/lit/ - Literature

>>9149885
nice literature you have there you fucking mongoloid

>>9149886
Again, looking for literature recommendations. First sentence. Nice reading comprehension.

>>9149885
It's hypocritical to criticise the gendered dress restrictions of one culture but not your own if they are essentially the same thing.

If your culture demands both normatively and legally that women shouldn't be allowed to expose their breasts while men are allowed to, then why should you be able to have a problem with a culture that demands the same thing but in regards to hair?

Further, in your own country, no one's forcing you to cover your hair, (hopefully, if you live in the west), and if your in someone elses country, you should adhere to their minimum standards for appropriate dress sense, unless you are equally critical of your own cultures double standards.

>>9149906
But forcing women to wear shirts in public IS hypocrytical of westerners AND forcing women to wear burqas IS oppressive. I dont see how you can believe one and not the other.

>>9149906
>If your culture demands both normatively and legally that women shouldn't be allowed to expose their breasts while men are allowed to, then why should you be able to have a problem with a culture that demands the same thing but in regards to hair?
>hair
kek. Okay, seriously though. Why did you assume I accept this double standard wrt breasts? Simply because I didn't mention it in my OP about burqas? I am critical of many things in the west but that isn't what this thread is about.

>you should adhere to their minimum standards for appropriate dress sense, unless you are equally critical of your own cultures double standards.
The whole point of my argument is pointing out the double standard. Now you are pointing out a "reverse" double standard and projecting it onto me. Let's stay on topic though and talk about the burqa in this thread please. Give me the benefit of the doubt that this is not just some idiotic "western pride" thread.

>>9149913
That's what I was getting at. People really kick up a stink about Islamic, but I think those people are hypocrites if they don't realise that this is a function of many western cultures and also other non-Islamic cultures. It's just a particularly obvious one, because they cover the face.

>>9149915
I didn't presume your thoughts on anything. I was just pointing it out.

I'm no apologist for Islam, but I think people should be consistent and fair when arguing against it, not that I'm accusing you of not doing so.

>>9149906
It's not the covering of hair thats the problem, it's the fact that the Niqab and Burqa essentially cover up the entire body purely for patriarchal reasons.
I have no real issues with the Hijab, but it is in no way hypocritical to criticise a culture in which many women must cover all their discernible features in black whenever they leave the house.

I wish I had their dexterity.

>>9149919
Okay, well for the record I could give two fucks about forcing women to wear shirts in the west. Having said that, certainly there are degrees of oppression and the burqa is more oppressive than the shirt. Either way though, I think this type of argument is sidelining the issue I want to discuss.

>>9149922
>I have no real issues with the Hijab, but it is in no way hypocritical to criticise a culture in which many women must cover all their discernible features in black whenever they leave the house.
This. I don't find the hijab offensive either.

>>9149922
>purely for patriarchal reasons.
and what is the problem with this ?

also, under the burqa, women can stay in PJs are even be naked. it is really super comfy.

>>9149922
>I have no real issues with the Hijab, but it is in no way hypocritical to criticise a culture in which many women must cover all their discernible features in black whenever they leave the house.

It just seems like a cultural bias if you criticise one and not the other. Both are forcing women to cover their body. Both are enforcing differing restrictions for one half of the population based on their own values and ideology.

>>9149936
>under the burqa, women can ... even be naked
and a new fetish awakens

>>9149936
Besides being forced on people purely because they lost, what is essentially, a coin toss with their gender, women don't have the choice to wear it or not.
Might be comfy, but so are tracksuit pants.

Also, Wahhabist LEAVE

>>9149945
Oh my god. Are you thick? We are talking about the burqa IN THIS THREAD. Just because we are not criticizing every other gender inequality IN THIS THREAD doesn't mean that we endorse those positions. At this point I am starting to suspect that you are deliberately trying to keep the thread off topic.

>>9149962
I was responding an anon who was specifically talking about what I responded to you fucking retard.

>>9149968
ILLEGAL MOVE. Ad hominem fallacy. You're attacking my character in the form of an argument, as you know.

>>9149968
>>9149972
haha god damn it. I really want to get a dialogue going about this here.

>>9149885
Not sure on texts, but one argument i've heard against a Burqa ban is that women who are only allowed outside of the house if they're wearing a Burqa, will be unable to leave the house PERIOD if the Burqa is banned.
Her fundamentalist husband could get with the times, liberalise, and allow her outside of the house in just a Hijab, but the more likely thing that will happen is that he'll stick to his archaic beliefs and keep her inside day in day out.

Atleast in a Burqa, she can uphold a semi-normal lifestyle, but without being let outside of the house she's essentially suffering in silence

Thoughts? I can kind of understand this line of thinking, however it feels like quite a weak argument.

>>9149885
>Are there any academic theory texts (feminist, postcolonial, or otherwise) that provide an ethical justification for the niqab/burqa?
Just deflection.
>B-But there have been laws against the veil in Algeria!
>B-But aristocratic women are made to dress like ghosts too!
>B-But look at those invisible facial expressions nobody can see, she's an assertive rebel who fights the System just like the Subcomandante Marcos in Mexico!
and the like.

You will not find a singe justification for why people calling themselves gender egalitarians support the institutionalization of the man being visible and the woman being invisible.

It is quite an effective system to hide bruises and other evidence of domestic abuse, isn't it?

I mean, the clergymen repeatedly say you cannot strike her more than 10 times, that you shouldn't use the full length of the arm but only the forearm to strike less hard, and especially that you should avoid leaving marks (clever system, isn't it?), but your loving husband is not infallible.

>Pseudo-progressives and their media outlets (Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, etc.) seem to think it's racist and Islamophobic to criticize this cultural practice
Follow the money, you could see if the Saudis are financing the media outlet directly, or the political party or candidates of choice of the journalists. The niqaab is most frequently encountered where wahhabism is prevalent, for example in Saudi Arabia, lands under the control of ISIS, or this thread.

>If you are sincerely passionate about gender equality
if

>>9149981
OP here. I have heard this argument and it is definitely compelling. I wasn't talking about a burqa ban, but about-

A. simply being able to critique it without being labeled an ignorant islamophobe.
B. why many progressives seem to take off their thinking caps when talking about islam.

I agree that if it is going to harm the women rather than help them, we aren't ready to "ban" it. Ideally there would be a cultural shift or religious reform and we would have to.

>>9149985
>It is quite an effective system to hide bruises and other evidence of domestic abuse, isn't it?
Ban makeup.

>>9149945
It's all in the details of what each restriction implies.
A burqa covers up a woman's entire being. The face, which is incredibly important in the forming of human relationships (as well as being important to differentiate one human person from another), is unrecognisable and the burqa-clad woman will find it infinitely harder to make and uphold friendships with other people, as well as make it harder to interact with anybody.

While gender-bias exists with how taboo men and women's tits are, this gender-bias doesn't stop a western women living a normal life.

>>9149987
>why many progressives seem to take off their thinking caps when talking about islam.
whereas your thinking cap is firmly on your head when you compare some pinkhaired twitterette bitching about mansplaining to a LEGAL BAN ON CLOTHING

>>9149995
I think this is a compelling argument against what I said.

>>9149999
>legal ban
When did I say this, though?

>>9150004
radical

>>9150008
the whole debate about the burqa started when france banned it
if you wanna criticize it, go for it

>>9149959
>women don't have the choice to wear it or not.
Only liberals/libertarians believe in personal free will, so yes it does not make sense for liberals to wear a burqa. Oddly enough, these people feel entitled to manage other people lives.

>>9150012
>if you wanna criticize it, go for it
That's true on this board (more or less) but definitely does not reflect the attitudes of my peers (college educated American progressives in their mid twenties). It's pretty taboo to criticize the burqa in left leaning circles, which is counter-intuitive to me.

Freedom is having your own choice to kill yourself.

>>9150019
Honestly, most of the leftists I know are at least critical of the burqa, they just aren't okay with outright banning it. A lot of leftists (and I am more or less one, I should declare) seem like they just go full retard to the far logical extremes of their position when met with opposition even if they don't truly believe it.

>>9149906
Don't be reductive. No one's against someone choosing to cover their hair. It's the implications of it and the fact that women but not men are expected to cover up that make it oppressive.

>>9149988
No one is forced or expected to wear makeup.

>>9150107
How do you know their abusive husbands aren't forcing them to wear it?

>>9149885
>Buzzfeed, HP

No, there is no academic consensus behind low-brow tolerant views.
I'll tell you the truth on this: people are not being apologetic of Islam because Islam deserves it, they're being so becuase they know that
a) this criticism is useless, since muslims are ininfluential in the West (they won't actually change our laws) and since what we say here won't change a thing in the places that matter on the other side of the world
b) this useless criticism will 100% get coopted by far right politicians and activists to spread hate against immigrants and refugees (wich ALWAYS work when there's a crisis)

That's why you never hear leftists bitching about anything that doesn't directly goes against their national Constitution. It's a delicate situation in catastrophic times.

>>9150107
There's a huge social pressure to wear makeup.

>>9149988
Do you wear makeup on your forearms?

See what I mean? Deflect, deflect, deflect. They're an obedient bunch.

>>9149988
But Muslim women use makeup too.

>>9150124
Especially in Islamic countries. Allah help you if you aren't sufficiently pretty when your hubby comes back home.

>>9150172
You wear shirts that cover your forearms. Should we ban shirts?
Or if a wifebeater beats his wife in the stomach area, is the logical thing to do ban any women's clothing that covers the stomach?
And if we continue with this line of thought in the end women will have to walk around nude.

>>9150174
What does that have to do with anything? If the logic is "this can be used to conceal bruises" then makeup is bannable, as well as practically all clothes (except underwear I guess).

>>9150183
But I never said anything about banning anything.

>>9150192
How about we ban gender-specific restrictions on which clothing can be worn huh

>>9150194
Cool, but avoiding the point.

>>9150201
That's a noble idea, except it's unenforceable.

Just purge muslims out of this world so this """problem""" vanishes.

>>9150222
>except it's unenforceable
It can be fought just like female genital mutilation with an interdisciplinary approach of education, activism, legal reform and kulturkampf.

>>9150222
>avoiding the point
You mean this one?

>You will not find a singe justification for why people calling themselves gender egalitarians support the institutionalization of the man being visible and the woman being invisible.

>>9150226
Economic sanctions could work, too

>>9149916
>>9149906
Oppression isn't an on/off switch. There's a distinction between mild oppression (women can't show their breasts in public) and severe oppression (women can't show their face in public). Not acknowledging that distinction is retarded.

>>9150226
Not really, because how can you be sure that the woman who's wearing a covering wants to wear it (remember, the issue isn't 100% clear, there are women who want to wear this stuff)? If you ask her and she says "Yes" she might be lying to protect herself, right? So your "common sense" approach is going to turn out to be banning burqas, niqabs and hijabs.

>>9150228
No, the one where you want women to walk around nude.

>>9150233
True.

>>9150237
It's a cultural issue, it is not fought on an individual basis. The only thing worth banning, if anything, are the asshole patriarchs, and concealing your face in public. Only then the women will be free to choose.

>>9149885
She chooses to be part of the religion that requires to wear the burqa.

You are a shitlord not respecting her choice and right to do so.

Now end yourself sjw. You are probably a white male.

>>9150237
>No, the one where you want women to walk around nude.
cringe

>>9150246
It's the logical conclusion of your "hey it's a great way to hide bruises!" thought.

>>9150019
It's probably got something to do with people recognising that deep down they have tendencies towards out-group racism (as we all innately do) and so they want to steer clear of a topic that might bring this out socially. Also, there might be an acknowledgement that nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about enough to take on an ancient practice from a foreign people.

It's similar when you are a parent, people don't generally pull other parents up in their parenting even if it goes against their values because it can just tap into such core beliefs and issues of values so fucking quickly.

There are always going to be topics that encourage people to show their hidden values much faster and these are threatening in social situations where you are 1) not very close to people, and 2) your reputation there might impact your livelihood.

>>9149906
I want to see breasts of random girls in the street though (not the old hags, but it is the price you have to pay),

>>9150247
ugh

>>9150245
>She chooses to be part of the religion that requires to wear the burqa.

AHAHAH THIS FAG BELIEVES IN FREE WILL!

>>9150255
Don't fall back into philosophical obscurity when social pressure is WAY more grounding and applicable.

>>9150250
This post is way too sophisticated for 4chan. Fuck off you normie faggot.

>>9149885
>To me, it seems condescending as fuck to not subject other cultures to the same intellectual scrutiny as your own.

Can you justify this position? European-derived cultures have tried telling other cultures what to do before, which is something we call colonialism or imperialism. The same standard applies. Should we force other cultures to believe what we believe, because we believe these beliefs to be correct?

>>9150261
Yes. It is the right of the might to lead the world. Islam needs to be eradicated and people freed.

>>9150257
Sorry, I meant to say:

It's probably some cuck thing where people have faggot feelings and they take this out on niggers but don't want their boss to find out in case they love the BBC. Also, everyone in the world is fucking dumbshit cunts.

Its like even when a couple of dykes want to raise a baby I don't get all up in their manly faces about it because they might decide to unleash their tableted testosterone on me to prove they aren't accidentally making their baby gayer than Streisand.

We should just force people to just wear name badges that let others know whether they are polcucks or libtard so that everyone won't be so chickenshit about their opinions and we can just all nuke each other and be done with this shithole muslim planet once and for all.

>>9150264
Might comes from right, not the other way around.

>>9150276
Yeah if you are an idealist retard that doesn't observe the reality

>>9150279
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKING FUCK, BESERKEEEEEEERRRRR.

>>9150279
The reality is that no one will impose their might if there's not a good reason for it. That reason is justified through 'right' otherwise you get a bunch of offended dudes 'out-mighting' you for failure to observe protocol.

>>9150264
liberalism ftw!

>>9150261
>which is something we call colonialism or imperialism
I know what colonialism is, brah. I mentioned postcolonial theory in my OP. People in the west view eastern people as inferior and therefore do not even deem their cultural practices worthy of any serious cultural criticism. To refrain from criticism of an eastern practice that you would certainly have made of a western practice is to immediately impose "otherness". I am not telling muslims how to live, just wondering: what are the ethical justifications for this practice? As feminists, we should be critical of any oppressive gendered practice.

>>9150116
Thanks, this is the best post in the thread (as far as helping me wrap my head around all this).

>>9150281
>there's not a good reason for it.
wow already a concession.
that's all I needed

good reason = islam is backwards ass terrorist religion

eradicate them

>>9149885
Google 'cultural relativism'.

These retards actually believe you can't critic a culture unless you are part of that culture and therefore you can't make value judgement on cultures in general.

See Said's Orientalism

>>9149885
The main argument from actual leftists that I'm suprised no one has really mentioned yet is that women in the middle east have to liberate themselves on their own terms. It can't be some hypocritical western liberal imperialism that doesn't genuinely serve to advance the status of women.

>>9150296
OP here, I've read Orientalism. The book in your pic looks interesting. Admittedly I hadn't heard of it. Is this what I'm looking for?

>>9150288
>People in the west view eastern people as inferior and therefore do not even deem their cultural practices worthy of any serious cultural criticism.

No that's not postcolonial. It is colonial to oppress 'otherness' because it conflicts with the standards of the dominant culture.

To impose a view on Muslims is telling them how to live. The justification for this practice is not telling them how to live, based on the legacy of Western colonialism.

>>9150300
>It can't be some hypocritical western liberal imperialism that doesn't genuinely serve to advance the status of women.
haha what the fuck

if you get liberated you are liberated
should of USA have left Europe alone because "they need to liberate themselves on their own terms"
hahah

>>9150261
>because we belief these beliefs to be correct

Yes. Only a post modernist thinks that truth is subjective, the rest of the world can appreciate objective criteria. All strains of middle eastern islamism are objectively worse than western enlightenment cultures and for that matter also worse than most confucian asian cultures.

>>9150300
>women in the middle east have to liberate themselves on their own terms
Why aren't women allowed to help one another across national borders, again? Is it because the patriarchy said they can't?

>>9150305
>to liberate the muslims out of their shitty islam is "oppressive"
do you have a boypussy holy shit

have you seen Islam in action at middle east
the so called moderate islamists against Syria?
this is what you fucking want to go on you retarded leftist anti-human cuck

>>9150290
That's a completely reductive account of cultural relativism and intellectually disingenuous.

>>9150305
>It is colonial to oppress 'otherness'
>The justification for this practice is not telling them how to live
huh? Not trying to be a dick- I can't figure out what you are talking about. Are you basically saying, "You are an imperialist for expecting a culture to morally justify its blatant oppression of women?" Oh, sorry I mean "Telling them how to live".

>>9150320
That's what he means, he is an useful idiot of the past completely brainwashed by his nu-liberal leftard ideologies.

>>9150302
Could see that from the way you framed your question.
I think this is exactly what you're looking for, it contextualises and historicises both the debate and the practice of wearing.

>>9149885
The sources you mentioned are low brow sources, and low brow sources have notoriously contradictory belief systems. Barely anyone in any field of academia (apart from English and meme degrees) believes Moral Relativism is a coherent stance to take.

But most people would point out that it's not really going to do any practical good if we start shitting the bed about burqas even though they're so flagrantly opposed to our value system.

If you want to understand the logic of these publications and of meme degrees (and I'm doing two meme degrees so I'm not maligning anyone for their choices/mistakes) and the problems with that worldview (as well as some possible things of value to be taken from it) then James Rachels' essay "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" is a good unpacking, while a little bit strawmannish at parts.

It's also very important to distinguish the burqa, from things like niqabs and hijabs, since there's a big difference between the latter which signifies modesty and the former which is just a device which eradicates women from the social sphere by covering them up entirely. The former, I personally think, ought to be challenged and restricted if not outright banned. But if you're gonna start persecuting people for wearing the latter then you'd also have to start persecuting nuns, because they wear exactly the same kind of clothing for exactly the same purpose.

There's nothing wrong with modest clothing, all religious communities practice this to some extent. It's a cultural product of the sexual revolution to think there's something wrong with that, and the disastrous cultural impact of that movement is pretty apparent to most of us. But the burqa is a whole different question.

>>9150309
The objective truth is that cultures need certain 'truths' in order to function correctly; the imposition of Enlightenmental conscious purpose is disruptive rather than helpful, because the extent of nature is only present in nature rather than the abstractions we place upon nature i.e. our 'understanding'.

Cultures resist other cultures that have different values. That's just an unchallenged rule. Feminism, liberalism, capitalism, socialism, all developed in certain, specific circumstances as they occurred in the Western world. To impose these values on another culture results in the same problems as transplanting a limb on a person -- the body rejects anything it considers alien.

>>9150313
Cultural relativism is a tool designed to unarm the intellectual capacities of its followers.

Meanwhile the same ideologies that you aren't allowed to criticise are busy dismantling your own ideologies locally and abroad. Take a step outside of your ideological bubble for second please.

>>9150312
So what is your answer to this problem? To kill those who disagree? Is that not the same thing you are arguing against?

>>9150338
Iran before religious leaders proves you already wrong, they accepted all of that.

Next leftard that wants to get btfo by facts of the history?

>>9150334
Great, I was able to find a pdf and look into this book a little. It sounds like exactly what I am looking for. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

>>9150320
No, I'm saying the legacy of imperialism is apparent in the expectation of other cultures to behave in a way that is acceptable to your own culture.

Also
>>9150338

>>9150343
Stage an actual moderate, modern, "free" revolution of the Islamic religion that will start spreading schools condoning what the Saudi Arabia is doing which is forming, funding, supporting, spreading schools that spread the nutjob version of Islam. Educate their people from within, with some external support.

And of course there's the way of killing for example every religious leader of ISIS and ISIL, that's a good start in my opinion.

>>9150344
Well I guess you can leave the thread then.

>>9150338
American culture has successfully spread all around the world. You are right that trying to force people to adopt your culture with force does not work, with the exception of extreme cases like post-WW2 germany. You can very well convince people of the merits of your culture though, through debate and advertisement.

And if you don't think your culture is superior then you should reform or abandon it. Like with any ideology, you can do that.

>>9150344

>Iran before religious leaders proves you already wrong, they accepted all of that.

Yes, and then the Revolution happened.
As the guy said in his post:
>the body rejects anything it considers alien.

>>9150352
And eventually this will trickle down to the Muslims already in the country who still suggest women should wear a hijab or burka?

>>9150357
>Revolution staged and supported by Saudis is somehow "body's reaction to foreign limb"

just fuck off with this ignorant shit

>>9150336
Why do people hate the sexual revolution?

I don't get it. As a horny motherfucker, I want to have sex as much as possible with as many women as possible. Why wouldn't other dudes want that?

>>9150365
>Shah's rule staged and supported by Burgerland ('53 coup d'etat) is "normal body"

just fuck off with this ignorant shit

>>9150371
>why are my animalistic urges maybe not compatible with rational decision making

>>9150336
>you'd also have to start persecuting nuns, because they wear exactly the same kind of clothing for exactly the same purpose.
Nope, in Italy they have no shortage of nuns, and also Eastern European women that cover their heads, all they ban is face covering, everything else is allowed.

So you can wear a hijab, jilbab, abaya, etc. as long as your face is seen. The ban has nothing to do with religion, because all manner of masks have to go, this includes full-faced helmets when you're not riding a bike, or Italy's very own traditions. Any of those can be equally used by criminals for their purposes.

So in order to celebrate the carnival in St. Mark's Square in Venice, you will have to unmask yourself before a police officer, let him or her ID you, then you can put your porcelain mask back on and have your fun there.

Incidentally, such a reasonable ban also happens to free women from oppressors that want them to hide like spectres, while not making the mess France, Algeria and Turkey make by crusading against something as simple as a hijab.

>>9150372
Now you are applying your own argument to his refutation of your argument. The whole notion of a 'normal body' is yours in the first place.

>>9150338

Personally I don't give a shit what muslims do in their own countries, they could cut each other up with Sinbad swords for all I care, but when they come to my country they ought to respect MY values. Fair's fair, right?

I honestly don't think anyone cares that much about burqas in the middle east, it's just when you see burqas in the middle west that things get uncomfortable.

>>9150355
I'm not sure about 'successfully' but yes it is apparent around the world. It is a strange mutation of the principles on which is was founded, however. And advertisement and debate are kind of forms of 'cultural imperialism'.

I think Western culture is white supremacist -- if you're the same person as before then yes I agree that "People in the west view eastern people as inferior and therefore do not even deem their cultural practices worthy of any serious cultural criticism" is true, but it is not the whole thing that forms the position on Islam.

I think there are hypocrisies in the Western system, and perhaps I should call for reformation as you suggest, but the principle of Western civilisation is that of contract theory; that one can freely interact and engage with another as equals. The problem is that the imposition of our culture has left a bad taste in many mouths in the form of the post-colonial legacy. But I think fundamentally it is on a culture to arrive at our conclusions on its own terms, and it should be allowed to do so under our own system (regardless of any racist/culturalist imposition). For example, it is 'better' for police to arrive at a conclusion about a criminal through his or her own procedure in accordance with what is legally permitted, rather than acting outside the law and finding the evidence for certain conclusions that would have otherwise been reached without acting outside the scope of legal operations.

>>9150381
>debate are kind of forms of 'cultural imperialism'.
...

>>9150371
>Why wouldn't other dudes want that?

Well first of all, most men don't reach women's standards.

Literally the Pareto principle. If women can choose who to fuck, they will only fuck 20% of men, and the other 80% will die without children.

>>9150381
>cultural imperialism
Just because you slap a bad sounding name on it, doesn't make it bad. All cultures are doing this, only you are refraining from it because you hate your own culture.

>Western culture is white supremacist
How so?

>>9150375
No I don't accept this.

I don't see the problem with people having sex with whoever they want.

Please explain what is wrong with that? The only thing i can thinkthat would make someone hate the sexual revolution is religion.

>>9150379
"the body rejects anything it considers alien"
Iran pre-1953 = the body
post-1953 coup = the body with "alien" additions
post 1979 = return to the "traditional" body

>>9150309
>All strains of middle eastern islamism are objectively
stopped reading here

>>9150348
np

>>9150394
>>Please explain what is wrong with that?
any craving towards the five senses+views is doomed to bring unpleasantness and dissatisfaction Acting on the desires regarding the sensual experience is a sing of lack of equanimity. If people want pleasure, they can meditate. if they want happiness, they go for nibanna.

>>9150391
It sounds bad sure and there's nothing stopping Western culture from being imperialist (again), but it contradicts with the liberalism upon which we base our society.

>How so?

There is a way in which it conceives of different cultures, as if though it expects all people of a different race or culture to be secret liberals that are just waiting to be emancipated into their liberalism. It is one of these 'impositions' that I keep mentioning.

I think that this kind of thinking is modernist rather than postmodernist -- postmodernism allows for a pluralism or a look at cultures and peoples more 'objectively' (by looking at what is) rather than trying to figure an underlying truth to everything (a truth which is culturally defined).

It's this culturally-defined modernism that is white supremacist.

>>9150398
I know what you are saying, that's not what I was pointing out above.

And pre-1953 Iran does look nothing like post 1979 Iran. You just build this simplistic structure in your head, devoid of any nuance. You have created this 'normal body' category and now everything has to fit into this box in your head.

Not to mention that it is impossible to 'return' to a previous culture. Revivalism of old cultures never works, you always end up with a mixture of old and new. Your whole notion is absurd.

Pre-1953 Iran was replaced with a new culture
pre 1979 Iran was replaced with a new culture

>>9150394
Libs hate it too.
>Just as the “anti-war” movement evolved into the “peace movement,” the sexual revolution needs to grow beyond adolescent rebellion and self-centeredness to a more mature and sophisticated understanding of the deeper significance of love and sexuality in our lives. The tendency to blame the radical right for the demise of the sexual revolution merely shifts the responsibility and encourages an adversarial position
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-without-limits/201208/what-ever-happened-the-sexual-revolution

>>9150410
You have failed to explain how it is White Supremacist.

Unless you are using different defintions for the words 'white' and 'supremacist'.

>>9150414
>You just build this simplistic structure in your head, devoid of any nuance.
1. I'm not the guy who originally wrote the "body" metaphor.
2. I recognize that there is nuance, I'm not a retard. But however you define it, the 1979 revolution was a rejection of the foreign-backed Shah.

>>9150376
That's what I'm saying

A ban on burqas is a different thing from a ban on those other coverings which signify modesty but don't cover the face. I think the latter is overstepping the bounds, while the former is reasonable.

>>9150371
It's a long argument I really don't want to go into, but I think the proposition that all sexual impulses are benign and innocent is a self-evidently bullshit proposition, that most people would agree with. But without restricting in some way peoples sexual impulses, you open the door to the worse as well as the better of these impulses.

Sex isn't inherently a good thing, nor is it inherently a bad thing. But it has to be channeled correctly to avoid certain consequences. I think that having sex with a different person every night dulls your ability to feel anything except the bare fact of the orgasm (which in itself is about as pleasurable as a really good sneeze and certainly not worth devoting a lot of time towards pursuing.), and I think that because I see it all the time.

Sexual promiscuity, which the sexual revolution enshrines as a freedom, results, as (>>9150375) hinted at, in the bestialization of human beings. This is a natural consequence of a kind of shallow populist Darwinism which leads people to think that we are just animals with no capacity for anything more. The greater problem with this bestialization is that all of the good things about society, the protection of the innocent, the legal structures, everything like that, is based on the idea that we aren't simply bestial.

There is also a danger in believing your biological impulses are truly and authentically "yours", since plenty biological impulses make moral claims that we should absolutely reject. The justification for the main idea of the sexual revolution, that consensual sex is always benign and harmless regardless of the frequency and circumstance is this claim about sexual impulses being natural and thus necessary to pursue.

Which brings us to the real crux of the issue. The sexual revolution does not simply free human sexual impulses. It set up a cultural structure which demands that we follow those impulses and uses people who don't pursue them as scapegoats. There is a cultural contempt for asceticism which is based in the counter-culture of the c.20th and I don't regard that as at all healthy. If I felt that you could do what you do, and I could do what I do, and both wold be regarded as equally valid by society, then I wouldn't be posting about this. I don't want to enforce my views on anyone. But that isn't the case, especially in universities etc.

If this comes off as incoherent and rambling, it's because I've never really formulated what I think about this in words before, so apologies for that. There aren't many places you can even express this kind of view without serious backlash, especially since I'm not a part of any religion.

>>9150371

Because married couples with children are more responsible - they have to be because they have more at stake. The future actually matters to them and they can't just live hedonisticaly from year to year. They work hard, they save, they invest. They vote for conservative candidates, they don't commit very many crimes. When you unravel the family everything else starts to unravel with it. I want to live in a stable, prosperous, country and I don't want a lot of revolting and rioting.

>>9150420
>Unless you are using different defintions for the words 'white' and 'supremacist'.

I probably am. My definition was based on the imposition of cultural values that have developed in white cultures. These values are 'white' and the expectation that they are adhered to above anything else is 'supremacist'.

Honestly you should be able to make sense of 'liberal media' more if you view it as white supremacist. How else are black people so fetishised if not for their difference and everything else we seem to expect of them (physical prowess, big black cocks, etc.)? Why are black people the locus of race issues?

>>9150415
It's interesting how ideology is seen as the root of the Sexual Revolution, and not the birth control pill.

People don't realize how it actually is the birth control pill that allowed the Sexual Revolution to even take place, because it is nature itself that enslaved women. Now, they can have sex with anyone they want without getting pregnant, which is the first time in the 250000 year history of humanity.

>>9150422
>was a rejection of the foreign-backed Shah

That's true, but you somehow assume that is a natural anti-body reaction (stupid biology analogy), something that HAS to happen whenever a culture is replaced with another culture. While it was just like any other revolution, the people collectively decided they want to try something new. In this case this 'new' was a remix of something old.

But there are enough cases of cultures around the globe throwing away their established culture for something completely new, most prominent examples being the communist revolutions (which are based on foreign western ideas by the way).

>>9150439

Condoms have been around for centuries.

>>9150442
>Condoms have been around for centuries.

And? Condoms don't give women any control of their reproduction.

the more women are in control of their pussy, the more they are demanding and the more men are back to being puppies trying to please, which is the natural situaiton in the first place

>>9149936
>burqa
Was invented by the middle-class in Kabul.

>>9150445
Pretty sure the natural situation is lots and lots of rape buddy

>>9150445
In other words, feminists shouldn't be surprised patriarchies exist.

>>9150443

Yeah they do lol. If either partner wears one you're not getting knocked up.

Anyway, you're missing the point because in lots of countries birth control pills are against the law. There was nothing stopping the Americans from banning the pill, but they allowed women to take them because muh liberalism.

>>9150445
Holy shit what is this feeling of omniscience? Was I just red pilled?

>>9150436
They aren't 'white' though. Ideologies aren't tied to races, that is an inane assumption. Nothing about your skin color or race makes you automatically tied to a specific ideology.

Also your view is american centered. Western values come from europe, your black/white post-slavery issues aren't even relevant there.

>you should be able to make sense of 'liberal media' more if you view it as white supremacist
Identity politics always make sense if you don't look too closely behind the veil. Putting everything in easy categorizable boxes makes thinking so much easier.

>Why are black people the focus of race issues
Because of politics. If you convince black people that they are a distinct group from the rest of the population then you can lobby them. And if you convince them that they are in the position they are in currently because that is the natural state for them, then you are successfully preventing progress, which in this specific case prevents black people from rising up to the educational and wealth standards of the white people in the country. All of this is in the interests of the democratic establishment.

>>9150456
>If either partner wears one

>>9150462

You've never heard of female condoms?

Women are property and their only value is sexual, their sexuality should therefore be publicly hidden to keep the sanctity of her man's ownership.

>>9150469
I have heard of them, but I've never heard of anyone actually using them apart from in places in Africa where HIV is prevalent.

This doesn't change the fact that birth control pills were the mechanism that allowed a sexually liberal culture to emerge.

>>9150479

Ok what about diaphragms? They had those way before the pill. I know this because Hemingway wrote about them in 1949.

>>9150500
They *had* them sure. But how prevalent are we talking about?

Is it really that hard to believe that cultural happenings are influenced by scientific breakthroughs?

>>9150460
It doesn't matter if they are technically white or not, just that they are enacted by white people on others who are non-white, by the standards of those white people. That is all that matters in a post-colonial context.

>Also your view is american centered

It's both European and American. Liberalism is a European invention, but America is the leading exporter of liberal ideals; at least what we can still identify as liberal in a classical sense.

>Putting everything in easy categorizable boxes makes thinking so much easier.

My point isn't that everything is the way that conscious imposition suggests it is, but it is a model that is adopted by many. I'm not exposing a metaphysical 'truth' but a truth that is accepted by the society that it informs.

>Because of politics

Which are in turn defined by an ideological position -- classical liberalism.

>All of this is in the interests of the democratic establishment.

Does that not seem white supremacist to you? That black people are 'distinct' and in need of 'lobbying' in order that they are raised to the status if white people?

>>9149885

wait a sec is that Nigella Lawson?

>>9150514
>Does that not seem white supremacist to you?
No, it's a class issue. The race lines are manufactured. The establishment is neither white nor black nor any other race, it is wealthy people who want to stay in power. You could literally replace white people with black people and you would end up with the same result. The fact that you go for the race lines means you have fallen for the trick.

> just that they are enacted by white people on others who are non-white, by the standards of those white people.
Like I said that is a simplistic way of thinking, something isn't automatically racist or <race>-supremacist because one of the actors has a different race than the other actor. This is a 'spook' as the Stirner shitposters would say. It is window dressing.

>That is all that matters in a post-colonial context.
Yeah that's a good reason why you should abandon that post-colonialist thinking. It's self evidently not fit for purpose and leads you to the wrong conclusions.

> Liberalism is a European invention, but America is the leading exporter of liberal ideals; at least what we can still identify as liberal in a classical sense.
Yeah, but that defeats your idea that these ideologies are designed to suppress black people. Most of these ideas were designed by whites for whites. Supremacy was never part of the equation.

>>9150300
>Feminists: Women are women and women for women so feminism is important because women need women to help women smash the patriarchy!
>Middle-Eastern Women: Yeah! Women for women! We could really use some support too, since changing an entire government legal system isn't easy, especially an oppressive government/society with several very severe laws and customs and that disfavor women specifically, where the church favors and supports the government too. We know you don't have much experience with such a severe situation, but maybe with some of that money you are free to spend as you please, you could at least do your favorite awareness spreading about us, at least until we're up to speed with you guys?
>Feminists: Ohhh, uh, no, sorry, sisters. You have to figure it out on your own like we did. It's a hard road but we know you can do it!
>Middle-Eastern Women: Fuck yourselves forever, infidels.

if i met you in real life, i would punch you in your face. its none of your business how other people dress.

>>9150574
Yeah lets ignore that women get lynched for not wearing this shit. It's totally their choice. And celebrating the head scarfs and burqas as feminist symbols is totally not insulting to all victims of this hateful ideology. Next we should start wearing hats of mutilated clitorises and our gays should do annual bungee jumping off roof tops.

>>9150537
>You could literally replace white people with black people and you would end up with the same result.

In a 'white' system though. But with Marxism, for example, there comes an anti-racist, anti-capitalist hegemony -- a true realisation of liberalism -- rather than that which is 'courrupted' by capitalism; the same kind of liberalism that treats race in a way that is white-sanctioned.

>Like I said that is a simplistic way of thinking

Which doesn't mean it is not widespread. I agree that it is simplistic.

>Yeah that's a good reason why you should abandon that post-colonialist thinking.

I agree somewhat with post-colonialism but I'm just stating the theory rather than advocating it.

>Supremacy was never part of the equation.

It kind of was, considering the Enlightenment attitude to cultures it considered inferior. These values were built on the increasing interaction with other cultures which can't be ignored if one is considering a holistic view of the Enlightenment and liberalist theory, etc.

>>9149885
Its fucking basic logic.
>hide her face because you dont want other alpha male look at you are bitch. aka insecure af teehee
>Sam Harris say they are fucking terrorist and the religion its based on violence
Reefuges OUT

>>9150605
>In a 'white' system though.
What's the point in labeling it as 'white' if the race and skin color of the followers is irrelevant?

>It kind of was, considering the Enlightenment attitude to cultures it considered inferior.
All ideologies are designed to be better than other ideologies otherwise there would be no point in creating the ideology in the first place and there would also be no reason to spread the ideology. An ideology is required to be perceived as superior by its followers, or it is dead on arrival.

All of these other ideologies considered themselves superior too, just like Islamism considers itself superior to everyone else. It is disingenuous to single out western ideologies and label them as supremacist and therefore in need of abolishment.

Colonialism is wrong because it forces your culture onto another culture group. Just like Jihad is wrong because it does basically the same thing.

But post-colonialism goes further and singles out western culture and says it is not even allowed to compete with other cultures on a free market place of ideas. Debate and advertisement are labeled as supremacy moves, specifically only if it comes from the ideologies labeled as 'white'. Meanwhile all other ideologies on the globe are still allowed to debate and advertise their ideologies. Post-colonialism is cultural self-destruction.

>>9149916
isn't there a difference in severity between the social fashion standards of the West and those in Saudi Arabia?

In the West = wear literally what you want but cover your nipples and genitalia, if you don't comply you may possibly be spoken to (no jail time, definitely not here in the UK)

In Saudi = show anything but your eyes and you are going to be violently punished, maybe even killed (definitely killed if nipple or genitalia is displayed)

>>9150111
it seems like you are saying that controlling women is bad

thats a confusing perspective historically

>>9150632
>Debate and advertisement are labeled as supremacy moves, specifically only if it comes from the ideologies labeled as 'white'. Meanwhile all other ideologies on the globe are still allowed to debate and advertise their ideologies.

But people still watches TV with happy people in it, and want to buy cheap things form the internet, which is all the west has to offer and always advertise.

>>9150245
lol woman born in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan etc has a choice about being a Muslim?

Are you that out-of-touch with the levels of religious oppression in many Muslim majority countries? It's not a choice, it's law, law punishable (frequently) by severe beatings/death.

>>9150653
>But people still watches TV with happy people in it, and want to buy cheap things form the internet, which is all the west has to offer and always advertise.

Now you are confusing cause and effect. Hollywood and consumerism is all the west is still allowed to export. You look down on western cultural exports, even though the west is not allowed to export anything more worthwhile on fear of being branded as supremacist colonialists.

>>9149886
>>9149890
oh snap, burn "mongoloid guy" :p

>>9149906
IIRC, female nipples get hardened during sexual arousal - just like the male penis get hardened during sexual arousal. i think it is logical to ask people to hide their sexual organs in public.

but hair? face? arms? what is the logic behind hiding those? if you don't live in a 40 Celsius desert where covering yourself completely actually cools you, then there is no reason.

>>9150702
>IIRC
Top 10 most unintentionally sad and banal statements

>>9150719
Why are their faces so moon like?

>>9150719

I would recall correctly Caspar

>>9150632
>What's the point in labeling it as 'white' if the race and skin color of the followers is irrelevant?

Since the institutions set up based on its principles are responsible for the execution and maintenance of (neo-)colonialism and to where the profits of such a system end up. Letting dark people into your system doesn't mean it's not racist if it's still perpetuating the same system that oppressed them in the first place.

>All ideologies are designed to be better than other ideologies

Western ideologies though, especially in the modern period, have more do to with 'conscious purpose' or the imposition of an abstract system on nature. There is a difference between ideologies and those that have a foundation in a specifically Western context that functions by its impositions.

>Just like Jihad is wrong because it does basically the same thing.

In an international context, not really. It's a response to Western imperialism. The same reason why Radhabinod Pal argued that the Japanese officers of WW2 were not guilty of war crimes.

>says it is not even allowed to compete with other cultures on a free market place of ideas

Well the point I'm raising is that it is allowed to compete because the system in which other cultures are allowed to compete are biased towards the Western ideals. That is why it is white supremacist -- it's not a true realisation of liberalism, in the same sense as Marxism is emancipatory and argues towards decolonisation -- that it takes certain aspect of white culture as a given and acts accordingly. Our calendar system is 'white', even the days of the week, our holidays, our school system, currency, etc. They're national institutions designed as white systems. Minorities are expected to act as liberals, like I mentioned before. The media still presents white as normal, male as normal, etc.

I wonder how many people saw the crisis of the third century as a Roman collapse, or even Christianity. Would they have ever dreamed that Roman society would still so crucial to Westerners, or would they have thought it would be wiped out completely?

>>9150719
well it isn't as sad as you think because i am an unmarried muslim man who lives in a muslim town in israel and can't get laid before marriage. of course i can go ahead and have sex with a jewish woman but then my family will find out about it and will disown me and then i will never be able to own a house because it is nearly impossible for a muslim to buy a house in jewish cities/towns. the only realistic option is to build my own house on a land that i will inherit.

>>9150757
>Letting dark people into your system doesn't mean it's not racist if it's still perpetuating the same system that oppressed them in the first place.
How is the system oppressing dark people?

>Western ideologies though, especially in the modern period, have more do to with 'conscious purpose' or the imposition of an abstract system on nature. There is a difference between ideologies and those that have a foundation in a specifically Western context that functions by its impositions.
I don't get it, can you rephrase that? Western cultures have an advantage because they are more established?

>It's a response to Western imperialism.
No it is an integral part of religious and political Islam since its inception. It got (and still is) empowered by western interventionism though. Two wrongs don't make a right, jihad is just as bad as colonialism on principle

>The same reason why Radhabinod Pal argued that the Japanese officers of WW2 were not guilty of war crimes.
Well that judgement was horseshit. Just google Unit 731.

>Well the point I'm raising is that it is allowed to compete because the system in which other cultures are allowed to compete are biased towards the Western ideals. That is why it is white supremacist -- it's not a true realisation of liberalism, in the same sense as Marxism is emancipatory and argues towards decolonisation -- that it takes certain aspect of white culture as a given and acts accordingly. Our calendar system is 'white', even the days of the week, our holidays, our school system, currency, etc.
You are judging the successes of western culture against it. These concepts are wide spread because they are better than their competitors or they got piggybacked on other wildly successful exports of western culture like the scientific and subsequent technological revolution that raised the living standard of ALL humans on earth remarkably.

Liberalism does not mean every participant gets the equal outcome. Some ideologies are better than others, that's the point of ideologies competing against each other. The more successful ones win. Only colonialism and anti-western ideas like post-colonialism try to interfere with that process.

>They're national institutions designed as white systems. Minorities are expected to act as liberals, like I mentioned before. The media still presents white as normal, male as normal, etc.
They are expected to act as westerners in western nations, yes. Just like you are expected to act as a middle easterner in the middle east. White is presented in OUR media as normal because it is normal, it's the majority race, nothing wrong with that. Yes minorities and women are underrepresented in our media, that is true and we are fixing it over time according to liberal values. Though quotas and affirmative actions are illiberal neo-marxist and not liberal at all. Liberalism and neo-marxism have the same goal here but not the same methods.

>>9149885

It's a mostly salafist inspired dress code.

Shoulderless Edward Said quoting four eyes justifying it should be shot.

>>9150781
Sounds comfy desu

>>9150781
your expounding just made it sadder desu

>>9149968
Seems like a bit of the pot calling the kettle black for you to say that now, don't you think?

there is no islamic justification for the niqab

I just realized that this is the easiest way for traps to pass.
Now I want a burqa so I can pretend to be a qt muslim girl

>>9149915
where do I buy a nice beekeeper suit like this one

>>9150589
REKT
E
K
T

>>9151395
https://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Afghan-Ladies-Jilbab-Taliban/dp/B00LI7PARW/

>>9149885
HHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNGGGGG

>>9149885
You're stupid as fuck if you don't understand that the veil is 'conservative' as fuck and it's not 'patriarchal' oppression at all. It's actually the opposite. In the Arab/Muslim society with its polygamy, men are essentially expendable. Polygamy isn't about a man having a bunch of wives to fuck. In fact, having decadent prolific sexual appetite is frowned upon. It's about the production of children. The veil itself is actually a sign of matriarchal dominance sort of, a symbol that their value is worth more than that of men in the society.

All that shit about honor killings and killing women who were raped, that's all cultural practices not based in Islam though, that's a different subject.

>>9153559
THIS

THE PURPOSE OF THE VEIL IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT RETARDED WESTERNERS THINK IT IS

It's a way of protecting the "inherent worth" of a woman. Men are worthless by default.

>>9153623

We do get it. And it's fucking retarded.

If anything is objectifying women, it's this. You protect your fucking money in a safe. Not a person.

>>9153623
Also, I wanted to mention this too, the veil on the wife of another man is basically showing just how much a woman is off limits if he doesn't have the ability to afford to provide for her and the children she is implied to have. Basically another man can't even get the enjoyment of even a LOOK at another man's wife.

>>9153559

>worth

If you're describing them in terms of wealth, we're talking possessions.
Men cannot be had (unless they're slaves). So don't fucking call it matriarchy when women are actually objects to have around and make kids with.

Don't fucking twist and turn logic here to make it sound like Islam is once again way ahead of us and we or you guys themselves didn't even notice up until now.
What is this fucking bullshit with muslims? "Oh democracy? We invented that before you guys, haha." You seriously, as a culture, are incapable of admitting any achievements to the "unbeliever". It's honestly a mental illness on a collective scale.
You're some Afrocentrist tier fuckfaces really. It'd be funny if you stuck to your own deserts and never moved out of it, because you'd be irrelevant as fuck target practise, but making use of our altruism and taking us with you to your patrimonial system is what's really grinding my gears.

>>9153652
>If you're describing them in terms of wealth, we're talking possessions.
>worth

I'm talking about the worth of life, a man's life vs a woman's life. Not material wealth. You sound like such a Western woman.

Most muslims don't even where the burqa anymore.

>>9153633

I hope you realize, cuckgoggled Kevin or prostrating Aladdin, that you're talking about "the enjoyment of another man's wife".
You seem to miss that little part where you describe her as a thing attached to him.

You really try and appeal to idpol third wave feminism with this logic where Islam is supposed to be the most female friendly religion after all, once again we Westerners reinvented the wheel. And it might work on naive leftists who can't help themselves in their xenophilia, but it won't work on those of us who already hate your droopy brown inbred face regardless of what it says.

>>9153656

Yes, worth, inbred. Worth. I know very well the difference between different types of wealth. It's wealth nonetheless.
And her worth is related to the having of children. Which makes total sense in an agricultural society where offspring was vital.
If not, the institution of marriage wouldn't be needed if she was the one really in charge. No. She needs to be married for her worth, which is of importance to the man.

Don't you dare retroactively describe it in post-industrial terms.

>>9153623
>>9153632

This is exactly the type of rambling you'd get from cult members.
"These on the surface harsh rules are actually to the benefit of the one undergoing it! Look at this elaborate theology we have developed around it!"

>>9153712
Western women aren't women at all, they're men with vaginas.

>>9153683
>The same people who will crucify you for criticizing the burqa will retweet articles about "mansplaining".
Which makes sense. The subject is different but it's the same rhetoric with the same objective of enforcing one's standards on someone else.

>(If you are going to [point out the obvious problem with what I'm saying] don't bother posting in this thread.)

No. Use your brain.

>>9153746

Maybe they look like that to you because you're too much of pussy to handle them.

>>9153712
>Which makes total sense in an agricultural society where offspring was vital.
Offspring are always vital. The white European population is in decline because of the increasing atheism, less religion = less marriage = less babies. That's actually the reason Europe needs immigrants, Europe needs workers. Europe needs those immigrants more than they need. That's the reality of it. Also, those Arabs/Muslims are outbreeding Europe, a clear sign of how the European way of life is a culture of death, it is a dead civilization that can only be resurrected with Islam. European leaders knew this a long time ago, which is why they actually allow the immigration, they know more than you will ever know.

>>9153559
>>9153623
>The veil itself is actually a sign of matriarchal dominance sort of, a symbol that their value is worth more than that of men in the society.
>It's a way of protecting the "inherent worth" of a woman.
OP here. I understand this. Feminists have critiqued this idea of putting women on a pedestal while simultaneously marginalizing them since the 1940s. Read De Beauvoir, you stupid fucks.

>>9153632
No you don't get it. You too I assume have some inherent worth/dignity, that would be damaged if you wore something inappropriate or just went in public naked. Same thing with covering. Apparently back in the day prostitutes were uncovered and "normal" women wore the veil.

>objectifying women

Why do westerners always turn super left wing when talking about Islam? "Objectifying women" boo hoo. Women love advertising their body, they'll find any excuse to get naked and attract attention.

>>9153723
I'm not Muslim and I don't care whether it benefits women or not.

>>9153856
Who fucking cares what feminists say. Come on now.

>>9153816

It's funny when leftists/muslims start sounding like the IMF and the World Bank when talking about demographics. "You need them for growth!" Ok, nice of you to sound like a Davos meeting there, fuckfaces.

Yes, under the current economic system we 'need' a labour force. We need a labour force for jobs that won't exist in 10 years.
That's the long term thinking that's going on here. That's the genius we're dealing with when this is brought up.
We're moving from one crisis to another with this system. So it's starting to become really urgent we rethink the way it works.

And when dealing with demographics, such things as the culture of the groups you bring into your country should also be taken into consideration.
Contrary to 'popular' opinion, diversity causes low trust, which is even worse than having a low fertility rate. It leads to the dysfunction of the whole social body. A society that exploded into the hundreds of millions can do with a little less babies.

>a clear sign of how the European way of life is a culture of death

It's a culture of abundance that creates the opportunity to self-develop, to finally be released from the concern of having large family units for others to exploit. This is a good thing. We don't need an infinite number of people. It's good we are decreasing. For ourselves and for the ecological issues we're facing as a whole.
And Japan is also going through the same. It has nothing to do with Christianity or atheism. It's a natural outcome of a society that IS succesful and why your sorry ass moved there in the first place, hypocritical inbred cunt.