Daniel Pipes assumes #feminism is deceit in Western society that can be used in Islam. So the assumption for not taking things as they are is to deny its core ideologyJuly 2, 2013
Illinois Congressional Candidate Tammy Duckworth, Sporting Hijab, Denounced "Racism" at Chicago Jihad Bomb Plotter’s School the Day After His ArrestSeptember 18, 2012
Was anyone watching the DNC and this Duckworth character as she pownced out on her mechanical legs to skewer for the guilt complex to any insight into why it might not be a good idea to have females in combat units. Surely a veteran who lost her legs no one would question… except me. It was an obvious emotional ploy. Just because we have victims does not justify changing the military to make more victims. We men just think women are better with legs because men are better at fighting… and guess what. Not only is this argument reasonable… it is also right. Women in combat units do not help our situation in Iraq. I could tell by the hidden pauses for a smirk on Duckworth’s face that she wasn’t done. She was going to use her token injury as a reason to hurt politically those who are conservative enough to of kept her out of the battle, hence would of denied her martyrdom. Now she’s on to shill for Islam. How predictable
I’d get a big kick out of bringing a Muslim (cultural only) into the privacy of my own home and have her willingly put on a burqa and then consensually take off all her clothes in a very erotic manner… but honestly it would make me limp if I had to force her to do it. The fun for men is when they do it because they love and respect you back. Can’t say I’m getting much of that kind of action. It’s kind of sad. It might shock you, but I could not agree with Phyliss Chesler more and frankly… I’m glad she spelled it out for me.
(via docstalk) December 23, 2011
What’s a poor girl to do?
Should she wear a burqa — or should she wear very short skirts and a low-cut blouse?
Should she wear a headscarf and a shapeless, floor-length garment — or should she pose naked for Playboy magazine?
Do either of these extremes exemplify free as opposed to forced choices? Is either clothing extreme an expression of independence, resistance, or individuality?
In the last year, three Muslim women have posed nude or nearly nude in the media. In April, Sila Sahin, a Muslim Turkish-German actress living in Berlin, posed nude on the cover of Playboy magazine. She claimed, “I did it because (I) wanted to be free at last. These photographs are a liberation from the restrictions of my childhood.” As a result, her family has cut all ties with her. Sahin further intended her photos to draw attention to the normalized gender inequality in immigrant Turkish communities. One might ask whether she hoped to achieve this by objectifying herself in a Western media outlet that is inherently sexist?
I am not challenging her right to do so. I am wondering whether she has escaped one noose only to find herself about to be hung in another way.
More recently, in December Pakistani actress Veena Malik posed nude (or nearly nude and was photoshopped) for FHM magazine in India. Again, she hoped to use her photos as a feminist platform to criticize gender bias in Islam. Why not pose in a t-shirt that says “Equal Rights for Women”? “Sexy” is nearly always sexist.
But in November, Egyptian blogger Aliaa Elmahdy posed topless on her Facebook page and blog. This photo was not sexualized and managed to remain tasteful. In an interview, Elmahdy said, “I am not shy of being a woman in a society where women are nothing but sex objects harassed on a daily basis by men who think nothing…about the importance of women.”
Facing grave danger since she currently lives in Egypt (Sahin lives in Germany, Malik in India as well as Pakistan), this young blogger has managed to draw attention to the increasing injustices women face in Egypt without demeaning herself along Western lines. But, again, there may be other ways to go about rebelling.
We live at a moment in history in which worldwide a woman’s “looks” are more essential to her survival than ever before. Today, incredibly, women are being judged, paid, employed, and married as a function of how good they look in a bikini and a mini skirt or whether they wear a burqa or a head scarf. Women are even killed when they violate dress codes in the Muslim world.
If feminist ideas have indeed progressed and seized the imagination of the world, then having to conform to either highly eroticized clothing or to the shroud-like burqa represents a new kind of backlash against women’s freedom. At the very least, it is certainly a giant step backward.
Neither the bikini nor the burqa liberates or protects women. Rapists, harassers, and stalkers continue to attack women whether they are half-naked, “naked-faced,” or fully veiled. In the 21st century, Egyptian male mobs numbering up to 1000 went on“wilding” sprees. Recently, “wild” Egyptian men tore the clothing off working female journalists — both infidels and Muslims — and groped. One journalist, Mona Eltahawy, was sexually assaulted in police captivity; the men with guns also broke her arm.
Naked women abound. This does not mean they are powerful or free. Female prostitution and pornography as well as sex trafficking and female sexual slavery flourish in fundamentalist Muslim and non-Muslim countries and in heathen Western enclaves on both coasts of America and all across Europe. The number of women who are being repeatedly and publicly gang-raped in Africa has been steadily increasing. As of May 2011, two million women in the Congo have been raped.
Both clothing extremes denote a rather heartbreaking conformity and comprise a variety of health hazards. Both often affect a woman’s self-esteem in negative ways.
For example, I have mournful reservations about trendy-sexual clothing styles. I am concerned about the anxiety, eating disorders, drug addiction, and low self-esteem that often accompany girls and women who become obsessed with having an idealized, young, sexy, thin, and large-breasted appearance. Stylish but very high heels may be beautiful but women are falling in such shoes and breaking bones. They are also setting themselves up for later misery. In terms of surgery: girls and women at younger and younger ages are subjecting themselves to the knife so that they have more perfect facial features and bodies. At least $10 billion was spent on plastic surgery in America in 2011.
Alright. So is the “solution” to cover up completely? Is this also a fitting spiritual or religious statement about the importance of spurning outward appearance, material or pagan values, and dedicating oneself to God? If so, then why aren’t their male counterparts doing the same thing? Where are all the face-veiled mullahs? Ironically, when such men cover their faces and heads, they most resemble ninja warriors — or shrouded women. But this is male battle gear. What battle is it that women are fighting as they “cover up”?
A burqa is a sensory deprivation and isolation chamber which effectively deprives the wearer of communicating freely and easily with others. This is the precise function of the burqa. It is a moveable prison. One’s ability to speak, hear, and be heard is compromised as is one’s peripheral vision, sense of smell, and ability to eat or shop in public.
Some women have described wearing a burqa as the equivalent of being buried alive or as a very claustrophobic experience. In addition, wearing a burqa may lead to certain Vitamin D deficiency diseases and to eye diseases. I believe such clothing is uniquely hazardous to a woman’s mental and physical health.
Thus, on the one hand, we have women who are being forced to cloak and veil against their will and women who are willing to risk their lives by demanding the right to dress as they choose.
Ironically, on the other hand, many girls and women in the West are literally dressing like prostitutes. They claim that their ability to do so is a “liberating” choice, one that expresses their power over men (or over other women), their individuality, and their freedom from parental or social control.
I do not question their legal right to dress as they wish; nor do I reject their claim that they really “feel” attractive and, therefore, powerful by dressing in fashionable and highly sexual ways. I, too, was once young, and I, too, prized being “attractive” as a way to defy family repression and vigilance.
In a sense, male fantasy, lust, and the desire to control women lurk behind both these forms of dress and undress. Ultimately, a burqa is a highly sexualized garment; the viewer knows that a naked woman is under it. A bikini leaves little to the imagination but has the same effect on male viewers. In both cases, a woman is viewed in terms of her sexual and reproductive availability.
What am I saying? The adoption of one extreme clothing option or another does not mean that a woman is free or powerful or that she has “freely” chosen to look or dress this way.
See also “Two Women Stoned: Feminists Mum,” by David Horowitz, Janet Levy and @Sheik Yer Mami; “A Response to Feminists on the Violent Oppression of Women in Islam,” by David Horowitz and me; and @Sheik Yer Mami‘s article “The Conservative Vanguard of the Feminist Movement” in National Review.
Other articles @Sheik Yer Mami wrote in FrontPage on issues revolving around women’s rights in Islam include “Covering Up the Plight of Muslim Women“; “There Must Be Violence Against Women“; “Muhammad Mended His Own Clothes!“; Open Season on Muslim Women“; “Women Are Treated Better in Islam?.”
Also there are my articles in Human Events, “Unveiled Women and ‘Uncovered Meat’“; “Media Ignore Abuses of Women in Islam.”
@Sheik Yer Mami also coauthored the monograph “The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam” (available as a pdf here).
And they’re still at it: “Feminists back women as possessions in Supreme Court case,” by Barbara Kay in the National Post, December 9 (thanks to JWl):
The Supreme Court must decide whether women may keep their faces covered in court. Or rather whether Muslim women can, but other women can’t.A young Muslim woman in her thirties, known as N.S., claims that the psychological distress of testifying with her face uncovered against two male defendants, relatives she has accused of sexually assaulting her as a child, trumps the long-honoured right of the defendants’ lawyers to see her expression under cross-examination.
The case went to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June of 2010. There, irony was heaped on irony in the presentations of two intervening groups whose perspectives sum up the conflict – the ideology of multiculturalism versus the sacred tenets of democracy – that sits at the heart of this case.
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) – a bastion of feminist activists – argued that the alleged victim should be allowed to wear the veil if her religion demands it, stating that forcing a Muslim woman to uncover her face while testifying “could very well be seen and experienced as an act of racial, religious and gendered domination.”…
The “religious” argument does not hold. Islam does not “demand” face coverage, even if some Muslims do. Over the years we have heard from hundreds of imams and scholars on this subject. In 2009 Sheikh Muhammed Sayyid Tantawi, the grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s highest institution of religious learning, scolded a Cairo high school girl for wearing a face-veil: “The niqab is a tradition,” he said. “It has no connection to religion.”
But even if Islam did demand it – in which case women in Islamic countries like Pakistan would be covered, but aren’t – that is still no reason to offer N.S. special treatment. When a religious tradition or rite conflicts with our democratic values, democratic values must hold sway, as we just saw in the polygamy decision, another so-called religious demand.
In Europe more and more Muslim women have taken up the veil as a political statement of Islamist triumphalism. Which is why the niqab and burka have been proscribed in France and Belgium as a socially menacing statement that is incompatible with democracy, and in particular with gender equality. Multiculturalists and libertarians denounced the ban, but again it was a democratic Muslim, not a feminist, who came to the rescue of logic and democratic values. Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, wrote in England’s Daily Mail: “The decision by the French government to outlaw all forms of public face-masking, including the burka and niqab, is welcomed by all thinking Muslims around the world.”
N.S. herself had a photo taken for her driver’s licence, which shows us that the issue is not one of religion, but of situational convenience. N.S. did not mind her face being uncovered so that she could drive a car. So clearly it is not the religion that is the problem, it is the claimant’s unwillingness to face her abusers without the psychological protection of the veil.
If N.S. is permitted to cover her face under the guise of religion, why shouldn’t all victims of sexual assault have that privilege under the guise of their freedom to “dress” as they choose? Fear is fear for all women. Why stop at women, though? Why not all fearful witnesses?
Legal minds should not allow multicultural correctness to blind them to potent symbols of inequality. No rhetorical legerdemain in the world can turn the dhimmitude of women represented by that dehumanizing mask into a charming mantilla of sexual modesty….
Last month, on Ascension Thursday, Natalie Mandeau (23) and Dan DeVero (22), two German F*ck for Forest activists, entered the Oslo Cathedral naked as a protest against the Church’s oppression of nature and sexuality. Mandeua also pretended to have sex.
Asked why she entered a church of all places, Natalie said: I feel most close to Christianity. It’s the religion which dominates where I come from, and it’s Christianity which oppressed people in Europe for centuries.”
Other religions have a similar attitude towards sexuality and nature, why didn’t she pull such a stunt in a mosque?
“I didn’t want to be killed, I want to spread love,” answers Natalie. “The Muslims I know are nice and I don’t know if that’s what will happen, but women are stoned for wearing pants in some places.” h/t Islam in Europe via dagbladet.no and image via meta Physical Play Room Chicken Lick’n