Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[heracleitos]

Muslim women are slaves too, just that their terms of enslavement are different to those of foreign women.

You display agility in justifying all manner of psychopathic abuse. Goebbels would be proud.

The problem here is that many western women confuse "being confrontational and combative" with "having power".

Valide sultan was, in most cases, the most important position in the Ottoman Empire after the sultan himself. As the mother to the sultan, by Islamic tradition ("A mother's right is God's right"),[4] the valide sultan would have a significant influence on the affairs of the empire.

Valide sultan also traditionally had access to considerable economic resources and often funded major architectural projects, such as the Atik Valide Mosque Complex in Istanbul.

Valide sultans were also conveniently one of the few people within the empire with the station and means to embark on these expensive projects.

Additionally, the valide sultan spearheaded one of the most crucial elements of diplomacy within the Ottoman Empire’s court: marriages of royal princesses. The most powerful and influential valide sultans had multiple daughters, with whom they forged crucial alliances through by marriage.

During the 17th century, in a period known as the Sultanate of Women, a series of incompetent or child sultans raised the role of the valide sultan to new heights. Various Valide sultans acted as regents for their sons, assuming the vast power and influence the position entailed.

The description above is about the role of particular foreign slave girls in the Ottoman empire. In fact, the entire Ottoman ruling elite functioned in that manner.

Rising from foreign slave girl, born in a wooden hut from poor peasant subsistence farmers, to ruler of a vast empire was absolutely normal in Ottoman times.

However, it is not by being confrontational and combative, that these women achieved their positions of influence and power. In my opinion, even today, women do not get anywhere by being confrontational and combative.

[Sy Borg]

Muslim women are slaves too, just that their terms of enslavement are different to those of foreign women.

You display agility in justifying all manner of psychopathic abuse. Goebbels would be proud.

The problem here is that many western women confuse "being confrontational and combative" with "having power".

The larger problem is that certain eastern men treat women as objects and refuse to allow them to self-actualise, under pain of death.

[heracleitos]

The larger problem is that certain eastern men treat women as objects

They rather try to prevent female relatives from treating themselves like objects. The real reason why they don't like that, is simply because it does not work.

A woman seducing a man into viewing her body as an attractive sex object, is a failing strategy. Furthermore, since it is so easy to do, it does not even get any respect. Getting sex out of a man is simply too easy.

The real achievement is to get commitment.

For that to happen, the man needs to take the woman seriously. That will generally not happen, if she tries to lure him by vulgarly flaunting flesh.

Offering free samples of sex is generally not an effective strategy to get a man's commitment. He is just going to move on to the next woman trying to do that.

and refuse to allow them to self-actualise

Developing masculine traits and masculine behavior will ultimately not inure to the benefit of a woman. In my opinion, women achieve the most when they are highly feminine. Being confrontational and combative, on the other hand, is a losing proposition.

With her combative stance, the modern woman simply ends up ghosted. Is that how she believes that she can achieve success?

Furthermore, does holding down a 9-to-5 office drone job really compensate for having a inexistent family life?

The true measure of success for a woman is to obtain commitment from a high-value man. In that sense, the foreign slave girls in the Ottoman empire were apparently a lot smarter than modern women.

[Sy Borg]

That's it for me, Heracleitos. Your attitudes are mired in antiquity. There is nothing to debate against such baseless dogma.

Your notion of women is primitive and childishly ignorant, akin to that of kindergarten children. Just another slave master trying to rationalise amoral cruelty, just as slave masters have done throughout history.

It's been disheartening to see China's rise and their drift towards totalitarianism but, credit where it's due, I would rather live under Xi's autocratic rule than live under the primitivism of Islam. What you say helps make China's treatment of the Uyghurs understandable. If their beliefs are anything like yours, then they certainly do need re-education and should not be let out to mingle with the Han population until they have forsaken non-credible and outdated belief systems that should have disappeared centuries ago, at least.

[Belindi]

Heracleitos, I am bewildered by allegations that in effect you approve of women's bodies, minds, and children belonging to men. True, you have produced as evidence that some women publicly flaunt their marketable bodies by make-up and scanty clothes. I queried your implication by pointing out that many if not most civilised people wear clothing that signifies caste, status, belief ,or trade/profession. Some of these social markers are subtle, such as that Moslem women who wear 'modest' approved styles also may apply make-up .
There have been many attempts throughout history of the powerful keeping others in subjection by sumptuary and other laws that forbid the wearing of certain clothing colours, styles, and jewellery that empower the lower orders with ideas above their appointed social station. When women become men's social superiors the women will retain the services of men purely for purposes of reproduction.When women come to be men's social superiors there will be no need for women to please men by selling them sexual favours, or obeying them, or being "highly feminine".

The world of Islam never had a scientific enlightenment and has fallen behind post-Christian Europe by remaining medieval in respect of social mobility. 'Medieval' implies a rigid caste or class system. Moreover some Moslems are taught that the gates of social change are now closed .

[LuckyR]

The larger problem is that certain eastern men treat women as objects

They rather try to prevent female relatives from treating themselves like objects. The real reason why they don't like that, is simply because it does not work.

A woman seducing a man into viewing her body as an attractive sex object, is a failing strategy. Furthermore, since it is so easy to do, it does not even get any respect. Getting sex out of a man is simply too easy.

The real achievement is to get commitment.

For that to happen, the man needs to take the woman seriously. That will generally not happen, if she tries to lure him by vulgarly flaunting flesh.

Offering free samples of sex is generally not an effective strategy to get a man's commitment. He is just going to move on to the next woman trying to do that.

and refuse to allow them to self-actualise

Developing masculine traits and masculine behavior will ultimately not inure to the benefit of a woman. In my opinion, women achieve the most when they are highly feminine. Being confrontational and combative, on the other hand, is a losing proposition.

With her combative stance, the modern woman simply ends up ghosted. Is that how she believes that she can achieve success?

Furthermore, does holding down a 9-to-5 office drone job really compensate for having a inexistent family life?

The true measure of success for a woman is to obtain commitment from a high-value man. In that sense, the foreign slave girls in the Ottoman empire were apparently a lot smarter than modern women.

Just out of curiosity what percentage of the decision making you perform for yourself on a daily basis revolves around how what you do is going to appear to women?

[heracleitos]

Just out of curiosity what percentage of the decision making you perform for yourself on a daily basis revolves around how what you do is going to appear to women?

Difficult to say. Seriously.

All across the animal kingdom, male behavior is necessarily highly influenced by the resulting effect it has on his attractiveness to females. The reverse is clearly also the case.

Examples.

- I spend a lot of time i the gym and on the bicycle. Is that for health reasons or because women prefer men with a fit body?

- Even though I have already achieved a substantial financial upside in the past, I still like to work on things that have potentially large financial benefits. I no longer need to do that, but the ambition still exists. Is that because women prefer men with money? Or is it just an innate trait that men want to work on things? In that case, why is it innate?

The problem is that we can explain away what we do, without ever involving how it is going to appear to women. I can easily pretend that it does not matter whatsoever, if the need ever arises.

But then again, recruiting is not even particularly hard over here in SE Asia.

Well, it is not, if you know how it works. The vast majority of expats, however, do not seem to have the slightest clue as to how to go about it. They also do not speak the local language. In my impression, fellow expats invariably end up with the wrong kind of woman. In their bumbling ineptitude, they take whatever they can get, I guess. In order to be a bit more successful with the right kind, they would first have to unlearn everything they think they know; which is something that, in my experience, they will never do.

That trait -- thinking that you know but in fact you don't -- is going to backfire onto a lot of people in the nearby future. Anybody who does not quickly unlearn everything he thinks he knows about finance, will find himself financially destroyed over the next 12 to 24 months. That means that the vast majority of the population will probably be toast.

[Belindi]

But women don't necessarily prefer a man with a fit body. Some women prefer other women. Some women prefer a man or woman with a fit mind to a man or woman with a fit body. If you described yourself on a dating website " I spend a lot of time i the gym and on the bicycle." many women would lose interest in you.

[heracleitos]

But women don't necessarily prefer a man with a fit body. Some women prefer other women.

Women who prefer other women are by definition not interested in the fitness, or lack of fitness, of a man.

Some women prefer a man or woman with a fit mind to a man or woman with a fit body. If you described yourself on a dating website " I spend a lot of time i the gym and on the bicycle." many women would lose interest in you.

Online dating is typically a looksmaxx environment.

What a man writes in his profile, does not matter. Swiping left or right is based on just the picture. Apparently, only 10% of the men do reasonably well in online dating. It is considered an environment in which below average women seek to have casual sex with only the physically most attractive men.

I don't use online dating. My looks are somewhat below average while I specialize in the 10-20% prettiest women. Therefore, online dating would not work for me.

Instead, I carefully engineer situations in which it is me who is holding all the cards.

For a starters, I am only active in countries where there is clearly a shortage of men with my profile, i.e. with good finances. Secondly, I use an informal broker who recruits candidates for a possible deal. Especially in Asia, this works like a charm.

In my experience, you get much better results by using a competent intermediary. You will never have to deal with candidates who are actually not interested. If she comes over, often with her mother (depending on what it is for, of course), that means that she is interested. Otherwise, she wouldn't be there in the first place. She also knows very well what it is about. She knows that it is not about playing cards or so.

At that point, the ball is mostly in my court, to take her on, or not. For her, it is invariably already a done deal. She wants the job and especially the perks that go with the job. The candidate is always interested in the sign-on bonus and the weekly allowance.

Other men rather arrange one-night stands with a different type of candidates in that way. I personally don't really like casual sex (or that kind of candidates). But then again, everybody has their own preferences.

Just like in the labor market, it is entirely a question of supply and demand, with the price clearing the market, or not. I am the one holding all the cards because in the geographical area that I have chosen there is simultaneously a shortage of men with good finances and a surplus of young, pretty, undamaged women.

Maneuvering in these matters, the battle of the sexes, is very similar as maneuvering on a battlefield. If you know that you are not going to win, then pick another situation to deploy your troops in. If you are not going to win, then don't play. It is as simple as that. Therefore, if you can see me standing there, ready to engage in battle, then it means that the outcome is a foregone conclusion and that I have actually won already.

[Belindi]

But women don't necessarily prefer a man with a fit body. Some women prefer other women.

Women who prefer other women are by definition not interested in the fitness, or lack of fitness, of a man.

Some women prefer a man or woman with a fit mind to a man or woman with a fit body. If you described yourself on a dating website " I spend a lot of time i the gym and on the bicycle." many women would lose interest in you.

Online dating is typically a looksmaxx environment.

What a man writes in his profile, does not matter. Swiping left or right is based on just the picture. Apparently, only 10% of the men do reasonably well in online dating. It is considered an environment in which below average women seek to have casual sex with only the physically most attractive men.

I don't use online dating. My looks are somewhat below average while I specialize in the 10-20% prettiest women. Therefore, online dating would not work for me.

Instead, I carefully engineer situations in which it is me who is holding all the cards.

For a starters, I am only active in countries where there is clearly a shortage of men with my profile, i.e. with good finances. Secondly, I use an informal broker who recruits candidates for a possible deal. Especially in Asia, this works like a charm.

In my experience, you get much better results by using a competent intermediary. You will never have to deal with candidates who are actually not interested. If she comes over, often with her mother (depending on what it is for, of course), that means that she is interested. Otherwise, she wouldn't be there in the first place. She also knows very well what it is about. She knows that it is not about playing cards or so.

At that point, the ball is mostly in my court, to take her on, or not. For her, it is invariably already a done deal. She wants the job and especially the perks that go with the job. The candidate is always interested in the sign-on bonus and the weekly allowance.

Other men rather arrange one-night stands with a different type of candidates in that way. I personally don't really like casual sex (or that kind of candidates). But then again, everybody has their own preferences.

Just like in the labor market, it is entirely a question of supply and demand, with the price clearing the market, or not. I am the one holding all the cards because in the geographical area that I have chosen there is simultaneously a shortage of men with good finances and a surplus of young, pretty, undamaged women.

Maneuvering in these matters, the battle of the sexes, is very similar as maneuvering on a battlefield. If you know that you are not going to win, then pick another situation to deploy your troops in. If you are not going to win, then don't play. It is as simple as that. Therefore, if you can see me standing there, ready to engage in battle, then it means that the outcome is a foregone conclusion and that I have actually won already.

Sexual orientation is multifaceted and relative not bipolar. I mean for example there are women who prefer men but also like women. E.g. there are men who prefer women but also like other men. Nobody knows the demography of sexual orientation, mostly because societies demand a certain degree of conformity.

Your society, if your own experience is typical, is extremely compliant. Did you not know this? You write lucidly and are able to introduce new ideas about the history of Islam. You seem to be two different personalities, one of whom is an able teller of man's past and the other a conforming sexist.

Dating websites differ in effectiveness and specialisms. Some are better than others. Arranged marriages are a good idea in some respects but these are seldom arranged for the benefit of the two individuals' love lives.

I don't doubt that your respectable financial state is attractive to any who may profit by it. The modern world, after the scientific enlightenment and the age of revolutions , has relieved women of much of the burden of pleasing, and working for, and bearing children for, men. When women become more powerful and men more plentiful women will be as benevolent(or not) as men.

Technology aids women who tend to be smaller in stature and have more responsibility for child bearing and feeding than men. Some regimes react to this fact by entrenching the traditional status quo of male power. How is your society visavis secret policemen and people spying on their neighbours?

[heracleitos]

Your society, if your own experience is typical, is extremely compliant. Did you not know this? You write lucidly and are able to introduce new ideas about the history of Islam. You seem to be two different personalities, one of whom is an able teller of man's past and the other a conforming sexist.

I grew up in western Europe. Therefore, I am actually quite familiar with the idea of the alphabet soup (LGTBQX...). It's just that I was never much interested in these things. Why would a heterosexual man be interested in the alphabet soup? It is another niche in the sexual landscape. People in one letter of the soup may not even be interested in figuring out anything about what is going on in another letter.

SE Asia, where I currently live, is actually not that "compliant". For example, there are lots of "ladyboys" over here, i.e. transgenders. In Islamic law, that is actually not a problem if they get an operation. Iran even subsidizes these operations, after extensive interviewing to make sure that patients are sure about what they want, and to avoid doing operations on gender-fluid types.

Concerning "sexism", like every other man, I simply got confronted with female hypergamy:

Studies of mate selection in dozens of countries around the world have found men and women report prioritizing different traits when it comes to choosing a mate, with men tending to prefer women who are young and attractive and women tending to prefer men who are rich, well-educated, ambitious, and attractive.

They found that "On education and socioeconomic status, women on average express greater hypergamic selectivity; they prefer mates who are superior to them in these traits... while men express a desire for an analogue of hypergamy based on physical attractiveness; they desire a mate who ranks higher on the physical attractiveness scale than they themselves do."

If as a man you ignore female hypergamy, your relationships will almost surely fail.

Arranged marriages are a good idea in some respects but these are seldom arranged for the benefit of the two individuals' love lives.

If both sides of the equation achieve their goals, then an arranged marriage works like a charm. Both sides just have to be sure about what they want.

An arranged marriage cannot possibly work for middle-class prime-age women, because these women have shifting priorities. Throughout their teens and twenties, they almost always favor a looksmaxx strategy. At a later age, in their late twenties or early thirties, however, they realize that they want to settle down in a moneymaxx situation. This strategy shift is almost never possible, because the moneymaxx men that they want at an older age, prefer younger women.

As a man you can avoid lots of trouble by resolutely excluding women from a middle-class background (of any age) from your selection. So, I only discriminate against the middle class. In fact, the vast majority of women on the globe make perfect sense to me, because they are not middle class.

I am not even a suitable choice for women who follow a looksmaxx strategy. I am only suitable for the ones who follow a moneymaxx one. That is what the problem is about. If I were amongst the 10% physically most attractive men, I would probably think differently. But then again, my looks are rather below average. Everybody does what works best for them, and so do I. I get to recruit very pretty women, but only because I have the money for that.

My strategy would not work in the West, because recruiting a woman from a poor background could give her the right ot sue me for assets and income, if she decides to move on. There are women from a poor background in the West too, but it is too dangerous to spend money on them. You really have to do that elsewhere.

When women become more powerful and men more plentiful women will be as benevolent(or not) as men.

Hypergamy makes that impossible. A wealthy woman generally wants an even wealthier husband. Hence, women will never be benevolent. They will generally not resort to financially supporting a man. Men routinely provide financial support to women, but the other way around is quite contrary to the innate biological instinct of female hypergamy.

Technology aids women who tend to be smaller in stature and have more responsibility for child bearing and feeding than men.

Technology does not change the innate propensity to hypergamy in women. The more economic-financial power a woman has, the less likely that she will have a husband and children. This is not true for men, because we are not hypergamous. We don't care about the fact that a woman happens to be dirt poor. It does not matter. If she is young, pretty, and undamaged -- no matter how poverty-stricken -- then she has the qualities that men are looking for.

Therefore, future generations will generally be born from relatively poor women. The middle class does not reproduce. It is fundamentally dead end.

Some regimes react to this fact by entrenching the traditional status quo of male power.

There is actually no need to do that. Because of female hypergamy, powerful women do not reproduce much. They invariably run into the situation that the man that they want, does not want them.

The reverse is also true. In the West, with the wage gap being a mere 10%, the average woman also does not want the average man, while the wealthy man does not want the average woman either. Just for reasons of hypergamy alone, the marriage and birth rates were always going to collapse. They do not even have the time to try to improvise a fix to the problem. It won't work. It is too late in the game now.

How is your society visavis secret policemen and people spying on their neighbours?

They surely exist. However, they first and foremost specialize in "political crime", i.e. unco-opted forms of local political opposition. They may also be interested in counter-intelligence and hunting down operatives of foreign three-letter agencies. But then again, you would only have to deal with that, if you are somehow a high-value, high-priority target for that kind of law-enforcement departments.

[Belindi]

Heracleitos, where increasing social powers (e.g.. not slaves)is a possibility then choosing a spouse with superior social powers including youth and beauty is a no- brainer. Beauty and youth among women have been sources of social power forever, but with technology and birth control adding to women's range of possibilities this is changing to some extent. There is historical and and anthropological evidence of powerful women . Older women in some societies become honorary men.

The iconic story of Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy because the story shows how it is that pure desire is incompatible with human societies. A rich qua socially powerful man gets a beautiful wife because he can. Once a socially powerful man was physically muscular and aggressive :now he is rich. A young and beautiful woman who is also informed educated (or as you say "middle class") will have the social power to select a handsome husband if that is what she wants, but by the time she is older she may well prefer other qualities in her spouse or partner.

You are mistaken that men are not hypergamous. Historically youth and beauty in a woman have been a constant power advantage to her, including when she was a chattel of a man. Even when she was a chattel her family would demand a more powerful sort of man to wed her. All else being equal the more power the better. Youth and beauty are without doubt counters in the power game.

[heracleitos]

A young and beautiful woman who is also informed educated (or as you say "middle class")

By "middle class", I merely mean "financially secure". It has nothing to do with education. It is about the question: Is lack of money for necessities an issue in her environment? If not, she is middle class or up. A woman could perfectly be both illiterate and middle class.

You are mistaken that men are not hypergamous.

In a class-based society, especially in the nobility class, it is the bride's family that pays a dowry to the groom, and not the other way around.

It reflects the reality that the groom of high birth has plenty of sexual options with women from the lower classes, while the bride from a noble family has not.

The noble groom would happily and casually appoint a few of the castle maids for sexual tension relief, while a woman of high birth would have a serious problem explaining that she got pregnant by one of the kitchen boys.

Is the kitchen boy hypergamous? Probably not. I suspect that he would rather try to avoid the trouble.

The common man used to get married in order to lock down a reliable source of sexual tension relief.

A male member of the noble class did not have that motivation, because he obviously already had lots of solutions for that. Seriously, no man would marry an entitled princess unless he really has to. He only did so under family or political pressure, and for reasons of ample financial compensation, i.e. a dowry.

Nowadays, in modern times, with all the dead bedrooms, marriage is obviously no longer a reliable source of sexual tension relief for any man. Therefore, there is no incentive to get married. Marriage was never a pleasant prospect for men of high birth, and clearly a matter of duty sex, but nowadays marriage is also useless for the common man.

[Belindi]

Heracleitos, paying her family for a prospective young and healthy bride is economically sound where and when the woman's labour will benefit her husband and the household. When land is scarce and labour plentiful the bride will be worth less and when land is plentiful and labour scarce the bride will be worth more. This applies to all social levels among farming cultures where acreage matters. Dowries may be paid by the parent in trust to be repaid to the woman should she be widowed or divorced. Brideprice may be paid to the bride's family if her labour is of value.
Sometimes both brideprice and dowry are paid. Landed wealth is worth hanging on to, so arranged marriages remained common after the industrial revolution.

A man who has a reputation for using and abandoning women fails in any society to be trusted by anyone , parent or spinster, and also other decent men. Sharia law like other religious codes can be interpreted in different ways. I guess women's rights are protected under Sharia law, but right-wing regimes cling to exaggerated patriarchy.

Industrialised societies tend to have an old landed class. Obviously it's important to keep the land and its wealth within the family, or to increase the wealth by judicious marriage. Apart from rich landed families, workers in new industries felt free to marry for romantic love, as they have sort of abandoned the rural village to labour in the new towns for money wages.

[heracleitos]

Heracleitos, paying her family for a prospective young and healthy bride is economically sound where and when the woman's labour will benefit her husband and the household.

Subsistence farming is no longer the primary lifestyle around the globe. Therefore, farm labor is not what men are looking for.

In fact, it has never been the main reason for relationships.

Men develop sexual tension, usually, several times per week.

Biologically, I personally believe that the reason for the recurring built-up of sexual tension is to make the man go back to a woman, who will of course expect the man to bring money with him.

The man would not bring money often enough for her to raise their brood if a man developed sexual tension only, for example, a few times per year. In that case, he would visit the woman too infrequently, and not provide enough money, or not regularly enough.

In mankind, sex is biologically not just for reproduction. It is also a biological arrangement necessary to keep money flowing from men to women (and children).

If the woman is not sufficiently available for sexual tension relief, or regularly refuses sexual intercourse, the man will lose interest, and start looking for another woman, who is more suitable for such arrangement.

In fact, men could possibly also just swallow suitable medication to remove sexual tension altogether. In that case, a man would not even need any of that.

In essence, men primarily need women for sexual tension relief. Everything else is merely embellishing narrative to sugar coat the underlying truth.

Apart from rich landed families, workers in new industries felt free to marry for romantic love

Romantic love is mostly a fairy tale that vastly exaggerates the importance of the biochemical, hormonal pair bonding that may or may not occurs between regular lovers.

The arrangement between man and woman is essentially transactional. The man first and foremost wants sexual tension relief. The woman first and foremost wants money. As long as sex and money are needed by both parties, and keep getting exchanged, the relationship will tend to continue.

For a man, living in the West is not such a good idea, because he could easily be compelled by the government keep paying money to an ex-romantic connection while not getting any sexual tension relief in exchange.

It is clear that millions of men in the West are trapped in that kind of situation.

These men would tremendously benefit from the wholesale destruction of the State. Hence, the growing popularity of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation amongst men in the West. In fact, anybody who somehow credibly promises to destroy the State would be popular. If a conflict erupted with China, you will see millions of men cheering for China.