I am a new comer here so be gentle.
Now I have been a devoted Shia Muslim my whole life. My parents were always kind to me and never forced me to pray, read the Quran or to fast at a young age. They decided it was best for me to take my time with Islam so that I would grow into it. Eventually I did when I was 13 where I felt it was my duty to be a devoted Muslim.
I was like that for five years until I began to question my religion. I saw that there are some flaws here and there. Some times I felt that I wanted to leave Islam because of peer pressure. (I have been an introvert for most of my life and most of my friends aren't Muslims or religious at all but I still love them and they the same but I feel that there is a large gap between us so I really just want to let go so that I can be closer to them) But of course this shouldn't be the best reason as to why I should leave Islam.
I ask my parents and they happily give answers. Some that I still believe till today about the flaws of western secular life.
Yet I do still have some doubts I want to present these questions to you in hopes that you can convince me to leave Islam. If you can that is.
First off is the idea of sex and its acceptance in the west. People are far more open to it in the west than it is in any other part of the world. Yet is it a good thing?
My parents tell me that since the west has accepted it has led to issues dealing with marriage and relationships in general.
They say that the more skin people reveal the more numb they become to sex. When people see sex as something anyone can get with ease like on first dates, in a party, or prostitutes they then don't see it as sacred and thus won't see a marriage as something important.
So this has led to many divorces and a low fertility rate as can be seen in Europe. So how should atheists deal with this issue? You have made sex easy for everyone. Sex is great, I think its great and I wish I can do it several times a day but if the population isn't going to be at least stable doesn't that mean that you are killing your own kind and eventually replacing it with religious families who care about families as its happening in Germany?
Also when it comes to issues about "Stop staring at my body!", perverts, and rape in general. Is it possible to halt the urges of men to not look at women's bodies if they're wearking skimpy clothes on the streets. Can we go to the point where the natural tendencies of a man to love sex more than a woman to minimized and we can teach them since they were young to not be so obsessed with sex in a society which is and actually help decrease the amount of rape in the world?
Second comes to things like alcohol. Now what I have seen with my friends that if you drink it in moderate terms then its alright but here's the thing. Not everyone does that. They see it as a way to run away from their troubles. Many people have suffered from it as you know since its addictive and can cause them to do terrible things and destroy their livelihoods.
So is alcohol really a good thing to keep in our society?
(I would rather live in a world with weed than alcohol)
Third is gender roles. Now I know this will be a controversial topic but as atheists I believe that you can be tolerant enough to hear my plea on this one. Now I respect women greatly. I would never dare touch a women when she doesn't want to. I would never rape a woman. I would never beat a woman. I believe that she can have any job a man can have. That when she is raped the blame shouldn't be put on her.
But then comes the issue of raising children and staring a family. If the woman is too independent than she wouldn't want to get married and settle down so easily when she gets a degree. That I understand its stupid to waste half of the potential of the population. But even if she does get married and has kids how much time does she have to spare for her children. If she isn't around them most of the time since she has to work and then relax for a while at home without seeing her children running around and shouting everywhere then they won't be able to see there mother very often which is a problem.
If she gets a maid or her mom to take care of her children then they'll see this person as more of their mom than their actual mother.
I have seen this with two families before. My uncle and his wife have been working on separate jobs for fifteen years. They have kids but they don't see their mother as often as they should. When I lived with them for a year I saw that her children had issues with socializing and such. What I know at least is that they didn't have a happy childhood. My Uncle's daughter once told her mom that when she gets a child she would rather stay at home and raise him or her than get a job since she doesn't want them to grow up weird and get bullied in school.
I will talk about other things like homosexuality in the next post (since there is already so much in this one). I respect all beliefs and I hate all those who don't (such as the terrorists in my religion that plague it everyday).
I hope you'll be able to answer these questions and in hopes of letting me leave Islam. (if you can)
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"they then don't see [sex] as sacred"
It isn't sacred. I realize that this goes against what you have been taught. Animals (including humans) have sex, all the time. It takes religion to turn the natural act of sex into a sin.
"So this has led to many divorces and a low fertility rate as can be seen in Europe."
So increased access to sex leads to a lower birth rate, and you think that is a problem? But wait, if it led to a higher birth rate I bet you would cite that as a problem as well (and in fact I think most of us have seen that argument from the religious). I have no idea what the 'proper birth rate' should be, but I don't see under population as a serious threat at this time. I see no reason to take this part of your argument seriously.
"Is it possible to halt the urges of men to not look at women's bodies if they're wearing skimpy clothes on the streets."
There is nothing wrong with looking at members of the opposite (or any other) sex.
"and actually help decrease the amount of rape in the world?"
The idea that rape as anything to do with skimpy clothing is ridiculous. I realize that is probably what you have been taught, but it just isn't true. Additionally, even with a higher % of cases being reported, rape rates are way down in the West. I'm guessing your world view is going to have a rather difficult time explaining this.
"Second comes to things like alcohol"
Doing drugs is part of the human condition. Always has been, and probably always will be. Some people will do them irresponsibly, and no amount of religion is ever going to change that.
"But then comes the issue of raising children and staring a family. If the woman is too independent than she wouldn't want to get married and settle down so easily when she gets a degree."
Why shouldn't the man 'settle down' while the woman gets the degree/job whatever? Again, you didn't even seem to consider this option? Why not?
But here is the real problem with what you have written (imo). Let's assume that everything you said is 100% correct: Atheism leads to decreasing birth rates, problems raising children, drug abuse, rape, and so on. So what? We aren't offering you a "better life", or a "better society". We are only offering you reality (which will likely be somewhat painful): you have been lied to your whole life by just about everyone; god isn't real. If you just want a happy life, go believe whatever non-sense makes you happy, reality be damned. Personally, I hope you stick it out; good luck!
"So increased access to sex leads to a lower birth rate, and you think that is a problem? But wait, if it led to a higher birth rate I bet you would cite that as a problem as well (and in fact I think most of us have seen that argument from the religious). I have no idea what the 'proper birth rate' should be, but I don't see under population as a serious threat at this time. I see no reason to take this part of your argument seriously."
Now I can agree with you that over population is also a problem as for example China is facing right now but isn't under-population also a problem? The fertility rate needed in order to keep the population stable is 2.1 children per parent. But in most European countries that rate is actually less. The reason I am saying its a problem is because European governments also see it as a problem. Why is Germany allowing so many Syrian refugees? Its not just because of the 'white man's guilt' but also since they have an increasingly low fertility rate and need more people to fill the gap for their work force.
I'm not sure why you won't take me seriously on this topic but hear me out please.
Also when I was talking about revealing clothing I don't think most women would want men to stare at them as some sexual object. I'm not sure if its possible to lower a man's overall libido in order for him to stop ogling women like that or taking a glance.
Unbalanced - "The fertility rate needed in order to keep the population stable is 2.1 children per parent."
LOL, I seriously doubt that! Please show your work on how you calculated that number. Anyway I said I didn't know what the 'proper birth rate' is, not the rate for stability (and while I don't know what the rate of stability is either, I assure you it is it is much closer to 1, than it is to 2).
Also Germany has had man power shortages for more than 100 years, so I'm confused as to why you mention it.
"I'm not sure if its possible to lower a man's overall libido..."
It seems that your argument continues to contain the hidden assumption that there is something wrong/sinful/etc about wearing revealing clothing, or looking at people who wear revealing clothing. Since I don't accept this assumption, I don't need to consider the rest of the argument.
Can you give me an explanation as to why you don't consider the rest of my argument?
Because it contains assumptions that I don't agree with. You are starting with the assumptions that sin exists (and that sex/skimpy clothing/lust/etc is sinful). Since we (I'm pretty sure many other posters agree) don't accept those assumptions, then we can't possible accept any conclusion you reach using those assumptions. The key to making a persuasive argument is starting with uncontroversial assumptions.
Okay lets assume that there is no god and thus no sin in this example of mine.
If there is a party where a certain girl gets drunk and in her drunken states flirts with some man who see this as an invitation to sex and he then rapes her thinking that she wants it instead.
Even if he is punished for his actions he still did them.
Can it be possible to limit a man's tendencies to not have these urges while in a crowded place like a party, where not many people notice what's happening around them?
Do you just not understand the difference between urge and action?
Do you honestly believe that right and wrong do not exist without your god?
Do you think it is appropriate for a man to have sex with a woman without consent?
Do you think if a man has sex with a non-consenting woman (no matter how she is dressed, etc) it is somehow her fault?
Do you consider a man's responsibility for his behavior different than a woman's responsibility for hers?
Do you think only men want sex? Or that they want it more than the average woman?
I understand there is a difference between urge and action.
I believe that right and wrong can exist without a god as it is in Europe. But I believe that it goes to a certain extent since of constantly changing doctrine which can lead a nation to collapse.
I don't think its appropriate for a man to have sex with a woman without consent.
I believe that I would advise her to cover her self more but not punish. Some men cannot help themselves.
I believe its the rapist that should get punished not the victim but she should be advised caution to keep her safe, including other women.
No I don't think men only want sex but I do believe that men want sex more than the average woman.
Now here the thing. I believe that the rapist should get punished alright. But we as a society put a lot of strain on people to have sex at a high degree. Showing that its something powerful. This can have an effect on people who just weren't able to find a person willing to have sex with them since they were shy or unattractive to most girls.
This can shame a man who is perhaps in his late twenties to thirties were all his other friend have had sex and he didn't. They would laugh at his face if told them the truth that he is a virgin. He would feel the humiliation and he doesn't want a prostitute because she sleeps with him only for the money not for himself.
So because of this humiliation he has to find a way out and thus he uses force to get out.
There is so much wrong with this; not really sure what to say. You seem to live an a fantasy world.
Unbalanced : "So because of this humiliation he has to find a way out and thus he uses force to get out."
He has to , really? He has no other choice? All his friends are having sex and he can't figure out a way to get laid . Oh , the shame must be unbearable! And you would base a moral code with legal restrictions on others because one loser can't even score once. In this country this is the stuff of comedy not a rationale for rape. We have movies like "The Forty Year Old Virgin" to lighten up the subject and we do not take this as an excuse for sexual assault.
I must say , Mr Unbalanced , that the more you reply the more sure I am of the need to dispose of the bronze age moral agenda of the Abrahamic religions. The more confident I become in promoting a liberal moral code best summarized by John Lennon as "What ever gets you through the night".
Oh man I totally agree with Nyarlahotep. You live in a fantasy world. To think that men have an excuse for unwarranted sex based solely on peer pressure or what women want to wear is just insane. The societal problem is that women are treated as sex objects and not respected as individuals. You clearly have that problem.
Unbalanced - "he then rapes her thinking that she wants it instead"
Rape is not like accidentally stepping on someone's foot. It is a complicated procedure that takes a considerable amount of time and effort. People don't get accidentally raped. Your scenario is ludicrous.
Unbalanced : "Also when I was talking about revealing clothing I don't think most women would want men to stare at them as some sexual object. I'm not sure if its possible to lower a man's overall libido in order for him to stop ogling women like that or taking a glance."
If you spend enough time at an American or European beach where scantily clad men and women crowd together you will get used to the sight of the human body. It is the sight of the taboo / prohibited that raises your libido to a socially inappropriate level. I for one am glad that my daughters can go into public places wearing the clothing of their choice and not be accosted by idiotic males who find religious excuses for their violent rape fantasies. Also , if a woman here is raped it is the man who is punished. Those people who blame woman for attracting rape are still in existence but are shunned and criticized by most civilized people.
Without religion there is no “sacred”. Also, there is no atheism or secularism, just humanity.
“..You [Western culture?] have made sex easy for everyone”. Religionists tend to repress discussion of sex which is what often leads to problems.
Women’s mode of dress is a matter for women in a free society, not for men. If they went naked it wouldn’t provide any excuse for lack of control or violence by men. Should women tell men how to dress?! There may be a link between sexual violence and pornography but that isn’t proven. While pornography is discouraged and limited (its often illegal) in the West, freedom of expression is vital for a healthy society. Sex and the human body are beautiful. Religionists tend to treat them otherwise. The relationship between guilt and sex is interesting.
Alcohol is a drug and these are problems in Islamic societies too. The law isn’t an effective means of controlling addiction or indulgent behavior. In the west we can have education programs and discuss these issues freely.
Like having religious faith, it is essentially wrong to respect all beliefs. Racist or sexist beliefs (held sacred or otherwise) aren't respectable. One can respect the person and not their beliefs. Beliefs should be justifiable and open to any criticism. Beliefs should also be open to mockery and lampoon where it is done appropriately, such as in a satirical magazine.
Around 90% of violent and serious crime is committed by men and almost all sexual crime. It is men who need to modernize and improve our ideas and attitudes and who perhaps need to be controlled rather than women.
Long posts are required to address all the issues you raise (such as the work-life balance).
Sex and the human body are beautiful. Religionists tend to treat them otherwise. The relationship between guilt and sex is interesting.
I'm not saying it isn't but if we set it too loose then it would cause problems in relationships. Like adultery, cheating, divorce. If we limit it to a certain point then these things would decrease
Please just think about this, we as human beings are not going to become savages if we don't have a religion.
Now, your problem is that you need to think outside of the box, and by this I mean that you need to forget about what your religion have told you and start using your own logic. Consider this, if your religion doesn't tell you that cheating on your wife/husband is wrong, would you do it? Would you kill people if a book doesn't tell you that that's wrong? Do you honestly think that homosexuals don't deserve to be happy?
I know that you are scared or just insecure about letting your religion go because it implies that you have to go against what your parents believe, but please, don't be afraid, you must embrace the reality and then you're gonna see how beautiful life could be without religion. :)
Unbalanced : "I'm not saying it isn't but if we set it too loose then it would cause problems in relationships. Like adultery, cheating, divorce. If we limit it to a certain point then these things would decrease "
Cheating , divorce , adultery are not always negative occurrences . A woman in a stifling , abusive , demeaning relationship with a man she does not love might take small steps such as an affair to find the freedom and courage to dump the moron she is with. This is not a societal evil. This is the stuff romance is made from.
But the thing is in this society now were relationships are very loose it means that when two people are married and don't meet the expectations that they thought marriage would be they would very soon just divorce or cheat on one another.
If we put stricter laws then they can try and sort out their issues with a psychiatrist to help them out in their relationship.
My uncle and his wife fight a lot and have gotten to points where they want to divorce but they always went back together after they sought help. If they were more influenced from western culture then they would have left a long time ago.
Stricter laws? Would you advocate jail or executions for those that have sex outside of marriage? Why not the fate of Misha'el bint Fahd bin Mohammed al Saud for those that cheat on their lovers? Or perhaps just a good flogging to put the fear of god into them.
I was wondering if anyone has written a response to or a review of i the book "New Proofs for the Existence of God" by Robert J Spitzer
I find the name under which you have chosen to post completely appropriate. What you seem to believe (I use the word 'believe' very much on purpose) is terribly unbalanced. Both Zeff and Nyar's comment and question capture my thoughts and question better than I could have crafted them so I second their posts.
As a 'westerner' and a woman, I find your opinions on rape, gender roles, sex, and personal responsibility quite offensive.
Sex, Drugs and (Gender) Rock&Role(play)...
You come to the table full of perceptions evidently influenced by the weight of trust you place in the notions of the western culture your parents maintain. You trust them. Good for you. Now, because of that your are a good son yet a stupid person - so far. That makes you a normal child of a controlling family.
You became an adherent to Islam via your parent's connection to it. I was an adherent to a religion via the connection to it through my own parents, who I later dismissed as brainwashed patrons of their own forebears. The truth requires no further discussion on that point.
Sex - Perfectly natural yet disposed of in the religious world (name one) as an act of evil weakness if not experienced in compliance with that (named) religion.
Drugs - And/or consumption of any mind altering substance such as an alcoholic beverage. Again, see Sex, above. In this matter, however, it may be something disallowed altogether and that lies as an exclusion to certain religions, Islam being one of them. I do believe the evil of all worldly thinking lies in the absence of first-hand knowledge. If you believe everything you're told then, again, you invite the perception of ignorance to hang in a banner over your own head. Open mindedness is not a teaching of Islam, or any other religion that seeks to control individuals and whole societies.
Rock&Role - As in gender roles, is also highly controlled by religion and Islam heads the list. Read the excerpt from and essay by Scott Bidstrup on Fundamentalism, , see if this fits into your training as to correctness for gender roles. Keep in mind that this "test" relates to the mind of the fundamentalist and why he is wrong.
"Based on that observation, I hereby propose what I'm somewhat laughingly calling "Bidstrup's Index of Fundamentalism." It is basically just a measure of the degree to which women's rights are abrogated by the religion's doctrine and the culture that the religion creates. It is scored like this: If a religious organization is characterized by each or any of the statements below, add the points indicated to the score.
Does the religion deny to women the same religious privileges and authority it accords to men (such as denying the priesthood)? If so, add 2 points.
Does the religion seek to deny women secular (i.e., usually political) power (e.g., the right to vote, run for office, etc.)? If so, add 3 points.
Does the religion impose greater 'moral' burdens on women than it does men (i.e., promote a double standard)? If so, add 4 points.
Does the religion seek to promote unquestioning submission of wives to their husbands? If so, add 4 points.
Does the religion promote involuntary marriage arrangements (such as arranged marriages, involuntary polygamy, denial of divorce initiated by the wife, etc.)? If so, add 5 points.
Does the religion discourage the participation of non-parenting wives in the workforce? If so, add 3 points.
If the above question is no, does the religion discourage the participation of parenting wives in the workforce regardless of economic circumstances? If so, add 3 points.
Does the religion discourage the education of women? If so, add 4 points.
Does the religion encourage women to remain at home, with contact with other women and men in the community discouraged? If so, add 5 points.
Does the religion accept or promote the treatment of women as property or a commodity, or treat wives as servants? If so, add 5 points.
Does the religion seek to deny women their reproductive freedom (taking a "pro-life" position on abortion, or discouraging or interfering with artificial contraception)? If so, add 5 points.
Does the religion seek to deny women the full right of self-determination, dignity and self respect that they accord men ("at home, barefoot and pregnant")? If so, add 4 points.
Does the religion publicly humiliate women who violate the prohibitions that apply only to women? If so, add 3 points.
By applying this little index, it will help measure the degree of intolerance and bigotry associated with a fundamentalist religion. This, then, becomes an index to how dangerous a religion is, as defined below.
Note that the word bigotry is used to describe the above point tallying questions. Bigotry is a world-wide plague in the minds of people of all cultures and yet each of them practices it regardless of it's own decrying of it.
I apologize if my post isn't "easy on you", but easy is not the way of the world so teach yourself its harsh realities now while young. It will give you a lifetime to abrogate them from your life as you mature.
Thanks for speaking up.
[Second comes to things like alcohol. Now what I have seen with my friends that if you drink it in moderate terms then its alright but here's the thing. Not everyone does that. They see it as a way to run away from their troubles. Many people have suffered from it as you know since its addictive and can cause them to do terrible things and destroy their livelihoods.
So is alcohol really a good thing to keep in our society?
(I would rather live in a world with weed than alcohol)]
Unbalanced, most anything can be abused. One can drive dangerously and, thus, abuse his or her driving privileges. The real question is this: Is the harm done greater than the benefits gained? Would you deprive the French of their wines in order to stop some of them from being alcoholics? Would you thereby shut down the vineyards and radically change French culture? Would you deprive a hard-working American of his cold beer? Would you radically change the culture of Germany to eliminate beer altogether?
A second consideration is this: Is it even possible to eliminate alcohol? We in the U.S. tried it during the prohibition era and it was a disaster. It helped give rise to gangsters and corruption, even as the war on weed has empowered drug cartels in Mexico. Where there is demand there will be a supplier. Even in Saudi Arabia alcohol is available to those with sufficient means, only they must not be caught drinking it in public. Moreover, there is the matter of branding people as criminals because they illegally used weed or alcohol. Even today many people sit in prison because they were caught smoking weed! They are not only officially criminals but they are now a burden on society. Is that wise?
You must draw you own conclusions. My conclusion is that the state should not attempt to abolish alcohol, nor drugs that are of minor harm. Instead, the state should act to prevent businesses from having an influence on kids in such matters. Ads aimed at getting kids to smoke or drink should be strictly forbidden. There should be a lower age limit on the use of such products. Kids are too easily influenced and this is an adult decision. Beyond that, the state should make a serious effort to help the alcoholic get free of his or her addiction.
As for Islam, it is not my place to tell people what to believe. I will gladly defend my reasons for being an atheist, and I gladly criticize the errors of religion and the silliness of the god concept, but I am not going to try to "convert" you to atheism. Religion needs to be criticized because those who arrogantly think they own the truth, who do not tolerate challenge, are the very people who will take away your freedoms. A mind free to explore all things, to question all things, even God, is the cornerstone of Western philosophy. It goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers. The idea is that truth is best served when all ideas are free to compete. Some restrictions might be necessary, but those restrictions must never be a vehicle for shutting down honest criticism of doctrines or rulers.
I think the world would be a much better place if some of the sharp corners of Islam were rounded. The Koran should never be treated as though it were an idol. One should not be concerned if a dictionary happened to be sitting on top of it or if a non-believer happened to pick it up. This is idol worship! One should never be so enraged over a cartoon so as to kill innocent neighbors--or even the cartoon artist. Most of these cartoons carry a legitimate criticism of Islam. If something said is offensive, then apply your own criticism and not violence. Muslims should take a lesson from modern Christians who, though angry at some "art" and ideas, rarely turn to violence. When something becomes too sacred, people get killed for its sake. When the sacred and powerful can be questioned, then there is a happy balance. That's called "civilization."
"I'm not saying it isn't but if we set it too loose then it would cause problems in relationships. Like adultery, cheating, divorce. If we limit it to a certain point then these things would decrease"
Define "set it too loose". Are you suggesting Islamic societies are more moral than Western ones?
If there are fewer divorces in Islamic countries than western ones it is because women generally have fewer rights and Islamic countries support religious "Sharia law". Most interpretations of Sharia conflict with the principle of 'one law for all' as Sharia is determined by clerics and haddiths, not democratic institutions. Sharia often discriminates against women. That isn't remotely moral.
The marriage law in Iran traditionally favors the husband, who has the right to ask for a divorce. But in most cases being brought to court now, the husband and wife have generally come to a mutual agreement to separate, Iranian lawyers say.
In the cases where the husband is unwilling to divorce, the wife must legally prove that the husband is abusive, has psychological problems or is somehow unable to uphold his marriage responsibilities in order to separate..
Source (2014): http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-divorce-idUSKCN0IB0GQ20141022
Religion has nothing to do with morality.
There is no reason to believe that there is any more adultery or cheating in Western societies than Islamic ones. There are more types of marriage in the West, such as:
a marriage or relationship in which both partners agree that each may have sexual relations with others.
I know of many people who have had multiple partners in marriage and sex but have good relationships with all former partners. There are plenty of religionists (including Muslims) who have behaved abominably towards their partners and ex-partners...
Domestic violence among the Muslim community is considered a complicated humans right issue due to varying legal remedies for women by nation, the extent to which they have support or opportunities to divorce their husbands, cultural stigma to hide evidence of abuse, and inability to have abuse recognized by police or the judicial system in Muslim nations. Unquote.
I am assuming you are Islamic and not Islamist - meaning you don't endorse stoning, honor killing, throwing acid in girls faces, wife-beating and other "Islamic" practices.
Achieving women's freedom and equality has been key to improving conditions in developing countries.
You seem a little fixated on population and fertility rate.
In developed countries, birth rates are lower and seemingly stable. Perhaps in some cases, even in decline. There are probably many reasons for that, but one of the biggest factors is probably that the need for multiple children is gone. It's not needed to have multiple children to care for the farm or the younger siblings, and most children that are born also survive long enough to reproduce themselves.
The current human population explosion is completely absurd, and a continuously growing population will only escalate the problems like environmental damage, starvation, species extinction, war for resources, etc.
Human population curve:
@ Unbalanced ...
I can see you're going to be busy with replies.... but if I could just ask one quick question.......
Have you ,your parents or any one you know ever been to a "western country" .. if so ..which country and when...?
I'm an American born citizen and I have lived there for about 8 Years. Mostly in my childhood.
Unbalanced : "I hope you'll be able to answer these questions and in hopes of letting me leave Islam. (if you can)"
If it is your goal to leave Islam then good luck. It is of no concern to me. What is a concern to me is those believers who feel privileged to force me to comply with their irrational beliefs.
Unbalanced : But then comes the issue of raising children and staring a family. If the woman is too independent than she wouldn't want to get married and settle down so easily when she gets a degree. That I understand its stupid to waste half of the potential of the population.
That is an incredibly misogynistic statement. This is the 21st century my friend. Are you suggesting that a woman who becomes a scientist , physician , business owner is wasting her potential ?
I'm not saying that. Of course a woman should get a career. Thousands of them have helped discover many great things. (I hope you don't think I'm sarcastic)
I'm saying that later in life they can get married and have children. I'm saying some where in their early thirties. After they have had a job for like five to nine years.
Yet again I'm saying this so that they can help stop the decline of the population. I think that you got confused about what I said in my post.
No I was not confused. I was not asking you if a woman who has a career for five to nine years is wasting her potential. Let me rephrase. Do you think a woman who decides to not have children and pursues a life long career is wasting her potential? Also , what is wrong with a decline in the population ?