Dear Scott,
I'm a Huge DILBERT fan! Sandeep Atwal gave me your post as a digital file and I thought you might be interested in a response from a cartoonist who was an atheist until age 40 and who now gives equal weight and observance to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Global Gender War
Posted November 17th, 2015 @ 10:07am in #ISIS #daesh
I wonder if the discussion of so-called radical Islam is disguising the fact that male-dominated societies are at war with female-dominated countries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam doesn’t look so dangerous in countries where women can vote.
Consider the United States.
When I go to dinner, I expect the server to take my date’s order first. I expect the server to deliver her meal first. I expect to pay the check. I expect to be the designated driver, or at least manage the transportation for the evening. And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.
When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman. If the woman has additional preferences in terms of temperature, beverages, and whatnot, the man generally complies. If I fall in love and want to propose, I am expected to do so on my knees, to set the tone for the rest of the marriage.
Personally, I don’t go on dates. So the story above is just an example. But if I go to dinner with a female business associate, the story usually plays out the same way. The difference is that she might pick up the check if we are talking business, and the night ends earlier.
I finally decided that I shouldn't go out on dates unless I was interested in getting married -- which I'm not -- because that's what women go out on dates for: looking for Mr. Right. So the only thing that works is dating women who you think of as potential wives. Anything else is just "whore-mongering" and "whore-mongering" is never going to end happily. Not because of anything that women are doing wrong but because "whore-mongering" itself is wrong.
I won’t reopen the discussion of gender pay imbalance in this post. I’ll just summarize by saying that well-informed feminists don’t see much gender discrimination in the data. So if you think women in the United States are paid less for the same work, please take it up with well-informed feminists. I’m just reporting what they say.
The emphasis seems to have shifted to the number of female executives and women sitting on corporate boards (roughly 19%). Since we went right past numerical parity on campus and are now sitting at 70% to 30% in favour of women, I think it extremely unlikely that women will EVER stop at numerical parity in any context where they say that's their only interest. Caveat emptor.
Women have made an issue of the fact that men talk over women in meetings. In my experience, that’s true. But for full context, I interrupt anyone who talks too long without adding enough value. If most of my victims turn out to be women, I am still assumed to be the problem in this situation, not the talkers. The alternative interpretation of the situation – that women are more verbal than men – is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions. Can you imagine a situation where – on average – the people who talk the most do NOT get interrupted the most? I don’t know if the amount of talking each person does is related to the amount of interrupting they experience, or if there is a gender difference to it, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. My point is that men are assumed guilty in this country. We don’t even explore their alibis. (And watch the reaction to even bringing up the topic.)
Freudian slip there, calling them "alibis" instead of reasons. :)
Two situations I see here: 1) women explain things differently and usually at greater length because they want to explain their subject exhaustively while also avoiding bruising anyone's feelings through inconsiderate phraseology 2) Men tend to distill what they have to say to, as you say, "adding value". Figure out what you're going to do so you can start doing it.
If they aren't "adding value" to the discussion, men tend to just listen until they have something to add. If you're right in your assessment, I think women in the workforce need to develop these sorts of distillation abilities: Here's An Idea. Period. And I would agree that NOT interrupting people who just like to talk isn't a valid option or you're just going to have interminable meetings that never lead to anything but "further study". Which would certainly explain the nature of politics and industry since women got the right to vote 100 years ago. :)
Now compare our matriarchy (that we pretend is a patriarchy) with the situation in DAESH-held territory. That’s what a male-dominated society looks like. It isn’t pretty. The top-ranked men have multiple wives and the low-ranked men either have no access to women, or they have sex with captured slaves.
I don't think the men of ISIS are obsessed with sex. I think that's seeing a Muslim context through North American eyes because North American men ARE obsessed with sex or -- rather -- with whacking off to online porn and mistaking the latter for the former. Personally, I haven't masturbated since 2003 and haven't missed it.
I think the men of ISIS, like all Muslims, are centrally concerned with submitting to God's will and doing what they think God wants them to do. I'm not God so I have no idea if they are or not. The will of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- relative to women -- involves marriage and fatherhood instead of fornication, adultery, whoredom and masturbation. It would be unusual for a good Muslim to rape a captive "if she wishes to preserve her modesty" as it says in the Koran on that very subject. I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- the Boko Haram abductions are a glaring example -- I'm just saying that I think it would be unusual.
Of course, that leaves aside revenge questions. ISIS is mostly made up of Saddam Hussein's Sunni military who doubtless experienced Shia backlash when Iraq was overturned by the US invasion and who are now, in turn, wreaking vengeance upon the Shiites behind that backlash. Muslims have very long memories. The fact that they still call us Crusaders a thousand years later speaks volumes.
"Access to women" is a G7 concept. In a Muslim context, you have only married women (unaccessible) and unmarried women (unaccessible except through legitimate means: like family-approved courtship). Wives and potential wives. A Muslim man isn't going to want to be seen as a whoremonger or a fornicator or an adulterer because that a) would indict him in the sight of God and b) would rule him out as a potential husband. Particularly Islamists like those in ISIS and al-Qaeda.
While I’m being politically incorrect, let me describe to you the mind of a teenage boy. Our frontal lobes aren’t complete. We don’t imagine the future. Our bodies want sex more than we want to stay alive. Literally. Lonely boys tend to be suicidal when the odds of future female companionship are low.
So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.
You can usually get as much HUGGING as you want in North America if you're a good feminist. What you aren't going to get is sex. And even if you could, the sex wouldn't make you happy because you're not designed THAT way: to be a whoremonger. You're designed, by God presumably, to be a good husband and a good father.
If you whack off too much, it's just like any other addiction. You need more and more explicit and perverse subject matter to get the same "high" and eventually it just becomes another boring habit like channel-surfing. As the feminist singer eloquently put it, "If it makes you happy, then why are you so sad?"
I definitely think that's a problem for G7 men: having far more of a "relationship" with porn-sites than with actual women. Or, more pertinently, than with God.
Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don’t recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.
Yes, indeed. It's also a feminist suggestion which is not unusual in a thoroughly feminized context like the G7. The idea being that Muslim women and small kids can be converted to our way of thinking and that Muslim men are the ONLY problem.
"No one cares about adult men…" God does. But, I agree, He's the ONLY one in our society who does.
It would seem to me a better idea to "siphon" out the Christians from Syria since they're genuinely being victimized.
You want a linguistic kill shot to end DAESH recruiting? I don’t have the details worked out, but perhaps something along the lines of…
If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.
Teens aren’t good at planning ahead.
Again, I don't think "access to women" in the sense that you mean is what's available to men, generally, in the G7, apart from prostitutes and on-line porn and it's hard to imagine those holding much appeal for your average Muslim man (or G7 man either: except in a temporary, misguided and unsatisfying "any port in a storm" sense). The Houris -- "ever virgins, dear to their spouses" "the large-eyed ones with modest, refraining glances" -- aren't really the point, per se. The fact that they're a reward FROM GOD is the point.
"Access" to western women -- particularly the extremely limited "access" on offer -- just wouldn't be in the same category.
Anyway, I do want to applaud you for your outspokenness since you have such a RICHLY DESERVED high profile in the Real World of newspaper syndication. Actually saying what you think -- as you're no doubt finding out -- takes real guts in our Feminist Theocracy.
Best,
Dave Sim
