G
tldw
Watched this once before, and as an extremely conservative muslim, I can assure you this guy is either wrong or has twisted ideals.
The thing a lot of incels and MGTOWs forget is that men are also capable of evil towards women, many of us just dont enact that evil because we are in an enviroment/society that does not enable that behavior. All humans can be evil when they are given power, thus women need to be given certain protections so that they are not abused.
For example, the Mahr, which the guy in the vid criticizes, is misconstrued as the Mahr goes to the bride, not the family. Not only that, but if a woman demands high Mahr, obviously men will not marry, hence why Prophet encouraged women to not demand too much.
Also using Iran, which he does a lot as his arguing point isn't really accurate given they are Shias. FFS the guy ends up talking about Mutah marriages, which are NOT part of orthodox Islam (90% of Muslims)
Last edited:
G
Islam countries are a conglomeration where the concentration of women on few men is so desirable that it is even legalised. if that's not ultra-'progressive' i don't know what is.
Legality of polygamy - Wikipedia
we live in an environment where conflict is intentionally created based on everything from class to sex and even imaginary ideas like gender. a medieval dark age of progressivism and weimar republic levels of perversion while the global concentration of sex on gigachad goes through the roof. i can't imagine an environment that would encourage violence more than the current one.
how does handing women/their family shittons of money protect them from getting abused?
your prophet can demand whatever he wants, the only world in which foids humble themselves is one where they are humbled by force.
TLDW: Islamic marriage (like Western marriage) encourages divorce rape of betabuxxers
Some details:
Betabuxxers pay shitloads as bride price (Afghan bride price was $10k, wedding cost $22k. Groom's wage was $250/month, his dad's wage $500/month). Islamic law says that bride keeps the bride price if divorced.
Like in the west, most divorces are filed by women (80% in Indonesia). Muslim divorce goes up the richer the country is. Low in dirt poor Afghanistan, 20% in mid-income Indonesia, 30%+ for muslims in rich US (ie, when women doesn't need to be worried about being dirt poor, she's likelier to dump her betabux husband).
It isn't though. I have 20 aunts/uncles and not one uncle has 2 wives nor does any aunt share her husband with another man. Polygamy is rare, and mostly a means of taking care of widowed, orphaned, or divorced women. Most Muslim men go for one, as one is enough of a headache as is.
What I meant is that if a man were to have all the cards in the relationship, this would incentivize men to abuse those powers in marriage, so women are given certain rights and powers that make sure bad husbands dont abuse them. Why do you think Chads get away with treating women badly? because they can. These rights women have in marriage is to prevent that.
Because when a man is investing into a women, he will care for her more. It's the whole working hard to earn something vs being handed it for free idea. By "earning" her, he will value her more, which will make it less likely for him to abuse her.
Muslims good at
cope
G
that's, like, the basic idea of it though isn't it? it's rare because only a few chads fuck around a lot. that's hypergamy 101.
and for the rest the women are ofc a burden because aside from being women they are mad it's not chad.
like? how do they mitigate the 'abuse'? how do they even distinguish what is abuse and what isn't? foids are fork-tongued manipulators after all.
You say evil people do evil stuff when they can which is true, but that's the problem with theocracies they think foids will adhere to shit just because foids fear god's wrath. the mechanisms of fear of the afterlife, morals etc. don't hold in a profit-oriented utilitarian world which is everything from the age of 'enlightenment' until today. the idea of investment into a woman is not bad, but sounds counterproductive in the way its implemented.
you are thinking of the woman like the purchase of a cow. if i already bought the cow, I'll take good care of her since she cost me a lot and she hasn't paid her own costs off yet. if I invested in something, what i bought becomes bound to what i pruchased it with. thus the husband will become related to the woman as just that, an investor to an investment or a property to have bought. and what happens when you invest into something and then spend a lot of time maintaining it, things go wrong or feel like your investment sucked...? The investment has already been done. Your feelings will be more likely to direct themselves towards the woman, the disappointment you had to invest in and which in that situation you will be inclined to feel has left you down. That's how investments work. Sometimes they yield positives, sometimes negatives. doesn't sound like a mechanism that protects anything. You will also definitely fall into mistakes like the sunk cost fallacy where you will increasingly feel there is no way back or out since you invested so much already. As is the case with any relationship, but by adding money to the mix it makes it even more burdened. Only further increasing compulsion and worsening of negative feelings in case of relationship failures.
Hijab for Allah, ass for Abdullah.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
