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.