Why Is Patriarchy Seen As A Bad Thing?

[sweep_shot]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

My parents grew up in the 1940s and 1950s which you idealise. My mother was in England and my father was in East Pakistan.

Let me say a few things about this.

Firstly, life was in many respects similar in terms of the place and rights of women at the time. Both had patriarchal systems in place, and both used religion as a flimsy pretext to enforce what males in that society had wanted since pre-religious times.

Secondly, it was far from idyllic. The plight of women in both societies was very similar - and terrible compared with what we see in western societies now.

The myth of "happy families" was a blatant lie. Women were married off young on the basis that it was the "right" way to be sexually active - and ended up married to self-centred, oafish males.

But there was no economic freedom for women, so they were trapped in terrible marriages to appalling men, with no way out.

Marital rape was universal. Violent "disciplining" of children was universal.

Women were expected to have one sexual partner in their lives, yet their actual sexual health was terrible compared within western societies today. Deaths from cervical cancer were as terrible as they remain in 2022 within the current immigrant Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. Cervical cancer is caused by sexual transmission of the Human Papilloma Virus - yet married Muslim women remain at high risk of death from it, and western women never die of it because they are vaccinated!

Levels of female tertiary education were low - you put that down to them not "needing" an education, but without education there is no economic independence, and without economic independence women were trapped in bad marriages to useless misogynistic husbands.

As I keep writing, people become sexually active at the same age whether they are married couples in Afghanistan or single people in Europe. But without universal free healthcare, western women in the 1940s were often trapped into premature parenthood which ruined their lives.

Premature parenthood was a tragedy for married 20 year old women who ended up stuck with their useless husband forever. It was a catastrophe for single 22 year old women, whose chance of marriage in the future basically vanished, and they ended up having to marry the father if he would have them, regardless of his level of uselessness.

In short, religion has often become a tool used by unscrupulous males to establish and maintain control over women.

Religion served a purpose in primitive societies which lacked better mechanisms for protecting its population. The misogyny of most established religions at least ensured that babies were not born to impoverished unwed mothers and that men had to take responsibility for their children.

But western societies have learned that what religion used to provide societies, badly, can be much better provided by having a population which is universally educated, has universal free healthcare, and has equal rights to employment enshrined in law.

Those mechanisms protect women and children far more effectively than religion used to.

As I have shown, in the 1940s there wasn't a vast difference between life for the middle and upper classes in the UK and Pakistan. The old patriarchal society prevailed in both.

But fast forward to 2022, and the child of an unwed mother in the west gets better education, better healthcare and a better life than the child of married parents in patriarchal societies.

In effect, this thread boils down to whether religion or social progressiveness delivers better outcomes in life.

But the answer is actually that social progressiveness outperforms religion by a massive margin.

Which is why even previously conservative, religious societies like the Republic of Ireland and Italy have abandoned religion in favour of progress.

You are generalizing too much here. You are acting like all patriarchs were bad in the past which was obviously not the case.

I don't know what your religious belief is. Are you an agnostic or atheist?

Religion is important to most people on this planet. Here's a breakdown:

Below is each religion's total estimated population for 2020:

Christianity - 2.38 billion
Islam - 1.91 billion
Hinduism - 1.16 billion
Buddhism - 507 million
Folk Religions - 430 million
Other Religions - 61 million
Judaism - 14.6 million
Unaffiliated - 1.19 billion

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/religion-by-country.

I am not sure what you meant by Ireland and Italy abandoning religion in favor of progress. Most people in those countries are still Christians.

It is possible to progress without abandoning religion. I know many educated and successful people who are very religious too.

 

[Abel Reames]

Why would she fall in love? Is she a kid? If she sees the man is married, why would she fall for it?

This is why benevolent patriarchy is important. I believe benevolent patriarchy can protect women from predatory men.

Maybe she is hoping she can become the 2nd/3rd/4th wife.

 

[Junaids]

You are generalizing too much here. You are acting like all patriarchs were bad in the past which was obviously not the case.

I don't know what your religious belief is. Are you an agnostic or atheist?

Religion is important to most people on this planet. Here's a breakdown:



Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/religion-by-country.

I am not sure what you meant by Ireland and Italy abandoning religion in favor of progress. Most people in those countries are still Christians.

It is possible to progress without abandoning religion. I know many educated and successful people who are very religious too.

Thirty years ago Catholics in Italy and Ireland shared your beliefs about homosexuality, sex outside marriage and cohabitation of unmarried couples and probably had more conservative views than you do about contraception and abortion.

Now they still call themselves Christian, but are as ignorant as other western people about what the Bible actually says about the death penalty, sex outside marriage and homosexuality, and they disagree with it.

Most western people are unfamiliar with Biblical teaching about these things, and when they have read to them what the Bible says about it they unflinchingly call the Biblical scriptures "evil" while still identifying as Christian.

I mean no offence, but as I have read your comments in this thread I have found a number of them - particularly about if you had a daughter who got pregnant outside marriage, or a child who abandoned religion - to be what I would call immoral.

You are a man of deep religious faith, but I find some of those religious beliefs to be immoral because they are also part of my own religion, and they are part of my religion that I reject as immoral.

In the west, very few of us consider our priests or religious scholars to be people of better morality than ourselves. Quite the opposite, actually.

I think if you immerse yourself in the primitive morality and ethics of uneducated unsophisticated humans of the past, you take on everything that was wrong about them as well as everything that was worth keeping.

Ask @ Robert. He, like me, probably is very fond of the Reverend Richard Coles, who used to be part of the Communards pop group and whose homosexual partner died a couple of years ago. To me, he is the acceptable face of my religion - someone who embodies accepting what was good about the religion, and discarding everything that does not fit in the modern world.

But, like me, he probably despises the African clerics of the same Anglican Church, who treat homosexuality and sex outside marriage as being immoral. I think that they are the immoral ones!

 

[saeedhk]

Why is patriarchy seen as a bad thing?

Just look at the state of women in Pakistan and you will find your answer.

This thread sheds more light to the above statement.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-damning-state-of-Pakistan-s-women&p=11392260

 

[sweep_shot]

Why is patriarchy seen as a bad thing?

Just look at the state of women in Pakistan and you will find your answer.

This thread sheds more light to the above statement.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-damning-state-of-Pakistan-s-women&p=11392260

I don't deny this. But, I think this issue has more to do with corruption and poverty than patriarchy.

I expect patriarchy to work just fine in a well off family.

 

[Abel Reames]

Why is patriarchy seen as a bad thing?

Just look at the state of women in Pakistan and you will find your answer.

This thread sheds more light to the above statement.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-damning-state-of-Pakistan-s-women&p=11392260

But the OP probably would say that that is the fault of the women and their shortcomings because you know he knows examples of where the kids are successful and women are happy even under patriarchy. And he accuses others of generalising. Oh if it is not the fault of the women then it is the fault of men. But the system is perfect. Just not when practised by men or women.

 

[Abel Reames]

I don't deny this. But, I think this issue has more to do with corruption and poverty than patriarchy.

I expect patriarchy to work just fine in a well off family.

So patriarchy doesn't work for everyone!

 

[sweep_shot]

Ask @ Robert. He, like me, probably is very fond of the Reverend Richard Coles, who used to be part of the Communards pop group and whose homosexual partner died a couple of years ago. To me, he is the acceptable face of my religion - someone who embodies accepting what was good about the religion, and discarding everything that does not fit in the modern world.

Well, you can't pick and choose.

Either you accept the whole package or you don't.

 

[sweep_shot]

So patriarchy doesn't work for everyone!

I said most of the problems in subcontinent (including Pakistan) have to do with corruption and poverty.

If corruption is gone and poverty is reduced, things can be fine with or without patriarchy.

 

[saeedhk]

I don't deny this. But, I think this issue has more to do with corruption and poverty than patriarchy.

I expect patriarchy to work just fine in a well off family.

Nope. The only reason why Pakistan ranks number one in honour killings is because men think they own women, and that they have a right to take decisions on their behalf and to even kill them to save the family's honour. A large percentage of women do not receive a share in family inheritance just because of their gender!

Thousands of girls and women are killed in Pakistan every year just for wanting to marry a spouse of choice, thousands are killed over trivial matters such as serving cold food, failing to make delicious curries or giving birth to a baby girl. Women are attacked with acid for refusing a marriage proposal. This all sickness that we witness in Pakistan is a result of deep-rooted misogyny, patriarchy and a general hateful attitude towards women.

We rank number one in the number of out of school girls because of patriarchy. It is widely believed in Pakistan that women should not be educated as they would become enlightened and aware of their rights. Our female literacy stands at a dismal 44.5%!

 

[Junaids]

Well, you can't pick and choose.

Either you accept the whole package or you don't.

I disagree.

90+% of western Christians understand that the disciples who wrote the Bible were primitive, uneducated bigots - like our own grandparents.

So we reject the immoral ancient aspects of religion. We know that God would have wanted to help vulnerable unmarried mothers or gay men dying of AIDS, and if not, such a God would not, in our opinion, be worthy of praise.

So we retain the good and discard the bad.

 

[Robert]

It isn't restricted to Muslims or brown people. You've inadvertantly revealed your prejudice which you did a very good job of hiding behind your bluster

I’m prejudiced against cultures which oppress women. Doesn’t matter to me what race the oppressed women are.

 

[Robert]

Well, you can't pick and choose.

Either you accept the whole package or you don't.

Christians can and do pick and choose. At least the Church of England and Nonconformists do, throwing out the “benevolent” patriarchal prohibition again women speaking in church. Now they have women Bishops, and Archbishops in due time. That is part of how the West overran the world - Western Christianity moves with the times.

And yes [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] I am quite fond of Rev Coles. His song For a Friend about the Irish gay activist Mark Ashton is one of the most beautiful I have ever heard.

 

[sweep_shot]

Christians can and do pick and choose. At least the Church of England and Nonconformists do, throwing out the “benevolent” patriarchal prohibition again women speaking in church. Now they have women Bishops, and Archbishops in due time. That is part of how the West overran the world - Western Christianity moves with the times.

And yes [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] I am quite fond of Rev Coles. His song For a Friend about the Irish gay activist Mark Ashton is one of the most beautiful I have ever heard.

This is why perhaps Christianity is declining. Things become farcical when you pick and choose.

West overran the world by colonizing and stealing resources from other countries.

 

[sweep_shot]

I’m prejudiced against cultures which oppress women. Doesn’t matter to me what race the oppressed women are.

What is your definition of "oppression"? Some may say west often oppresses women due to turning them into sex objects.

Definition of oppression can vary from culture to culture.

Western definitions and norms aren't applicable all over the world. Western influence is declining anyway.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

My parents grew up in the 1940s and 1950s which you idealise. My mother was in England and my father was in East Pakistan.

Let me say a few things about this.

Firstly, life was in many respects similar in terms of the place and rights of women at the time. Both had patriarchal systems in place, and both used religion as a flimsy pretext to enforce what males in that society had wanted since pre-religious times.

Secondly, it was far from idyllic. The plight of women in both societies was very similar - and terrible compared with what we see in western societies now.

The myth of "happy families" was a blatant lie. Women were married off young on the basis that it was the "right" way to be sexually active - and ended up married to self-centred, oafish males.

But there was no economic freedom for women, so they were trapped in terrible marriages to appalling men, with no way out.

Marital rape was universal. Violent "disciplining" of children was universal.

Women were expected to have one sexual partner in their lives, yet their actual sexual health was terrible compared within western societies today. Deaths from cervical cancer were as terrible as they remain in 2022 within the current immigrant Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. Cervical cancer is caused by sexual transmission of the Human Papilloma Virus - yet married Muslim women remain at high risk of death from it, and western women never die of it because they are vaccinated!

Levels of female tertiary education were low - you put that down to them not "needing" an education, but without education there is no economic independence, and without economic independence women were trapped in bad marriages to useless misogynistic husbands.

As I keep writing, people become sexually active at the same age whether they are married couples in Afghanistan or single people in Europe. But without universal free healthcare, western women in the 1940s were often trapped into premature parenthood which ruined their lives.

Premature parenthood was a tragedy for married 20 year old women who ended up stuck with their useless husband forever. It was a catastrophe for single 22 year old women, whose chance of marriage in the future basically vanished, and they ended up having to marry the father if he would have them, regardless of his level of uselessness.

In short, religion has often become a tool used by unscrupulous males to establish and maintain control over women.

Religion served a purpose in primitive societies which lacked better mechanisms for protecting its population. The misogyny of most established religions at least ensured that babies were not born to impoverished unwed mothers and that men had to take responsibility for their children.

But western societies have learned that what religion used to provide societies, badly, can be much better provided by having a population which is universally educated, has universal free healthcare, and has equal rights to employment enshrined in law.

Those mechanisms protect women and children far more effectively than religion used to.

As I have shown, in the 1940s there wasn't a vast difference between life for the middle and upper classes in the UK and Pakistan. The old patriarchal society prevailed in both.

But fast forward to 2022, and the child of an unwed mother in the west gets better education, better healthcare and a better life than the child of married parents in patriarchal societies.

In effect, this thread boils down to whether religion or social progressiveness delivers better outcomes in life.

But the answer is actually that social progressiveness outperforms religion by a massive margin.

Which is why even previously conservative, religious societies like the Republic of Ireland and Italy have abandoned religion in favour of progress.

Are you Nick Ahad?.

 

[sweep_shot]

I disagree.

90+% of western Christians understand that the disciples who wrote the Bible were primitive, uneducated bigots - like our own grandparents.

So we reject the immoral ancient aspects of religion. We know that God would have wanted to help vulnerable unmarried mothers or gay men dying of AIDS, and if not, such a God would not, in our opinion, be worthy of praise.

So we retain the good and discard the bad.

Are you saying Bible was written by men and not divine revelation? We know Bible has been altered but original Bible was from God.

In that case, how can you call yourself a Christian?

 

[Technics 1210]

Women have disproportionate access to health services in Northern Ireland. MPs are fighting for women's rights in NI.

For clarity, NI is part of the UK

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Facinating insight as to similar themes across the border:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...ns-view-gender-roles-in-families-and-society/

More than half a century ago, India was one of the first countries in the world to elect a woman as prime minister, and the country currently has several highly influential women politicians, including Sonia Gandhi, the head of one of the major national parties. Today, most Indians say that “women and men make equally good political leaders,” and more than one-in-ten feel that women generally make better political leaders than men, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey of nearly 30,000 adults throughout India. Only a quarter of Indian adults take the position that men make better political leaders than women.

Yet, in domestic settings, Indians tend to say men should have more prominent roles than women. About nine-in-ten Indians agree with the notion that a wife must always obey her husband, including nearly two-thirds who completely agree with this sentiment. Indian women are only slightly less likely than Indian men to say they completely agree that wives should always obey their husbands (61% vs. 67%), according to the survey, which was conducted between late 2019 and early 2020 (mostly before the COVID-19 pandemic).

I wonder if this is a cultural thing which spans across the subcontinent regardless of religion or nationality?

 

[sweep_shot]

Facinating insight as to similar themes across the border:




I wonder if this is a cultural thing which spans across the subcontinent regardless of religion or nationality?

I say it is a human thing. I believe it is like this in many countries. Even west used to be like this but then leftists took over.

Whole world has one perception regarding what's normal while leftists have a different perception. As a matter of fact, leftists often don't know what they want.

 

[Technics 1210]

Facinating insight as to similar themes across the border:

I wonder if this is a cultural thing which spans across the subcontinent regardless of religion or nationality?

Neither cultural, nor religious, but natural.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Neither cultural, nor religious, but natural.

Perhaps, but worth discussing why it is across the board. My interest was piqued when I saw [MENTION=48598]saeedhk[/MENTION] land in the thread with his usual narrow focus on Pakistan only, but the thread hasn't specified only a single nation, so I think it is worth looking from a wider context regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.

 

[Robert]

What is your definition of "oppression"? Some may say west often oppresses women due to turning them into sex objects.

Definition of oppression can vary from culture to culture.

Western definitions and norms aren't applicable all over the world. Western influence is declining anyway.

Preventing from reaching their potential by the power structure.

Yes, the objectifying of women as sex objects is part of patriarchy.

 

[Robert]

This is why perhaps Christianity is declining. Things become farcical when you pick and choose.

West overran the world by colonizing and stealing resources from other countries.

Europe had to have something about it to be able to overrun the world and subjugate all those societies. What do you think that something was?

 

[Champ_Pal]

What is your definition of "oppression"? Some may say west often oppresses women due to turning them into sex objects.

Definition of oppression can vary from culture to culture.

Western definitions and norms aren't applicable all over the world. Western influence is declining anyway.

Now don't tell us about benevolent oppression.

 

[Robert]

Now don't tell us about benevolent oppression.

Zing.

 

[sweep_shot]

Europe had to have something about it to be able to overrun the world and subjugate all those societies. What do you think that something was?

British Empire looted $45-trillion from Indian subcontinent alone. Who knows what the amount is from Africa?

If any civilization loots that much, advancement is always likely.

If poor countries get $45-trillion, I am sure they can also become advanced.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Preventing from reaching their potential by the power structure.

Yes, the objectifying of women as sex objects is part of patriarchy.

Liberalism= Women are free, offer yourself , out yourself on display

Conservative = Have some self-respect

 

[sweep_shot]

Yes, the objectifying of women as sex objects is part of patriarchy.

In that case, west is #1 at it.

Women with little clothes get paraded around to promote products and whatnot.

 

[sweep_shot]

Liberalism= Women are free, offer yourself , out yourself on display

Conservative = Have some self-respect

Leftists are out of touch with reality.

I recently saw an interview where a gender studies professor was uncomfortable with the word "truth".

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Europe had to have something about it to be able to overrun the world and subjugate all those societies. What do you think that something was?

Ruthless lust for power and dominion. Were they patriarchal traits? Who knows, but we would be reluctant to divest ourselves of those gains so what does that say about us?

 

[Robert]

]Ruthless lust for power and dominion.[/B] Were they patriarchal traits? Who knows, but we would be reluctant to divest ourselves of those gains so what does that say about us?

Didn't other culture have that too, though?

The point I'm trying to make is that Christianity gave way to science in Europe. Christianity changes with the times, it's not the same forever like Islam.

 

[Robert]

Liberalism= Women are free, offer yourself , out yourself on display

...or don't, if you don't want to.

Conservative = Have some self-respect

...but if you don't do what we want, we will subjugate you.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Didn't other culture have that too, though?

The point I'm trying to make is that Christianity gave way to science in Europe. Christianity changes with the times, it's not the same forever like Islam.

Christianity changed over a couple of centuries, who is to say Islam will stay the same forever? They are both rooted in the same faith ostensibly, just on different timelines. Human nature is still there beyond those faiths, and that is what has driven patriarchy. Europe just indulges it's violent tendencies in a more sophisticated manner.

 

[sweep_shot]

Didn't other culture have that too, though?

The point I'm trying to make is that Christianity gave way to science in Europe. Christianity changes with the times, it's not the same forever like Islam.

You are acting like Christianity changing is a good thing. This is why Christianity is in decline while Islam is growing.

Not every place on Earth needs to revolve around western narratives. This is something radical liberals do not understand.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

...or don't, if you don't want to.



...but if you don't do what we want, we will subjugate you.

I like how you've allowed you're racist rant to be buried before reappearing

 

[sweep_shot]

I like how you've allowed you're racist rant to be buried before reappearing

Guys like Robert and Junaids seem to think only western ways are the right ways; all other ways are wrong.

I think the following video shows how some of the western issues are really non-issues outside of west:

 

[Robert]

You are acting like Christianity changing is a good thing. This is why Christianity is in decline while Islam is growing.

Not every place on Earth needs to revolve around western narratives. This is something radical liberals do not understand.

Did I say good? I made an observation about the history of Western Christianity changing since the Enlightenment, and how this contributed to Europe conquering much of the world. I didn’t put a value judgment on it.

Christianity is growing very fast in Africa, but it’s a literalist interpretation.

 

[Robert]

Guys like Robert and Junaids seem to think only western ways are the right ways; all other ways are wrong.

]

No I didn’t. My entire argument has been that patriarchy is bad wherever it exists, but that you personally might be happier somewhere other than Canada.

 

[SalimBhai]

No I didn’t. My entire argument has been that patriarchy is bad wherever it exists, but that you personally might be happier somewhere other than Canada.

I don't see where Robert or junaid said" ONLY western ways are right" Sweep Shot you are making things up. Cant believe this is message # 600. There is no argument to be had. If you look at UN reports the difference is massive when comparing societies. On a personal note SS why not live in a country where you feel more with the people. I can't imagine living anywhere where I hate its guts completely.

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't see where Robert or junaid said" ONLY western ways are right" Sweep Shot you are making things up. Cant believe this is message # 600. There is no argument to be had. If you look at UN reports the difference is massive when comparing societies. On a personal note SS why not live in a country where you feel more with the people. I can't imagine living anywhere where I hate its guts completely.

Yup. This is post #600.

I am not making things up. You seem too lazy to go through all posts. They were implying western ways are superior. Read up the thread.

I don't hate everything about west. There are many things I like. But, as a citizen of this country, I also have my share of constructive criticisms. Many Canadians also agree with some of my views (conservative Canadians).

Anyway. I repeat that benevolent patriarchy is essential to a society's long term success.

 

[sweep_shot]

If you look at UN reports the difference is massive when comparing societies.

Do you know that British Empire has looted $45-trillion from Indian subcontinent? They also looted from Africa. When you loot that much resource, advancement is likely.

Also, the liberal stuffs you see are fairly new in the west. Things were quite patriarchic and conservative even 60 years ago. It is only recently they started to be liberal.

Give it 50-100 years. I expect radical liberals to burn west to the ground. They are already being confused about definitions of male and female (see gender studies freaks).

 

[sweep_shot]

No I didn’t. My entire argument has been that patriarchy is bad wherever it exists, but that you personally might be happier somewhere other than Canada.

Patriarchy is common in places like Asia and Africa. Most people over there like it. It is unlikely to change anytime soon.

You can't just shove your western narratives to those people. It doesn't work that way.

I am posting one video as an example:

 

[Technics 1210]

Western Christianity changed the day the West changed the appearance of Jesus (PBUH) from brown, to a white person.

Liberalism once again rearing its ugly head, and in the case above, it was masquerading as the - wait for this - Renaissance period.

 

[Junaids]

Liberalism= Women are free, offer yourself , out yourself on display

Conservative = Have some self-respect

As a psychiatrist, I can tell you that that is exactly how rapists think.

When Cristiano Ronaldo takes his shirt off he is not consenting to sex with any random woman.

When a man goes to a bar alone he is not consenting to sex with any random woman.

And the same is true of women. And if men can’t control their lust, they are unfit to hold patriarchal control anyway.

 

[sweep_shot]

As a psychiatrist, I can tell you that that is exactly how rapists think.

When Cristiano Ronaldo takes his shirt off he is not consenting to sex with any random woman.

When a man goes to a bar alone he is not consenting to sex with any random woman.

And the same is true of women. And if men can’t control their lust, they are unfit to hold patriarchal control anyway.

Wrong analogy and wrong example.

He was simply pointing out how flawed liberal position is when it comes to women. It is hypocritical too.

 

[Robert]

Wrong analogy and wrong example.

He was simply pointing out how flawed liberal position is when it comes to women. It is hypocritical too.

It's exactly the right analogy.

I suspect that you're quite young with not much experience of women and they frighten you so you want their power codified and constrained.

 

[Robert]

Patriarchy is common in places like Asia and Africa. Most people over there like it. It is unlikely to change anytime soon.

You can't just shove your western narratives to those people. It doesn't work that way.

I am posting one video as an example:

How am I doing that? My Western narrative is the culture of the West where I live. I find that President's attitude reprehensible, but perhaps you would prefer to live in such a society where people are less free.

 

[Sidilicious]

People do not understand the meaning of liberalism and western values.

Being Liberal or not having patriarchy does not mean automatically mean sleeping around or getting drunk all the time.

Liberalism gives you the choice to do what you want. If a girl wants to be promiscuous, it’s her choice. If a girl wants to have a monogamous stable relationship, it’s her choice. If she wants to pursue a career, it’s her choice. If she wants to be a housewife, she does it out of her OWN CHOICE.

In a patriarchy a woman does not have a choice but does as ordered by her father/husband/head of family.

The simple point of liberalism is giving women the right to do what they want.
It does not mean that men and women are the same. It does not mean that men and women do not have physical and psychological difference. Of course, they do. In fact, there are studies showing that fewer women in highly liberal societies choose STEM subjects. So of course there is psychological difference.

But liberal attitude offers them the choice to do what they want and not be forced to follow the wishes of others.

 

[sweep_shot]

Liberalism gives you the choice to do what you want. If a girl wants to be promiscuous, it’s her choice. If a girl wants to have a monogamous stable relationship, it’s her choice. If she wants to pursue a career, it’s her choice. If she wants to be a housewife, she does it out of her OWN CHOICE.

In a patriarchy a woman does not have a choice but does as ordered by her father/husband/head of family.

The simple point of liberalism is giving women the right to do what they want.

There is a problem with unlimited freedom. That's true for both men and women.

Promiscuity can lead to many disasters. So, if a woman chooses to do that, that shouldn't be seen as a good thing. As a matter of fact, she should be discouraged by her father or another competent guardian.

We are not animals. We are human beings. We should have checks and balances.

 

[sweep_shot]

I find that President's attitude reprehensible, but perhaps you would prefer to live in such a society where people are less free.

That's how most people outside of west think when it comes to LGBTQ. It is just a fact.

Even in west, I suspect most think the same way (even if they don't want to admit).

He is a cool leader who puts his people and society first.

 

[Junaids]

There is a problem with unlimited freedom. That's true for both men and women.

Promiscuity can lead to many disasters. So, if a woman chooses to do that, that shouldn't be seen as a good thing. As a matter of fact, she should be discouraged by her father or another competent guardian.

We are not animals. We are human beings. We should have checks and balances.

Promiscuity is related to how many sexual partners, it’s nothing to do with marital status.

If it’s acceptable for a man to marry four wives, there is nothing dangerous or promiscuous about a woman who has had sex with four men. Any person who criticised that would be a misogynist, by definition, and their opinions would be both worthless and wrong.

 

[sweep_shot]

Promiscuity is related to how many sexual partners, it’s nothing to do with marital status.

If it’s acceptable for a man to marry four wives, there is nothing dangerous or promiscuous about a woman who has had sex with four men. Any person who criticised that would be a misogynist, by definition, and their opinions would be both worthless and wrong.

Multiple sexual partners is exactly not something to brag about. If anything, it shows cheapness. I compare promiscuity to Hong Kong Sixes or The Hundred.

Regarding four wives, who really has four wives in west nowadays? It is difficult to have four wives in west anyway (due to biased justice system). Western justice system tends to be biased toward women.

Criticizing promiscuity is not misogyny. It is something that is seen as bad worldwide. A bunch of radical liberals from west shouldn't get to whitewash promiscuity.

 

[Technics 1210]

)

So according to warped liberalism, if people do not agree with women sleeping around with multiple men they they're misogynists.

This is the same as saying people who don't agree with the opinions of Brown people are racists.

)

 

[Junaids]

There is a problem with unlimited freedom. That's true for both men and women.

Promiscuity can lead to many disasters. So, if a woman chooses to do that, that shouldn't be seen as a good thing. As a matter of fact, she should be discouraged by her father or another competent guardian.

We are not animals. We are human beings. We should have checks and balances.

Multiple sexual partners is exactly not something to brag about. If anything, it shows cheapness. I compare promiscuity to Hong Kong Sixes or The Hundred.

Regarding four wives, who really has four wives in west nowadays? It is difficult to have four wives in west anyway (due to biased justice system). Western justice system tends to be biased toward women.

Criticizing promiscuity is not misogyny. It is something that is seen as bad worldwide. A bunch of radical liberals from west shouldn't get to whitewash promiscuity.

You defended Ibn Saud having children with 25 wives because he was married to them.

I’m saying that makes him promiscuous.

Promiscuity - which is a redundant concept anyway in a world with contraception and Gardasil - is having sex with large numbers of partners. Marital status is not a factor in categorising someone as promiscuous.

There is no difference between a man and a woman who have both had sex with four people in their lives. They are identical.

 

[Junaids]

That's how most people outside of west think when it comes to LGBTQ. It is just a fact.

It is a fact, but it doesn’t mean those those people are anything other than both wrong and immoral.

Firstly, all people are God’s people, and those fundamentalists should know that.

Secondly, the Book of Ruth in the Old Testament clearly permits homosexuality - what else were Ruth and Naomi?

 

[Junaids]

That's how most people outside of west think when it comes to LGBTQ. It is just a fact.

Even in west, I suspect most think the same way (even if they don't want to admit).

He is a cool leader who puts his people and society first.

Also you seem unfamiliar with King David and Jonathan….

“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

Personally, it’s those fundamentalist Christians in Africa who refuse to follow the Anglican Church’s tolerance of homosexuality who I think have lost touch with their scriptures and their faith!

 

[Robert]

Also you seem unfamiliar with King David and Jonathan….

“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

Personally, it’s those fundamentalist Christians in Africa who refuse to follow the Anglican Church’s tolerance of homosexuality who I think have lost touch with their scriptures and their faith!

The African churches are breaking away from Anglicanism.

Some people need a rigid code to tell them how to behave.

 

[Robert]

That's how most people outside of west think when it comes to LGBTQ. It is just a fact.

Even in west, I suspect most think the same way (even if they don't want to admit).

He is a cool leader who puts his people and society first.

Except his gay men. He puts them in jail. I don’t like homophobes, for the same reason that I don’t like racists, or anyone else who is scared of difference.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Also you seem unfamiliar with King David and Jonathan….

“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

Personally, it’s those fundamentalist Christians in Africa who refuse to follow the Anglican Church’s tolerance of homosexuality who I think have lost touch with their scriptures and their faith!

Not sure he's talking about gay relations there, not all love is about sex.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You defended Ibn Saud having children with 25 wives because he was married to them.

I’m saying that makes him promiscuous.

Promiscuity - which is a redundant concept anyway in a world with contraception and Gardasil - is having sex with large numbers of partners. Marital status is not a factor in categorising someone as promiscuous.

Ibn Saud was promiscuous. If you have 25 wives it would be pretty hard to argue otherwise.

 

[sweep_shot]

It is a fact, but it doesn’t mean those those people are anything other than both wrong and immoral.

Firstly, all people are God’s people, and those fundamentalists should know that.

Secondly, the Book of Ruth in the Old Testament clearly permits homosexuality - what else were Ruth and Naomi?

Are you saying homosexuality is permitted in Abrahamic religions? LOL.

No point in debating with you if you really think that.

 

[sweep_shot]

You defended Ibn Saud having children with 25 wives because he was married to them.

I’m saying that makes him promiscuous.

Promiscuity - which is a redundant concept anyway in a world with contraception and Gardasil - is having sex with large numbers of partners. Marital status is not a factor in categorising someone as promiscuous.

There is no difference between a man and a woman who have both had sex with four people in their lives. They are identical.

If those were legitimate marriages, that's okay.

If not, I condemn it.

There's no comparison between an unmarried promiscuous person and a married person. One is junk and another is classy.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals are proper triggered in this thread. I mean, proper.

 

[sweep_shot]

Ibn Saud was promiscuous. If you have 25 wives it would be pretty hard to argue otherwise.

If he married those women, I see no issue.

It is possible he married 4. After that, he divorced and married again.

But, if it happened outside of marriage, that's problematic. I agree.

 

[sweep_shot]

Liberals are proper triggered in this thread. I mean, proper.

Indeed. It seems like they want to change Abrahamic religions to suit their whims and desires.

They are supporting promiscuity and whatnot.

This is what radical liberalism is. They try to change everything recklessly.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If he married those women, I see no issue.

It is possible he married 4. After that, he divorced and married again.

But, if it happened outside of marriage, that's problematic. I agree.

Doesn't promiscuous just mean having multiple sexual partners at the same time? I am not talking about adultery.

 

[sweep_shot]

Doesn't promiscuous just mean having multiple sexual partners at the same time? I am not talking about adultery.

Yes. It is.

But, in today's world, promiscuous person is someone who sleeps around.

I mean who really has more than 1 spouse nowadays (particularly in west)?

If those were legitimate marriages, I don't see an issue.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes. It is.

But, in today's world, promiscuous person is someone who sleeps around.

I mean who really has more than 1 spouse nowadays (particularly in west)?

If those were legitimate marriages, I don't see an issue.

Sleeping with 25 women would be considered sleeping around in my book, regardless of whether there is a certificate of marriage for each one. I am not arguing about the legal definition as that is subjective to which country you live in.

 

[sweep_shot]

Sleeping with 25 women would be considered sleeping around in my book, regardless of whether there is a certificate of marriage for each one. I am not arguing about the legal definition as that is subjective to which country you live in.

I guess you can say that.

I wasn't defending Ibn Saud per se. I was simply defending marriage and how it is superior to unmarried promiscuity.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I guess you can say that.

I wasn't defending Ibn Saud per se. I was simply defending marriage and how it is superior to unmarried promiscuity.

As long as the person sleeping around is an adult capable of making his/her own choices and the aftermath of the promiscuity does not involve pregnancy, it should be none of our business what someone wants to do in their bedroom.

 

[sweep_shot]

As long as the person sleeping around is an adult capable of making his/her own choices and the aftermath of the promiscuity does not involve pregnancy, it should be none of our business what someone wants to do in their bedroom.

That's your view. This is not the view of majority of the cultures worldwide.

Promiscuity can destroy marriages and lives. Promiscuity can even cause loss of lives.

This is where good parent/guardian is key. A child should know right from the beginning that being promiscuous is wrong.

Prevention is better than cure.

 

[Champ_Pal]

That's your view. This is not the view of majority of the cultures worldwide.

Promiscuity can destroy marriages and lives. Promiscuity can even cause loss of lives.

This is where good parent/guardian is key. A child should know right from the beginning that being promiscuous is wrong.

Prevention is better than cure.

I am not saying married people should cheat. There are people in open marriages in the west. Its their choice.

You tell your kid about the dangers of sex addiction. But once they are over 18, it should be their choice who they want to date or lay in bed. You can guide them. But you cannot control them like puppets. It leads to big resentment and breaking up of families. In some cases honor killings.

 

[Robert]

Are you saying homosexuality is permitted in Abrahamic religions? LOL.

No point in debating with you if you really think that.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

He consorted with prostitutes (though this might have been a rewrite to discredit Mary Magdalene).

He forgave everyone.

 

[sweep_shot]

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

He consorted with prostitutes (though this might have been a rewrite to discredit Mary Magdalene).

He forgave everyone.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam prohibit homosexuality. Please read more. Don't make up facts.

These are from Torah:

"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed a detestable act: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is detestable."

This is from Quran:

And ˹remember˺ when Lot scolded ˹the men of˺ his people, ˹saying,˺ “Do you commit a shameful deed that no man has ever done before? You lust after men instead of women! You are certainly transgressors.” (7:80-81)

This is from Bible:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [by perversion], nor those who participate in homosexuality. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

 

[Champ_Pal]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam prohibit homosexuality. Please read more. Don't make up facts.

These are from Torah:

"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed a detestable act: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is detestable."

This is from Quran:

And ˹remember˺ when Lot scolded ˹the men of˺ his people, ˹saying,˺ “Do you commit a shameful deed that no man has ever done before? You lust after men instead of women! You are certainly transgressors.” (7:80-81)

This is from Bible:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [by perversion], nor those who participate in homosexuality. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Irrespective of what religion says, as long as the parties involved are consenting adults, it should be none of anyone's business to poke their nose into who is sleeping with who. They are not bothering you. So ignore them.

 

[SalimBhai]

I said most of the problems in subcontinent (including Pakistan) have to do with corruption and poverty.

If corruption is gone and poverty is reduced, things can be fine with or without patriarchy.

Patriarchy leads to corruption

 

[sweep_shot]

Patriarchy leads to corruption

Big no.

Even if you replace patriarchy with matriarchy there, issues like corruption, poverty, and overpopulation are unlikely to change. Those issues need different solutions.

Patriarchy is a way of life in most (if not all) countries outside of west. Patriarchy is not the culprit.

 

[SalimBhai]

Patriarchy leads to corruption

Patriarchy leads to poverty sorry

 

[sweep_shot]

Patriarchy leads to poverty sorry

Do you see any poverty in Saudi Arabia or other gulf states?

Benevolent patriarchy doesn't cause poverty or corruption. Poverty or corruption happens due to greed and other factors.