Resolved: Women Do Not Crave Jihadi Cock

Introduction
I’m frequently critical of mainstream and/or feminist thinking, but sometimes the manosphere goes off the rails too. And in this post, I aim to refute a theory which some manospherians (in particular those who identify as “Red Pillers”) like to push.

This theory attempts to explain why SJWs refuse to discuss the issues of fundamentalist Islam and the integration of Muslim communities into Western societies. Fundamentalist Muslims are at least as, and arguably more, opposed to liberal Enlightenment values than fundamentalist Christians, yet SJWs support the former and scorn the latter. The Islamic world treats sexual minorities and women far more savagely than the West, yet SJWs (who posture as defenders of sexual minorities and women) refuse to criticize it or confront the possibility that unlimited immigration from fundamentalist Islamic societies may import not just the people but the attitudes of those societies.

So why would SJWs want to bring in homophobic, fundamentalist sexists?

Well according to some, its because feminists deep down crave to be dominated by men, and because Western men aren’t holding them down and pounding them, they’re importing men who’ll do the job. This theory should be ridiculous on its face, yet even Jordan Peterson (who, despite my disagreements with him on many issues, can hardly be described as an intellectual lightweight) has entertained the idea that women’s “subconscious desire for brutal male domination” drives the feminist/SJW defense of Islam.

In other words, feminists/SJWs love Islamists because Women Crave Jihadi Cock (henceforth WCJC). And in this article I shall argue that not only does this theory have only very limited explanatory power at best, but even from the perspective of most Red Piller beliefs it makes no sense for a woman to want a Jihadi takeover of society in order to satisfy the “feminine imperative.”

“SJWs” =/= “Women”
The first problem with the WCJC theory is that it doesn’t seem to explain why male SJWs are equally unwilling to criticize Islam (see Ben Affleck’s atrocious performance when confronted by Sam Harris on Bill Maher’s show). Presumably Ben Affleck is not a woman, and therefore does not crave Jihadi cock, so why would he be so opposed to criticism of Islam?

Another problem with WCJC is that it doesn’t explain non-SJW or anti-SJW women. We in the West are privileged to live in a world where, frankly, women cannot be described as living under conditions of brutal male domination. If WCJC, why don’t essentially all women engage in pro-Islamist or pro-Islamic-Immigration activism? Why do we have, at the forefront of Islam-criticism, women like Pamela Geller (whom I dislike, but serves an example nonetheless) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a true heroine of Enlightenment values)? Does Niall Ferguson (Ms. Ali’s husband) fulfill Ayaan’s subconscious craving for brutal male domination or something along those lines? Because there are plenty of women in western society, living free and happy lives, who clearly are not deeply craving brutal male domination. Even Fifty Shades of Grey, who’s success is frequently brought up as evidence that women all secretly want to be dominated, is actually a story of a woman gaining power over a dangerous and powerful “bad boy” and not a story of him controlling her. If WCJC were true, we’d see many more women allying with SJWs and pro-Islamist activists than we currently see.

Another problem with WCJC is that if women were truly acting out of a desire for brutal male domination, why aren’t these women converting to Islam and marrying Muslim men? In short, why aren’t they actually doing what their urges are allegedly driving them to do? Why aren’t they husbanding up their own personal Chaddam to oppress and dominate them, if that’s what they truly crave?

Jihadi Cock And The “Feminine Imperative”
But there is a more compelling argument against WCJC, one which emerges from certain other “Red Pill” ideas. For this part of the essay I will begin by making two critical assumptions. Firstly, women are guided by the “feminine imperative” or the desire to mate with men of the highest genetic quality (fitness within the evolutionary environment) they can find (this is also known as “hypergamy”). Secondly, women are economically rational; they assess various costs and benefits, and make the choices which maximize the value of benefits-subtract-costs. These two assumptions lead to a relatively uncontroversial idea for Red Pill types: women are rational hypergamy maximizers.

But would an influx of Jihadis, in any way, lead to a situation where women can maximize hypergamy?

In essence we’re dealing with an economic question here, and in particular a question suited to Institutional Economics and Comparative Institutional Analysis: which “institutional design” for the “sexual marketplace” is the one which, from the perspective of women, is most efficient? Which institutional design for the sexual marketplace allows women to most easily get the highest-genetic-quality man they can find, as well as the largest post-insemination investments of resources into herself and her children? And what kind of institutional design, precisely, does fundamentalist Islam prescribe for the sexual marketplace? Does that design serve the feminine imperative?

Because the reality is that if you want to picture a society where the sexual marketplace is an efficient system for optimizing hypergamy, it is modern liberal Western post-sexual-revolution society which is best for that, particularly in the internet era. In our modern world, women can screen for whatever traits they wish via dating apps. Any social stigmas surrounding their sexual explorations are considered misogynist. They experience complete and utter sexual and reproductive liberation (with the exception of mid-term abortion in certain jurisdictions).

If women are hypergamous and therefore prone to “trading up” for higher-genetic-quality men, whilst at the same time wanting to make it as hard as possible for a man to leave them unilaterally, it stands to reason that women will want their exit costs for relationships to be as low as possible, whilst wanting men’s exit costs to be as high as possible. We live in a world where no-fault divorce exists and men tend to lose the most assets in the event thereof. We live in a world where a woman can spermjack a man and face essentially no negative consequences. QED.

Not to mention, we no longer live in a strictly monogamous society. Rather, we live in a society where the norm is serial monogamy; the idea is that one goes from partner to partner in an attempt to find “your soul mate/the one,” and when you find that person you suddenly experience “true love” and everything is wonderful. Should a relationship fail, that just means the other person was not your soul mate, and thus one is justified in dissolving the relationship and moving on. This seems to be, quite obviously, a romantic way of depicting precisely how the feminine imperative (according to the assumptions made) operates.

Of course, it isn’t purely about genetic quality but about post-conception investment from the male. In the modern world, there are many ways this can happen; the father may stay, or if the father leaves he may be forced to provide financial support (this can happen even if the conception occurred against his wishes). And in many states, special benefits for single mothers exist (and even when these benefits are gender-neutral and equally applicable to all single parents, the fact that women tend to be favored as sole custodians in family law proceedings means these benefits disproportionately accrue to women). Free education is provided and sometimes so is free or discounted childcare.

It is the modern, liberal, post-sexual-revolution, capitalist-welfare-state that seems to allow women to mate with the men they crave, breed with the men they want to breed with, have the children of the men they want to have the children of, and get those children provided for.

Let us compare this to what fundamentalist Islam wants. A society where women do not choose their men. A society where women are barely allowed to even think of their own sexual needs and sometimes have their sexual anatomy mutilated (for the explicit purpose of reducing their sexual satisfaction). A society where women find it much harder, if not impossible, to divorce their husbands. A society where a woman whom has left a previous relationship, and is therefore not a virgin, will not be in a position to acquire a better partner than her previous one. In a Western society, any single woman can acquire material benefits from a multitude of men (even if, in certain situations, only via the tax system) most of the time, but in a fundamentalist Islamic society this becomes substantially harder and the circle of men she can draw from shrinks. Not to mention, her own personal opportunities to acquire resources through her own effort can also shrink as women are denied education and confined to the home.

How does this optimize hypergamy? How does this make for an efficient sexual marketplace if, by efficient, we mean serving the (assumed) feminine imperative? If women are economically rational hypergamy maximizers, the societal structure that the West implements is the efficient institutional framework for them. At no time in history has it been easier for a woman to pass on her genes. At no time in history has it been easier for any woman to acquire genetic material from a “Chad” and get some degree of investment into her and the resultant child.

So from an Institutional Economics/Comparative Institutional Analysis perspective, women shouldn’t want to import Jihadi Cock, unless one assumes that fundamentalist Muslim men would be kept like breeding bulls, prohibited from political participation and unable to change the structure of our society’s laws. But we live in a democracy, and the experiences we had during the W Bush administration made it clear that religionists are not politically impotent. So as such, the WCJC theory predicts women acting in an obviously self-sabotaging way. It predicts, in other words, that women would be morons.

Conclusion
The Women Crave Jihadi Cock theory is, frankly, bizarre. It doesn’t explain non-woman SJWs, nor does it explain non-SJW, anti-SJW and anti-Jihadist women. Progressive activists (the “Hidden Tribes” study’s term for SJWs) are 8% of the population, so even if all SJWs were women (which isn’t the case), only 16% of women would be acting in accordance with the WCJC theory.

More critically, however, a fundamentalist Islamic society would institutionally constrain the feminine imperative rather than enable it. The reality is that in the modern, socially-liberal mixed-market-economy West, women can pursue this imperative with institutional enablement ranging from welfare benefits and subsidized child support and education to an highly liquid sexual marketplace with technology-aided transparency (and thus low Search & Information Costs to locate a “Chad”). They face little cost to dissolve their relationships, whilst men face high costs for doing the same; the system enables ‘branch swinging’ while incentivizing male loyalty. Social norms encourage this too, by encouraging men to commit, yet glorifying women dissolving their relationships and going on globetrotting tours to “find themselves” which not-infrequently involve liaisons with attractive and exotic men (see Eat Pray Love). Whilst securing the long term commitment of an high-value male is hard, securing the genetics of one (and thus a baby of one) isn’t, and a mixture of Daddy Government and chivalrous social norms help fill the resources gap (at least from the woman’s perspective).

An Islamist society, on the other hand, would have arranged marriages to men that may not be “Chaddam,” possibly clitoridectomy, and no chance to “branch swing” when a hotter man comes along.

So why do SJWs defend Islam from any criticism and refuse to confront Islamism? If it isn’t because WCJC, why?

I think the answer is obvious. Muslims are seen as an oppressed ethnic minority in the West, as “brown,” and the Islamic world is seen as a collective victim of American foreign policy. In other words, Muslims (as an abstraction) validate the SJW view of the world, nor is it implausible to suggest that Muslims have in fact been (at times) subject to unfair and unjust treatment by Western powers and within Western societies. And this explains why SJWs refuse to criticize Islam or Islamism, without resorting to some bizarre evolutionary-psychology Rube Goldberg Machine that’s somehow meant to apply to half the human race.

Sorry, Professor Jordan Peterson; your speculations on this point are nonsensical.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather

43 thoughts on “Resolved: Women Do Not Crave Jihadi Cock”

  1. I think JPB just says this stuff to piss off feminists. I don’t think he actually believes it, or that any sane person would.

  2. It’s because of the intersectional pipeline appropriating minority issues as wealthy white elite female feminist issues.

    1. Who gives a damn about intersectionalism anymore? You have more and more people, both conservatives and liberals, around the West who want a race war with 2 billion Muslims because of muh muslimogyny.

      ANd what is wrong with supporting Muslims who have a justified beef against the West? Are we all supposed to support that idiotic nuclear weapon wielding country that cries racism and anti-semitism whenever someone criticizes its politics?

  3. It can’t be denied that many women do crave this type of “cock,” be it Jihadi or other men who excite them.

    1. I wasn’t challenging the position that “women want powerful, competent, attractive men,” so I don’t see the relevance of your comment.

      I was challenging the idea that SJW defenses of Islam/refusal to criticize Islamism was underpinned by a sexual craving for brutal male domination.

        1. This is completely bullshit from the start.

          I don’t give a damn about SJWs. But GUardian, NYtimes, WashPo have all published billion articles about “oppression” of women in Islam.

          This trope, “leftists love Islamic misogyny”, needs to die. It was bullshit from the start. THis is a rightwing fabrication.

          Many MRAs have tolerated this BS because they tolerate rightwing politics.

      1. WHo the fuck refuses to criticize Islam? DO you read any papers? DO you know that the ultimate SJW paper, the Guardian, leads a campaign against FGM?

        Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote pieces for NYTimes, WashPo, TIME, Daily BEast,….. all liberal leftist newspapers.

        YOu’re full of shit.

        1. YAC, we’ve been very vocal about questioning the automatic assumption that Islam “oppresses women” in Honey Badger Radio.

          You can criticize Islam for lots of stuff without buying into the idea that human men will ever create a system that brutally subjugates their women.

          1. YAC is a rightwing moron.

            Of course he believes women are brutally subjugated in Islam. He probably believes women are brutally subjugated in other non-Western parts of the world as well.

          2. If you read the post, I specifically said fundamentalist Islam. I am quite aware that there are non-fundamentalist Muslims out there, that there are reformist movements within Islam, and that not all Islamic societies are as restrictive as (for example) Saudi Arabia.

          3. Your argument is silly.

            Someone can speak highly of women and use exalted rhetoric about how important women are to society over and over again… and at the same time engage in brutal violations of the rights of women (alongside those of men; Iran is deeply illiberal for both men and women) and maintain a system that is highly restrictive of them, and treat anyone who questions such a system as having committed a crime against God.

            Meanwhile, someone can speak atrociously about women (or men, or gay people, or whatever group) and still pose no threat to them, never engage in violence against them or violate their rights in any way. One can even fight for their rights under law whilst still holding them in utter contempt and saying terrible things about them.

            By your logic, the former is better than the latter. I would rather have the latter than the former.

            Sometimes you need to look not at what people say, but what they do. Until I see MGTOWs, Incels and Red Pillers engaging in actual political activism to reverse the sexual revolution (and frankly, doing such a thing is essentially impossible), all you can show me is that they’re using mean words on relatively marginal blogs and internet forums.

            Not to mention, the opinions of Ayatollah Kahmenei on any subject are irrelevant, since we’re talking about ISIS here, and if I remember correctly ISIS are a kind of Salafist, whereas Kahmenei is a Twelver Shi’ite.

          4. You’re full of shit now. GO fuck yourself.

            Iran, just like all tradiional societies, restricts both men and women.

            200 years from now, people will be looking at us and saying that we restricted people’s choices. Even today, there are plenty of restrictions on both men and women, formal and informal, in the West.

            And these people 200 years from now will be dismissing all problems that men had focusing only on women’s problems and be saying that women were oppressed in 2019 USA.

            So, go fuck yourself again.

          5. “Iran, just like all tradiional societies, restricts both men and women.”

            I said precisely this in my very comment.

            At no time did I suggest that Iranian men, as a class, collectively restrict women, and are unrestricted themselves. I never said nor implied this in any way. The Iranian government is not “Iranian men collectively.”

            Your arguments are so off-topic now I barely know where to begin.

            “Even today, there are plenty of restrictions on both men and women, formal and informal, in the West.”

            Sure. But where have I denied this? I argue the West is relatively non-restrictive but not a place with zero restrictions.

            And not only are you being deeply uncivil here, but you’re totally off topic. What my article argues is that if you make the presumption that women are rational hypergamy maximizers, it makes no sense for women to support Jihadism. Whilst it is true that the Iranian regime is deeply illiberal and neither women nor men can be described as “free” under that regime, that’s not the issue my article addresses. I address one specific, particularly demented argument made by some manospherians.

            Again, your approach of “if you don’t talk about specific-bad-thing-x you’re implicitly supporting x through distracting people’s attention away from how terrible x is” is just the Brechtian-Marxist approach to discourse control.

          6. PS. Sexual Revolution had nothing to do with feminism and women’s rights, moron. Men wanted sexual freedom more than women, just as they do in the Middle East, moron.

          7. Typhon, I should clarify that I was speaking very much about fundamentalist Islam here. You know, the stuff that actual Jihadis believe in.

            I’m aware there are many Muslims whom are not Jihadis, and that the Islamic world as a whole isn’t necessarily in complete alignment with ISIS ideology. This means that I would agree it is incorrect to presume that everywhere in the Islamic world is a brutal hellhole for women.

          8. Oh, I get it.

            Moderate and reformist Muslims don’t beat and rape women. Maajid Nawaz and Ali Rizvi don’t beat and rape women.

            Other Muslims do.

            Got it.

          9. How is it even remotely offensive to say that fundamentalist Islamic theology (which is a subset of Islamic thought) has within it some attitudes towards women that are (put bluntly) misogynist?

            I’d say precisely the same thing about fundamentalist Christian and Jewish theologies. And although I have very little experience with Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu and Confucian thought (although the latter is more a philosophy than a religion, from what I know), I’m sure someone more experienced with those bodies of thought would point out attitudes within them towards women that are somewhat unsavory.

            By the same token, you can find many anti-male attitudes in fundamentalist Islamic, Christian and Jewish theologies, too. I don’t know enough about Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu or Confucian ideas to comment at length on those.

            You can also find downright anti-human attitudes in almost every religion I know of, up to and including LaVeyan Satanism.

            You know, back during the previous culture war we had (against the Religious Right), no one got offended or screamed “RAAAACIST” when it was pointed out that fundamentalist Christianity contained theological attitudes within it that encouraged/endorsed warmongering, homophobia, and the mistreatment of women (yes, this theology also encourages the mistreatment of men, but that wasn’t focused on during the discourse of the time). Applying the same analysis to fundamentalist Islam, however, is somehow racist? I’m sorry, but I don’t believe in double standards.

            Of COURSE not all Muslims/not all Christians/not all forms of Islam/not all forms of Christianity applies. But that should go without saying when we’re explicitly talking about a theory that argues women are sexually attracted to the kind of men who pledge allegiance to ISIS.

            If anyone here is implicitly equating ISIS with all Muslims through treating a criticism of Jihadis as offensive to Muslims in general, its yourself.

          10. This would make a great article in and of itself. Taken to authoritarian extremes, any ideology that recognizes sex differences will lead to sexism and discrimination toward/against both sexes, each with different manifestations. Authority cannot obligate men to take responsibility for women as guardians and providers without necessarily presuming women irresponsible and incapable in those areas, and limiting their autonomy on that basis. Thus, men would be disadvantaged in their position, which would be a form of servitude, yet women would also be disadvantaged in theirs, which would be a form of subjugation. Acknowledging one is not a denial of the other. Rather, it’s a recognition that authoritarian micromanagement of any given society is almost universally oppressive.

          11. What a coward you are, Alison… Are you gonna respond to any of YAC’s bullshit? Are you gonna respond to any of bullshit that is daily written about non-Western men on Kotakuinaction subreddit?

  4. YetANotherCOmmenter is one of those dumb rightwing MRAs who think ISlam oppresses women.

    What a moron…

    Why do you keep these people around, Alison?

  5. “clitoridectomy”?

    you fucking scum, you know very well that only a small minority of Muslim women are mutilated, whereas all Muslim men are.

    you worthless scum

  6. Wait, why are Muslims misogynists and Jordan Peterson and Gavin McInnes are not? Jordan and Gavin have talked about how dumb it is for women to work, they talked about how the fifties were the best, how women are inviting harassment, how crazy women have become, how we need “enforced monogamy”…

    We can call Jordan and Gavin and other heroes of MRM misogynists as well.

  7. This was a idiotic right-wing fantasy from the start. THis was a way for right-wing morons (who for some reason dominate the “manosphere”) to claim that: “Librulz are the reeeeaaaaallll misogynists, where we conservatives are the reeeeeeaaaaaalllllll respecters of women!!!!!”.

    This was bullshit from the start. MRM should not indulge right-wing bullshit. MRM should also not indulge the “poor women”-trope, whether it comes from Anita or Ayaan.

    “Clitoridectomy”???? You moron should know very well that only a small minority of Muslims practice FGM, and probably at least half of them only practice FGM that is not more serious than MGM. If you don’t know this or pretend not to know this, then you have no business writing articles for HBR.

    1. You know, your attitude is precisely why its hard to have a reasoned discussion about the subject.

      First, as the article itself makes very clear, I was speaking about fundamentalist Islam, or Islamism. This is not the same thing as all Muslims or every understanding of Islam. I’m well aware of there being reformists and moderates within Islam, and I support their work.

      Instead you completely misread my article and see me as advocating the idea that all Muslims are inherently dangerous to women, or that all versions of Islam promote the subjection of women. This just prevents a reasoned discussion from taking place, and instead you begin throwing insults as me.

      Yes, I am aware that FGM only happens in some parts of the Islamic world. I am also aware that MGM is anatomically equivalent to “Type 2” FGM (Clitoral Hoodectomy).

      1. If in some religion genital mutilation happens to all men, that is, 100% of men, and if in that same religion genital mutilation happens to no more than 25% of women, and in most cases mutilation is no worse than mutilation that happens to men, then I can only conclude that genital mutilation in that religion is far far far far far far far bigger problem for men than women, and I can further conclude that anyone who insists that genital mutilation in that religion is a bigger problem for women is plain and simple a feminist, a female supremacists who believes that female genitals are worth more than male genitals and that females are worth more than males.

        1. The reason I didn’t mention mainstream Islam’s endorsement of male genital mutilation (which is indeed an atrocious stance) is because it wasn’t relevant to the actual topic at hand. The article discusses a silly idea found in some of the extreme-right portions of the manosphere. There is no connection to the subject of MGM.

          This “if you don’t spend every moment trying to talk about issue X, you’re trying to distract from discussions of issue X and therefore you’re the enemy” stance is just a Brechtian-Marxist approach to argumentation and discourse-control.

      2. Spend 20 minutes browsing around heartiste’s blog or MGTOW subreddit, and read what these people write about women.

        Do you think that people on online Somali and Pakistani forums talk like that about women? Do you think Ayatollah Khomeini or Sayyid Qutb talked like that about women?

  8. By the way, what does YetAnotherCommenter think: Should there really be an International Men’s Day? International? Why should wife-beaters in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, China, India have a day for them?

    Shouldn’t there just be a Western Men’s Day? Since only Western men are good men, right?

    1. Oh come on that’s just Not An Argument.

      There are atrociously evil men and women in all parts of the world. If we have an International Women’s Day, in spite of the many awful women in this world, I don’t see why we shouldn’t have an International Men’s Day either, in spite of the many awful men in this world.

      I never said only Western men are good men. What I said is that, if you presume that women are rational hypergamy maximizers, it turns out that the best institutional design for enabling women to do this is, basically, the modern western world. I was speaking of social institutions, and comparing the institutions of the modern liberal West to the kind of institutions that ISIS (whom, I hasten to add, are not all, or even a majority of, Muslims) would impose.

      To try and make this about the moral character of all Muslim men is to twist my argument into something it isn’t.

      1. Western anti-feminism has never been anything more than shitting on all other men. Western anti-feminism is bunch of pussy begging morons trying to persuade women that they are the best men there are, that all other men are scum.

  9. FGM has nothing to do with fundamentalism, regardless of what racist morons on Kotakuinaction say.

    FGM is practiced by both moderates and fundamentalists in countries where FGM is part of local culture. People who did FGM on Ayaan Hirsi Ali were not fundamentalists, regardless of what Ayaan and her dumb fans think.

    On the other hand, in Islamic counties that traditionally do not practice FGM, for example Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Algeria, Morocco, KSA and many others, neither the moderates nor the fundamentalists demand that women undergo FGM. Ayatollahs in Iran were always against FGM, for instance. Talibans did not institute FGM during their rule either.

    1. You’re right that not all Islamic communities practice FGM. But that doesn’t really seem to be the point. There’s a long history of religions adopting, sacralizing and reinforcing the local customs of any particular place even if doing so is merely a local adaptation. Sure, FGM isn’t a package-deal with Islam. It is certainly plausible, like Irshad Manji said, its better thought of as a situation where religious authority was used to make a pre-existing cultural commitment into a sacred one.

      Anyway, you’ve been trying to drag me into off-topic arguments, deliberately refusing to confront my actual statements, mischaracterizing what I have said, challenging Typhonblue for some bizarre reason, and you’re clearly tracking my Reddit behavior and frankly I find this utterly reprehensible conduct. Not to mention, I haven’t been deleting your comments, so either some other contributor to this blog has been or you’ve been deleting your own. If the latter is true that just shows you’re acting in bad faith here.

  10. It’s like this: FGM only happens to no more than 20-25% of Muslim women. MGM happens to almost 100% of Muslim men.

    Thus, everyone, who mentions FGM in Islam without mentioning MGM at least 4 times as often, is obviously having a much lower opinion of male genitalia than of female genitalia, and is therefore an enemy of men. Regardless whether it’s Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ail, Sarah Haider, Tommy Robinson, Yet Another Commenter, or some racist moron on Kotakuinaction…

    1. I’ve already dealt with this argument of yours. You’re just engaging in ad nauseum at this point.

      MGM wasn’t discussed in this particular article because it was irrelevant to the topic. And yet again your deployment of “if you aren’t talking about Big Problem X at the frequency I demand it be talked about, you’re complicit in the perpetuation of Big Problem X” is a dishonest, manipulative discourse-control tactic.

      I support intactivism, and my opposition to any kind of nonconsensual genital mutilation, including that performed for religious (or religion-rationalized) reasons, should go without saying. But this wasn’t an article about that particular subject and thus going into a discussion of MGM would have been off topic.

      If you want to see more Intactivism content, nothing is stopping you from making it.

  11. So, if this mainstream liberal lefty media loves Islam so much and always keeps excusing Islamic “ubermisogyny”, then I suppose that an average citizen of an average Western country, who watches and reads this same liberal left media, should have a very high opinion of Muslim countries and their treatment of women. So, if we were to ask an average guy on the street tomorrow what is life for women like in Saudi Arabia, what will his answer be?

Comments are closed.