FEMINISM and ISLAMISM. Are they compatible?

Yes, actually, that is true, but currently there is only Western weakness. The Western people do nothing against terrorism. If their rulers speak of “terrorism” and “Islamism” they want to frighten and weaken their people. So their “war on terror” means “war against their own people”.

Are you sure?

And you chose to say that the rules are objectively defined by religion, after which I reminded you that religion, itself, was created by a man. If a man makes up rules and upholds it as a religion, does it make the rules objective? No, they are still man-made rules. And in case if Islam, not only man-made but also outdated.
Your words:

You think Islam is immune to materialism? It is the Muslim mind, rooted in lack and poverty that is most vulnerable to materialism and consumerism. It will be the Muslim woman who will have the tightest grip on her Gucci bag (compared to a Western woman), and a Muslim man to his BMW because their mentality is still that of poverty. The are the ones who won’t be able to control their greed.
The most materialistic people that I’ve come across are not in the West but in newly economically developed countries of Asia and Middle East, where brand names have a strong hold on people’s psychologies and their sense of self-worth.

Maybe you’re projecting yourself here. Based on your artwork, I have long suspected that you, yourself, have a disturbed mind, especially when it comes to your portrayal of women.

So let me ask you this: if you had a daughter (and god forbid you ever will), would you want her to be dependent on a man for her happiness and her protection, or would you rather teach her how to stand up for herself and how to be happy on her own? And what if she ever comes to be dependent on a man like gasp yourself?

Dubai is very materialistic. Dubai, in fact, is one of the best examples why Islam will succumb to materialism/consumerism. It has already turned into a mall culture, with youth secretly rebelling against traditionalism. It is censorship and isolationism that is holding it in place…but not for long.

youtube.com/watch?v=ee9JHCale44

youtube.com/watch?v=vWX8zD14x-8

youtube.com/watch?v=GBpqcFj4gA0

What is utopia have to do with it? Things evolve, things change, that’s all I’m saying. Somehow you automatically assume that we will return back to Middle Ages.

Globalized world.

Right, let’s go back to Middle Ages which you love so much, so you can be a noble knight. And how long do you think you’ll survive?

Women are dependent on men for survival (protection and provision) whether they like it or not, just like men are dependent on women for reproduction (sex and womb), whether they like it or not.

Teaching women that they are not dependent on men would just be teaching them flattering lies and turning them into entitled spoiled brats who would remain dependent on men but think they are not so. It would turn them into YOU, and truly god forbid that happens.

I have yet to see a woman stand up for herself… usually I see other men stand up for them, or women pretending they are standing up for themselves while military and police are standing behind them. You, like all other women, have no idea what standing up for yourself means, because since you are a woman the society cares for your life, happiness, and well being. The advantage of that is obvious, the disadvantage is that one is never truly faced with challenges that force them to stand up for themselves and grow and improve, thus they become… you.

How so? Contraception has been welcomed by both men and women. In fact, it’s one of the things that has given women back the power over their sexuality. Advancement in medicine especially when it comes to reproductive health has much contributed to feminism.

Are you saying if all farmers were gay they wouldn’t be able to do the job? How is farming or scientific research a sex/gender based activity?

It doesn’t sting because I fundamentally agree with you. And you’re projecting even more so violently. “you and yours”? Are you not part of it also? Do tell me you are somehow different - better, that ‘your’ kind was responsible for all the ‘good’ things we now have, but somehow not responsible for all the ‘bad’ things we also inherited. I know you’re such an angel, pointing fingers else where.

Yes, that’s what I see you doing.

I think you’re being too dramatic. As usual.

So… nothing?

yawn

If a man knew how to treat a woman with respect without treating her like his chattel, or his sex slave, she wouldn’t need to turn away from him and seek protection elsewhere. By law, wife (with children) was tied to a man even if he mistreated her or had other women on the side, or chose to leave her for a younger woman. And how many women had to live a miserable life and be told that it’s just her lot by nature, even if it meant a life of abuse and suffering? If a man is a loser, or a drunkard, and takes it on his family (because he can) why should the woman be held responsible and pay for his mistakes also?

Right, nothing you want to hear, apparently.

What you wrote does nothing to address what I said. Moreover, you validate what I say by presenting woman as the weak, dependent, helpless victim. What, women can’t stand up for themselves against their husbands? They are dependent on seeking external protection instead of being strong and independent?

The female power of her high sexual and thus social value is a kind of power, I do not deny that, but it is not genuine power and it will never be treated and respected as such because it is a dependent power since it necessitates the presence of somebody to manipulate. In the absence of a naive male that a female can sway with her sexuality, an average female is completely powerless.

But to respond to your post - I sympathize with women in such situations, but I also think that such situations where it is all the man’s fault while the woman is just the helpless, passive, innocent victim, are very rare.

Europeans find themselves in a dilemma. If they refuse feminism, they (actively or passively) support Islamism; if they refuse Islamism, they (actively or passively) support feminism; and if they refuse both, they are suspected of being both islamophobic racists and misogynistic sexists - regardless of the fact that it is almost always known that they are neither islamophobic racists nor misogynistic sexists. This is how Globalism works, because Globalism is much more socialistic than market based. The Globalistic socialism is an anti-national-socialism resp. inter-national-socialism (as long as nations are needed, because nations shall disappear in the mecdium to long term).

If one has no chance of getting out of the feminism/islamism dilemma, then this means, at least to those who control this dilemma, that feminism and islamism are compatible, at least temporarily.

But that’s never how the word “compatible” is really used, if one says that 2 ideologies are compatible, they usually mean, within the same system.

This is more of a case of feminism being useful to Islam when it is practiced by those whom Islam intends to conquer than them being compatible. Perhaps my initial bad wording is to blame for this mistake.

Maybe. But note: I restrictively said “to those who control this dilemma”, and by “those” I did not mean feminists or islamists but Globalists.

Globalism is the key words here, with its implied abolishment of traditional national identity. Islam’s incorporation into Europe, as it is right now, is too forced and quick, meaning that someone is pushing for war. (A war which will benefit US). The dilemma that I see is that if a country wants to preserve its traditional national identity, it could only do so as a/n (economically) subservient state to another superpower; and that is a delicate position to be in, as it is not certain if and for how long it will be able to protect its interests in such a position. A war in Europe will likely weaken it, at least economically; and economically weakened country is still vulnerable to exploitation. The other option is diversification of Europe, a process which normally takes generations. An expedited diversification could be a response in order to prevent war, but I don’t see it working out (due to sabotage). What is the best course of action? Is allowing to be coerced into war the best choice for Europe right now? Even if Europe chooses the war, will it be in a position to defend itself against globalists after the war is over?

As I said. Yes.

Yes. And it is also true that that war will benefit the US (like other wars did before).

That is the question, yea.

1.) Globalists are in Europe too.
2.) Europeans would have to become absolutely capable of defending themselves and their whole territory.
3.) War is lucrative, and many actors, especially the most powerful ones - the Globalists -, know that they will benefit, become more powerful or at least remain powerful.

So I guess that Europe will probably remain relatively passive and weak, in an oddly awaiting position, then be coerced into war pretty soon (at least long before 2050), and the result will be a huge loss and a huge chaos. The beginning of it can alraedy be seen (although many people do not want to see it, because they shall not want to see it - which means that this first little circle is complete, because the plan of the Globalists is reached again).

In line with that the following post I just found: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=191166&p=2628239&hilit=hillary+war+econom#p2628226 .

It is required of the EU to have a “civil war” merely so as to solidify the EU (the same as the USA did as well as most others). It is true that war is used for profit, but the highest priority is to instigate a union under a higher authority (more Godwannabe symptoms). The Muslims provide impetus to begin dividing the EU in preparation (similar to the blacks in pre-civil war USA). The long term intention, of course, isn’t merely the power to dictate, but the power to eliminate the competition through racism tactics (again similar to modern USA … “Fight the enemy where they are not”).

But I try to stay out of the timing issues. :sunglasses:

What exactly do you mean by "I try to stay out of the timing issues“?

These days, you should not be male, not be Christian, not be white, not be heterosexual - and all those who are still male, Christian, white, heterosexual should never be fathers, thus never have children. :astonished:

No, they aren’t compatible, but they are useful to each other.
Feminists use Islam as an ‘object’ or ‘tool’ to criticize Western culture/history/civilization. In short, for the feminists, anything or anyone is better than the white, heterosexual male.

Yes, that is a fact. As it is almost always the case: alleged "oppositionists“ use other "ists“ not because they like them but because they hate the same "object“. There is the same example with all alleged "Greens“ who are political not because they like the green nature but because they hate people who drive cars or have factories … and so on. … The deepest reason for that is the fact that they hate themselves.