BTW I earlier held this point, so as not to sound against women , but I am feeling an urge to make it . When that point comes of total equality between men and women, I.e. on paper 'average statistics' are showing equal figures for both, 'on ground' situation would be a significantly reduced male population. That would create other evolutionary and biological problems and, once again, there will be problems and 'thoughts of reversals' . Remember women complain about male tyranny and suppression is nothing new, and at favorable women do start coming forward it's a historical fact, but again at certain point evolution stops favoring it and so called 'male dominance' returns

I meant 'selflessness' in population and 'selfishness' in elites. As soon as the selfish genes multiply we would be witnessing democracy gaining momentum perhaps

Depends on what standard you choose, by Pakistani standards the US is totally secular, by French ones, not so much.

Is there anything "absolute" in this world?

A country may be a democracy without its leader being a true representation of ALL the people in that country, this is one of the drawbacks of the first-past-the-post system. In Bush's case, he didn't even get a majority of the votes. Second, another wrong assumption is that a person who votes for someone agrees with ALL their policies. This is quite simple false; for example there are thousands of people who voted for IK, but don't agree with his policy regarding the Taliban, etc. Many people who voted for Bush didn't agree with him over Iraq, but still voted for him in the 2004 election.

BTW, how is CNN (or any other media organization) shaping public opinion any different than the candidates themselves trying to shape public opinion (through rallies, speeches etc)?


Hahaha we also need less "jamhooriat ke liye qurbanian"

I'm sorry I don't understand, how would the male population be reduced as a result of total equality?

Ya, but a sustained improvement in the position of women is a VERY recent phenomenon, only around a 100 years old. Personally I feel its very, very, very unlikely that this trend can ever be reversed and there's another reason for that, apart from the moral one. Consider the fact that it is only now that women can contribute to the economy of a country as well as men can and that's for the simple reason that physical work has taken a backseat in our society and because of the fact that barriers to movement and communication no longer exist. For example 300 years ago, it would be extremely difficult for a woman to do business in England because of the physical factors alone even if you set aside the social factors.

You would agree that a nation that utilizes 100% (less, but lets assume for the sake of argument) of its workforce is sure to outperform a nation that utilizes only 50%. As a result the principle of natural selection would favor those countries in which the participation of women in the national economy is high. I hope I'm making sense haha

Well there would certainly be various biological and social reasons for that and I suppose you must also be noticing that trend (of declining number of males, again it's nothing new but the reasons are interesting ), right now I am just pointing to one, I.e. stressed women are more likely to give birth to girls . http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ely-girls.html. Yet again it's just my theory born out of curiosity so we can discuss it perhaps

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

In Red Indians before colonization property was inherited by women from women! Men had no property rights . The same red Indians who have been depicted as savages in media had reached that level of development. and yet to get land from Red Indians the colonizers perverted the minds of Red Indian men against their women. That I think is a classic case of a reversal (or it isn't )

foeticide is a common problem in the world especially in India. where female fetuses are wasted to save money on their marriages. Foetal sex determination and sex-selective abortion has been estimated to be a Rs 1000 crore (US$170 million) industry.

Yup you do make sense and I understand that mode of competition has changed so natural selection favors what it didn't in the 'old world' . What I am arguing is if continued for sometime this competition can start posing a threat to overall survival of the species, we can easily notice declining populations as for now, if it continues it can reach some alarming levels and it would make a different environment then .

Let's make it very simple, if 'divorce rate start increasing' and 'care for children start declining', Muslims will again start resisting .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

If we take it as a case study then it appears a greater external force changed the course of evolution, if the greater external force is tilted towards feminity then primarily I agree with Hassan that it will continue on that track . In religious texts one theme is very common that when 'a nation is excessively indulged in lust it was overriden by outsiders', but in today's world we have a global village where hostility between 'groups' is very little.

I was just curious that can it be sustained 'biologically' . I mean if male dominance has always prevailed there must be some biological reasons for that too, although many scholars argue that biology has little to do with it and it's only a social construct. For example 'total equality' has the potential to disbalance the social balance that controls reproduction and at that level (of political and economic equality) genders might engage in a competition for dominance (perhaps it is even happening today at household levels but the scale can grow to national level politics ), and at least as per human history males have mostly won the battle for dominance (there are exceptions in some civilizations though as in the case of red indians you pointed ). Again that time hasn't come and it was just a curiosity driven question.

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Brother I would disagree with you here, if men had no property rights, then that system was just as unfair as one in which women have no rights. A system in which one part of the population has rights, but the other doesn't isn't fair at all. For example a system in which women have rights, but men don't or a system in which some women have rights while others don't is unfair. I support equality, which is why even though I'm a feminist to the core, I've totally opposed to giving women more than is their due.

But we can't say for certain if a changed male-female ratio would have major effects in a world where old social norms are being rapidly destroyed. Also we can't discount the role of technology. Anyway, I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a guess about this


Exactly! But this brings us back to my point that Muslims must change with time or be crushed by it. The Western world already has no problem with divorce and if Muslims, because of this issue start going in an opposite direction from the rest of the world, it will harm no one but Muslims.

I believe there's a very simple reason: PHYSICAL STRENGTH. For most of our history, women simply couldn't do the work that men could (at least not as efficiently) and I believe this also provided the basis for the division of labor. Its only now that technology and our society has reached the stage where a women can contribute as much to the national economy as a man can. Still many barriers exist and you'll see that in the countries where these barriers are fewer, the position of women is better. In short, the position of women depends almost totally on their economic independence.

I totally respect that viewpoint and I am aware its impossible to guess; my guess is 'leader of the liberal world is highly religious for some reason' .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Haha the way Germany and the EU are going, who knows maybe leadership of the liberal world will shift to the Fourth Reich

Perhaps everything is possible in this world of eternal struggle . Muslims will eventually set their 'qibla' because competition has changed and 'traditional mode of survival' is no longer working

Let's try to make it easy for you . Secularism is a political ideology which emphasizes 'separation of church and state' and 'state will not try to establish any religion as it has nothing to do with religion'. But it doesn't mean 'state destroy church' , churches keep functioning and individuals still hold religious beliefs. These individuals can become state functionaries or even presidents. Bush was one. He personally believed 'God told him to invade Iraq', however this reason was not enough to put United States at war with Iraq so instead the charge of 'weapons of mass destruction and threat to national security' was provided as a justification. There was an environment of fear and concern about Muslim extremism since 9/11 had happened, thus the Congress approved it . Iraq war was not for religion, even though Bush was personally motivated by his religious belief . Any country that has a large population of religious believers will have a large number of believers in its government, thus it increases the probability of people making decisions under influence of religious belief . French population has comparatively less religious followers than the United States so France can be assumed as 'more secularized'.

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.