"Feminism" & Muslim Men.

Let me clarify again I'm not mixing history up here I'm just talking about the build up to what is now the feminist movement in short my point is that classical liberalism is the father of all these perversed institutions like colonisation/secularism/feminism without it none of these ideologies would have materialised and were did I say America colonised anything? I can't even have a convo with you because you keep reading into things that are not there or just jump over the point I'm trying to make without addressing it all together only to go on and nitpick a random point out of context.
These ‘perverse’ isms you mention were not welcomed during the late 1800s, which also happens to be when colonization started. Therefore, that is why I’m saying you’re getting your dates mixed up. Women first got the right to vote in 1918. By that point Britain was colonizing Africa for at least 50 yrs. Also, do you think men wanting the right to fair payment perverse? That is how socialism first started out.
And the victorians aren't staunch Christians there whole branch of Christianity came about because king henry the 8th wanted to divorce his wife and he didn't want the pope to have anything to say about it. protestantism is literally a remixed edition of Christianity.
Strawmen argument. The Victorians most definitely were staunch Christians. Even though Henry broke from the Rome and then adopted the Protestant faith, divorce wasn’t legal for the majority of the masses until the 1960s. Also, the branch of Christianity you talk about was also influenced by Martin Luther and is in fact Protestant form of Christianity which doesn’t make you any less religious than a Catholic which is what The UK was before the Tudor period.

The point you made didn’t even make sense.
As for your Christian African countries point The best way to gain control over an area is to spread your ideology and belief and you don't have to be a firm beliver yourself to do that which is what they did when they spread Christianity. Which is also what America is doing right now with there freedom despite american women complaining about there own rights in America.
The vast majority of society was deeply Christian. A book about Victorian society would tell you this. Don’t argue over something you can easily google. The vast majority of people attended Church without fail and society was very much based on Christian values. This is my issue with you. You want to debate about a topic you have no clue about and the more you argue the more it is becoming clear.
Your point about men asking for right and then women leads back to my point since classical liberalism lead to secularism which lead to colonisation
It didn’t lead to colonization. Colonization started in 1870. Trade unionism and the suffragettes started around the same time but later and the government was in fact fighting against it. It only legalized it AFTER they started colonization. So how is it linked walal? Colonization happened BEFORE any of these things become legalized.
which lead to the industrial revolution since most of there goods to heavily
The Industrial revolution started 1 before colonization. The industrial revolution started in 1760s whilst colonization started in the 1870s with the scramble for Africa starting in 1880. You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?!
industrialise was sourced from there empires which lead to the break up of the family and introducing women to the workforce just so the income of the country could be doubled which then lead to the women complaining for there rights like the men before them.
No industralisation started before colonization walal. Women were working in factories well before colonization. Factory work become the norm for the very poor in the early 1800s well before feminism entered the mainstream. Working class/poor women have always worked but in bad conditions. This is a basic fact which you could even google.

It is through industrialization in which Britain was able to colonize the world as they had access to steam engines and guns ect.
The rest of the world didn't go threw this process which is why most of these things are basically non existant outside of the west and the ones that have it have it as a result of the west forcing them to adapt to it.
it’s frustrating to debate with you as you refuse to read, you don’t know when the industrial revolution started and falsely believe that the industrial revolution happened after colonization. You even believe the redpill lie that women didn’t work before feminism. I've been seeing that circulate all over social media and it just made me cringe and people simply refuse to read these days. Poor women have always worked and the poor have always made up the vast majority in society.

That is what I mean when I say you muddle time and context. Perfect example and you fell right into the trap. Just have a bit humility and actually read. I’ll give you a bit of homework. Read up on when
-The industrial revolution started
- when colonization started
-When feminism, socialism started and become mainstream.

I’m done with debating with you, as it isn’t going to go anywhere as you simply refuse to read a history book.
 
Last edited:
He provided the perfect example for us, which is that they do not even bother to find the meaning of the concept they claim to have a problem with.

You'd think it costs money or hurts physically to do a quick google search. Yaab!!
Sis he is arrogant. Refuses to read but will still argue on topics he has no clue on. We had a debate that a woman in Islam has a rights to her own accommodation according to the vast majority of scholars and even showed him Islamic fatwas and still he went back and forth with me. @Javelin

I completely forgot about that situation and now that I have remembered I’m not going to bother debate with him and this man will argue with you over Islamic facts for his own ego.

Now he is claiming that the Industrial revolution happened after colonization and that the colonialists were feminists and socialists. Anyone with any knowledge of history would laugh at such a notion.
 
I see where you are coming from, many aspects of feminism does indeed go against Islam. Islam is indeed patriarchal in a sense in which the man is the head of the household and wives have to obey in terms of what is halal, just and doesn’t infringe upon their rights or harm them.

However, I’ve never understood the comparison of traditional feminism vs redpill. Men have never lived in a world in which they were/are at a disadvantage the way women were historically and many women are in the global East. Working, inheriting, right to marry, right to not be forced ect are things men take for granted ect. So where is the comparison walal? Men are not as vulnerable as women are (in general) and never have been ( I’m talking in average). Also, redpill seems to be about going back to a society in which women are devoid of rights. It’s about taking from women rather than improving male quality of life.
Red pill in the west is a response to modern day feminism in the west.

The comparison you made is also missing historical nuances of any given society such as race,ethnicity,tribe &/or clan.
A white women wasn't more oppressed than a black man in America, a landheere woman wasn't more oppressed than a langhaab men ,a rich aristocrat women had a better life than the peasant man


My only point is if you advocate for Islamic rights (whether it is women's or mens right) than you just a Muslim & shouldn't call yourself something else .

It goes for any ideological movements that ends with an -ism . Communism,socialism,capitalism etc.

As I said those are trojan horses for non-Islamic ideologies .
 
Red pill in the west is a response to modern day feminism in the west.
When you read redpill takes, it is very clear that they have an issue with women having rights. They talk about women working, marrying later, education and how that affects the dating market ect. Men not being seen as in 'control'.
Nothing about redpill is original. Believe me, anything Tate or others say is something an old Greek Philosopher has said already.
The comparison you made is also missing historical nuances of any given society such as race,ethnicity,tribe &/or clan.
It is a fact that most societies were straight up sexist and they did not hide it. From the Romans who refused women to have any legal rights and were soley at the mercy of their husbands and fathers to the Greeks whose philosophers would unabashedly talk about the inferiority of women and forced marriages were the order of the day, to the Arabs who would bury their daughters to the Indians who would kill the wife upon the death of her husband. That was the reality of women. Even the Prophet s.a.w's last sermon was about treating women well for he knew how vulnerable women were in society.
A white women wasn't more oppressed than a black man in America, a landheere woman wasn't more oppressed than a langhaab men ,a rich aristocrat women had a better life than the peasant man
Yes, but in comparison to the men of their class they were. Also, you're trying to use class and race as a way to dismiss sexism whilst forgetting that poor women and black women exist as well.

Also, even when it came to rich women quality of life was directly based on how the men treated them as they had 0 legal power and 0 rights. If an Aristocratic wife's husband decided to starve her and or beat her to a pulp, in many sociaties she couldn't do anything about it. Her life could very well be worse than a peasant because if the men in her life wanted to treat her like one, she had no legal recourse. Islam is one of the only religions that recognizes women's right to access the law.

Also, they were barred from education, inheritance ect simply for their sex, whilst a poor man was bared for his lack of funds. Women were seen as inherently inferior and no amounts of money would change that.

Different forms of oppressions exist. You can't use class and racial oppressions to downplay misogyny. You'd laugh if I used class as a way to dismiss racism by arging that a poor white man is more oppressed than a rich black man, therefore black people weren't oppressed. That is literally your argument right now.
My only point is if you advocate for Islamic rights (whether it is women's or mens right) than you just a Muslim & shouldn't call yourself something else .
I agree and fair point.
It goes for any ideological movements that ends with an -ism . Communism,socialism,capitalism etc.

As I said those are trojan horses for non-Islamic ideologies .
True.
 
Last edited:
When you read redpill takes, it is very clear that they have an issue with women having rights. They talk about women working, marrying later, education and how that affects the dating market ect. Men not being seen as in 'control'.
Nothing about redpill is original. Believe me, anything Tate or others say is something an old Greek Philosopher has said already.
Not true , what red pill takes do you read & from who ?

I noticed you researched those topics ,so you should know what they're about .
 
Not true , what red pill takes do you read & from who ?
Rollo the father of redpill who mostly focuses on gender dynamics in relationships. I think he is of the opinion that women's education and even jobs impact men. Well that is the gist that I get.
I noticed you researched those topics ,so you should know what they're about .
I'm just interested in history. Always have. I'd say reading a lot of history has made me a staunch women's rights advocate as things i've read both horrified and fascinated me.
 
Rollo the father of redpill who mostly focuses on gender dynamics in relationships. I think he is of the opinion that women's education and even jobs impact men. Well that is the gist that I get.
All I know is that rich and smart women have a smaller dating pool to select from ,since they practice hypergamy .

Would you agree with that?
 
All I know is that rich and smart women have a smaller dating pool to select from ,since they practice hypergamy .

Would you agree with that?
Yes, I do but at the same time you're getting an increase in househusbands and women going dutch.

Also, redpill men seem to be obsessed with the idea of women's ages and single motherhood. If they're as doomed as these men claim them to be, why the obsession with putting them down? Why do they mock, attack and question men that do take them on? There is clearly an agenda.

Broke men, single mothers/ divorced and older women get married everyday. We have older divorced Meghan Markle bag a prince and even the king of Spain's wife was a divorced woman and recently the prince of Jordon heir to the thrown got engaged to a 28 yr old (yes 28 is young, but according to male sexists 'high value men only go for 25 and under) and the richest man in the world is in a relationship with a grandmother, albeit a beautiful one.
 
I have seen the word "feminism" and "feminist" thrown around as if it is an insult. Some of you don't understand the term or its historical relevance and it shows.

Islam gave women rights, but Christian Nations did not. This is why Western women had to fight for the right to vote. It is 2022 and they are still fighting for equal pay.

It makes me cringe when Muslim men join in with "Feminist" insults or allow Cadaan Fundamentalist women haters to refer to Islam as an archaic woman hating religion.

Of course, Islam is perfect but there are Muslim Societies that try to circumvent Islamic law to suit their own woman hating cultures.This is not to be mistaken with Islam itself.

Islam gave women the right to vote.
Islam gave women the right to keep their inherited properties
Islam elevated the status of mothers
Etc. Etc.

So, please, before you use the word "feminist" as an insult. Try to have sympathy for disenfranchised non-Muslim women and for Muslim women whose Islamic rights are stolen from them. Stop trying to embarrass the image of Islam because you are not aware of your own religious doctrine.
Gave women the right to vote? Islam was never pro-democracy but more like a tribal aristocracy where Qurashi men would have Majlis and decided the fate of the Caliphate while Arab tribesmen when in the conquered territories would create a sort of pseudo-caste system with those belonging to Arabian clans above those of the newly conquered non-Arabs regardless if they converted to Islam or not
 
Feminism a trojan horse for unislamic ideologies & world views.

The same reason people use to justify feminism is the same reason red pill & other new men's right ideologies are being justified.

If you don't have a problem with muslims calling themselves feminists than you shouldn't have a problem with those men spreading red pill nonsense when its Islamically allowed .
Yup thats what I’ve been telling people. These two groups are two sides on the same coin
 
Gave women the right to vote? Islam was never pro-democracy but more like a tribal aristocracy where Qurashi men would have Majlis and decided the fate of the Caliphate while Arab tribesmen when in the conquered territories would create a sort of pseudo-caste system with those belonging to Arabian clans above those of the newly conquered non-Arabs regardless if they converted to Islam or not
Lol, apart from the Shura council no one voted.
 
Yes, I do but at the same time you're getting an increase in househusbands and women going dutch.
I cringed when I read Househusbands :idontlike: the concept isn't compatible with our dhaqan & even religion, neither would most man feel manly with that concept and I don't think most women would accept that.
Also, redpill men seem to be obsessed with the idea of women's ages and single motherhood. If they're as doomed as these men claim them to be, why the obsession with putting them down? Why do they mock, attack and question men that do take them on? There is clearly an agenda.
Agree there's no need to put anyone down for their age or something they can't control.

There's also a difference between a divorcee/widow with a 1-2 child & a single mother with 3+ children out of wedlock from different fathers who think they'll find a 6 figure man who would marry them .they surely are doomed .
 
I cringed when I read Househusbands :idontlike: the concept isn't compatible with our dhaqan & even religion, neither would most man feel manly with that concept and I don't think most women would accept that.

Agree there's no need to put anyone down for their age or something they can't control.

There's also a difference between a divorcee/widow with a 1-2 child & a single mother with 3+ children out of wedlock from different fathers who think they'll find a 6 figure man who would marry them .they surely are doomed .

These women nowadays want a real man to handle them while their submissive house husband is at home taking care of the house chores.. :damn: :mjlol:
 
These women nowadays want a real man to handle them while their submissive house husband is at home taking care of the house chores.. :damn: :mjlol:
Thats a bad deal. No man with normal testosterone levels would take it. Even if I’m a multimillionaire retired man I’m not being a househusband
 
Thats a bad deal. No man with normal testosterone levels would take it. Even if I’m a multimillionaire retired man I’m not being a househusband
Some idiots would probably think this equality between the genders.. What they don't know is the woman will start looking for a real masculine male, because this is their nature and nature always wins against ideology.
 
Some idiots would probably think this equality between the genders.. What they don't know is the woman will start looking for a real masculine male, because this is their nature and nature always wins against ideology.
Understanding nature is being realistic in how the world works. However, realism stems from using your logos or logic. People who “feel” the world and believe in nonsensical ideologies tend to live in delusion or what I call Fantasyland.

The moment you tell these same people that men and women are not the same, you trigger emotions that conflict with their ideologies. And thats when the insults, shaming and “whataboutism” arguments commence. It’s like dealing with algorithms instead of sentient human beings. These people truly are NPCs
 

Trending

Top