This is what happens if you race mix

[a y a n]

It wasn't. He only said men run the world, and allow women to do what they do, whatever it may be. That's the truth. But mothers do pass on their language, that's why it's called the mother tongue.

good evening.

 

[a y a n]

No, I don't see your point.

A nation's government and infrastructure only exist because of men who built it and maintain it via the army/police against threats.

It's a man's world.

I don’t think you caught it, but when I brought up the fact that men controlling women in the weird patriarchy you proposed wasn’t ok and asked you if you saw it as ok, you brought up the government, then I showed that the government had to take in the peoples opinion to be seen as humanitarian, and you seemed to skip it.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

Oh god.
That one word changed the meaning of the entire statement and you tried to turn what I said even though it was based on what you said.
“naaya” ok

It didn't. I only later acknowledge the few simps and cucks who would defect to the women. You can have them though, they aren't real men. Stop making a single word a big deal. It doesn't really change anything. Okay, a few hundred wouldn't be in support, hugely important detail? With 4 billion males on our side? Not at all. W.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

good evening.

Have a nice evening with your L Madame.

 

[Reformed J]

I don’t think you caught it, but when I brought up the fact that men controlling women in the weird patriarchy you proposed wasn’t ok and asked you if you saw it as ok, you brought up the government, then I showed that the government had to take in the peoples opinion to be seen as humanitarian, and you seemed to skip it.

If the patriarchy didn't exist humans would still be in caves. Of course it's okay and it was necessary.

 

[a y a n]

It didn't. I only later acknowledge the few simps and cucks who would defect to the women. You can have them though, they aren't real men. Stop making a single word a big deal. It doesn't really change anything. Okay, a few hundred wouldn't be in support, hugely important detail? With 4 billion males on our side? Not at all. W.

Hundreds was a mistake on my end, but if it isn’t obvious there are quite a few that wouldn’t support the ducking killing of 4 billion people. Hopefully you all aren’t mooryaan

Have a nice evening with your L Madame.

Ignore list. I don’t see what’s up with your problem “muh L.” How many times have I treated you like that? You cry when I give you a qashin kkk hypocrisy at its finest.
Again, good evening.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

Hundreds was a mistake on my end, but if it isn’t obvious there are quite a few that wouldn’t support the ducking killing of 4 billion people. Hopefully you all aren’t mooryaan

Ignore list. I don’t see what’s up with your problem “muh L.” How many times have I treated you like that? You cry when I give you a qashin kkk hypocrisy at its finest.
Again, good evening.

I said if all men did. You too though.

 

[a y a n]

If the patriarchy didn't exist humans would still be in caves. Of course it's okay and it was necessary.

It wasn’t, cooperation is necessary. Balance is necessary. We probably could’ve been at a much better place if that cooperation was there at the beginning, that women were able to be educated and weren’t killed for literally reading, if everyone was made to work for their strengths and we had more involved in society Nd societal matters.

 

[Reformed J]

It wasn’t, cooperation is necessary. Balance is necessary. We probably could’ve been at a much better place if that cooperation was there at the beginning, that women were able to be educated and weren’t killed for literally reading, if everyone was made to work for their strengths and we had more involved in society Nd societal matters.

Wallahi you're delusional.

There was no cooperation it was survival of the fittest. Patriarchy protected women from getting killed by strangers and provided them with resources for themselves and children. There's only cooperation and more equality because men have become more sophisticated and peaceful.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

It wasn’t, cooperation is necessary. Balance is necessary. We probably could’ve been at a much better place if that cooperation was there at the beginning, that women were able to be educated and weren’t killed for literally reading, if everyone was made to work for their strengths and we had more involved in society Nd societal matters.

It clearly isn't if for all that time there wasn't any. Even today most countries don't have that.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

It wasn’t, cooperation is necessary. Balance is necessary. We probably could’ve been at a much better place if that cooperation was there at the beginning, that women were able to be educated and weren’t killed for literally reading, if everyone was made to work for their strengths and we had more involved in society Nd societal matters.

And that's still a lot better than being forced to go die for a cause you know almost nothing about. And not being given mercy by the other side since they viewed you as a threat. Clear yourself of bias and you'll realize that while women were and are mistreated, men have suffered more and worse still. I can't believe you think enslavement is worse than murder, and assimilation too even more mindbogglingly.

 

[Halimak]

Wallahi you're delusional.

There was no cooperation it was survival of the fittest. Patriarchy protected women from getting killed by strangers and provided them with resources for themselves and children. There's only cooperation and more equality because men have become more sophisticated and peaceful.

That is a simplified way of looking at it. There was no reason to strip women of any inheritance and not allow them to owe property or to beat them and treat them like second class citizens.

When it comes to certain treatment of women, it was merely case of taking advantage of the weaker party. Men did, because they could. There is no real advantage when it comes to that.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

That is a simplified way of looking at it. There was no reason to strip women of any inheritance and not allow them to owe property or to beat them and treat them like second class citizens.

When it comes to certain treatment of women, it was merely case of taking advantage of the weaker party. Men did, because they could. There is no real advantage when it comes to that.

Well you're right but that doesn't change the fact that we've objectively suffered more. We die earlier on average, have a higher risk of death, fight in wars more, and much more so in the past up until now. That's all.

 

[Halimak]

Well you're right but that doesn't change the fact that we've objectively suffered more. We die earlier on average, have a higher risk of death, fight in wars more, and much more so in the past up until now. That's all.

That is your own opinion.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

That is your own opinion.

It's fact. Suffering is objectively measured. Men were killed more than women were. Death is worse than mistreatment, therefore men suffered more. End of argument.

 

[Reformed J]

That is a simplified way of looking at it. There was no reason to strip women of any inheritance and not allow them to owe property or to beat them and treat them like second class citizens.

The inheritance you give to a women becomes the wealth of another man's seed. Why would they give more to a woman when you can give more to a son that would carry your name, legacy and spread your seed farther. Women didn't build or maintain society men do, why would they have given rights? They do know because of mercy.

When it comes to certain treatment of women, it was merely case of taking advantage of the weaker party. Men did, because they could. There is no real advantage when it comes to that.

You say taking advantage of the weaker party, when in reality it was protecting the weak. Women wouldn't be able to survive without her male relatives that risked their lives protecting.

You don't seem to understand that.

 

[Halimak]

The inheritance you give to a women becomes the wealth of another man's seed. Why would they give more to a woman when you can give more to a son that would carry your name, legacy and spread your seed farther. Women didn't build or maintain society men do, why would they have given rights? They do know because of mercy.



You say taking advantage of the weaker party, when in reality it was protecting the weak. Women wouldn't be able to survive without her male relatives that risked their lives protecting.

You don't seem to understand that.

At one point women couldn't inherit anything or own property or work or anything.

That is a clear injustice and Islamically stripping women's rights of that is haraam. If you want to make excuses for such jahil behaviour and go ahead.

If it was for the protection of women, women with no husband and father would have been looked after, but some literally had nothing to fall back on because of rigid patriarchal ideals. This was a problem in the early Victorian period in the UK. Some women were also forced in prostitution because they were barred from any form of profession. If that is what you call protecting women, then OK.

Stripping women from an education, wealth or any of independence, can never be a protection. Alhamdulliah Islam gave us this. Women make up 50% of society, carry the next generation and raise them and contributed to society in the past and present.

Anyways this is tiring arguing with someone who clearly sees women as worthless.

 

[Prettymuslim94]

Man farax and @Giftxo are great at manipulating you guys to give thema lot of pages.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

At one point women couldn't inherit anything or own property or work or anything.

That is a clear injustice and Islamically stripping women's rights of that is haraam. If you want to make excuses for such jahil behaviour and go ahead.

If it was for the protection of women, women with no husband and father would have been looked after, but some literally had nothing to fall back on because of rigid patriarchal ideals. This was a problem in the early Victorian period in the UK. Some women were also forced in prostitution because they were barred from any form of profession. If that is what you call protecting women, then OK.

Stripping women from an education, wealth or any of independence, can never be a protection. Alhamdulliah Islam gave us this. Women make up 50% of society, carry the next generation and raise them and contribute to society in the past and present.

Anyways this is tiring arguing with someone who clearly sees women as worthless.

He doesn't clearly see women as worthless at all. All he was saying is that men have had it harder. He didn't condone any one of these things. Relax.

 

[Reformed J]

At one point women couldn't inherit anything or own property or work or anything.

That is a clear injustice and Islamically stripping women's rights of that is haraam. If you want to make excuses for such jahil behaviour and go ahead.

Allah had mercy on women.

I didn't make excuse for the behavior, I know it's not fair to women but it makes no sense for a man to give his wealth to another man's seed.

Stripping women from an education, wealth or any of independence, can never be a protection. Alhamdulliah Islam gave us this. Women make up 50% of society, carry the next generation and raise them and contribute to society in the past and present.

Anyways this is tiring arguing with someone who clearly sees women as worthless.

They didn't strip women of an education, wealth or any independence. They never had any of those in the first place.

I don't see women as worthless, they're just not the same as a man.

Recent feminism has poisoned the mind of girls, made them delusional, entitled and misandrists.