Originally posted by nusnus
Another time, she encountered a lady at the local school who openly insulted her and said she didn't want to see hijabiis or some such come
I will admit that in the case of the hijab, I do consider it wrongfully discriminatory if women are banned from wearing it.
I think the reason why Westerners react the way they do to it, is because it is viewed as being symbolic for a few different things; not for what it
is literally, as such.
The first point, I think, is that I've observed that covering in virtually any context, is generally interpreted by Western feminists as a sign of
repression. For the record, I do not condone the Western feminist attitude here, either. American/European feminists consider it their right to not
only dress fairly close to outright nudity, but also expect to be able to do so without any form of negative reaction from anyone else. The "slut
walk," protests are held by women protesting the fact that they are looked down on for dressing provocatively.
The second point is that the hijab is regarded as a symbol of imperalistic encroachment or social infiltration. As upsetting as this may
unfortunately be for you to hear, nusnus, I think it's necessary to emphasise here, the degree of intense fear of Islam that exists in non-Islamic
society, at this point. Islam is largely regarded as a social pathogen by Western society, so if women in hijab are seen, it is considered an
indication that the local area has become infected.
So the attacking/criticism of women in hijab by non-Muslims, is (if not consciously) essentially seen as a sociological immune response. As I'm sure
you've witnessed on this forum, there is a perception among many non-Muslims, that they need to engage in cultural (and literally even ethnic)
self-defense, in order for their own belief systems and/or way of life to survive.
My own attitude with regards to this issue, I will admit, is largely Darwinian at this point; in the sense that I am inclined to believe that if Islam
genuinely is, for whatever reason, more sociologically or biologically fit than Western society, then ultimately, not only will the West be
assimilated, but that assuming that Islam has the necessary characteristics to do that, then it will presumably be a beneficial thing for the species
as a whole. May the best man win, in other words.
believe that Islam has a major reproductive advantage in the area of male/female relations. I think feminism probably has a larger
role to play in the decline of Western birth rates, than the usual contemporary Western cultural Marxist would like to believe. Feminism emphasises
the wellbeing of the individual woman, whereas Islam, I think, focuses on the wellbeing of the collective, despite the pattern of behaviour towards
individual women being more abusive in many cases.
Most damagingly, feminism has literally made the pathological hatred of men, a mainstream social institution, in Western society. It is considered
completely normal at this point, to the degree that it is not brought up at all. I've said repeatedly that if I've ever had any incentive for
conversion myself at all, it would be the possibility of finding a wife. I am single, and barring a literal act of God, at 35 I expect to be for the
rest of my life at this point.
As another potential sociological advantage, Islam is considered legalistic and repressive by Western standards; and truthfully to a degree according
to my own as well. Lack of individual freedom can
be a sociological evolutionary advantage, however, in the sense that it places more
emphasis on the survival of the collective, at the expense of the happiness of the individual. As someone who would usually be considered a
libertarian socialist politically, I have long believed that the imbalance in favour of the individual over the collective, is one of the most
potentially lethal social characteristics of Western (and particularly American) society.
I will also be honest when I say that, Islam aside, I am not a white supremacist, and I have never felt terribly comfortable about being a member of
the Anglo-Celtic ethnic group, which I truthfully consider one of the least desirable on the planet. I have not been treated well by them, to a large
I considered the film Avatar
to be an uncanny allegorical account of my own conversion to Shakta Hinduism in 2007, during which I began to
psychologically withdraw from my own ethnicity (and move more towards India, culturally) in a similar manner to the way Jake embraced being Na'vi
rather than human.
I think a lot of the white supremacists are scared of that. I think there's an unconscious realisation that to a large extent, as a civilisation,
America and Europe genuinely do
deserve to die at this point. So they're railing against it, and grieving it, but deep down, they
edit on 1-4-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)