one night stands were not common where I was. Girls wanted to be 'going steady' before they'd 'put out'. So, you'd have to be patient for a month or so before getting some action. Of course, I am sure there were 'easy' girls, but they were not visible enough for me to take notice. But, I'm getting off the original topic.....

 

[SargeMaximus]

I would rather have liberty for women than totalitarian paternalism over them. Even if it really was a "gynocentric plot", denying education to women is too totalitarian for me. You have to consider what morality you yourself are sacrificing as a means to an end.

Besides that, i think it might make sense for us to more officially move in a polygamous direction as we are doing already, rather than clinging on to a veneer of monogamy. Raise kids in compounds and just be polygamous. Then you can just let go of all the anxiety about monogamy and women, if you cant find another way to let go of the anxiety.

Agreed. The monogamy camp is just insecure men. I lived with a poly couple. As long as you’re getting sex you really don’t care unless you have some insecurities

 

[bmp2cpm]

Don’t confuse controlling with leading.

Women want to be led by their man. Quality women will change a huge amount for their man. They do this in exchange for his leadership and to take part in his resources.

My wife was raised in one of the most controlling and least respected religions in the country. It was so controlling, she left it as soon as she was an adult.

My wife converted to my religion in order to marry me. She was baptized. Every Sunday, we worship together. She is the happiest person in church, literally, because she is finally in a religion that does not control every aspect of her life.

Religion is good for keeping a women much more monogamous than a modern woman. And it gives you great coping skills to the stresses of life.
Pro tip: life never stops getting stressful.

 

[SargeMaximus]

Very telling.

And so is that.

 

[zekko]

You will have pathological personalities dragging themselves into leadership positions by validating the egos of other men, then egging on their undercurrent of pathological traits - anger, narcissism, paranoia, sadism, cruelty - under the facade of paternalism.

This is what we have now, but maybe not under the facade of paternalism.

Regarding "hedonism for me, rules for thee", I've always thought that the pickup movement, with its promotion of hookup culture, spinning plates, and the more sex partners the bigger the man you are, has contributed heavily to the deterioration in the quality of woman. They complain that there are no good women, but they're going around encouraging as many of them to slvt it up as they can. For instance, they promote the idea that if women don't put out right away, the guy will be gone. And they warn against slvt shaming, which just encourages more bad behavior. It's far from the only factor in what's going on, but it's one of them. At the very least, it isn't a solution.

I dont want a society like that. I want to live in a culture that recognises the tendency to sin in all of us, and doesnt make excuses for hypocrisy or raise anyone above reproach or below credibility just by their gender.

I believe the man should lead, but he needs to lead well. Back in the '50s, I don't think the men led well, and got dragged down with affairs, drunkenness, and domestic abuse. So they lost their leadership position. If you don't have a position of moral authority, you can't lead.

 

[Georgepithyou]

Give someone an inch and they will take a mile, this goes for both genders. Afghanistan is not some red pill male utopia that you think it is.

I've always thought that the pickup movement, with its promotion of hookup culture, spinning plates, and the more sex partners the bigger the man you are, has contributed heavily to the deterioration in the quality of woman

I disagree, those in the pickup world are in an extremely small minority, less than 1% are even red pill aware.

The real issue is simps overinflating the egos of women with constant streams of validation online.

A lot of the problems our society face today can be traced back to simps, they greatly outnumber those of us in the manosphere.

I look at social media like facebook, Back in 2009 i had women nearby adding me and even messaging me, i found my first few girlfriends this way. But now thousands of men have inboxed every woman that she won't even see your messages and she has an ego the size of mt everest.

Instagram in 2010 was also a gold mine, until every simp and his dog ruined it.

Tinder in 2013 was awesome as well, it was so easy to meetup with women, despite me having one photo on there. Now I'm lucky if a girl even replies to my message.

 

[Focal core]

I dont think religion have anything to do with women loyalty.. They will fck whoever they likes even it means at the back of alley.

 

[zekko]

The real issue is simps overinflating the egos of women with constant streams of validation online.

Definitely social media is a huge factor in the reduction of quality in women, maybe the biggest factor.

But I still think PUA stuff has a hand in it. Remember, according to PUA theory, 20% of guys are banging 80% of the women, so that covers a lot of ground, and leaves behind a lot of alpha widows. And it's not just the PUAs, it's the guys that the PUAs are emulating.

 

[forcerecon01]

I have given it much thought. The west will never retrograde backwards to an older paradigm. So just throw that out.

Within the NEW paradigm it would be infinitely easier to get a balance that is beneficial for all.

You must NEVER expect or even think that women will help us or retract one single inch. It will never happen. EVER!!! They are molders and can never change that.

Men, for the foreseeable future, must not assist women. Not live with them or marry them. No assistance at work unless it’s your job. Help your brothers.

This will, in time, drive women back to a point that they concede by action, that men are in charge of the relationship. They are in charge of the sex and men are in charge of EVERYbTHING else in their lives. The second she doesn’t think so or through any contrivance or means seizes any type of power, or sabotages this well laid out dynamic…she’s done.

Now this, I do believe is obtainable. Continue to enjoy women, love them, have fun with them, BUT the man must never propose (marriage) to a woman or in any way invite one to move in.

If you guys want a better world to live in, in harmony with life and women, you would have to do this. Of course there will be the undesirable men who just can’t make the leap. Let them have at it and get chewed up in the meat grinder. They earned it. No mercy and no shoulder to cry on.

WOMEN WILL MOLD TO THIS!!!!

Only men can lead us into the new and constructive paradigm. I’ve kept it to myself but I’ve laid the whole thing out in one of my journals. If you are just interested in yourself, I’m ok with that too. Go forth.

So true. Its not too late men can change the future for our country to something better IMO. Men need to kill their desperation.

 

[Georgepithyou]

So true. Its not too late men can change the future for our country to something better IMO. Men need to kill their desperation.

We never should have let this happen in the first place, society should be improving not getting worse.

Definitely social media is a huge factor in the reduction of quality in women, maybe the biggest factor.

But I still think PUA stuff has a hand in it. Remember, according to PUA theory, 20% of guys are banging 80% of the women, so that covers a lot of ground, and leaves behind a lot of alpha widows. And it's not just the PUAs, it's the guys that the PUAs are emulating

The whole PUA scene exists because of how bad the dating landscape had gotten, it's simply a byproduct. If we still had the idealistic 1950s patriarchal Culture we wouldn't have PUAs.

Simps allowed the sexual revolution to happen and destroy the family unit.

 

[Stuffnu]

Sharia Law and extremism is draconian. It’s meant to control and repress women where non compliance can lead to death. This is no comparison to masculinity and not worthy of discussion. Yes a man should lead and display strength but a girl should be comfortable in your glow - not fear it.

 

[zekko]

The whole PUA scene exists because of how bad the dating landscape had gotten, it's simply a byproduct. If we still had the idealistic 1950s patriarchal Culture we wouldn't have PUAs.

I don't think the dating scene was all that bad when the PUAs first started gaining popularity. It was more of a way for awkward guys to find a way to be successful. Certainly the scene wasn't as good as it was back in the '50s. Back then a man was actually a catch. Before social media, The Pill was the big thing that changed everything.

As I said before, the men in the '50s failed their leadership roles by being abusive, unfaithful, and addicted to drink. The women at the time felt unfulfilled and unappreciated, and over time more women starting carving out more independent lives apart from men, aided by the thriving economies.

 

[KirthWGersen]

You can control a women with fear or desire.

If you control her with fear, she will run away at the first chance she gets. The cost to your personal worth as a man in attempting to achieve such a futile goal makes it never worth it. Only pathetic, insecure men try it.

If you control her with desire, she will be yours whether she is with you or not. She will be be yours as long as the desire lasts. If it doesn't, at that point you walk away with your head held high and simply find another.

 

[Pandora]

I have given it much thought. The west will never retrograde backwards to an older paradigm. So just throw that out.

Within the NEW paradigm it would be infinitely easier to get a balance that is beneficial for all.

You must NEVER expect or even think that women will help us or retract one single inch. It will never happen. EVER!!! They are molders and can never change that.

Men, for the foreseeable future, must not assist women. Not live with them or marry them. No assistance at work unless it’s your job. Help your brothers.

This will, in time, drive women back to a point that they concede by action, that men are in charge of the relationship. They are in charge of the sex and men are in charge of EVERYbTHING else in their lives. The second she doesn’t think so or through any contrivance or means seizes any type of power, or sabotages this well laid out dynamic…she’s done.

So you think this is a war of attrition? Do you see any signs of women capitulating yet?

 

[Pandora]

Give someone an inch and they will take a mile, this goes for both genders. Afghanistan is not some red pill male utopia that you think it is.




I disagree, those in the pickup world are in an extremely small minority, less than 1% are even red pill aware.

The real issue is simps overinflating the egos of women with constant streams of validation online.

A lot of the problems our society face today can be traced back to simps, they greatly outnumber those of us in the manosphere.

I look at social media like facebook, Back in 2009 i had women nearby adding me and even messaging me, i found my first few girlfriends this way. But now thousands of men have inboxed every woman that she won't even see your messages and she has an ego the size of mt everest.

Instagram in 2010 was also a gold mine, until every simp and his dog ruined it.

Tinder in 2013 was awesome as well, it was so easy to meetup with women, despite me having one photo on there. Now I'm lucky if a girl even replies to my message.

Hmm interesting. I often under acknowledge the role simps have to play in womens inflated ego. This is because I do not personally hang out with many simps so I forget that they are plentiful. Do you think this is changing? I think men are starting to shame simping.