Black is White Department

From PuffHo (click screenshot to see a necessity made into a virtue):

There’s Feminist Sarsour at lower left

Saying “I am a hijabi feminist” is like saying “I’m a Confederate-flag-waving anti-racist” or “I’m a ball-and-chain toting, striped-suit-wearing free man.”

Three quotes from Sidra Binte Islam’s piece:

When in reality, the hijab/burqa stands for freedom. The freedom to practice one’s religion, symbolic of our obedience to Allah. It means modesty, it is an outer manifestation of our inner modesty. There’s a very common misconception about the hijab that it has only been imposed on women when in reality, men too have been asked to lower their gaze, grow a beard and to guard their modesty.

24:30:

“Tell the believing men that they should reduce/lower (يغضوا) their gaze/vision and guard their private parts…”

24:31:

“Tell the believing women that they should reduce/lower (يغضضن) their gaze/vision and guard their private parts…”

Apart from modest clothing, the hijab is also symbolic of modesty when it comes to the social world. For instance, these days when women often get gazed at by men and we don’t like those lustful gazes, that’s when the hijab ordains men to lower their gaze and vice-versa.

Tell that to the men in Iran and Afghanistan that continue to ogle covered women. Better yet, tell it to the morality policy. And in some countries there’s no “asking” but “telling.” This also holds in the West when many Muslim girls are shamed for not covering. I’d love to see a survey showing how many men in, say, Iran “lower their gaze” when they see a woman in a hijab!

and

Hijab is not oppression for women but a symbol of empowerment. Today, we live in a society where women are subjected to sexualisation and objectification and that’s where the hijab de-sexualises women. It gives them recognition for who they are and not for what they look like. Today, women are subjected to inferiority complexes because of what they look like or if they don’t meet the standards of beauty set by patriarchal society. The flourishing makeup industries prove that, or to be more precise, fairness creams. According to these industries, for a woman to look confident and be liked by men, she has to look good, she has to be fair, she has to be slim, etc.

 If this is the case, can we expect to see Western feminists like the PuffHo editors reducing their objectification by veiling? I don’t think so.

Anyway, check out the new “Hijabarbie” from a CNN piece, “The hijab-wearing Barbie who’s become an Instragram star“. The empowering doll is wearing eyeliner, eye shadow, lipstick, and appears to have plucked eyebrows. How is THAT supposed to be de-sexualizing yourself? You can’t have it both ways.

When all else fails, blame this on the West:

This rhetoric of oppression has come from the west, from the time of colonisation. Leila Ahmed, in her book “Women and Gender in Islam”, writes that when in the 19th century, the British and the other colonisers came to Muslim countries, they looked for a means to justify their colonisation and the only way was to label their traditional culture as regressive. And yes they made the hijab their target.

Tell that to the women of Iran and Afghanistan, who were largely unveiled until Islamic theocracy mandated or pressured Muslim women to have veils. In 1979, the women of Iran rose up, en masse and in vain, against the requirement that they wear the hijab. This came not from the West, but from Iranian mullahs. And see my post on how women in Kabul and Tehran dressed in 1970 versus now. BIG difference! Is that due to the West?

98 Comments

  1. Michael Fisher
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    #WHITEWEDNESDAYS

    “A new social media campaign against a law which forces women to wear a headscarf is gaining momentum in Iran.

    Using the hashtag #whitewednesdays, citizens have been posting pictures and videos of themselves wearing white headscarves or pieces of white clothing as symbols of protest.

    The idea is the brainchild of Masih Alinejad, founder of My Stealthy Freedom, an online movement opposed to the mandatory dress code.”

    More here with pics: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40218711

  2. Ann German
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    my “wtf” keys are melting on my keyboard

    • Brujo Feo
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

      Ann…I finally got the “Not My Dicktator” bumper stickers made, with the artwork from the Der Spiegel cover. Proudly displayed on my ride, right next to the “Impeach Pussy Grabber” one that you sent me. I’ll send you some.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

        If you want to advertise them, send me an email with some details and I’ll do a post.

  3. Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    sub

  4. kirbmarc
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Sarsour is a known Saudi shill. HuffPo are useful idiots.

  5. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Theres a saying “some people like to see the world burn.”… perhaps it applies to this exhibitionism too.

    How about a PuffHo title contest? I’ll start:

    I am a homosexual transgender.
    I am a Muslim Atheist (oops that ones legit! I like Ali) – but he’ll ever appear in PuffHo).
    (Ahem)
    I am a religious scientist (too boring)
    I am a Bayesian Frequentist….

    … this won’t go well, will it?

    • TJR
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      Actually there are Bayesian Frequentists, sort of.

      In other words, Bayesians who justify their methods based on their repeated-sampling performance.

      • ThyroidPlanet
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        As the meme goes, “why not both?”

        [“why not both” meme gif not included]

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

        Teddy Seidenfeld has a talk (which he apparently has given several places – I saw it at a Computing and Philosophy) conference where he uses a computer simulation to show the difference between two methods, one in each camp – which apparently used to take months to do, now hours or the like. (And that was 8 years or something ago)

    • somer
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 12:21 am | Permalink

      Actually Ali Rizvi runs articles in Huff Po – sometimes regressive outlets run the occasional counter pieces to appear to be “balanced”

      • ThyroidPlanet
        Posted June 15, 2017 at 9:57 am | Permalink

        I stand corrected

  6. Brujo Feo
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    I note that the linked article does not have comments enabled…and no wonder.

    Our “aspiring Journalist” calls the hijab “freedom”: “When in reality, the hijab/burqa stands for freedom.”

    And how is this “freedom” defined?

    1. “The freedom to practice one’s religion, symbolic of our obedience to Allah.”

    2. “Hijab forces others to look beyond the external and to focus on the internal.”

    So, apparently “freedom” is obedience and force. Riiiight….truly from the “Black is White” Department.

    And you have to love the video of the hijabi fashion model. Especially the tight leather outfit that has the bra-shape stitched on the outside, outlining and drawing attention to the model’s breasts. “…[R]educe/lower (يغضضن) their gaze/vision…” indeed.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      In fact, those types of outfits are against the rules, as is wearing make up or anything else designed to enhance your appearance.

      Those outfits come under the heading of adhering to the letter but not the spirit of the law.

    • somer
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

      Islam means “Submission” but Allah is “merciful” so long as at 4.30 every morning he is “implored” for forgiveness and promises to follow “the straight path” then he might just decide not to torture you for eternity (referred to on every page). Everyone is supposed to be born Muslim, but then non muslims are ingrates moreover Allah decides in advance who will and wont go to hell

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

        Some Muslim theologians claim that every baby is born Muslim but could be later dragged away from the path of righteousness by infidel parents and made Christian/Jew/Hindu/atheist etc.

        Therefore, when a non-Muslim converts to Islam, they say he has “reverted”. I was first puzzled when I read that Chinese guest workers in Saudi Arabia had “reverted” to Islam:

        http://aboutislam.net/muslim-issues/600-chinese-workers-revert-to-islam-in-saudi/

        But I know now.

  7. BobTerrace
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Again, the inmates are running the asylum.

  8. Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    leftists are mentally insane. There is no other explanation for this.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      That’s quite the trenchant analysis. Thanks for sharing.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

      Can you be a bit more specific please.
      I’m third gen Leftie. I’m that way because my parents fought for the rights of the working class poor (which we most definitely belonged to in immediate post-war London). Most people enjoy the fruits of the labours (pun intended) of people like my parents without understanding where they came from.
      I’m disgusted by the regressive portion of my side of the political divide. All of my friends and family are of the Left. None are regressives.
      I support ex-Muslims and those Muslims who yearn to be free of the oppression of Islam. I find the hijab and those who hold it as a symbol of freedom and purity to be, at best, misled and, at worst, dishonest.
      Am I mentally insane?

      • rickflick
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

        I agree with you that the term “leftist” is far too imprecise.

      • Diane G.
        Posted June 15, 2017 at 4:09 am | Permalink

        Nice retort!

  9. Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    The freedom to be obedient?

    And War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is Strength…

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

      The freedom to be obedient.

      Perfect.

      • rickflick
        Posted June 15, 2017 at 6:10 am | Permalink

        …and so, they marched into their cages freebediently singing, “Don’t grumble. Give a whistle…”

  10. S Pimpernel
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    The puppet has fallen in love with its strings.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      Good one. The puppet’s strings are being pulled even as it mouths “I love my strings.”

  11. Heather Hastie
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    This completely disgusts me.

    1. Who the f*** decides what’s modest?
    2. How about teaching men to treat women as equals instead of covering up what they’re looking at?
    3. The covering up even goes to the extent of thick socks around the house if there’s a male around who’s not a family member. (That comes from the rules.) Did Muhammed have a foot fetish or something?
    4. Why are the rules different in different countries depending on the way the Qur’an and hadith are interpreted?
    5. Why are the rules for men so much less onerous than those for women? I did an analysis of the rules in a post a while back. Basically, it boils down to men having to do nothing more than keeping their genitalia covered. That is why you will see pictures of men at the beach swimming in budgie-smugglers, while women are floundering around in full niqab or similar.

    The hijab is a symbol of women’s oppression. There is no way around that logic. Anything else is cognitive dissonance.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

      And there is the question: if covering oneself head to toe deems one modest, what are the rest of us?

      • BobTerrace
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

        Normal.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

        Exactly! !!

      • ThyroidPlanet
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

        The magic spell of religion is supposed to suppress that question.

        … it is a peculiar assertion. I wonder – in real time, in this comment – if it were something else : how about instead of modesty, it was … politeness? I think we all say politeness is good, and we all should aspire to it. Therefore, if we say someone is polite, it does not mean everyone else is impolite. We all agree with this. Could religion seize upon this reasonable idea, splice in “modesty” in the case of Islam, and thereby play a sort of ethics sleight-of-hand? Because politeness is one thing. civility, another. Peaceful, another.

        “Modesty” though? What else is like “modesty”?… and is THAT really what coverings are for?… if so, why are males in Islam covered differently?…. if it’s just style, are they taking their modesty seriously enough?

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

          Let’s think through this use case: in a pretend religion, we feel that covering yourself is “polite”. So, by extension, those who do not cover themselves must be impolite. Those that cover themselves the most are the politest while those that cover themselves the least are the rudest. We can therefore, based on the signalling of politeness through cloth coverage, treat those people with the amount of respect one gives rude & polite people.

      • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        HuffPo needs to sort its shit out.

        You can’t support the hijab and slutwalks.

        http://m.huffpost.com/us/topic/slutwalk

        • Craw
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

          The trick is to combine them. March naked but for a scarf and veil covering the head and face.

      • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

        You know what Muslims call the “rest of you,” Diana: whores.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

          Well yes. Some Muslim men (usually covered themselves) look at us that way too and it’s quite unnerving to be looked at in a disgusted way.

        • Posted June 14, 2017 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

          I lived in North Africa (Tunisia) for several years in the 1980s. The word in Tunisian arabic* used for western women was (transliterating here) “wha-quah”, which means whore or slut. It was said routinely in conversation among Muslims but also sometimes among infidels on the assumption that Western people did not understand Arabic (mostly true) so would not take offense. When very angry and wanting to insult someone one of the worst things you could call another is “jew” (“al-yah-hud”). It was commonly used, even by children.

          *Tunisian arabic is a dialect that is as hard to decipher for non-Arabic speakers who have learned classical or modern Arabic as a Down East American accent is to Liverpudlian. It differs from both classical Arabic (pronounced roughly “arby al-fucha) and Modern Arabic (pronounced roughly as “arby-al fassit”).

          • rickflick
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

            These cultural tendencies makes me wonder how all this misogyny can be undone? I can only imagine it would take a hundred years to enlighten these primitives in modern morality.

        • nicky
          Posted June 15, 2017 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

          Yes, that can’t be stressed too much. Western women, including the ‘feminists’ smooching up to Islam, are considered whores by a majority of Muslim men (and probably women).
          It is difficult to get hard numbers there, but the notion is ubiquitous.

      • Denis Westphalen
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

        “What does Ramadan Mean to Saudis Studying Abroad?

        (…) Being abroad also means these Muslims will have to test their patience and become strong in order to resist temptations such as music, food, and interacting with women or men informally.

        Back home , we don’t have to worry about meeting a girl or looking at one because they will all be covered properly, while here [in London] some of those who are not obliged to cover make it hard when we need to communicate. (…)”

        Arab News, 4 de outubro de 2007

        I kept this article from the time I was living in the Middle East.

    • Craw
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

      I was in a Kroger. A man nearby raised his hand and snapped his fingers twice. Moments later a woman in a burka came running.

      People can do what they want, but it’s odd to suggest there isn’t an assumption about women and their value at work here.

      • Posted June 14, 2017 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

        Very young male children learn to treat their mothers (and eventually other women)in this way and grow up to adulthood believing that this is their normal right as males. And, the mothers (and eventually other women)are expected to accept it.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      Dare I ask what a “budgie-smuggler” is?

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

        It’s an idiom you need to know as an honorary Kiwi too!

        They’re small, tight male swimwear. Speedos and similar.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

          AKA banana hammock.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

            Far too complimentary. That one must have been thought up by a man! 🙂

            • Craw
              Posted June 14, 2017 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

              No, you are seeing here the difference between the Canadian male and the Anzac.

              😉

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted June 14, 2017 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

                I don’t know anything about Canadian men, so I couldn’t possibly comment!

                However, my comment here was about males in the Middle East, the majority of whom I assume must be miniscule given the way that same majority feels the need to constantly demean women.

        • ThyroidPlanet
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

          Cannot be un-read.

          • darrelle
            Posted June 15, 2017 at 7:36 am | Permalink

            I can help you with that.

            Imagine Trump decked out in nothing but budgie-smugglers furiously tweeting while admiring himself in a mirror in the oval office.

            • ThyroidPlanet
              Posted June 15, 2017 at 9:56 am | Permalink

              Help

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

          The “mankini.”

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

            Not the same thing. No coverage above the waist in budgie smugglers – we still get to see the nipples! More like a bikini without the top.

            • Posted June 14, 2017 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

              A hijab for males, without a front opening. Tight nether garments for males are intended to display proud male attributes, just as certain garments for females do. Should the men also wear codpieces? Or wear pasties on their nipples?

        • Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

          Because it looks like men have small birds stuffed in there?

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted June 15, 2017 at 11:03 am | Permalink

            That’s the one!

            It’s also not quite as out if left field as it sounds. A lot of native NZ birds (and lizards) are sought after by collectors. There have been many attempts to smuggle them out of the country over the years. The methods used usually result in the death by starvation, suffocation, or dehydration of the majority taken, especially the birds, but not many have to survive to make it lucrative if they get away with it. One place the birds are put by smugglers is in their underwear.

            Bird etc smuggling is one of the things Border Enforcement dogs are trained to detect.

        • Diane G.
          Posted June 15, 2017 at 4:16 am | Permalink

          Thanks for this term, Heather! 😀

      • Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

        And guess where the budgie is hiding.

      • Posted June 15, 2017 at 4:03 am | Permalink

        You clearly need more time down-under(beachwear) ! 🙂

      • David Duncan
        Posted June 15, 2017 at 10:39 am | Permalink

        Sort of like a g-string, with a bit more material at the back. Pretty much out of fashion unless you are a recently former prime minister of Australia…

    • ploubere
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

      sub. I’m guessing it was a man who designed the hijab, and it is men who set the rules of what it must cover.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

        I have no doubt whatsoever that you are correct.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        And it’s other women who mostly enforce those rules. They are often involved in keeping their fellow females inline.

        • somer
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

          Yes but in a society where the wife lives with the man’s family her only status as she gets older is having boys and enforcing traditionalists norms. Also the family itself can be blamed by the community and even killed if they are not seen to uphold sexual norms regarding women. Theres always threat around family “honour” – women can incur shame to blot honour so controlling women is paramount. A man is not suppose to even mention his mothers name outside the family because he can be taunted with it. “Honour” is often included as a 6th principle of maslahan/istishan in islamic law.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

      Socks in the desert? How de trop.

      • Bob Murray
        Posted June 15, 2017 at 5:11 am | Permalink

        Do you not know of the plight of older English men. The wearing of socks with sandals is unwritten law.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 15, 2017 at 7:21 am | Permalink

          From de trop to de rigueur in a single comment? 🙂

    • darrelle
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      Let me interrupt this serious discussion for just one moment to say that “budgie-smugglers” is the most awesome phrase I’ve come across in a long time.

      • Brujo Feo
        Posted June 15, 2017 at 9:53 am | Permalink

        Here in the U.S., one hears top-heavy women referred to as “Jell-O smugglers.”

      • Diane G.
        Posted June 15, 2017 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

        + 1 !

  12. jeffery
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    “It is futile to attempt to use reason to sway someone from a stance that they did not acquire BY reason.”

  13. Kevin
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Hijab is a the new Confederate Flag. Worn proudly by those who appear not to care that they endorse the victimization of others.

  14. rickflick
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    I think the imams are afraid of competition from sexuality. If people have a healthy respect for their sexuality why would they feel the need to attend a house of worship to be ordered to think this way or that? People are shamed into thinking they need to be controlled. They could just as easily start to think of life as something to enjoy in freedom rather than to endure in obedience. Repression is basically a political tool. What a costly and demeaning scam.

    • Diane G.
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 4:17 am | Permalink

      Which applies equally as well to Catholics, Evangelicals, etc….

  15. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    So that’s what modesty looks like.

  16. Ian Belson
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    “The freedom to practice one’s religion, symbolic of our obedience to Allah.” Obedience is not freedom.

  17. Posted June 14, 2017 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    The hijab/burka, etc. as modesty garments for women only infuriates me. But, Muslims are not the only who “bag” their women. Modest dress in many religions (at least, the Christian ones I know of,) require women to cover up as much as possible. Many of them insist that women must wear dresses, never trousers (regardless of what kind of work they may be doing when trousers might be more modest than dresses.) Many insist that women cover their hair (to one degree or another with small mesh snoods, wigs, scarves, etc.) I don’t know why the notion developed that women’s hair incites lust. There are still many married women in the world who are expected to dress almost fully covered in black garments. This has been around so long that it’s the reason nuns used to wear black habits as “Brides of Christ”. Many insist on no make up.

    Did religions come up with these idiocies in response to their strictures on sexuality? Is it to prevent lust and rape, or promote lust and rape of females by males? Largely, it is intended to promote exclusive sexual access to women by their husbands. The reason for this is to ensure the inheritance of property by (supposedly) only your genetic line. And, who gives a blank?!

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

      Read “ones” between “only” and “who” Not editing well today.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

      It doesn’t help that the Abrahamic religions have a perverse obsession with sex so the sexual feelings men feel must be stamped out and of course it’s easier to make women comply. It filters all through society.

    • somer
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

      Is it to prevent lust and rape, or promote lust and rape of females by males? Largely, it is intended to promote exclusive sexual access to women by their husbands.
      I think it has little to do with property and everything to do with evolutionary desire of human males who have to continue to invest in offspring to ensure it survives and are made to do so to lawful wife/wives by religion — to be sure that the wife/wives are faithful. Traditional religions are obsessed with this but Islam particularly because it allows polygamy – leaving fewer women available for other men who must marry later.

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

        I hadn’t thought of this but I think you are right. Polygamy is really a disastrous phenomenon.

    • dallos
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 1:15 am | Permalink

      ” I don’t know why the notion developed that women’s hair incites lust.”

    • nicky
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      When my late young wife was completely bald due to chemo, she was certainly not less sexy (to me at least).
      BTW among ‘coloured’ women hair is an obsession. The worst is ‘frizzy’, the absolute pits is peppercorn (called ‘pittekop’ 🙂 ) in that universe. If they are say 2-3 hours late for an appointment, ‘had to do my hair’ is considered a valid excuse.
      Note there is also the ‘doek’ a colourful piece of cloth covering the hair, mainly used by ‘black’ ladies. There is no smell of oppression there though.

  18. Posted June 14, 2017 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    The hijab and burka could be symbols of freedom yes indeed, freedom to be exploited, to be oppressed and live by misogynistic religious laws… good on you for being a mental cripple and celebrating the fact. Freedom of expression is the winner here??!! your modesty and choice of sack and head wrap
    is pleasing to muslim males that control you.
    Lower your eyes by all means but watch out for power poles, a hit on the head might bring you to your senses.

  19. Posted June 15, 2017 at 4:01 am | Permalink

    I urge ALL men to “guard their private parts”!

  20. Posted June 15, 2017 at 4:38 am | Permalink

    This is all about sexual selection – men being like stags guarding their women against ‘sneaky fuckers’ – https://jasoncollins.org/2014/01/08/the-origin-of-the-phrase-sneaky-fcker/

  21. David Duncan
    Posted June 15, 2017 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    “Tell that to the men in Iran and Afghanistan that continue to ogle covered women.”

    A Moslem co-worker once told me that going to Moslem countries and flirting with the veiled women (just by eye contact) was quite a thril and he enjoyed doing it. A bit pathetic, and contradicts the spirit of the verses quoted about lowering one’s gaze.

    • Brujo Feo
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 9:59 am | Permalink

      This is probably why I thrill to the arrival of each new Victoria’s Secret catalog, and turn rapidly, with anticipation, to those pages featuring models clad only in full-coverage lingerie made from heavy canvas deep-sea diver suits.

  22. Posted June 15, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    I can see how, if you have been brought up thinking covering your body is normal, then it would seem to be. So, a lot of this concern with covering up would become cultural.

    To an extent we tend to be somewhat modest even in Western society. There are still public nudity laws in most parts of the USA. There are dress codes in schools and work places. These codes and laws are also applied mostly by men.

    The problem i have is when religion alone dictates ANYTHING. Religion never makes rules that aren’t based on controlling people. Whether it’s wearing a headscarf or eating meat on Friday…it’s all about control.

  23. Posted June 16, 2017 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    Dagens Nyheter, probably the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden, recently published this editorial: http://asikt.dn.se/asikt/debatt/kritik-mot-religioner-far-inte-tolkas-som-rasism/

    The title translates as “Criticism of religion should not be interpreted as racism.”

    A few other worthwhile passages:

    “We can distinguish between communism and communists, chess and chess players, buddhism and buddhists, mathematics and mathematicians. But when it comes to Islam, it seems we cannot separate the religion from its practitioners, muslims. Hatred of Muslims should never be tolerated. Criticism of Islam, on the other hand, shall, just as the other critique of ideas, be able to exist and blossom in a functioning democracy.”

    “Ideas, cultures, regions, and ideologies kan and should never have rights and stand beyond criticism. A society in which everybody’s feelings can be hurt and everybody’s ideas can be criticized is a society worth fighting for.”

  24. Posted June 16, 2017 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    The “pragmatically inconsistent” Barbie is nothing new. There are a fair number of people who are attired like that around here in Ottawa. It also seems that high-heels and hijab is a reasonably popular combination.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: