The Regressive Left Aggregation site continues its effusive and uncritical worship of the hijab and of Hillary Clinton. Every day, it seems, there’s a new piece showing how awesome it is not only that women wear hijabs, but that various places celebrate that.
In this case it’s Playboy, which of course has a reputation completely inimical to the purpose of hijabs (increasing women’s “modesty” and ensuring that they not be seen as sex objects). Note, however, that Playboy no longer features nude women.
Click on screenshots if you must read the article. It’s odd that Playboy, which while being accused of objectifying women was also consistently on the side of women’s rights, now is celebrating women’s oppression.
Curiously, PuffHo also had an open letter from another Muslim women criticizing the decision of Noor Tagouri to appear in Playboy, and the Washington Post did the same. An excerpt from the Post‘s piece by Asma Uddin:
But the Playboy interview is a step too far. It represents Muslim women, as purportedly represented by Tagouri, not on their own terms but in Playboy’s terms — and, in the process, mocks the very ethics and morals the hijab is religiously intended to reflect.
The hijab, though politicized in a variety of contexts, is at its religious core a symbol of chastity and spiritual connection to God. As one prominent Islamic scholar has explained, the hijab is “essentially a mode of living” that reflects the sanctity of privacy and private spaces. In other words, it is a repudiation of the voyeurism Playboy is fundamentally about.
. . . The presence of a hijab-wearing woman in a magazine known for lasciviously undressing and objectifying women is jarring in a number of ways, and there are reasons to believe that’s what Playboy intended.Playboy’s philosophy celebrates open sexuality and believes that modesty and chastity are a product of a shaming and oppressive culture, which it condemns.
Finally, I was taken aback by the article below, thinking that its purpose was to show that there are a lot of reasons that people don’t like Hillary Clinton that have nothing to do with her gender. But nope, it says that the only reason people hate her is because of her gender. I wonder, then, how we explain all the young Millennial women who favored Bernie Sanders? An excerpt:
It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.
If you “choose” to wear hijab, why not niqab (includes face covering)? I mean if the former is good because it’s modest surely the latter is more modest?
Is it mostly based on what your mother wears? What your father/husband prefers? Style at your mosque?
Serious question?
I meant “serious question.”
sub
You’d think that whoever wanted to use Lady Macbeth as an example would get her name right. 🙁
HuffPo, Buzzfeed, Now This, are all just platforms for SJWs to spread politically correct and free speech censoring garbage all over the internet.
Such nonsense…
I voted for a woman in the previous Presidential election. I voted for a black woman in the election before that. And, in this election, I’ll again be voting for a woman…
…but that woman won’t be Hilary Clinton.
So, will somebody kindly explain to me how thinking Hilary is such a bad candidate that she’s next to the bottom on the ballot is supposed to make me a misogynist?
Cheers,
b&
Maybe Hilary could win the Muslim vote by appearing in HuffPo wearing an hijab.
If PuffHo worships Hillary Clinton that is a relatively new development. They adored Bernie and downplayed Hillary at every opportunity. Of course, it is likely that they have more than one person writing these absurd headlines. Who exactly is pretending they don’t know why people hate Hillary anyway? And since when did the right need a reason to hate the Clintons?
“But nope, it says that the only reason people hate her is because of her gender. I wonder, then, how we explain all the young Millennial women who favored Bernie Sanders?”
This is a logical failure on your part. The article may well be wrong about reasons people hate Hillary, but you seem to be assuming that women cannot possibly be sexist, or cannot prefer men in certain roles. That just doesn’t hold up.
I read that article, and I think it makes at least a partial point. No, the simple fact that Hillary is a woman may not be the direct reason some people find her off-putting, but it certainly plays a role in the double-standards pointed out in the article.
I didn’t read the article, but I agree that there are many sexist things Clinton faces – being told to smile more, being judged by her dress, being called “shrill” and let’s not forget the plethora of sexist remarks thrown her way throughout the years calling her a “bitch”.
The article mentions several instances in which male politicians paid virtually no price for the same peccadilloes for which Hillary is being raked over the coals.
Such a wasted opportunity for Playboy. If she had worn the hijab, but nothing else, maybe flipping a middle finger at the camera, now that would have made a statement!
While it is an overstatement to claim that Trump supporters hate Hillary solely because she is woman, for his base it is still an important element in their dislike just as Obama’s race is a major reason why they hate him. Their disdain for these two people doesn’t grow out of policy differences, but rather it is because a black man and a woman represent an event that Trump’s overwhelmingly white supporters cannot abide, namely a rapidly changing America where white American men will not necessarily rule the roost. As I’ve argued before, the root of Trump’s appeal is that he practices the politics of nostalgic out of which grows the complementary politics of grievance. Trump supporters, including women, feel that somehow their country has been stolen and they want to get it back. The continually complain that the “undeserving” are stealing benefits they are not entitled to. They harken back to their perception of the 1950s as an era where the man was the breadwinner and the woman was a baby producing machine that ran the household. Minorities knew their place and were rarely seen.
Trump supporters are desperate and scared. The country is changing and they believe that only Trump can make things right. As is not uncommon in situations where people feel they are losing status, they eagerly look for a messiah in the form of a demagogue. For them an ideal America would look like Andy Griffith’s Mayberry, North Carolina of the early 1960s. In this small southern town, remarkably African-Americans were rarely seen and the only problem was whether Barney Fife would get to sing in the church choir. The only crime was when Otis get drunk. Life was slow, quiet and peaceful and the biggest event of the year was the county fair where everybody eagerly looked forward to sampling Aunt Bee’s pies. This is the fantasy of the Trump supporters.
+1 and yes, there are women who support Trump and agree with his misogyny. I’ve seen this type of behaviour from women over and over.
+1
This is one of the most succinct explanations of the Trump phenomenon I’ve come across, right down to the Mayberry nostalgia. What some don’t realize is that this show was cancelled a long time ago. It’s not coming back.
What they don’t realize is that such a place never actually existed. They’re nostalgic for a fiction.
I have never hated a single politician or candidate. How is hatred going to help anyone?
Hijab in Playboy? That’s not even trying. Maybe an all naked ‘manger scene’ for the December issue. Presumably, virgin births are still born in birthday suit…so JC is all ready there. Mary will have to look perplexed, since it would be the first time gazing upon nads and staffs.
Each day the HuffPo selections get worse and worse.
What about all the supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Jill Stein?
“If you “choose” to wear hijab, why not niqab (includes face covering)? I mean if the former is good because it’s modest surely the latter is more modest.”
If a headscarf is always an curtailment of personal freedom, always imposed from with out, why does our society force women to wear shirts. Or pants. I mean, if women are freer without a headscarf, surely they’re even freer without clothes altogether.
Yes, they would be. And so would men. There’s no especially compelling reason for nudity to be against the law.
Do you always answer a question with another question?
I never said a headscarf is always a curtailment of personal freedom. It often is, though. My original question stands.
One can make an argument that a minimum of underwear covering the genitals is a matter of public health/hygiene. Forcing the covering of female breasts, not so much.
I find it somewhat amusing that someone would say this 11 months after Playboy announced that they’re eliminating the girlie pictures in their magazine and moving to an all-article format. “Fundamentally”? Quick, someone tell the CEO that he can’t possibly do what he did a year ago.
The hijab should be banned I mean why do women have to cover their head there is nothing wrong with showing your hair